Decision looms in Michael Mann / Tim Ball “hockey stick” lawsuit

By |2017-07-24T10:27:25+00:00July 24th, 2017|Climate|1,306 Comments

After six years of tedious litigation, a court in Vancouver, British Columbia appears set to hand down a ruling involving one of the most controversial claims ever made in support of human-induced global warming.

The case pits two climatologists – Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University and Tim Ball, retired from the University of Winnipeg – in a dispute rooted in data Mann used in creating his famous, or infamous, “hockey stick” graph. In 1999, Mann was the lead author of a paper that used an assortment of statistical techniques to reconstruct variations in atmospheric temperatures over the past 1,000 years. The graph made the Medieval Warm Period all but disappear and showed a sharp spike in temperatures at the end of the 20th century that resembled the blade of a hockey stick.

Mann was one of eight lead authors of the “Observed Climate Variability and Change” chapter in the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third Scientific Assessment published in 2001. A graph based on Mann’s work was highlighted throughout the IPCC report. It received widespread publicity and was touted by climate alarmists as further evidence of manmade global warming. Indeed, Mann’s hockey stick took on a life of its own and was repeatedly cited by the IPCC and numerous governments as justifying collective action to combat climate change. The hockey stick has also been cited in innumerable peer-reviewed papers on climate change.

“Secret Science”

Astounded by the sudden disappearance of the Medieval Warm Period — a time generally considered to have been warmer than the present — a growing chorus of critics demanded to see the underlying data on which the hockey-stick graph was based. Mann and his co-authors refused to release the data, even though their paper had been funded by U.S. taxpayers. The episode raised allegations that climate alarmists were engaging in “secret science.”

One of those critics was Tim Ball. In a 2011 interview, he quipped that Mann “should be in the State Pen, not Penn State.” Mann sued Ball for defamation in British Columbia under a procedure known as a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP). SLAPP lawsuits are intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by threatening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism.

As the case unfolded, the BC Supreme Court directed Mann to turn over all data relating to his graph by Feb. 20, 2017. The deadline came and went without the data being handed over by Mann.

Ball believes that Mann’s refusal to disgorge the data by the court-ordered deadline has put the Penn State researcher in a precarious legal position. As Ball explains (principia-scientific.org):

We believe that he [Mann] withheld on the basis of a US court ruling that it was all his intellectual property. This ruling was made despite the fact the US taxpayer paid for the research and the research results were used as the basis of literally earth-shattering policies on energy and environment. The problem for him is that the Canadian court holds that you cannot withhold documents that are central to your charge of defamation regardless of the US ruling.”

Mann’s Suit Against Mark Steyn

Once the BC Supreme Court has ruled in his suit against Ball, Mann will have another legal battle on his hands. Mann filed a SLAPP lawsuit in Washington, D.C. against writer and commentator Mark Steyn after the latter wrote in a 2011 National Review Online article that Mann “has perverted the norms of science on an industrial scale.” Judith Curry, a recently retired climatologist at Georgia Tech, has submitted to the court an Amicus Curiae brief critical of Mann’s scientific methods.

For his part, Ball has produced his own graph showing temperature variability over the past 1,000 years. Both the Medieval Warm Period and the following Little Ice Age can be seen on the graph. The graph also shows the gradual warming since the Little Ice Age, albeit to levels below what was experienced during the Medieval Warm Period. Unlike Mann, Ball has published the data on which his graph is based.

1,306 Comments

  1. adam_s_0625 July 24, 2017 at 10:46 AM

    I really hope Mann loses both cases, his funding, his teaching position, his reputation, and all his friends …. and his dog. His perversion of the scientific is method requires nothing less than total intolerance.

    • oriorda July 24, 2017 at 5:12 PM

      Mann’s nauseating smirk irritates the hell out of me. He’s a third rate mind hiding behind a fourth rate mentality.

      • CB December 18, 2017 at 2:59 PM

        “[Michael Mann]’s a third rate mind hiding behind a fourth rate mentality.”

        How do you know?

        Did the fossil fuel industry tell you so?

        Do you think there might be a small conflict of interest in a company writing about a scientist who studies the effects of their product?

        “CFACT has received over $4.1 million in funds from Donor’s Trust and Donor’s Capital Fund between 2002-2011, plus an additional $582,000 from ExxonMobil between 1998-2012”

        http://www.desmogblog.com/committee-constructive-tomorrow

        • Wake December 19, 2017 at 10:39 AM

          CB – What we know for sure is that in an effort to force people to believe in AGW Dr. Mann declared both the Medieval Warming Period and the Maunder Minimum (the little ice age) as local events. These were not. Both have been plainly shown to have been world-wide events and caused not by some chaotic weather events but by output energy from the Sun.

          If you claim that they were only local weather events then you can erase them from the data stream as he did. Without these events which were more extreme than our present warming the chart takes on a ominous look of the hockey stick instead of http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/02/11/a-2000-year-global-temperature-record/

          This article was published after the time of Mann’s infamous claims.

          You must understand that these are NOT actual events under discussion but computer models. These models are so bad that not only have they not predicted ONE correct even in the future since they were published but using them backwards they do not even predict what happened in the past. This is the sign of bad science – when your model doesn’t even match what occurred before the model was written.

          • CB December 29, 2017 at 7:52 PM

            “What we know for sure is that in an effort to force people to believe in AGW”

            AGW is a fact that has been known for over a century:

            “The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century”

            climate.nasa.gov/evidence

            Why should anyone need to be “forced” to understand it?

            What besides mental illness might explain people who “don’t” understand it?

            • Wake December 30, 2017 at 10:16 AM

              I would like to ask you – what are your professional credentials to speak on this topic? I am not attempting to insult you. I have no educational credentials but I have 40 years of working directly in sciences that are all pertinent to the subject. I was chief engineer on a project that won the project leader a Nobel Prize in Chemistry. I was the digital designer and programmer on another project that won our project leader two Emmy Awards and the company another. I have designed and programmed boards presently in use on the International Space Station. I designed and programmed both liquid and gas Chromatographs. This means I understand spectometry.

              One of the deepest problems is that the people most actively in the forefront of speaking of AGW are those who do not have any scientific credentials at all and “know” about it from a Popular Science article. As for your NASA “bible” – ALL of the science behind NASA has been due to manufactured temperature data. When you look into it they should be arrested and tried for misuse of governmental power.

              https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf

              As for your claims about “The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century” – that is a complete and total lie. It is based on a paper written by Svante August Arrhenius around 1896. Exactly what would you know about it since it was written in German? He simple PROPOSED a connection between the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere and Ice Ages. That has been shown to be totally incorrect since we have had and Ice Age with levels of CO2 of 10%. At the start of the last Ice Age which we are still in the levels were 1%. Arrhenius performed NO experiments. As he said, he had no money nor equipment to do so and instead used data from a paper about the color of moonlight to propose this theory. While he was a competent scientist he was wrong about CO2. And most experiments since his time showed that.

              There IS a connection between temperature and levels of CO2 but CO2 is washed out of the oceans as the water temperature rises and CO2 increases follows the temperature rises by 800 years.

              Almost NO scientists believe AGW to be true or that there is insufficient data to make such a claim. Who does NASA use as part of their 97%? The American Medical Association and the Boy Scouts of America! Now there is real scientific agreement there.

              The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports are based on the “science” from 2500 “scientists”. However – most of that 2500 are not scientists but are politicians grasping for money and power. And the real scientists are relying heavily on the manufactured temperature information distributed by NASA. So even the most honest scientists in the world cannot produce good work using false data.

              As you say – What besides mental illness might explain people who “don’t” understand it?

              • CB December 30, 2017 at 3:53 PM

                “what are your professional credentials to speak on this topic?”

                My credentials are that I can read and I can point you to the people who study the subject… as well as point out propaganda outlets like CFACT which are paid to lie about the subject.

                Are you lacking those credentials, Wake?

                Do you believe NASA made up the scientists who discovered the greenhouse effect in the 19th century?

                Is that the sort of thing a mentally healthy person would believe?

                “In the 19th century, scientists realized that gases in the atmosphere cause a “greenhouse effect” which affects the planet’s temperature.”

                http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

            • Wake December 30, 2017 at 10:34 AM

              By the way – I might add about Arrhenius – the title of his paper is: “On the Influence of Carbonic Acid on the Temperature of the Ground” – do you understand that? “OF THE GROUND”. This was not about atmospheric heating at all. And in case you are unaware if it “carbonic acid” is an old scientific name for carbon dioxide.

              • CB February 2, 2018 at 3:34 PM

                “do you understand that? “OF THE GROUND”.”

                Yes! The ground! Where you live!

                You do live on the ground, do you not, Wake?

                climate.nasa.gov/system/internal_resources/details/original/87_Q10-temp-anomaly-740px.jpg

                • Wake February 2, 2018 at 6:30 PM

                  CB – I was trying to make the point that Arrhenius was attempting to explain ice ages and not the temperature of the atmosphere. The method he used could not correct for humidity and so his numbers are questionable. I would have to run them and that’s too much work since what people claim he said and what he actually said are sometimes completely opposite.

                  NASA’s temperature charts are extremely unreliable. They have changed their raw data on three occasions and the reasons they did it were not an acceptable means:

                  https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf

                  Note that this is a mathematical study of the changes and it shows that no corrections could have occurred in this manner. The peer reviewers are far more than technically competent including past managers from the EPA and a Fulbright Scholar who is more than familiar with statistical analysis.

                  Dr. Roy Spencer was the leader of the NASA weather satellite program and he has published the actual temperature data from those satellites:

                  http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_March_2017_v6.jpg

                  To the uninformed this looks like there is a little warming over the last 38 years but there are only two points that are higher than normal variations and that is 3/4ths of 1998 and a hot summer in 2015. This can easily be assigned to chaotic weather patterns. The AVERAGE temperature since 1979 is zero change.

    • Ian5 July 25, 2017 at 1:22 AM

      “His perversion of the scientific is method…”

      >> How has Dr. Mann perverted the scientific method? What credible evidence do you have?

      • checker99 July 25, 2017 at 7:59 AM

        His efforts to to silence his critics using courts rather than have a discourse. Are you following along or just playing dumb?

      • adam_s_0625 July 25, 2017 at 9:05 AM

        My, my. Do we not read? Mann was asked multiple times to share his data and analysis code to validate his research. He declined to share. This is the antithesis of the scientific method.

        M&M demolished Mann’s statistical analysis anyway via reverse engineering. That he did not acknowledge their valid conclusions is the antithesis of the scientific method.

        Mann’s tree-ring data showed a temp decline after 1960. Not the result he wanted. So he truncated the declining data and concatenated temp sensor data, which showed the rising temp he desired. He published this WITHOUT noting what he had done. THIS is the antithesis of the scientific method.

        To top it off, the IPCC no longer includes the hockey stick graph in its documents.

        Are you honestly going to attempt to defend such a person?

      • J T July 27, 2017 at 8:17 AM

        We got another moron here.

        • robmanzoni August 20, 2017 at 3:41 AM

          “…We got another moron here…”
          There’s another explanation:
          I’ve just realised, after much wondering about the attitude, stance and argumentative approach, that Ian5 is probably none other than Michael Mann himself…!

          • Ian5 August 20, 2017 at 1:46 PM

            Calling people names is a strategy of propagandists and the weak-minded.

            • robmanzoni August 21, 2017 at 2:33 AM

              “…Calling people names is a strategy of propagandists and the weak-minded..”

              Hi Michael… You go on believing this, if it makes you feel better. It does nothing for your cause, though, since you’ve been the name-caller in chief; and debate-preventer; and peer-review corrupter.

              • Ian5 August 21, 2017 at 9:15 PM

                “..debate-preventer; and peer-review corrupter.”

                You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts. Instead of citing extreme conspiracy rubbish from Heller and other disinformation websites, why not inform yourself on the science, evidence and implications of climate change: https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

                • Wake December 20, 2017 at 4:40 PM

                  Extreme conspiracy? That is a load of rubbish you’re trying to pass around:
                  https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf

                  This paper mathematically demonstrates that NASA doctored their data. It is peer reviewed and agreed upon by members and past members of the EPA.

                  You can haul your lying butt down the street and sell it on some other street corner.

                  • Ian5 December 21, 2017 at 12:30 AM

                    No it is not peer-reviewed, published research, and no it does not demonstrate that NASA doctored their data. All you’ve provided is a single link to an unpublished paper written by well known contrarians, posted to the silly, amateurish ‘tropical hot spot research’ website. You are misinformed.

    • R. Kooi December 21, 2017 at 3:05 PM

      As usual, you don’t know what you are talking about.

      But you never let that stand in your way of VENTING BILE AND HATE.
      .
      He has already WON 2 MAJOR COURT VICTORIES against the Attorney General of Virginia…

      SORRY YOU MISSED IT….married, as you are, to BREITBART and DAILY LIAR.

      • adam_s_0625 December 22, 2017 at 2:38 PM

        As Twain said, “better to keep quiet and be thought a fool than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt.”

        UV won the right to prevent releasing alarmist Mann’s data and emails. Aparently, UV had no problem giving up the same info of skeptic Patrick Michaels. The hypocrisy could not be more telling.

        Then there’s alarmist Mann’s libel trial against skeptic Dr. Tim Ball. Mann has now been declared in contempt of court for not turning over requested info. And we all know why. Mann’s work is flawed. And turning over his data and emails would make that all too clear.

        Best move to the shallow end of the intellectual pool. You’re in way over your head.

        • R. Kooi December 22, 2017 at 3:20 PM

          Nice imaginary Tall Tale.
          (( FICTION ))

          NO MICHAELS RESEARCH….NO VIRGINIA ADDRESS..
          what the hell are you talking about???
          .
          Mann’s court suit has had NO CONCLUSIONS,

          THERE has been NO contempt citation

          …once you realize that in Canada
          …the Government is championing Mann’s case
          …to gain that status, all disclosures were made BEFORE the case could ever get to court.

          .
          “….No judge has made any order or given any direction, however minor or inconsequential,
          that Michael Mann surrender any data or any documents to Tim Ball for any purpose.

          “Accordingly it should be plain and obvious to anyone with a
          modicum of common sense that Mann could not possibly be in contempt of court.

          “Just to be clear:
          Mann is not defying any judge.
          He is not in breach of any judgment.
          He is not, repeat not, in contempt of court.
          He is not in breach of any discovery obligations to Ball….”

          2 separate suits filed by the Republican Attorney General of Virginia was laughed out of court
          .
          BECAUSE he had NO foundation to challenge the validity of Mann’s MASSIVE RESEARCH at several institutes.
          .
          .let alone attempt to gain ALL of his computers and his e-mails and written letters to ANYONE in the science field
          …and

          BECAUSE ALL of his research was already published, in PEER REVIEW and REPLICATED 36 separate times.

          I cannot find ANY record of Patrick Michaels doing any research ! ? !

          AND WHAT COURT SUIT…..?

          …”….But Michaels’ credibility on climate is called into question by a trove of documents from a 2007 court case that attracted almost no scrutiny at the time. Those documents show that Michaels has Major financial ties to big energy interests
          —ties that he’s worked hard to keep secret.

          Here’s the back story:
          Several years ago, the auto industry launched a salvo of lawsuits challenging the tougher vehicle emissions standards that had been introduced in many states.

          In 2007, Michaels was scheduled to appear as an expert witness on behalf of a challenge by Green Mountain Chrysler-Plymouth-Dodge and the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers to emissions standards in Vermont.

          The auto industry’s lawyers planned to put Michaels on the stand as an expert witness who would question the scientific finding that greenhouse gas emissions are warming the planet.

          But it soon became clear that lawyers defending Vermont’s law were going to ask Michaels about the clients of his “advocacy science consulting firm,” New Hope Environmental Services.

          Michaels had never made a list of his clients public, and he refused to do so now, arguing that it was a confidential matter.

          The judge disagreed,

          and ruled that Michaels’ clients were a “viable area of cross examination.” “I understand that maybe it’s a little embarrassing,” said Judge William K. Sessions III. “[But] it’s not highly confidential information.”

          In a rare move, the auto dealers pulled Michaels off their witness list.

          **********
          Pat Michaels was a “member scientist” and “individual supporter” at The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASCC), an organisation

          CREATED & FUNDED

          by the tobacco industry to fight anti-tobacco legislation. [10]

          Michaels was also an “Academic Member” of the European Science and Environment Forum (ESEF),

          another group CREATED by the tobacco industry to frame legitimate science as “junk science” on matters pertaining to health and environment, particularly secondhand smoke health impacts.

          Michaels was listed as an academic member on the ESEF’s March 1998 working paper titled “Environmental Tobacco Smoke Revisited: The reliability of the evidence for risk of lung cancer and cardiovascular disease.” [11]

          Fossil Fuel Funding

          Patrick Michaels once estimated that “40 percent” of his funding comes from the oil industry. [12]

          • adam_s_0625 January 2, 2018 at 8:06 AM

            If you are ignorant of Greenpeace’s FOIA request to UV regarding info on Dr. Michaels (which was granted) and Chris Horner’s similar FOIA request regarding info on Dr. Mann (which was denied), you cannot be helped. The issue here is UV’s double-standard in executing FOIA requests.

            And if you’re attempting to argue that Michaels is corrupt for being partially funded by the fossil fuel industry while ignoring that Mann is pure even though he is totally funded by sources that expect research results with a alarmist conclusion, then you are a special kind of fool.

            • R. Kooi January 2, 2018 at 11:10 AM

              That Suit … Green Peace V. Michaels … was a brewing political suit….Michaels made MANY derogatory statements about Green Peace…..
              IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY RESEARCH Michaels was involved with.
              .
              .
              “https://wattsupwiththat.com/…/dr-patrick-moore-was-right-greenpeace-is-full-of-shit/

              Mar 3, 2017 – Dr. Patrick Moore, one of the co-founders of Greenpeace, whom they have tried to erase from their website, resigned from… … Greenpeace claims it cannot be sued because its misleading claims were not meant to be factual

              • adam_s_0625 January 2, 2018 at 2:31 PM

                Obfuscation … again. But thanks for noting that Greenpeace’s claims weren’t meant to be factual.

                • R. Kooi January 3, 2018 at 1:08 PM

                  NO OBFUSCATION….just you wanting to debate anything but science…..

                  Next you will be challenging by qualifications to read and study Scientific studies or their abstracts as I have done for 50 years.
                  ….simply because you do not like the fact that in ANY given week….there are hundreds of peer reviewed studies, published and replicated in support of the ENHANCED GREENHOUSE EFFECT leading to THREATENING CLIMATE CHANGES.
                  …and VERY, VERY FEW with credible science in opposition.

                  TRUMP
                  “Steele used his contacts in Russia to put together a dossier that describes efforts by Russian President Vladimir Putin to cultivate a relationship with Trump and his entourage and to gather material that could be used to blackmail the candidate if necessary. Steele did not pay sources for information.

                  The dossier contains salacious allegations that NPR has not detailed because they remain unverified, but an unexpurgated copy of the document was posted by BuzzFeed last January and circulated widely. One important aspect of the story is that the material in the file, if accurate, might have exposed Trump to potential blackmail.
                  Months before, during the presidential campaign, information gathered by Fusion GPS was passed to Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton’s campaign.
                  Trump and GOP lawmakers have sought to portray the 35-page dossier as outrageous and false. They’ve drawn attention to the fact that much of it is unproven. By impeaching the dossier, they have tried to impeach the basic case that people in the Trump orbit may have coordinated with the Russians who attacked the election.
                  Trump allies also have used the dossier to go on offense against the FBI and the Justice Department, charging that “biased” federal investigators used what Republicans call partisan, Democratic-funded propaganda as the basis for the whole Russia investigation.

                  The case for collusion, however, goes beyond the dossier and includes outreach by Russian agents to the Trump campaign and meetings between Trump associates and Russians.
                  In fact, in their op-ed, Simpson and Fritsch wrote that congressional committees have “known for months” of credible allegations of collusion but have chosen instead to “chase rabbits.”
                  “We suggested investigators look into the bank records of Deutsche Bank and others that were funding Mr. Trump’s businesses. Congress appears uninterested in that tip: Reportedly, ours are the only bank records the House Intelligence Committee has subpoenaed.”
                  “[We] found widespread evidence that Mr. Trump and his organization had worked with a wide array of dubious Russians in arrangements that often raised questions about money laundering,” the two wrote.

                  • adam_s_0625 January 5, 2018 at 4:38 PM

                    This is why I stopped replying to trolls in the past … they either do not understand or have contempt for the scientific method. Either way, I’m done.

            • R. Kooi January 2, 2018 at 11:14 AM

              The FOIA suit against man was not ‘regarding info on Dr. Mann’….it was a demanded for all of his research, much of which was conducted privately at HIS lab not at the UV,
              and that Suit was BASED ON ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE OF WRONG DOING OR FRAUDULENT RESEARCH….but it was based upon the Political / Ideological beliefs of the plaintiffs !

              For Example….I believe you rape and beat your wife, therefor
              I want to install cameras at you home and every restaurant you visit to prove it.

              • adam_s_0625 January 2, 2018 at 2:28 PM

                Obfuscation. The alarmist’s escape path. It doesn’t matter why an FOIA request is generated. Mann’s UV research was paid for, in part or in full, by taxpayer dollars. That means ANY public request for the work generated by those dollars should be reviewable by the public. There need not be evidence of wrong doing. THAT is a no brainer. If you don’t belueve that, then you must also believe routine audits are worthless exercises. Please, try to argue that.

                And your analogy should have been more like, I paid you to inspect and repair my car. I want you to show me any/all parts you replaced and any printouts of tests performed. There, fixed it for ya.

                • R. Kooi January 2, 2018 at 7:30 PM

                  NO obfuscation what so ever.
                  ALL of the Research, as mandated, by the UV.
                  ..was PEER Reviewed
                  (true red team / blue team critical review)
                  ..was PUBLISHED in Respected world Scientific Journals for wide spread critical review…and was REPEATEDLY
                  REPLICATED….
                  .
                  THE REPUBLICAN ATTORNEY GENERAL tried twice, to the tune of millions of tax payers dollars, to attack MANN’s
                  Research and Methods….and was SOUNDLY DEFEATED
                  TWICE..
                  primarily because HE HAD NO BASIS IN FACT to challenge.
                  The decision was quickly determined once the PUBLISHED WORKS WERE SHOWN TO THE JUDGE !
                  IN paper form and on the web.

                • R. Kooi January 2, 2018 at 7:34 PM

                  DEAR
                  PITIFUL
                  ADAM….
                  YOU would have no right to ask for the BILL, the PARTS, or any explanation OF REPAIRS TO ” MY ” CAR.

                  And if you would take YOUR asinine claim to see my bill, my parts, and get an explanation of my repairs…..any judge and every judge would throw your ass out of court…and probably charge for costs.

        • R. Kooi December 22, 2017 at 3:21 PM

          Michael Mann’s lawyer Roger McConchie
          (who is an expert in defamation/libel/slander law in Canada)

          Contrary to the nonsensical allegations made by John O’Sullivan
          in his July 4 posted on climatechangedispatch.com and elsewhere,
          plaintiff Michael Mann has fully complied with all of his
          disclosure obligations to the defendant Tim Ball relating to data and other documents.

          No judge has made any order or given any direction, however minor or inconsequential,
          that Michael Mann surrender any data or any documents to Tim Ball for any purpose.

          Accordingly it should be plain and obvious to anyone with a
          modicum of common sense that Mann could not possibly be in contempt of court.

          Just to be clear:
          Mann is not defying any judge.
          He is not in breach of any judgment.
          He is not, repeat not, in contempt of court.
          He is not in breach of any discovery obligations to Ball.

          In this context, O’Sullivan’s suggestion that Ball
          “is expected to instruct his British Columbia attorneys to trigger
          mandatory punitive court sanctions” against Mann is simply divorced from reality.

          Finally, a word about the actual issues in the British Columbia lawsuit.

          If O’Sullivan had read Ball’s statement of defence,
          he would immediately see that Ball does not intend to ask the BC Court
          to rule that Mann committed climate data fraud,
          or that Mann in fact did anything with criminal intent.

          O’Sullivan would have noticed that one of Ball’s defences
          is that the words he spoke about Mann
          (which are the subject of Mann’s lawsuit) were said in “jest.”

          The BC Court will not be asked to decide whether
          or not climate change is real.

          So there is no chance whatsoever that any BC Court verdict about Mann’s libel claims
          against Ball will vindicate Donald Trump’s perspective on climate change.

          Roger D. McConchie
          Lawyer

          https://www.facebook.com/Mi

          https://www.irwinlaw.com/ti

          • adam_s_0625 January 2, 2018 at 8:29 AM

            Ball does not need to prove that Mann’s work is flawed. That has already been done. The hockey stick graph has been removed from all IPCC releases. That should have been proof to anyone with a modicum of common sense.

            Mann asked for an adjournment last Feb. Canadian courts almost always grant these as they are normally preludes to out of court settlements. But such adjournments need to be approved by both sides. Ball’s team agreed to the adjournment with the stipulation that Mann made his research docs available to the court by a certain date. Mann did not live up to the terms of the adjournment. If Mann has not been cited, it is because (as you noted) that the court is biased in his favor. No surprise there. And there is only one reason for Mann to deny releasing his research. It would prove what other analyses have already concluded, that Mann’s research is indeed flawed.

            Normally, when one is in a losing position, one stops digging. As with most zealous alarmists, though, you simply grab a bigger shovel. Typical.

            • R. Kooi January 2, 2018 at 10:35 AM

              YOU SAY:
              “Ball does not need to prove that Mann’s work is flawed. That has already been done. The hockey stick graph has been removed from all IPCC releases.”

              FACTS:
              Your comment is a work of FICTION. IPCC NEVER removed Dr. Mann’s hockey stick graph, nor has it been DEBUNKED.
              There is NEW and MORE COMPLETE studies to reference and they have enhanced the Hockey Stick Graph…rather than ‘debunk’.
              Look:
              http://www.realclimate.org/images//Marcott.png

              YOU SAY:
              “…Mann did not live up to the terms of the adjournment. If Mann has not been cited, it is because (as you noted) that the court is biased in his favor. No surprise there.”

              FACTS:
              I never said the court was biased in MANN’S favor…In Canada these cases are presented to the court initially…the Court concluded that there was sufficient evidence for a claim of defamation against BALL
              … and the COURT TOOK the case against BALL
              ……and prosecutes the case against BALL.

              SILLY PERSON….Dr. Mann’s research was critically peer reviewed, then Published in a respected Scientific Journal,
              it has been replicated and ENHANCED.

              36 SEPERATE STUDIES, peer reviewed & published in respected international scientific journals.

              Pitiful how deluded and OUT OF DATE you are.
              ***
              ***
              Michael Mann’s lawyer Roger McConchie
              (who is an expert in defamation/libel/slander law in Canada)

              Contrary to the nonsensical allegations made by John O’Sullivan in his July 4 posted on climatechangedispatch.com
              and elsewhere,
              plaintiff Michael Mann has fully complied with all of his
              disclosure obligations to the defendant Tim Ball relating to data and other documents.

              No judge has made any order or given any direction, however minor or inconsequential, that Michael Mann surrender any data or any documents to Tim Ball for any purpose.

              Accordingly it should be plain and obvious to anyone with a
              modicum of common sense that Mann could not possibly be in contempt of court.

              Just to be clear:
              (1.)
              Mann is not defying any judge.
              (2.)
              He is not in breach of any judgment.
              (3.)
              He is not, repeat not, in contempt of court.
              (4.)
              He is not in breach of any discovery obligations to Ball.

              In this context,
              O’Sullivan’s suggestion that Ball “is expected to instruct his British Columbia attorneys to trigger mandatory punitive court sanctions” against Mann is simply divorced from reality.
              **
              *
              (( VANCOUVER News Papers have confirmed that NO ‘PUNITIVE COURT SANCTIONS’ have been sought ))
              **
              *
              Finally,
              a word about the actual issues in the British Columbia lawsuit.

              If O’Sullivan had read Ball’s statement of defence,
              he would immediately see that Ball does not intend to ask the BC Court to rule that Mann committed climate data fraud, or that Mann in fact did anything with criminal intent.

              O’Sullivan would have noticed that one of Ball’s defences
              is that the words he spoke about Mann
              (which are the subject of Mann’s lawsuit)
              were said in “jest.”

              The BC Court will not be asked to decide whether or not climate change is real.

              So there is no chance whatsoever that any BC Court verdict about Mann’s libel claims against Ball will vindicate Donald Trump’s perspective on climate change.

              Roger D. McConchie
              Lawyer

              https://www.facebook.com/Mi

              https://www.irwinlaw.com/ti
              ***
              CO2 & Temperature Marriage:
              https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=%2f%2bt8mfVF&id=8999BA373F3B7B4F391B144E98514B474B7894CF&thid=OIP._-t8mfVFvINxHRaKkITjvAHaFT&mediaurl=http%3a%2f%2fzfacts.com%2fmetaPage%2flib%2fzFacts-CO2-Temp.gif&exph=377&expw=526&q=graph+co2+and+world+temperature+rise&simid=608046613771259242&selectedIndex=0&ajaxhist=0

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming#/media/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

              • adam_s_0625 January 2, 2018 at 2:46 PM

                The Greenland GISP2 ice core data (Quaternary Science Reviews) tells a completely different story. But I guess you would prefer to believe the output of a political org versus a scientific one. Sad.

                • R. Kooi January 2, 2018 at 7:20 PM

                  THEY are defining GLACIAL EVENTS
                  ….they do not redefine or undermine the above Holocene INTER GLACIAL WARM PERIOD, Its PEAK TEMPERATURES 8000-9000 years ago,
                  its STEADY DECLINE in temperatures toward the NEXTGLACIATION
                  and its ALARMINGLY SUDDEN termination in the mid to late 1700’s,
                  Despite the CONTUATION of the CAUSES of Glaciations on Earth….
                  Earth’s orbit pulling the planet away from the sun _Which continues !
                  Earth’s axial Tilt away from the sun____________ Which continues !
                  Earth’s wobble away from the sun _____________ Which continues !

                  The Stunning Termination of Earth’s most POWERFUL NATURAL CYCLE … GLACIATIONS…. in the mid 1700’s

  2. KC135TopBoom July 24, 2017 at 11:06 AM

    We as US taxpayers should SLAPP Michael Mann for withholding OUR intellectual property. We paid for it, it is our data, not his.
    Mann filed his SLAPP lawsuit against Mark Steyn? Steyn is one of the smartest people on the planet.
    I would also like to see Tim Balls data that includes the Medieval Warming and the Little Ice Age data (Mann ignored both in developing taxpayer’s ‘hockey stick’).

    • Ian5 July 25, 2017 at 1:14 AM

      “Steyn is one of the smartest people on the planet.”

      >> Maybe, maybe not. What is a fact is that Mark Steyn has absolutely no climate science credentials whatsoever. None.

      “I would also like to see Tim Balls data that includes the Medieval Warming and the Little Ice Age data”

      >> I’d like to see them too. Dr. Ball hasn’t published any peer-reviewed climate science in over 25 years.

      • Frederick Colbourne July 25, 2017 at 7:53 AM

        George Marshall told Dwight Eisenhower that he would not let Ike see action because Ike had never even commanded a platoon.

        Does that mean Ike should not have been Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in Europe?

        Your remark about Tim Ball is just as much a non-sequitur.

        • Ian5 July 25, 2017 at 3:59 PM

          Think about it a little…comparing Ball to Eisenhower is an empty comparison…comical really. Dr. Ball regularly presents “findings” that contradict the scientific literature. He hasn’t published anything in years. Why should he be considered an authority on the current state of climate science?

          • adam_s_0625 July 25, 2017 at 4:39 PM

            Retirement doesn’t prevent one from understanding and commenting on the subject they spent their working career studying. As a matter of fact, it frees them from the pressures put on them by managers, peers, and grant orgs.

            • Ian5 July 25, 2017 at 9:56 PM

              “Retirement doesn’t prevent one from understanding and commenting on the subject they spent their working career studying“.

              >> Of course it doesn`t. Neither does it negate the conclusions of the the scientific literature on climate change that have accumulated over the past 25 years, the vast majority of which continues to reinforce that GHGs from human activity are warming the planet`s climate system; the evidence is unequivocal. Why not inform yourself: https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

              • Windy July 27, 2017 at 6:14 PM

                Next to none of it deals with causation, because it can’t be established.

                • Ian5 July 27, 2017 at 10:11 PM

                  Misleading statement. There are multiple, independent lines of evidence studied by thousands of scientists from many jurisdictions and agencies around the world that indicate that global warming is unequivocal.

          • oriorda July 25, 2017 at 5:51 PM

            ‘Dr. Ball regularly presents “findings” that contradict the scientific literature’… YOU’VE lost the plot here. Ball presents data and evidence that accords with the scientific method… EVERYTHING he writes can be checked, all his data is there for everyone to see. He makes NO predictions using modelling techniques he keeps secret. You ABSOLUTELY cannot make those claims for Mann.. If Clausius stepped out of his grave today, knowing nothing of the invented ‘science’ called ‘climate science’, he could destroy Mann’s house of cards in 5 minutes. The Laws of Physics completely refute the bedrock claims that underpin the entire shambolic structure called ‘climate science’.

            • Ian5 July 25, 2017 at 9:50 PM

              “Ball presents data and evidence that accords with the scientific method… EVERYTHING he writes can be checked, all his data is there for everyone to see.“

              A little rich don`t you think? Moreover Dr. Ball`s positions on climate science and those of the silly “Friends of Science“ are diametrically opposed with the positions of NASA, NOAA, British Atmospheric Data Centre, Environment Canada, IPCC, National Academy of Sciences, American Meteorological Society, American Geophysical Union and virtually every US and international scientific academy.

              • rhjames July 25, 2017 at 10:41 PM

                Keep in mind that the positions taken by the above societies don’t necessarily reflect the opinions of their members.

                • Ian5 July 25, 2017 at 11:44 PM

                  Yet these they reflect the findings of scientists from a range of different disciplines, from multiple countries and jurisdictions, and government and non-government sectors. Conspiracies are the stuff of Alex Jones and other extremists.

                  • oriorda July 26, 2017 at 10:51 AM

                    This is not a ‘conspiracy theory’. This is a scientific discourse. There are deep, fundamental flaws in the global warming agenda. The conspiracy is in fact the other way round, there is a conspiracy to deny any opposition to the agenda – see Climategate emails where this is spelled out clearly – see UN statements that ‘unless we show disasters, nobody will listen to us’.

                  • Lima6 July 26, 2017 at 1:02 PM

                    More name-calling.

              • oriorda July 26, 2017 at 10:47 AM

                You need to look at the facts, not the purveyors you mention. Don’t forget, Galileo was opposed by every single institution yet he was right. The Earth DOES go round the Sun: his DATA proved it. All the bodies you mention take it as fact that the data they obtain from Goddard and Hadley/CRU (the only 2 sources they all use as source data) is correct and they put that into their models. But.. the data has been fiddled to remove past warming events, thus making any current warming – however small – appear disproportionately large. This fundamental problem is then exacerbated by hopelessly biased model which are designed to produce apocalyptic warming 100 years hence, even though they are universally unable to reproduce reality… run ANY model using the start data of, say, 10 years ago and compare the output month by month to what we know ACTUALLY happened and you will see they all fail spectacularly. The reason they do this: they are ALL feeding at the grants/subsidies trough and need to show future disasters or all their funding will disappear. Ball and others simply point out all the discrepancies in the data, the fallacy that the models are reliable, and the problems with the basic laws of physics arising from the theory that man-made CO2 has led to significant temperature rises which will only get worse: there is no scientific basis for this claim, it is just a politically expedient claim that generates huge funding for any body willing to take the shilling. Read sepp.org and wattsupwiththat.com for detailed analysis of all this. We’re not making this up!

                • LTJ September 8, 2017 at 1:49 PM

                  References to Galileo in the context of climate science are nearly as frequent as they are absurd: https://qz.com/1069298/the-3-of-scientific-papers-that-deny-climate-change-are-all-flawed/

                  • oriorda September 8, 2017 at 3:27 PM

                    Your response displays profound ignorance on a world class gold medal level. Are you totally unaware that the initial claim of a ‘97% consensus in favour of man-made global warming’ is itself an utterly discredited claim? This has been so thoroughly debunked so many times that it is remarkable it keeps getting trotted out. Given that the 97% figure is complete bunk, why would anyone bother to comment on the remaining 3%? It’s like arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. The answer doesn’t matter because there are no angels.

                    You don’t seem to get the basic point about Galileo, which is as relevant today as it was when he was first condemned for his data. It is this: consensus is not a valid concept in proper science for deciding the validity of any particular proposition. What counts – the only thing that counts in this case – is the raw unmassaged data and its employment using standard statistical techniques in a logical theory that obeys the known laws of physics and chemistry. If you follow that dictum your conclusion will be the same as mine: man-made global warming as a result of CO2 is on an extremely small, statistically insignificant scale indistinguishable from noise and not requiring any action by us. There are far more important issues on which to spend our money.

                    • LTJ September 8, 2017 at 4:11 PM

                      “What counts – the only thing that counts in this case – is the raw
                      unmassaged data and its employment using standard statistical techniques in a logical theory that obeys the known laws of physics and chemistry. If you follow that dictum your conclusion will be the same as mine: man-made global warming as a result of CO2 is on an extremely small, statistically insignificant scale indistinguishable from noise and not requiring any action by us.”

                      Please do explain your logical theory and provide the data that supports it. I’m all ears.

                    • oriorda September 9, 2017 at 10:03 AM

                      Now you’re just being silly.

                      You want me to provide a theory for something that isn’t happening? This is not how it works.

                      As an example, there’s also no theory for why you can’t observe angels dancing on the head of a pin. (hint: There is definitely a pin, but there are no angels.)

                      If you do want to study the science seriously, a good place to start would be Professor Fred Singer’s book ‘Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years’. It’s a rattling good read.

                      The central point is there is no reliable data to show temperature excursions are abnormal, therefore there is no issue. You don’t need a theory for this. It’s how things are.

                      The only abnormal excursions are either the result of fiddled data (for example the farcical Mann hockey stick), OR cherry picked data from locations that will inevitably show temperature rises (such as those close to towns) OR the projections from innumerable climate models, all of which fail the most basic credibility test: start each model one year in the past and run them against the actual data which was measured over the year. They all fail to track reality reliably. You shouldn’t be surprised at this: climate is an enormously complex system which we hardly understand at all.

                      ‘Climate alarmism’ isn’t a science-based phenomenon, it is driven by political and social agendas, by people who want to create a new economic system and redistribute wealth to the second and third worlds. There’s nothing wrong with having such ambitions. Maybe capitalism is indeed crap and has failed the poor. Just don’t cloak the argument with fake science. If the agenda makes sense it will stand on its own feet.

                      Of course all those currently feeding at the deep troughs of money that is funding ‘climate research’ will lose their golden eggs, but there are plenty of far more useful things for society to spend its money on. I could do with a new car, as one example.

                    • LTJ September 10, 2017 at 11:03 PM

                      I’m being silly?

                      All you’ve got is conspiracy theories and the bizarre notion that a reduction in climate research funding will buy you a new car.

                    • oriorda September 11, 2017 at 2:31 AM

                      Your profound ignorance disbars you from further consideration. You are even unable to distinguish a joke when you see one.

                    • LTJ September 11, 2017 at 10:43 AM

                      Unfortunately, your own ignorance is far from profound. It is as common as muck, and as dimwitted as your “jokes”.

                      You are thicker than a tar-flavored Frosty.

                      How you can be literate enough to type your drivel and yet stupid enough to believe it is one of life’s eternal mysteries.

                    • oriorda September 11, 2017 at 11:06 AM

                      I can’t help but notice your avatar is a bloodsucking mosquito. It seems somehow appropriate.

                      The sad thing from society’s viewpoint is that it is zealots such as yourself who have so far allowed to be wasted hundreds of billions of our precious taxpayer money on a madcap theory of man-made global warming which is devoid of rationality. Bloodsucking indeed.

                      Your certainty makes one think of religious zealotry, and in this case it is equally unfounded in logic, scientific rigour and an appreciation of irony.

                      The simple, inescapable fact is the ONLY significant increase in global temperatures outside the bounds of natural variability is the result of models which are preposterously inadequate, or of cherry picked data, or of faulty statistical forecasting. Satellite data from Huntsville, Alabama shows no such increases, and since this data can be read in its raw state by anybody before agenda-driven busybodies get hold of it to perform their fiddles, we are entitled to regard this data as the best available.

                      No temperature excursions = no global warming = no problem

                      Let’s spend our money on useful endeavours, like cures for dreadful diseases, better schooling, proper medical care for everybody, reduction in poverty.

                    • LTJ September 11, 2017 at 12:25 PM

                      “Satellite data from Huntsville, Alabama shows no such increases, and since this data can be read in its raw state by anybody before agenda-driven busybodies get hold of it to perform their fiddles, we are entitled to regard this data as the best available.”

                      Not if you care about scientific accuracy. As the wiki on this very dataset points out:

                      “Satellites do not measure temperature directly. They measure radiances in various wavelength bands, from which temperature may be inferred.[1][2] The resulting temperature profiles depend on details of the methods that are used to obtain temperatures from radiances. As a result, different groups that have analyzed the satellite data have obtained different temperature data. Among these groups are Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH). The satellite series is not fully homogeneous – it is constructed from a series of satellites with similar but not identical instrumentation. The sensors deteriorate over time, and corrections are necessary for satellite drift and orbital decay. Particularly large differences between reconstructed temperature series occur at the few times when there is little temporal overlap between successive satellites, making intercalibration difficult.”

              • Lima6 July 26, 2017 at 1:02 PM

                Arguments from authority are worthless. If you have the necessary facts and data to prove a hypothesis, you win. If not, you lose. Mann has neither of those things on his side and he has demonstrated his contempt for the scientific process (and his legitimate critics) by refusing to release his data.

              • Lets Do It Ourselves July 26, 2017 at 4:03 PM

                NOAA. NASA. HADCRUT. A recent peer reviewed paper proves that they have repeatedly manipulated the data. Their credibility is on a par with Mann and Hansen.

                • Ian5 July 27, 2017 at 12:23 AM

                  What “recent peer reviewed paper” would that be? Surely you don’t mean the PDF of D’Aleo’s WordPress blog post that Breitbart’s Delingpole and other misinformers have been promoting as peer-reviewed science? Not peer-reviewed, nor does it “prove” anything.

                  • Windy July 27, 2017 at 6:07 PM

                    What’s been proven about man made CO2 and global warming/ climate change/ whatever it gets labelled next when the data fails to conform to the theory?

                • Windy July 27, 2017 at 6:03 PM

                  Hard to say-it’s a race to the bottom!

              • Aquinasthegoat July 26, 2017 at 5:37 PM

                “NASA, NOAA, British Atmospheric Data Centre, Environment Canada, IPCC, National Academy of Sciences, American Meteorological Society, American Geophysical Union”. Each and every one a politically driven organization whose “data” has been soundly refuted time and again by real scientists.

                • Ian5 July 27, 2017 at 12:29 AM

                  Untrue statement intentionally designed to mislead and misinform. That every reputable scientific organization is somehow conspiring to manipulate climate data and scientific findings isn’t plausible.

                  • Aquinasthegoat July 27, 2017 at 4:32 PM

                    Not conspiracy, just pure politics.

                  • Windy July 27, 2017 at 6:11 PM

                    Starting to sound like “Blah blah blah blah blah blah”. TROLL

                    • Ian5 July 27, 2017 at 10:17 PM

                      Your own self assessment perhaps. Repetition of talking points and childish name-calling.

                  • Beirish65 August 4, 2017 at 3:41 AM

                    Wow. You really are drunk with blindness and you just don’t care about losing the wealth that you’ve established in your life or your family’s wealth because you will lose it if you continue to go along with this hoax. These government agencies have come out in the last 10 to 15 years with Data that was misrepresented in underminded the actual study of global warming because there was zero global warming and it was global cooling. If you use half of the temperature gage is around the world and warmer climate you can make anything look like it’s heating up around the world. But if you use the average of all the temperature gauges around the world we have been cooling not warming.

                    • LTJ September 11, 2017 at 10:55 AM
                    • Beirish65 September 11, 2017 at 11:45 AM

                      You will just believe anything won’t you? The New York Times ha ha they are the biggest piece of crap lying newspaper. Have you ever heard of the New World Order or the Bilderberg Group? Have you read Agenda 21? I feel sorry for people like you that actually believe in Al Gore’s global warming theory. It is a theory and that is all it is just like the big bang theory. I have a question for you how long have we been taking temperature readings around the planet?

                    • LTJ September 11, 2017 at 12:30 PM

                      Hey, if you have any alternative sources that contradict the data, pull ’em out.

                      I’m sure we’d all like a laugh.

                    • Beirish65 September 12, 2017 at 2:26 PM

                      Apparently you can’t answer any of my questions that I asked you.

                    • LTJ September 12, 2017 at 2:36 PM

                      And apparently you’ve got nothing but absurd conspiracy theories yet again.

                    • Beirish65 September 12, 2017 at 2:37 PM

                      You still can’t answer my questions because your knowledgebase is limited.

                    • Beirish65 September 15, 2017 at 2:48 AM

                      Apparently you’ve never been in the library before or open up a search engine and look for these topics because they do exist. It has nothing to do with conspiracy theories because it is all facts not fiction. Your ignorance is bliss.

                    • LTJ September 15, 2017 at 8:21 AM

                      So let me get this straight – you’re trying to tell ME how to use a search engine after you’ve posted three useless irrelevant links?

                    • Beirish65 September 21, 2017 at 12:20 PM

                      Ignorance is bliss.

                    • LTJ September 21, 2017 at 12:30 PM
                    • Beirish65 September 24, 2017 at 8:28 AM

                      BS.

                    • Beirish65 September 24, 2017 at 9:03 AM

                      Climate Depot: Special Report: A-Z Climate Reality Check

                      Sub-prime Science Expose’: “The claims of the promoters of the man-made climate fears is failing.”

                    • Beirish65 September 24, 2017 at 9:20 AM

                      The three research papers that debunk your false narrative were true because you had them removed from this site. Apparently your to young and your wheel house has zero knowledge of the New World Order, George Soros, the Bilderberg Group. Agenda 21 and so on.

                    • LTJ September 24, 2017 at 9:54 PM

                      LMAO

                      I have no power to remove anything from this site. If anything was removed, it is because the moderators do not tolerate deranged conspiracy theories about the New World Order, etc.

                    • Beirish65 September 12, 2017 at 2:31 PM

                      hallofrecord.blogspot.com/2007/02/extreme-temperatures-wheres-global.html

                    • Beirish65 September 12, 2017 at 2:35 PM
                    • Beirish65 September 12, 2017 at 2:40 PM

                      newsweekly.com.au/article.php?id=57680&s=LURQEd

                    • LTJ September 13, 2017 at 12:45 AM

                      Neither of your links go to anything pertinent.

                • Windy July 27, 2017 at 6:08 PM

                  All heavily infiltrated by #BigGreen.

              • Windy July 27, 2017 at 6:02 PM

                TROLL

              • Beirish65 August 4, 2017 at 3:36 AM

                Still blinded by all those government agencies I wonder why because you think government agencies have the end-all and be-all of everything and they are just the fact finding people of the world and they are gods because when they say something it’s the God honest truth. BS they are bought and paid for by governments around the world to continue the hoax of global warming, carbon emissions and climate change. This government tax is to steal wealth from every nation so that the billionaire elites can line there pockets such as George Soros the face end up at master of the New World order.

          • Lima6 July 26, 2017 at 12:58 PM

            Such arrogance. Einstein also went for years without publishing any papers. Should that fact be used to impugn or discount his understanding of physics? My God, you really are hopeless.

          • Lets Do It Ourselves July 26, 2017 at 4:00 PM

            I’ve had a couple of conversations with Ball. He has seen enough climate change and studied enough history to know that climate change, sometimes catastrophic, has always been a feature of life on this planet. He has absolutely nothing to gain by questioning the alarmism.

          • Windy July 27, 2017 at 6:01 PM

            He kicked Mann’s ass from here to Christmas in BC Supreme Court. Go home troll, the game’s over. http://principia-scientific.org/breaking-fatal-courtroom-act-ruins-michael-hockey-stick-mann/.

            • Ian5 July 27, 2017 at 10:21 PM

              Hilarious that you would cite the disinformation site principia-scientific. Oops there’s Tony Heller aka Steve Goddard again. No climate science credentials whatsoever.

          • Beirish65 August 4, 2017 at 3:28 AM

            You’re not a scientist and we have to listen to you and you’re spewing your nonsense.

      • adam_s_0625 July 25, 2017 at 9:11 AM

        “What is a fact is that Mark Steyn has absolutely no climate science credentials whatsoever. None”

        So, what you’re saying is we should blindly trust people with credentials who lie to us versus a layman who researches the subject and tells us the truth. Got it.

        • Ian5 July 25, 2017 at 3:47 PM

          Nope. On the contrary, what I am suggesting is that you should think twice before blindly trusting people – particularly political pundits – on scientific matters when they have no scientific credentials whatsoever.

          • adam_s_0625 July 25, 2017 at 4:34 PM

            But what if I AM a scientist, and agree with everything he said? And trusting people, just because they have certain credentials, is a recipe for disaster. The DATA, not a reputation, not credentials, are what matters. This observation somehow slipped by you.

            • Ian5 July 25, 2017 at 9:41 PM

              “But what if I AM a scientist, and agree with everything [Mark Steyn] said?“

              >> Then you`d be in the company of a small handful of well-known contrarions with extreme views and be supporting a position that is diametrically opposed to the positions of NASA, NOAA, British Atmospheric Data Centre, Environment Canada, IPCC, National Academy of Sciences, American Meteorological Society, American Geophysical Union and virtually every US and international scientific academy.

              • ppiaseck July 26, 2017 at 10:35 AM

                That Hockey stick was discredited long ago, 2002 or 03, by Canadian scientists Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick DR, Richard Muller, a professor of physics at University of California at Berkeley, He is also a faculty senior scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. wrote an article about it, and he is a believer in human induced climate change. below are parts of it

                But now a shock: Canadian scientists Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick have uncovered a fundamental mathematical flaw in the computer program that was used to produce the hockey stick. In his original publications of the stick, Mann purported to use a standard method known as principal component analysis, or PCA, to find the dominant features in a set of more than 70 different climate records.
                But it wasn’t so. McIntyre and McKitrick obtained part of the program that Mann used, and they found serious problems. Not only does the program not do conventional PCA, but it handles data normalization in a way that can only be described as mistaken.
                Now comes the real shocker. This improper normalization procedure tends to emphasize any data that do have the hockey stick shape, and to suppress all data that do not. To demonstrate this effect, McIntyre and McKitrick created some meaningless test data that had, on average, no trends. This method of generating random data is called Monte Carlo analysis, after the famous casino, and it is widely used in statistical analysis to test procedures. When McIntyre and McKitrick fed these random data into the Mann procedure, out popped a hockey stick shape!
                If you are concerned about global warming (as I am) and think that human-created carbon dioxide may contribute (as I do), then you still should agree that we are much better off having broken the hockey stick. Misinformation can do real harm, because it distorts predictions. Suppose, for example, that future measurements in the years 2005-2015 show a clear and distinct global cooling trend. (It could happen.) If we mistakenly took the hockey stick seriously–that is, if we believed that natural fluctuations in climate are small–then we might conclude (mistakenly) that the cooling could not be just a random fluctuation on top of a long-term warming trend, since according to the hockey stick, such fluctuations are negligible. And that might lead in turn to the mistaken conclusion that global warming predictions are a lot of hooey. If, on the other hand, we reject the hockey stick, and recognize that natural fluctuations can be large, then we will not be misled by a few years of random cooling.
                A phony hockey stick is more dangerous than a broken one–if we know it is broken. It is our responsibility as scientists to look at the data in an unbiased way, and draw whatever conclusions follow. When we discover a mistake, we admit it, learn from it, and perhaps discover once again the value of caution.

              • Scott Campbell July 26, 2017 at 10:40 AM

                A small handful? Are you frigging retarded? How about 31,247 American scientists who are quite open about their disbelief and signed onto the NPCC report? How about the 65 % off members of the American Academy of scientists who DON”T support that idiot mann? How about all of the scientists who have testified before congress clearly stating , and backing up with data, that ACC is a scam? You are clearly an uneducated liberal MORON

                • Ian5 July 26, 2017 at 10:50 AM

                  Name-calling…the preferred strategy of propagandists and the poorly educated.

                  • Lima6 July 26, 2017 at 12:55 PM

                    And “well-known contrarians with extreme views” is not name-calling? How about the grotesque Holocaust smear (“deniers”) so many of your climate change pals are so fond of hurling at scientists who disagree with your dogma? Have a look in the mirror, pal.

                    • Ian5 July 27, 2017 at 12:57 AM

                      Sorry you are offended, I didn’t use the term “denier” in the above comment so go complain to someone else.

                      No, referring to a 3rd party as a “contrarian with extreme views is not the same as responding childishly to a commenter with words like moron,

                • Beirish65 July 26, 2017 at 10:57 AM

                  Scott you are correct he is a moron.

                  • Ian5 July 27, 2017 at 1:30 AM

                    Why not explain why you disagree with my view and the position of virtually every reputable US and international scientific organization and academy instead of resorting to childish name-calling?

                    • Beirish65 July 27, 2017 at 5:22 PM

                      Being called a moron is not name-calling it is a fact. If I wanted to name call you I would say something totally different but being called a moron is factual.

                    • Ian5 July 27, 2017 at 10:54 PM

                      As I stated up-thread, name calling is a strategy typically used by propagandists, the poorly educated and those harbouring feelings of inadequacy.

                    • Beirish65 July 28, 2017 at 6:14 PM

                      Your ignorance is bliss.

                    • Ian5 July 28, 2017 at 7:18 PM

                      Says the frequenter of the silly Infowars conspiracy site and other rubbish sources customized for the gullible.

                    • Beirish65 August 4, 2017 at 3:14 AM

                      This website has nothing to do with the infowars this website is called CFACT. Ian I feel sorry for people like you so gullible. Ask Al gore how much he’s making on the hoax of global warming, carbon omissions and climate change? Have you notice how big his house is and how big his jet is that he flies around the world? Follow the money Ian. I am not suggesting that we do not become good stewards of our environment, of our relationships between human beings and our stewardships of life. But what I am suggesting is that this money making system for the billionaire elites that run the world such as George Soros a.k.a. puppetmaster and leader of the New World Order.

                    • Beirish65 September 12, 2017 at 2:58 PM

                      Where do you obtain your information?

                    • Beirish65 September 12, 2017 at 2:54 PM

                      By the way I wasn’t name-calling I asked Tecca question and he couldn’t answer my questions. Because he’s not honest about his knowledge base. And you’re the propagandist my friend not me. You’re the one it’s poorly educated not me and I don’t feel inadequate it all I feel just fine thank you very much. I feel sorry for people that actually believe in gores BS hooks on global warming him, climate change and or carbon emissions.

                • Ian5 July 27, 2017 at 1:27 AM

                  “How about 31,247 American scientists”

                  >> A reference to Art Robinson’s silly long-debunked Oregon Petition Project. Go look it up.

                  “…the NPCC report?

                  >> Do you mean the Heartland Institute’s ridiculous NIPCC report? Heartland Institute…not a scientific organization. Lobbyist for the tobacco industry…. Its report does not even purport to summarize the scientific literature. Why would you believe such rubbish.

                  “65 % off members of the American Academy of scientists who DON”T support [Mann]”

                  >> Hopeless rubbish, you just made that up.

                  “You are clearly an uneducated liberal MORON”

                  >> Name-calling is a strategy typical of propagandists, bullies and the poorly educated.

              • Peter Oneil July 26, 2017 at 1:45 PM

                Nasa believed that there were canals on Mars, until 1998. The canals were first proposed in 1789. before 1950 there was a cosensus that Martians were trying to signal earth. Experts, what does tht even mean.
                (93) Scientific Consensus And Mass Delusion – 150 Years Of Scientific Insanity – YouTube

                • Ian5 July 27, 2017 at 12:45 AM

                  Provides link to silly video posted by well-known misinformer Tony Heller (aka Steven Goddard). He has no climate science credentials whatsoever. Why do you think he is credible? Would you trust your heart condition to a plumber?

                  • robmanzoni August 20, 2017 at 3:18 AM

                    And alGore has climate credentials…?
                    Yet you’re happy to accept his disgustingly dishonest narrative

                    • Ian5 August 20, 2017 at 1:39 PM

                      Deflection…the article isn’t about Al Gore. You pointed to Heller’s silly rubbish and I’m calling you on it. Heller’s views are extreme and diametrically opposed to the positions of NASA, NOAA, National Academy of Sciences, American Meteorological Society, Geological Society of America, American Geophysical Union, American Association for the Advancement of Science, British Atmospheric Data Centre, Environment Canada, IPCC and virtually every US and international scientific academy.

                    • Beirish65 September 15, 2017 at 3:01 AM

                      All those government organizations are given taxpayer money to continue the hoax of Al gores global warming. You can’t even think for a second outside the box that these organizations actually could be taking money and promoting an absolute hoax? Of course not because you’re so ignorant, uneducated and uninformed .

                    • Ian5 September 19, 2017 at 10:31 PM

                      “…promoting an absolute hoax”.

                      >> Why not start by educating yourself about the science , evidence and implications of climate change instead of intentionally trying to mislead readers.
                      https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
                      You can’t refute any of it.

                    • Beirish65 September 21, 2017 at 2:52 AM

                      NASA is bought and paid for by government a.k.a. taxpayers money. Can refute all of it because it’s all lies and you want to talk about misleading that you. I will bet you could not be fair minded and actually look and research and study and find out that this whole thing that Gore has started is one big HOAX. Why don’t you follow the money that is made and ask yourself how? Why? Who?

              • Lets Do It Ourselves July 26, 2017 at 3:54 PM

                The organizations you cited have been proven to have manipulated the data. Repeatedly.

                • Ian5 July 27, 2017 at 12:34 AM

                  Untrue, unsubstantiated statement intentionally designed to mislead and misinform. If your ridiculous statement were true, then cite some organizations that you feel are trustworthy and tell us why.

                • Beirish65 September 15, 2017 at 2:58 AM

                  Absolutely true.

              • Beirish65 July 27, 2017 at 5:26 PM

                NASA, NOAA, British astronomy data center, Environmental Canada, IPCC and other government agencies are bought and paid for with taxpayers money to do exactly what the New World Order tells them to do. George Soros the puppetmaster and leader of the New World Order tells them exactly how to tax everybody around the world to steal the wealth of the world because they don’t have enough money already.

                • Ian5 July 27, 2017 at 10:50 PM

                  Ridiculous conspiracy fluff that is promoted by multiple disinformation sites. No evidence whatsoever. Remarkable how many people fall for this rubbish.

                  • Beirish65 July 30, 2017 at 5:28 PM

                    Your ridiculous and you need to stop your ignorance and being so uneducated that you believe everything that you hear from the IPCC and every other government organization that’s full of crap. You’re so ignorant and you’re so blinded that you’d rather be taxed of all your wealth then realize that they’re playing an absolute hoax and lies with regards to global warming, climate change and carbon emissions.

              • Windy July 27, 2017 at 5:55 PM

                “Appeal to Authority” is a logical fallacy. Like Michael Crichton said “The claim of consensus is the first refuge of scoundrels”.

                • Ian5 July 27, 2017 at 10:26 PM

                  Incorrect talking point. Argumentum ad Verecundiam is an argument from an inappropriate authority — an appeal to an authority outside the authority’s special field of expertise. Appeals to legitimate bodies and experts is a perfectly admissible form of inductive argument.

                  • Beirish65 July 30, 2017 at 5:31 PM

                    Just because Ian says so that’s what we’re supposed to believe try again Ian. Your ignorance is so bliss that most people on this website don’t even listen to what you’re saying because you’re a fool and your arrogant and ignorant.

              • adam_s_0625 September 3, 2017 at 9:51 PM

                It is well known that the leadership within these orgs is dominated by progressives. That missives from these orgs (generated ONLY by those leaders) is pro-alarmist is not surprising. The AMS was the only org that actually took a vote of its members regarding AGW. The result? About 50:50. I imagine every other org shuddered and prevented such votes from being taken. So much for your appeal to authority. A tactic of losers.

                • Ian5 September 4, 2017 at 11:42 AM

                  “The AMS was the only org that actually took a vote of its members regarding AGW. The result? About 50:50.”

                  >> No, your ridiculous statement is a complete myth. The last survey of the American Meteorological Society was conducted in 2016. The survey concluded that “Nearly all AMS members (96%) think climate change – as defined by AMS – is happening, with almost 9 out of 10 (89%) stating that they are either ‘extremely’ or ‘very’ sure it is happening. Only 1% think climate change is not happening, and 3% say they don’t know.”
                  https://gmuchss.az1.qualtrics.com/CP/File.php?F=F_cRR9lW0HjZaiVV3

                  The AMS has a very strong position statement on Climate Change that readers can access here:
                  https://www.ametsoc.org/ams/index.cfm/about-ams/ams-statements/statements-of-the-ams-in-force/climate-change/

                  • adam_s_0625 September 8, 2017 at 4:09 PM

                    Wow. So we’re supposed to put a lot of faith in a poll where less than a third of the members responded, was performed by an institution well known for its alarmist leanings, and did not guarantee the anonymity of responders. Right, like that’s going to produce believable results.

            • Ian5 July 25, 2017 at 9:44 PM

              I suggest you look beyond data. Data are not the same as information, knowledge, understanding and wisdom.

              • Lima6 July 26, 2017 at 1:09 PM

                Right. So fundamental physical facts (i.e., data) don’t matter in a scientific debate about matters that involve atmospheric physics??

                I suppose you think that the “wisdom” and “information” of people like Al Gore supersede all that nonsense about data.

                But as Adams once said, “Facts are stubborn things.” (Especially facts like the unexplained 20-year warming pause we’re currently experiencing.)

                • Ian5 July 27, 2017 at 12:52 AM

                  Fundamental physical fact: Humans have increased atmospheric CO2 concentration by more than a third since the Industrial Revolution. Increasing atmospheric CO2 is responsible for a stronger greenhouse effect that is warming the planet.

                  Why not inform yourself: https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

                  • Immortal600 July 27, 2017 at 10:02 AM

                    “Fundamental physical fact: Humans have increased atmospheric CO2
                    concentration by more than a third since the Industrial Revolution”

                    You can’t show that is true. All you can do is link to sites that hype the scare tactics of increased CO2. THEY can’t substantiate your statement either.

                    Why do you bother to troll here? You aren’t a scientist and are convincing no one with your garbage (or is it rubbish). Do you think you are saving the world?

                    • Ian5 July 27, 2017 at 10:30 PM

                      Humans have indeed increased atmospheric CO2 concentration by more than a third since the Industrial Revolution. Over 25% in the past 60 years. Unequivocal; why not inform yourself: https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/wp-content/plugins/sio-bluemoon/graphs/mlo_full_record.png

                    • Immortal600 July 28, 2017 at 10:02 AM

                      You can make that claim all day long, yet you can’t substantiate it. Your graph is meaningless. Why not take your head out of the sand and realize that you don’t have a clue? I have offered a link to an atmospheric physicist that shows what you believe is bogus. What’s the matter, can’t you absorb his explanation?

                    • Ian5 July 28, 2017 at 10:23 AM

                      “You can make that claim all day long, yet you can’t substantiate it. ”

                      >> Your statement is false. The Keeling curve presents direct evidence of rising atmospheric CO2; measurements have been taken continuously since 1958. You cannot refute it.

                      Ed Berry’s views on climate change are extreme…it is not his research area and besides he hasn’t published any peer-reviewed science since the 1980s as he freely admits: http://edberry.com/dr-ed-berry/publications/ . There is ideology not science all over his website.

                      Please educate yourself: https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

                    • Immortal600 July 28, 2017 at 1:16 PM

                      You haven’t refuted Ed berry’s views. All you have done is regurgitated garbage from Patrick Moore. What kind of expert is he? Ed Berry addresses every one of his criticisms and Moore can’t refute it. You’ve been to his site and YOU can’t refute Dr. Berry. He simply doesn’t align with your naive understanding of climate science. He uses the scientific method. You and your ilk don’t. It IS that simple!

                    • robmanzoni August 20, 2017 at 3:00 AM

                      “…What’s the matter, can’t you absorb his explanation?…”

                      This is the problem of trying to persuade a scientific ignoramus, using logic and facts – his brain is so full of indoctrinated rubbish that there’s no space for facts. Or even for doubt.
                      Like you, I’ve offered easily-understood evidence, but he keeps bouncing back with comments about absent credentials… Weirdly (or perhaps not) he sees no irony in accepting AlGore’s nonsense, despite his clear “lack of credentials”.

                      I know he can’t be persuaded to reason honestly; and I’m not trying to convince him… The only reason I bother to respond is for the others who might be reading these comments. I hope that some percentage of readers take the trouble to do a bit of research of their own, rather than accept the current narrative that we’re all ‘climate sinners’ and deserve to die because we’re “polluting” our atmosphere with carbon dioxide.
                      They will ignore the hugely beneficial effects of higher CO2 levels… the widespread rebound in plant growth everywhere, as we emerge from the CO2 famine of the last thousand years.

                      The loony Warmists haven’t the capacity to understand that CO2 can only be considered a pollutant when water vapour is considered the same way.

                    • gold&silverismoney August 9, 2017 at 6:51 PM

                      1.The climate was not better at lower levels of CO2
                      2.The climate would not get better if we reduced CO2 levels
                      3.The NASA temperature record is complete garbage
                      https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/nasasurfacetemp1981-1999-20141.gif

                    • Ian5 August 10, 2017 at 1:04 AM

                      Another link to disinformation professional Steve Goddard (his real name is Tony Heller), Steve and Tony have no climate science credentials whatsoever. He hasn’t published a single journal article, not one.

                    • Helix22 August 26, 2017 at 10:27 PM

                      how can you explain the satellite data?

                    • Ian5 August 28, 2017 at 10:05 PM
                    • Helix22 August 28, 2017 at 10:22 PM

                      that’s not satellite

                    • Ian5 August 29, 2017 at 12:10 AM

                      Here you go… RSS dataset prepared by Remote Sensing Systems: http://www.remss.com/research/climate.html
                      And some helpful context and summary: http://www.remss.com/research/climate.html

                    • Helix22 August 29, 2017 at 7:53 AM

                      Figures 4 and 7 show no indications of runaway warming with 3x amplification from water vapor. Global warming is a hoax.

                    • Ian5 August 30, 2017 at 1:06 AM

                      “Global warming is a hoax”

                      >> Instead of spreading disinformation and other shallow rubbish why not educate yourself:
                      https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

                    • Helix22 August 30, 2017 at 9:07 AM

                      i think it’s you that needs to. it’s a scam.

                    • Beirish65 September 12, 2017 at 2:45 PM

                      The climate change, global warming and or carbon emissions that Gore is spewing is a hoax. This is why Gore is a multimillionaire and would like to continue stealing your wealth.

                    • Beirish65 September 12, 2017 at 2:42 PM

                      NASA never takes information and dilutes it or gives us disinformation!

                    • Beirish65 September 12, 2017 at 2:41 PM

                      NASA never tells a lie!

                    • Wake December 9, 2017 at 3:20 PM

                      Let us ask you again – what credentials do you have?

                    • gold&silverismoney August 10, 2017 at 8:16 AM

                      More bullshit.Why do you only show the chart going back to 1960?
                      Because if you go further back the CO2 levels were higher and it makes your chart look stupid and insignificant,that’s why.
                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core#/media/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg

                    • Ian5 August 10, 2017 at 10:53 AM

                      Why is it bullshit? It is the well-known Keeling curve — direct measurements of atmospheric CO2 that have been taken uninterrupted since the late 50s. The graph you provided reflect CO2 levels derived from ice-core data — the graph does not include increases from the past century. The two are entirely consistent. Have a look a these graphs that put the two series together over a range of timescales:
                      https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/

                      As you can see, current CO2 levels of 406 ppm have not been a feature of the planet for over 800,000 years, perhaps much longer:
                      https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/wp-content/plugins/sio-bluemoon/graphs/co2_800k.png

                    • gold&silverismoney August 10, 2017 at 7:17 PM

                      Again,CO2 levels have been far higher than that.
                      https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/image277.gif

                    • Ian5 August 10, 2017 at 7:21 PM

                      And your point is what? That there is no cause for concern or need for action?

                    • gold&silverismoney August 10, 2017 at 9:32 PM

                      The planet does what it does and we are not the cause and there is nothing we can do about it anyway.
                      What is your solution?
                      Kill off all humans?
                      You are a dumbass if you think there is anything we can do about it.

                    • robmanzoni August 20, 2017 at 3:14 AM

                      Yes

                    • LTJ August 28, 2017 at 2:43 PM

                      He’s thinks that if it was good enough for the dinosaurs, it’s good enough for us. In fact, he’s willing to bet on it – I cash in when these clowns play poker on-line.

                    • LTJ September 4, 2017 at 12:20 PM

                      And the dinosaurs enjoyed it – are you certain we will?

                    • gold&silverismoney September 4, 2017 at 4:17 PM

                      Doesn’t matter, the Earth is going to do what it’s going to do regardless of how we feel about it.

                    • LTJ September 4, 2017 at 6:18 PM

                      True, but irrelevant to the fact that we continue to annually take millions of tons of carbon sequestered deep in the earth and inject it into the active biological carbon cycle. The Earth will survive our arrogant and ignorant tampering.

                      Our grandchildren may not.

                    • gold&silverismoney September 4, 2017 at 8:38 PM

                      What a load of crap.You are just regurgitated and repeating nonsense you heard through the propaganda machine.
                      You sound like all the other climate alarmists.You all sound like brainwashed parrots.
                      We can’t predict the future so there is no way we can stop the countless amounts of NATURAL disasters that can happen.All we can do is deal with them when they happen.Like we are doing with hurricane Harvey now.
                      If you think we should put all our resources into stopping CO2 which is NOT A POLLUTANT and then all will be fine for our grandchildren,then you are truly an idiot.
                      There are always dangers in our world and CO2 certainly isn’t one of them.

                    • LTJ September 4, 2017 at 10:24 PM

                      Superstorms like Harvey depend upon a warming world.

                      In case you care to understand what I’m talking about: https://paulbeckwith.net/2017/09/01/science-of-superstorms-after-harvey-whats-next/

                    • gold&silverismoney September 5, 2017 at 8:30 AM

                      More complete bull.
                      Tropical storms,droughts and hurricanes have all been decreasing.
                      http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/07/31/extreme-weather-expert-world-is-presently-in-an-era-of-unusually-low-weather-disasters/

                      And people dying from extreme weather events has also declined massively.
                      https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/extreme_wx_deaths.png

                    • LTJ September 5, 2017 at 9:38 AM

                      Your chart has little to nothing to do with weather patterns, and much to do with advances in medicine , transportation, and rescue technologies and methods.

                      This U.S.-centric map might be what you meant to post: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/cei/graph

                    • gold&silverismoney September 5, 2017 at 11:57 AM

                      I posted two charts.One of extreme weather reduction and one of deaths from extreme weather.The death reduction is because of less disasters AND improvements in technology and the use of fossil fuels.

                    • LTJ September 7, 2017 at 1:50 AM

                      You linked to one dubious chart and posted another. The timelines of each are generally unrelated, and the datasets used to compile them are not provided and the claimed sources are at best vaguely referenced.

                      It’s far from science: https://qz.com/1069298/the-3-of-scientific-papers-that-deny-climate-change-are-all-flawed/

                    • gold&silverismoney September 7, 2017 at 12:28 PM

                      Every chart you don’t like is ‘far from science”.
                      Then you send me an article from Reuters.LOL Leftist garbage.
                      Those charts that I posted are right from NOAA.
                      You don’t even understand how real science works.
                      Here is how.
                      https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C8MWqemXoAEwrpq.jpg

                    • LTJ September 7, 2017 at 5:15 PM

                      Those charts you posted were directly from ClimateDepot. There was no source directly attributed.

                    • gold&silverismoney September 7, 2017 at 8:12 PM

                      CLIMATE DEPOT got them from NOAA if you actually read it and looked at the references.

                    • LTJ September 7, 2017 at 11:06 PM

                      I made my statement because I read it and could find no such reference. You repeat your unsubstantiated claim because you cannot provide it.

                    • gold&silverismoney September 8, 2017 at 8:30 AM

                      The charts have the sources right on them.
                      You are about as perceptive as you are intellectual.

                    • LTJ September 8, 2017 at 12:13 PM

                      Still playing the fool?

                      There is no cited dataset from NOAA, only the claim. The chart is the author’s, not linked to NOAA.

                      The same is true of the 2nd chart. He claims the data is from Munich/RE, but does not specify any study or publicly-accessible record. The link provided under references is to a press release that does not contain the chart nor any reference to the data attributed, an article entitled: Natural catastrophe review for the first half of 2017

                      During my time in university, such sloppiness earned students a failing grade. How does Professor Pielke keep his job?

                    • LTJ September 20, 2017 at 11:11 PM

                      Came across this today.

                      Thought you might be interested in learning of the danger posed by CO2 apart from the warming effect: https://phys.org/news/2017-09-mathematics-sixth-mass-extinction.html

                    • gold&silverismoney September 21, 2017 at 7:57 AM

                      And even more studies have come out saying that all the models were and are wrong.
                      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/09/18/immediacy-threat-climate-change-exaggerated-faulty-models/

                    • LTJ September 21, 2017 at 9:30 AM

                      You clearly didn’t read the link I posted. It had little to do with climate change, it was about acidification of the oceans. Knee-jerk reactions have no place in rational debate.

                      And BTW, your article is unavailable without subscription – but even in the accessible first paragraph it does not dispute climate change, only the rate at which it is progressing.

                    • gold&silverismoney September 21, 2017 at 1:23 PM

                      I skimmed it because it’s garbage.
                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhMRpIRby8A&t=768s

                    • LTJ September 21, 2017 at 4:01 PM

                      ROTFLMAO

                      healthrangerstore.com vs. Scientific American?

                      BTW, ocean levels and acidification are unrelated. I’m suspecting you’ve only ‘skimmed’ the article because you didn’t understand a word.

                    • gold&silverismoney September 21, 2017 at 5:20 PM

                      For your information Mike Adams is a scientist.
                      Scientific American just writes whatever bullshit they are told and do no research of their own just like you.

                    • LTJ September 21, 2017 at 11:07 PM

                      Scientist? Never.

                      His primary success has been as a spam artist – and taking advantage of the suckers born every minute: https://healthwyze.org/reports/616-special-report-the-legend-of-mike-adams-and-the-reality

                    • Steven Woodcock September 7, 2017 at 7:15 PM

                      It’s definitely good for the plants.

                    • Wake December 9, 2017 at 3:19 PM

                      And so?

                    • Ian5 July 27, 2017 at 10:47 PM

                      Yet another link to another disinformation site…and the author is commenting on a topic in which he has no credentials.

                    • gold&silverismoney August 9, 2017 at 6:50 PM
                    • Ian5 August 10, 2017 at 1:06 AM

                      What are you referring to? The graphics are based on Petit et al. Excellent work, published in Nature. What don’t you understand about it?
                      http://www.jerome-chappellaz.com/files/publications/climate-and-atmospheric-history-of-the-past-420-000-years-from-the-vostok-ice-core-antarctica-38.pdf

                    • robmanzoni August 20, 2017 at 2:45 AM

                      “…the author is commenting on a topic in which he has no credentials…”

                      This is a repetitious mantra of yours.

                      One doesn’t need “qualifications” in climate science to recognise fraud when it’s there… and it’s there “in spades”.

                      But calling Anthony Watts ‘unqualified in climate science’ exposes you as someone who’s not done the same level of research which you so demand of others on this list…

                      By your “strict” standards, Al Gore’s two docudramas and many, many public scarefests should be irrelevant (as indeed they are) because, as a person with “no credentials in the topic”, he’s not qualified to have- or voice an opinion.
                      We don’t see your condemnation of this well-known fraudster and public-funds thief. Why are you so openly selective, if you expect anyone to take you seriously?

                      AlGore’s multiple weather-specific (i.e. scientific) errors in the first glossy book were at least a source of much eye-watering mirth to all who understand the science, although concerned readers have a more serious reason to cry over his book’s wide, uncritical acceptance by scientifically-ignorant school boards. Luckily, in the UK (where some level of reason and honesty still exists), his book was strongly denounced by a court, due to it’s serious errors, mis-statements and fraudulent scare-tactics.
                      But those who believe the AGW nonsense are unfazed by this criticism, because, like AlGore himself, they are unhindered by the strict principles of the scientific method; and the concept of conscience and ethics is as foreign as scientific the understanding which they not only lack – but about which they (and you, seemingly) are totally incurious…

                      Rather than denounce (as you predictably do) people like Anthony Watts and Tony Heller (and Will Happer) as ‘disinformation brokers’, you should first try to understand what they are saying.
                      I know this is difficult for you, but if you start from scratch and learn some physics, biology, chemistry and maths (and statistics), you’ll become entranced at the amount of wondrous information and knowledge there is in even a rudimentary understanding of how the universe works.
                      And, armed with this new knowledge and understanding, you might well be a bit embarrassed at your (past) naïvety and acceptance of nonsense, dished up as fact.
                      The past is nothing to be ashamed-of, if the sense of shame comes from new knowledge, which exposes the naïvety.

                      It means you’re finally growing up…

                    • Ian5 August 20, 2017 at 1:45 PM

                      “…naïvety and acceptance of nonsense”….”One doesn’t need “qualifications” in climate science to recognise fraud when it’s there… and it’s there “in spades”.

                      >> Yet you haven’t provided any evidence, just links to a few silly and well-known disinformation sites. The scientific evidence for human-caused climate change is unequivocal. It’s a position shard by virtually every American and international scientific institution and academy. Who have you got? heartland institute?

                  • Joe Geshel July 30, 2017 at 3:28 AM

                    There is scientific data that disputes your claim. Getting the whole picture is better than half. Water vapor contributes to the green house effect. CO2 is not the only cause. Facts are stubborn, I agree.

                    • LTJ August 28, 2017 at 2:38 PM

                      I saw no one anywhere claiming that CO2 is the only greenhouse gas, nor that water vapour is not a factor in the equation.

                      I also haven’t seen this contraindicating data that you claim exists. I’m doubting you’ve seen it either – and if you have, I’m betting you’ve let someone marginally smarter misunderstand it for you.

                    • Joe Geshel August 29, 2017 at 6:09 PM

                      There you go, attack the person but never offer support for your position. Tsk tsk

                    • LTJ August 29, 2017 at 7:41 PM

                      I shredded each and every one of your unsubstantiated straw-man claims, and all you’ve got is “Tsk tsk”?

                    • Wake December 9, 2017 at 3:18 PM

                      Inasmuch as you don’t have any real knowledge in the science of climatology I suggest you simply don’t try to say that you haven’t seen any contraindications of anything other than your own intelligence.

                    • Wake December 9, 2017 at 3:17 PM

                      CO2 is a trace gas that has virtually no effect. There is 100 times the H2O in the atmosphere ON THE AVERAGE. Around cities where most of the CO2 is generated we discover that it is ten times that because cities HAVE to have water and hence are built on major waterways, large lakes or oceans.

                  • bmatkin September 5, 2017 at 12:03 AM

                    Sorry Ian that’s garbage. Nasa has been caught fudging the numbers so their credibility is zero. You didn’t know that because you only get your info from “approved” religious sources.
                    Plants thrive in 1000 PPM conditions and they could not have got there if the world did not have those conditions in the past.
                    Nay sayers to this concept are not scientists but shills. The evidence of greening the world is overwhelming while the evidence of a rise of 2 degrees C is sketchy at best.
                    I’ll go with the plants, not the political scientists who shill this garbage for grants and gov. salaries.
                    You think the oil companies are bad for funding scientists? How about the “pure as the driven snow” gov. scientists, greens, globalists, wind power executives, Musk etc. No conflict of interest with those sods is there?

                    • Ian5 September 5, 2017 at 12:44 AM

                      “Sorry Ian that’s garbage.”

                      >> Nope, Humans have indeed increased atmospheric CO2 concentration by more than a third since the Industrial Revolution. Inform yourself:
                      https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/wp-content/plugins/sio-bluemoon/graphs/co2_800k_zoom.png

                      “Nasa has been caught fudging the numbers so their credibility is zero.”

                      >> According to who? This is a silly talking point promoted by disinformation professionals. You can’t provide a single scrap of evidence that NASA is ‘fudging the numbers’.

                      ” Plants thrive in 1000 PPM conditions and they could not have got there if the world did not have those conditions in the past.”

                      >> The climate, ecology and biology of the planet was much different then. The current level of atmospheric CO2 (over 400 ppm) hasn’t been a feature of our planet for at least 800,000 years long before human civilization began to develop.

                    • bmatkin September 6, 2017 at 1:28 AM

                      Yes, 400 PPM so what? And how do you know what it was in the past? When did accurate measurements of atmospheric CO2 begin, indeed, they are not that accurate now. We’re talking sterile lab quality work. Remember this is Parts per million, and it is measure on in a couple of places on earth.
                      Further, you have no idea what the “normal” atmospheric CO2 is supposed to be any more than you know what the average world temperature is supposed to be. The earth is not and never has been in stasis.
                      Nasa and other groups have consistently juggled previous temperature down and current temperatures up. Again, 1/10 of one degree C is not even measurable outside a lab. This is average and rounding numbers from various sources. The land based temp. do not coincide with the satellite temps.
                      You last points are garbage. You have no idea what a million years of climate has been. Dendrology and Ice Cores, and other proxies are not that accurate, which is what the Mann argument is all about.
                      Your entire premise is contradicted by history. There is the medieval warm period, the Roman warm period, the Egyptian warm period etc. There were also mini ice ages.
                      We have mega proof of that with painting of the Thames river frozen over etc.
                      Mann’s science is garbage and global warming, which isn’t happening, is a construct of the left in an attempt to tax the first world nations for wealth redistribution to third world nations. Actually, tax wealthy nations so the cronies, cadres and elites can sponge off everyone else
                      This scam is a religion and you sir, are an acolyte, a disciple.
                      Me, I believe in plants, not lab coats on a mission to find more grants or promote an ideology.

                  • Beirish65 September 21, 2017 at 2:56 AM

                    BS. NASA is a fraud. You need to educate yourself. That article so misleading it’s sickening. I’ve got some land in Florida for you did you want to buy it to? Ignorance is bliss.

                    • Ian5 September 21, 2017 at 11:05 PM

                      Yet my statement and the position of NASA that “Humans have increased atmospheric CO2 concentration by more than a third since the Industrial Revolution” is based on actual evidence:
                      https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/wp-content/plugins/sio-bluemoon/graphs/co2_800k_zoom.png

                      By contrast you have provided nothing to substantiate your outrageous and emotional revelations.

                    • Beirish65 September 24, 2017 at 10:30 AM

                      So what! CO2 is not and will not be the only cause or effect of your so called climate change, carbon emissions and global warming. If this planet, earth, does not have enough CO2 plant, plankton and alge along with animals, mammals and humanity will die.

                    • Ian5 September 27, 2017 at 10:42 PM

                      “If this planet, earth, does not have enough CO2 plant, plankton and alge along with animals, mammals and humanity will die.”

                      >> Irrelevant comment. The planet’s plankton, plant and alge [sic] are in not at risk of not having “enough CO2”. CO2 is rising at unprecedented rates and current levels have not been a feature of the planet for at least 800,000 years. Please educate yourself:
                      https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/wp-content/plugins/sio-bluemoon/graphs/co2_800k.png

                  • Beirish65 September 24, 2017 at 9:45 AM

                    CO2 does not and is not the single most effects on your so called climate change. Also if the earth doesn’t have enough CO2 plants on land and plankton and alge in the ocean along with animals, mammals and humans will die.

                  • Wake December 9, 2017 at 3:14 PM

                    The increase in CO2 is a measured fact. The supposed results of that increase are pure unadulterated BS. Nothing but good has come from the increases in CO2. And NO negatives are attached to it. The one line of absorption not totally covered by atmospheric water was saturated at about 300 ppm. No additional CO2 would find any energy to absorb.

              • Andre Den Tandt July 26, 2017 at 3:37 PM

                Let’s say that you have knowledge, understanding and wisdom in spades. How do you quantify that, as science requires?

              • Lets Do It Ourselves July 26, 2017 at 3:52 PM

                In other words, Al Gore’s to be precise, sometimes the facts are not enough?
                And sometimes they are. Not one of the alarmist predictions has come to pass. That’s fact enough, even for a layman.

                • Ian5 July 27, 2017 at 12:38 AM

                  Try a little harder; this quote might help:

                  “Data is not information, information is not knowledge, knowledge is not understanding, understanding is not wisdom.” Clifford Stoll

                  • bmatkin September 4, 2017 at 1:36 AM

                    I’m assuming Clifford Stoll has twenty-two Phds in everything from philosophy to climate science? No? Then why quote him?
                    According to you credentialed scientists are as infallible as god.

                    • Ian5 September 4, 2017 at 11:50 AM

                      “According to you credentialed scientists are as infallible as god.”

                      Definitely not; you just made that uo. The point that was being made up-thread is that the extreme positions of commentators like Tony Heller and Mark Steyn should be given little to no weight in discussions about climate science. Neither has any climate science credentials whatsoever.

                    • bmatkin September 4, 2017 at 9:00 PM

                      So, you’re reaffirming my suggestion that you accept the tenets of the priests in the lab coats that spew your dogma and discredit anyone else.
                      Thanks for restating the point that you live in a world of group speak where differing ideas and opinions are not welcome.
                      The construct where your lab coated priests are the only ones that are allowed to interpret your bible and your revelations come from people like Michael Mann who was caught outright lying and cheating on facts. Perhaps the climategate emails are no never mind.

                    • Ian5 September 4, 2017 at 10:21 PM

                      No. Scientists are people and not infallible. It would be foolish to blindly accept the stat3ments or advice of a single scientist. What I am asking is why would one accept the position or advice on a scientific matter of a non-scientist on a matter in which they have no background or credentials whatsoever? Faced with a serious medical condition, would you rely on the advice of a public relations professional over a surgeon or oncologist?

                    • bmatkin September 4, 2017 at 11:58 PM

                      “Faced with a serious medical condition, would you rely on the advice of a
                      public relations professional over a surgeon or oncologist?”
                      Depends if they were offering leeches, big pharma or real careful medicines and procedures.
                      I would listen to someone who has gone through the problem before or had a relative with the problem and did research and weight their advice only slightly less than the professional.
                      I know of many procedures that are pure quackery including prescribing “Ritalin” to young boys.
                      As for Mark Steyn, he has done a lot of compilation of research and has been advised by many legitimate scientists, so yes, I would listen to what he says and then check it out for myself.
                      By the way, my field is biology, particularly dendrology and until I retired, I practiced that art for about 30 years. As a result I have a great interest in Mann’s reconstruction of Briffa’s work. It is garbage. Mann switch from tree rings to thermometers for the entire 20th century and that is a no no in science. He will eventually pay.

                    • Wake December 9, 2017 at 3:10 PM

                      One would think that the emails flailing back and forth among the three involved in Mann’s research project would have been enough to condemn every word he ever published.

                    • Random_Commentator September 19, 2017 at 7:42 AM

                      Not infallible? There is a huge gulf between infallibility and intentionally deleting or altering the data to fit your “gut” world view! Comparing conclusions reached with grossly false data to conclusions reached by an oncologist is so ridiculous that I wish I had the wit of Mark Steyn to lambaste you with. Mann’s hockey stick left out the medieval warm period and the “Little Ice Age” between ~1600 and 1850, not to mention the total falsification of the 20th century data.
                      Mark Steyn, unlike the other defendants being sued for defamation of character, is not a scientist and is being sued because of his comments calling Mann’s work fraudulent after his exposure as a liar and data manipulator through leaked emails. I’m guessing that Mr. Steyn was incensed that a good portion of the world’s governments had been duped into spending billions by this falsified and alarmist drivel that was produced at US taxpayer expense.
                      If Michael Mann is so sure of his hockey stick, why hasn’t he released the data upon which it was built? President Trump called global warming a hoax, took anything related to it off the White House website and muzzled the EPA; why hasn’t Mann sued him for defamation? Could it be the RICO lawsuit the feds could file against him and his co-conspirators?
                      Mann was cleared of any malfeasance by a Penn St. administrative panel earlier this year, but those lily-livered snakes cleared Jerry Sandusky too. Mann should be stripped of his PhD, charged with his fellow climate change liars with RICO and jailed. Then the Kyoto agreements and the Paris Accord can be revisited by the rest of the world, this time viewed as the huge boondoggles they are. Of course, the United States of America will let the world do what it wants as we rejected both “Treaties”.

                    • Ian5 September 19, 2017 at 10:27 PM

                      Such fluff…and no evidence whatsoever to substantiate your silly claims. Why not start by educating yourself about the science , evidence and implications of climate change instead of intentionally trying to mislead readers.
                      https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

                    • Beirish65 September 24, 2017 at 9:38 AM

                      Misleading information because NASA is bought and paid for by taxpayers money to write a false narrative.

                    • Ian5 September 27, 2017 at 10:43 PM

                      “NASA is bought and paid for by taxpayers money to write a false narrative.”

                      >> Intentionally misleading talking point. You have absolutely nothing to substantiate this ridiculous statement.

                    • Beirish65 September 29, 2017 at 3:29 AM

                      You’re irrelevant and so is every statement that you make regarding climate change, carbon emissions and global warming. You are an absolute joke this whole thing is ridiculous.

                    • Ian5 September 30, 2017 at 8:20 PM

                      Making silly, ignorant and unsubstantiated statements doesn’t make them true. Please educate yourself and then come back and tell us what you’ve learned:
                      https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

                    • Beirish65 October 1, 2017 at 10:52 PM

                      You’re ignorant, uneducated and uninformed in NASA is a lying piece of crap.

                    • Ian5 October 2, 2017 at 10:21 PM

                      More conspiracy rubbish. NASA’s position has been consistent over decades through multiple republican and democratic administrations. Its position is also consistent with the positions of the National Academy of Sciences, American Meteorological Society, NOAA, British Atmospheric Data Centre, Environment Canada, IPCC, American Geophysical Union and virtually every US and international scientific academy. Who have you got substantiating your ridiculous position?

                    • LTJ December 14, 2017 at 6:52 AM

                      …because Soros now controls NASA? There is no American government?

                      Please do tell us more about this vast worldwide conspiracy of yours. This thread was getting far too serious, and I could use a little light entertainment.

                    • Beirish65 December 14, 2017 at 11:04 AM

                      George Soros leader and puppet master of the New World Order is not a conspiracy. I’ll make it easy for you go to Amazon and put in the search engine, of Amazon, the words New World Order and see how many books pop up about it. Ignorance is bliss.

                    • LTJ December 14, 2017 at 9:25 PM
                    • Beirish65 December 14, 2017 at 9:37 PM

                      Instead of watching TV or listening to your favorite liberal socialist show open up a book and read. Ignorance is bliss

                    • LTJ December 14, 2017 at 10:52 PM

                      Why did you delete your previous reply? It was far more entertaining, and no more stupid than what you’ve replaced it with:

                      Beirish65

                      12 hours ago

                      George Soros leader and puppet master of the New World Order is not a conspiracy. I’ll make it easy for you go to Amazon and put in the
                      search engine, of Amazon, the words New World Order and see how many books pop up about it. Ignorance is bliss.

                    • Beirish65 December 15, 2017 at 2:11 AM

                      Snowflake ❄️ You could not have made my point any clear because your ignorance is bliss.

                    • Beirish65 November 3, 2017 at 2:14 PM

                      Ridiculous and it’s not worth talking to you because you’re so blinded by what you think is the truth. The New World Order It’s not a conspiracy it is a fact. George Soros is not a conspiracy he is a fact of evil. Follow the money if you can handle it because I don’t think you can handle the truth because it would disturb your entire educational background. If we want roc it’s not a conspiracy it is a fact. George Soros is not a conspiracy he’s a fact of evil. Follow the money if you can handle it because I don’t think you can handle the truth because it would disturb your entire educational background. It Rock your entire being to find out the truth about this country and the And how our political system is rigged to steal wealth from uneducated people like you through global warming, carbon emissions and climate change. How come our Gore has a multimillion dollar house and a multi million dollar bank account and has a plane and gas guzzling automobiles and he talks about global warming him like it’s a major problem? If it was such a major problem then why does he have all the things that he has? Follow the money. Follow the money.

                    • LTJ December 14, 2017 at 6:53 AM

                      Yes, YES!!! More, please.

                    • Beirish65 December 14, 2017 at 9:35 PM

                      Ignorance is bliss

                    • LTJ September 5, 2017 at 9:41 AM

                      …nor much of a track record for honest and unbiased journalism.

                    • Wake December 9, 2017 at 3:04 PM

                      There is NO SUCH THING as “climate science”. This is a self identified science. Tell us what university offers higher education in climate science and who has obtained such a degree.

                    • Wake December 13, 2017 at 1:41 PM

                      Again let me repeat – there IS no such thing as a “climate scientist”. This is entirely self identified and hence ANYONE can claim those non-existent credentials.

                    • Ian5 December 21, 2017 at 12:21 AM

                      You go right ahead and repeat whatever you like. It doesn’t make your ridiculous statements true.

                  • Latimer Alder October 5, 2017 at 4:55 PM

                    Cliff Stoll wrote one very good book which I enjoyed immensely.

                    But it was not about climate.

              • model94 August 7, 2017 at 6:38 PM

                We have Nostradamus here guys

                • robmanzoni August 26, 2017 at 4:30 PM

                  “…We have Nostradamus here guys…”
                  No – it’s Michael Mann himself. Just wasting our time…

              • adam_s_0625 September 3, 2017 at 9:42 PM

                Data is the information from which knowledge, understanding, and wisdom arise. If you have contempt for data, then you have contempt for science. But we already knew that.

                • Ian5 September 4, 2017 at 11:54 AM

                  You misunderstand the point. I have no contempt for data. Only that without knowledge, understanding and wisdom, data is often used and abused.

                  • adam_s_0625 September 8, 2017 at 3:51 PM

                    You can say that again. The adjustments made by NASA GISS are attrocious!

              • Latimer Alder October 5, 2017 at 4:52 PM

                ‘Data are not the same as information, knowledge, understanding and wisdom.’

                Maybe not.

                But they are the underpinning of all true science. And it is that realisation that distnguishes the scientist from the theologian.

                Your appeal to ‘look beyond data’ is an appeal to a faith or religious belief, not to science. I hope you recognise it as such.

              • Wake December 13, 2017 at 1:39 PM
                • LTJ December 14, 2017 at 7:01 AM

                  …and by ‘peer reviewers’, he means cheerleaders.

            • model94 August 7, 2017 at 6:38 PM

              Exactly right. In my mind “climate science credentials” are a big negative. It requires (excuse me) political whoring to make a living at it

            • LTJ August 28, 2017 at 12:07 PM

              And what if I’m I’m a magical rainbow-colored unicorn who’s calling you on your claim?

              • adam_s_0625 September 3, 2017 at 10:00 PM

                Please, Mr. Unicorn, do point us to a single experiment that proves the correlation between CO2 and warming of the biosphere. Hint: you cannot … because it does not exist. What you have is circumstantial evidence that could be caused by AGW or natural causes. You do not have definitive proof of how much is AGW and how much is natural. All you have is a political agenda that looks at science through magical, rainbow-colored glasses and cries, “Wolf!!”

                Best to leave the deep end of the intellectual pool. You’re in WAY over your head.

                • LTJ September 4, 2017 at 2:21 AM

                  The high school science that you failed is merely “circumstantial evidence”?

                  Many, many studies have been undertaken; the issue here is finding an explanation simple enough for even you to follow.

                  Will this do? http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/grnhse.html

                  BTW, kudos on the subtly admitting that your claim of being a scientist was a brilliantly ridiculous ruse.

                  • adam_s_0625 September 8, 2017 at 4:30 PM

                    Not even close. Attempting to trot out a theoretical explanation for an as yet unproven theory and assuming it’s undeniable is just what we would expect from those pushing a political agenda. There has been NO experiment conducted on the effect of CO2 on the Earth’s biosphere. All of the variables cannot even be said to be known, the signs of certain variables are still being debated, and the atmosphere’s sensitivity to CO2 has a ridiculous error margin. The models do not agree with observation. And there is no credible explanation for the noticeable rise in temp 191x-194x (when CO2 was flat), the pause in temp 194x-197x (when CO2 began to rise), and the current pause in temp (200x-present, with noticeable rise in CO2, and acknowledged by many recognized alarmists). No, you’re the type that has Feynman rolling in his grave. We’re done here.

                    • LTJ September 8, 2017 at 4:41 PM

                      You’re done because you know you’ve answered with more unsubstantiated drivel. There is no lack of theoretical explanations for the few real issues you’ve mentioned – many of which have acheived concensus.

                      But not all your issues are real: your “current pause” claim is a blatant and dangerous lie. Each of the last three years surpassed the previous annual high temperature records – the last two, year-over-year by a wide margin.

                    • Immortal600 September 19, 2017 at 10:04 AM

                      You’ve been schooled, fool. Too dumb to realize it, too !!

                    • LTJ September 19, 2017 at 10:11 AM

                      Thanks for that insightful contribution. Clearly, I must ponder your well-structured argument for a millisecond or two.

                    • Immortal600 September 19, 2017 at 10:13 AM

                      Sorry if the truth hurts. LOL

          • Jeremy Poynton July 26, 2017 at 10:49 AM

            Mann’s paper has been discounted and battered by many within the profession. Suggest you get Steyn’s book which deals with this; also talk to Steve McIntyre over at Climate Audit, who, whilst not a climate scientist is a tip top statistician – he’s pulled his paper to pieces on numerous grounds.

            • Ian5 July 27, 2017 at 1:02 AM

              Why would you suggest Steyn’s book? Mr. Steyn has no scientific credentials whatsoever. Likewise former mining executive Steve McIntyre – no climate science background whatsoever.

              • Steven Woodcock August 25, 2017 at 2:20 PM

                Neither does Algore, and you probably have multiple copies of both of his books.

                • Ian5 August 28, 2017 at 9:55 PM

                  Silly deflection. The article is about Mann’s suit against Mark Steyn; it’s not about Al Gore.

          • Lima6 July 26, 2017 at 12:51 PM

            I don’t blindly trust anyone, scientist or otherwise. But Mann is a proven liar (see his now-retracted claim to have been a “Nobel Laureate,” among other things) and a well-known prevaricator (see “Mike’s Nature trick”). It’s difficult to understand how or why anyone in the climate science community places any confidence in Mann at this point.

          • Windy July 27, 2017 at 5:39 PM

            Mann has been debunked by top scientists. That’s enough for this layman.

            • Ian5 July 27, 2017 at 10:49 PM

              Untrue statement. His conclusions are consistent with the current scientific literature. Why not inform yourself of the science, evidence and implications of climate change: https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

              • Steven Woodcock August 17, 2017 at 8:01 PM

                If you’re saying his work is sound, why did he refuse to release his data?

                • Ian5 August 17, 2017 at 10:09 PM

                  Yet another silly myth manufactured by disinformation professionals.

                  • Steven Woodcock August 18, 2017 at 6:25 PM

                    I’m sorry, are you claiming he DID release his information?

                    SWEET! Please point me at it.

                    • Ian5 August 18, 2017 at 7:27 PM

                      Hi Steven, here you go: http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/Mann/tools/tools.php

                      Scroll down to bottom…the page also includea links to data that inform his research on “Proxy-Based Reconstructions of Hemispheric and Global Surface Temperature Variations over the Past Two Millennia”

                    • Steven Woodcock August 19, 2017 at 6:42 PM

                      I asked for NEW information, not regurgitated old information using the same discredited temperature “adjustments”.

                      If that’s what he’s relying on,he should probably just admit guilt now.

                    • Ian5 August 21, 2017 at 10:22 PM

                      Discredited? By who? And why is it that his findings are consistent with the positions of virtually every US and international scientific academy?

                    • Steven Woodcock August 22, 2017 at 1:50 PM

                      Discredited by any real scientist showing how his data has been manipulated. I know true believers won’t be swayed of course, which is more the pity.

                      Argument from authority is just argument from ignorance. That’s taking the side of the Catholic Church against Galileo.

                    • Ian5 August 22, 2017 at 11:53 PM

                      “Argument from authority is just argument from ignorance.”

                      Incorrect comparison. Argumentum ad Verecundiam is an argument from an inappropriate authority — an appeal to an “authority” outside the authority’s special field of expertise. Appeals to legitimate bodies and experts is a perfectly admissible form of inductive argument.

                      Dr. Ball`s positions on climate change and those of the silly “Friends of Science” are diametrically opposed with the positions of NASA, NOAA, British Atmospheric Data Centre, Environment Canada, IPCC, National Academy of Sciences, American Meteorological Society, American Geophysical Union and virtually every US and international scientific academy. On what basis do you reject this position?

                    • Steven Woodcock August 25, 2017 at 2:19 PM

                      No,that’s exactly spot on. You just don’t like the facts that the “supposed 97%” (it’s really more like 5%) are falling back to that as a defense.

                      What do you think about this little gem? Just this week as it happens:

                      https://phys.org/news/2017-08-pair-global-natural.html

                      I assume you’re in the process of slamming those those researchers as evil oil-funded stooges?

                      (Wait…didn’t Algore make most of his money of late from the oil barons over in the Middle East?

                    • Ian5 August 28, 2017 at 9:50 PM

                      “it’s really more like 5%”

                      >> A made up number based on no evidence whatsoever. Unsubstantiated rubbish. You are good at that.

                      “What do you think about this little gem? ”

                      >> A single article in an obscure and shortly-to-be-discontinued journal doesn’t undermine decades and decades of climate science and mountains of evidence generated by multiple, independent lines of science. And Marohasy is a well-known contrarian. Doesn’t change a thing.

                    • Steven Woodcock September 7, 2017 at 7:13 PM

                      Wow…phys.org is a “shortly to be discontinued” journal?

                      Fascinating. I guess your bible is HuffPo and NPR then, if phys.org isn’t to your liking.

                      Okay. Go in peace, namaste, etc.

              • robmanzoni August 20, 2017 at 3:21 AM

                “…His [Mann’s] conclusions are consistent with the current scientific literature…”
                That’s because the “current scientific literature” is riddled with Mann’s fraudulent papers; and with those of his equally-dishonest peers.

                • Ian5 August 21, 2017 at 9:50 PM

                  “Both Mann and Nature are deserving of the strongest condemnation for this”

                  According to what authority and on what basis? You and Tony Heller? Please stop intentionally misleading readers with your silly, misinformed conspiracy theories that have no factual basis whatsoever.

                  • robmanzoni August 22, 2017 at 1:20 AM

                    “…According to what authority and on what basis?…”
                    Hi Michael…
                    The fact that you ask such an obviously ignorant question shows your true trollish intentions – to force a dialogue with those who see through you; and who’ve witnessed your effective bullying of peers like Briffa into complying not with the scientific method – but with what YOU want the data to show.
                    Well, I won’t waste any more time with you. We know who you are; and I won’t take your disgusting bait…

                    • Ian5 August 22, 2017 at 10:45 AM

                      You made an outrageous statement that you are unwilling to substantiate. I am calling you on it.

        • prometheus11 July 26, 2017 at 9:33 PM

          Exactly right. He should Mann up and confess that his hockey stick is more political schtick than science. We’ll forgive him if he does. Otherwise he’ll probably be denounced as a witch and burnt at the stake if he doesn’t.

          • stephen duval September 16, 2017 at 9:30 AM

            How about adding a little science to the discussion.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtHreJbr2WM

            1) Every year the temperature swings about 60 degrees F. We are supposedly in a crisis because the temp rose 1.4F (.8C) over 100 years.

            2) Greenland ice core data shows stable temperature for 10,000 years varying between 14-16C. The alarmist scare is based upon the thermometer temperature record that covers only 150 years or part of the current warm period that is unremarkable relative to the last 10,000 years.

            3) Water vapor accounts for 75% of the greenhouse effect, CO2 for 19%. Man made CO2 emissions account for 1-2% of CO2 emissions.

            4) The greenhouse effect of CO2 is exponentially reducing. From 0 to 20 ppm it is 1.5C. From 380 to 400 ppm, it is less than .05C.

            5) From 1960 to today, CO2 ppm has increased steadily. From 1960 to 1980 temp decreased, from 1980 – 2000 temp increased, from 2000 – today temp has been stable.

            6) Temperature predictions made by the global climate models are wrong and getting worse with every passing year.

            7) Sea level increased 8 inches in the 19th and 20th century. It is likely to do the same in the 21st. Even if the Arctic melts, it is only 2% of the ice and it wont increase sea level because it is floating. Antarctica with 90% of the global ice is adding 8 inches of ice per year. During WW2 some airplanes crash landed in Greenland, recently they were found under 268 feet of ice.

            8) 150 years ago at 280 ppm CO2, we were dangerously close to a mass extinction (plants start to die at 180 ppm). The increase in CO2 to 400 ppm has led to increased food production and the greening of the planet.

            • prometheus11 September 16, 2017 at 1:46 PM

              Thank you for the science exercise. But the political forces pushing climate change are not interested in what you have to say. They’re simply using cooked up scientific data to hoodwink governments tino going along. Cutting CO2 emissions will not lower temperatures but that is not the intention. Oh sure, the Union of Concerned Scientist and other climate changers are spewing out the best models EPA money can buy. But, if the scandal at East Anglia U. taught us anything, it taught us that the political forces behind climate change and global warming don’t give a damn about truth or falsehood. They have one obsession. That is to massively reduce global population by 6 billion people. This is the objective of the current household that rules the British Empire. To drive my point home, I refer to the Copenhagen Conference on CO2. After it failed to get other nations to go along with cutting fossil fuel production, British Queen Elizabeth and her representatives began to intensify their efforts to broaden the message on the need to cut carbon emissions. This explains how and why Hans Schellnhuber, Knights Commander of the British Empire, became the advisor to Pope Francis on Climate Change. Schellnhuber wrote the draft on Climate Change that ended up in the Pope’s Encyclical, Laudato Si. Until very recently, Schellnhuber’s website represented his crazy views on the need to drastically reduce global population levels. Among his statements he said ” the carrying capacity of the planet is 1 billion people.” When he was confronted with this statement, he denied he said it. But it was posted on his website until he took it down. This guy has been a mouthpiece for action on cutting population for a long time. Cutting CO2 emissions by shutting down fossil fuels is just another way to reach the intended objective.. Before you tell me there is no such thing any longer as the British Empire, reflect for a moment on Obama’s alternative energy agenda. And then Clinton’s announcement of ending all US coal production if elected. Who influenced their decisions?
              Is it coincidence that Obama’s and Clinton’s policies on energy were the same? And they matched the objectives of the British Empire? She and Obama may not know why they were doing it, but they were adopting the energy policies that met the objectives of the British Imperial system.
              Confronted with this fraud, you, me, and millions of others, some of whom practice real science, are in full rejection mode. Right? Reams of Scientific data that prove Climate Change is not man made, have been recorded and reported on. But because the British are absolutely determined to achieve their objectives, regardless of the reams of realistic scientific data, it means nothing to them. What they intend to do in the next 20 to 100 years, is to massively reduce population to the often stated 1 billion people That’s what they intend and they will not stop until they are stopped! This is the real issue, not who has the correct data. It is a fight for civilization and it has to be fought and won by destroying the British Empire. And also by increasing the energy flux density of the Biosphere through producing higher forms of energy with 4th generation nuclear fission plants while creating a crash program to build commercial fusion.

              • stephen duval September 19, 2017 at 9:36 PM

                There is a lot that you write that I could agree with.

                Especially the anti human Green movement’s desire to reduce the population by about 6 billion people.

                However, the source of the anti human ideology is the Green/Left rather than the British Empire which may have been a force to be reckoned with before WW2, but not now.

                • prometheus11 September 20, 2017 at 8:51 AM

                  The hat salesman who walked into the oval office after FDR died was in the grips of Wall Street bankers. The likes of which were responsible for funding Hitler’s rise to power. Wall is and has always been an outpost of the British Empire. After WWII the Empire identified itself as the Commonwealth of nations. While no longer a landed aristocracy, the British Imperial financial system functions much like the Roman Empire that came before it. The Anglo-Dutch imperial system was folded into what became the British Empire after the defeat of France in the seven years war. It is the same financial system of usury that rules international financial markets and cartels today. It has an American side to it that functions from Wall Street bankng. Individuals such as George Soros function as operatives for the British Foreign Office. Soros’s Open Society for instance is used to destabilize governments that have been targeted by the British for regime change. Soros pumped billions in the coup in Ukraine to destabilize Russia. The British have prized Russia as the crown jewel from which to dominate the world. Yes there is a long history to it and mastering it helps one to understand the nature of our chief enemy, the British Empire.

                  • getitright October 5, 2017 at 1:33 PM

                    “Soros pumped billions in the coup in Ukraine to destabilize Russia.”

                    How’s that working for him?

                    • R. Kooi December 18, 2017 at 7:55 PM

                      Legit source please?

                  • Wake December 9, 2017 at 2:32 PM

                    Socialists like you certainly are funny. No matter what happens in the world you can find a “corporation” to blame it on. YOU drive a car. You buy gasoline. The government makes 10 times as much per gallon of gasoline than the oil companies do but you somehow believe that the oil companies are working against “a green earth”. When it is drawn out in front of you that electric cars actually generate MORE CO2 than gasoline cars do you STILL don’t believe it and tell us that Tesla is the wave of the future. But the fact that Tesla is a corporation doesn’t register on your extremely slow thinking process. You are so incredibly stupid you don’t even know what Wall St. is or how it works but since people are making money off of it it MUST be evil right? All you need is the floppy shoes and the red nose to complete your costume.

                    • R. Kooi December 18, 2017 at 7:54 PM

                      ODD, REALLY ODD…how you jump from science to NAME CALLING ….”SOCIALISTS”

                      WEREN’T you the one claiming to be a scientist????

                      HMMMMMM!

                      Something is rotten in Denmark !

                    • stephen duval December 23, 2017 at 2:17 AM

                      Watermellons: Green on the outside, red on the inside.

                • prometheus11 September 20, 2017 at 10:53 AM

                  cont’d….the green movement began with the export of Prince Philip’s WWF to America in 1962. The boomer generation was deliberately drugged up by CIA MK-ULTRA. LSD proliferation on the college campuses was accomplished in part by Ken Kesey and his Merry Pranksters bus tour from college campus to college campus handing out free LSD laced cool-aid. Timothy Leary and other counter-culture Gurus were also instrumental in brain-washing an entire generation to tune in, drop acid and drop out of society. The British and their collaborators in the US who were associated with CIA funded Congress for Cultural Freedom, lit a match that set a generation on fire.
                  On the music side, Frankfurt School mind-bender and Tavistock collaborator, Theodore Adorno, was chiefly responsible for the Radio Music Project that originated “Rock Music.” To produce the sound he was looking for, Adorno studied African tribal music. He came up with a drum beat sound that would produce in the listener, the infantile emotion of a child “bed rocker.” Hence the name, “Rock Music.” This is all documented. In fact Adorno brags about it.
                  Look, the reason the post WWII boomer generation was targeted for paradigm culture change, was to break the bond between the boomers and the generations that preceded them. Because the generations that lived during WWII were committed to and identified with scientific and technological progress. They were production oriented. They had just won a world war by outproducing Germany 4 to 1 in logistics. Under Truman the British were able to chip away at the WWII production based system. For that, British monetarist Maynard Keynes was brought in to advise Truman. Monetary emission substituted capital intensive production. Within 10 years after WWII it blew up in their faces! The British knew they had to rip the boomers from their parents. They realized that if they were going to transform the US they would have to capture a generation to do it.
                  A new belief was manufacture. One that was anti-science and oriented around protecting the environment. You could say that the brain washing of the boomers into adopting the Rock-Drugs-Sex anti-science counter culture as their own was introduced on the Ed Sullivan Show by the British bank known as The Beatles. Do you find this preposterous? Then you don’t know about the history of the British Tavistock Institute. Look there and also at the beginnings of the WWF. Look into Adorno and the Frankfurt School. MK-ULTRA and Margaret Mead’s husband, Gregory Bateson who was part of that operation. Look into the Congress for Cultural Freedom. I’ll stop here. You have work to do

                  • stephen duval September 20, 2017 at 12:26 PM

                    You lost me there.

                  • R. Kooi December 19, 2017 at 9:37 PM

                    What utter nonsense.

                    1948 Donora smog – Wikipedia
                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Donora_smog

                    1948 Donora smog. The 1948 Donora smog was a historic air inversion that resulted in a wall of smog that killed 20 people and sickened 7,000 in Donora, Pennsylvania, a mill town on the Monongahela River, 24 miles (39 km) southeast of Pittsburgh. The event is commemorated by the Donora Smog Museum.

                    ****
                    For most of the century from 1850 to 1950, however, the primary environmental cause was the mitigation of air pollution.

                    The Coal Smoke Abatement Society was formed in 1898 making it one of the oldest environmental NGOs. It was founded by artist Sir William Blake Richmond, frustrated with the pall cast by coal smoke. Although there were earlier pieces of legislation, the Public Health Act 1875 required all furnaces and fireplaces to consume their own smoke.
                    John Ruskin an influential thinker who articulated the Romantic ideal of environmental protection and conservation

                    Systematic and general efforts on behalf of the environment only began in the late 19th century; it grew out of the amenity movement in Britain in the 1870s, which was a reaction to industrialization, the growth of cities, and worsening air and water pollution. Starting with the formation of the Commons Preservation Society in 1865, the movement championed rural preservation against the encroachments of industrialisation. Robert Hunter, solicitor for the society, worked with Hardwicke Rawnsley, Octavia Hill, and John Ruskin to lead a successful campaign to prevent the construction of railways to carry slate from the quarries, which would have ruined the unspoilt valleys of Newlands and Ennerdale. This success led to the formation of the Lake District Defence Society (later to become The Friends of the Lake District).[15]

                    In 1893 Hill, Hunter and Rawnsley agreed to set up a national body to coordinate environmental conservation efforts across the country; the “National Trust for Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty” was formally inaugurated in 1894.[16] The organisation obtained secure footing through the 1907 National Trust Bill, which gave the trust the status of a statutory corporation.[17] and the bill was passed in August 1907.[18]

                    An early “Back-to-Nature” movement, which anticipated the romantic ideal of modern environmentalism, was advocated by intellectuals such as John Ruskin, William Morris, and Edward Carpenter, who were all against consumerism, pollution and other activities that were harmful to the natural world.[19] The movement was a reaction to the urban conditions of the industrial towns, where sanitation was awful, pollution levels intolerable and housing terribly cramped. Idealists championed the rural life as a mythical Utopia and advocated a return to it. John Ruskin argued that people should return to a small piece of English ground, beautiful, peaceful, and fruitful. We will have no steam engines upon it . . . we will have plenty of flowers and vegetables . . . we will have some music and poetry; the children will learn to dance to it and sing it.[20]

                    Practical ventures in the establishment of small cooperative farms were even attempted and old rural traditions, without the “taint of manufacture or the canker of artificiality”, were enthusiastically revived, including the Morris dance and the maypole.[21]
                    Original title page of Walden by Henry David Thoreau

                    The movement in the United States began in the late 19th century, out of concerns for protecting the natural resources of the West, with individuals such as John Muir and Henry David Thoreau making key philosophical contributions. Thoreau was interested in peoples’ relationship with nature and studied this by living close to nature in a simple life. He published his experiences in the book Walden, which argues that people should become intimately close with nature. Muir came to believe in nature’s inherent right, especially after spending time hiking in Yosemite Valley and studying both the ecology and geology. He successfully lobbied congress to form Yosemite National Park and went on to set up the Sierra Club in 1892.

                    • prometheus11 December 19, 2017 at 9:55 PM

                      Look backward to the turn of the century. Progress has been in every field of science. The air is cleaner. The waters are purer. And the national parks are protected. The problem is, no new cites are being built along rivers and tributaries West of the Mississippi, where new cities would flourish. I have been to Central and North Africa and I can tell you, the first thing that comes to mind is, Africa isn’t over populated, it’s underdeveloped. But with modern technology and great projects, such as the Transaqua Lake Chad project and the Nigerian Oasis Plan, Africa can leap frog to the 21st century.

                    • R. Kooi December 19, 2017 at 10:08 PM

                      You say:
                      “The air is cleaner.”

                      but that is
                      THANKS to legislation at the federal level, regulating emissions that cross state lines, which 1 state cannot enforce.
                      ***
                      You say:
                      “The waters are purer.”
                      but that is
                      THANKS to legislation at the federal level, regulating dumping like emissions that cross state lines, which 1 state cannot enforce.

                      1 state cannot afford the Hundreds of millions required to sue to correct
                      dumping and pollution from international conglomerates.

                    • prometheus11 December 20, 2017 at 8:27 AM

                      Most sane people want all three. Therefore the majority of Americans support Government regulations that put a check on the excesses of corporations that may try to circumvent the law to save money. One such company was Dow chemical. Dow became so powerful during the 60’s that they got away with murder, literally! Agent Orange and napalm were two of Dow’s killer creations. And the US government was complicit in it.

                      Flint, Michigan’s is another example. The polluting of it’s water supply is another example of saving money at the expense of human life. But in this case it was city, state and federal governments that were responsible. And it happened on the greenest of green president’s watch. Because it was Obama’s EPA that signed off on allowing lead contaminated Detroit river water to flow into Flint’s main water supply system. But unfortunately, only lower level managers were punished. The Michigan governor and Obama’s EPA secretary should have been held accountable for the human suffering it caused.

                      My point is this. There is a role for government to play in the affairs of our nation. And in order for progress to continue In the interests of our people, we need Good government. One that protects and obeys the principal of promoting the General Welfare of our citizens, and all that that implies. I believe this president, President Trump, is dedicated to that principle.

                    • R. Kooi December 20, 2017 at 10:01 AM

                      The EPA didn’t sign off on the FLINT ISSUE at all.
                      OBAMA didn’t sign off on the FLINT ISSUE at all.

                      THAT decision was made in 2014.
                      The EPA was not consulted until 2015 when IT’S Laboratory
                      proved the STATE Republican Administration was lying.
                      ****
                      “….

                      FLINT, MI — A U.S. Environmental Protection Agency official who sounded a dire warning about toxic lead in Flint’s drinking water seven months ago says he couldn’t believe the water wasn’t being treated to make it less corrosive to lead service lines and indoor plumbing.

                      “I was stunned when I found out they did not have corrosion control in place,” Miguel A. Del Toral, regulations manager in the EPA’s ground water and drinking water branch, said in an interview with The Flint Journal-MLive today, Jan. 21, 2016.

                      “In my head, I didn’t believe that. I thought: That can’t be true…that’s so basic. That’s not possible.”

                      Del Toral wrote an interim report on high levels of lead in Flint water on June 24, 2015, months after other EPA officials had warned the state Department of Environmental Quality that the chemistry of Flint River water was appeared to be causing transmission pipes to leach contaminants such as lead into the water supply….”

                      THE EPA cannot force a state, except in certain SPECIFIC circumstances.

                    • Wake December 22, 2017 at 1:20 PM

                      “FLINT MICHIGAN’S WATER/LEAD catastrophe had next to nothing to do with the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT…..”

                      Excuse me??? The EPA rather than treating poisonous and corrosive water in mines put off this treatment so long that the dams holding this water in finally broke and dumped all of this junk into the Flint river. For awhile the corruption in this river was so strong that the river ran yellow.

                      In the meantime as had been expected Flint had to shut off their water supply from Lake Huron in order to complete a new and more reliable water supply pipeline.

                      Flint was FORCED to use Flint River water which was still brimming full with corrosive acids from the untreated mine water that was not still pouring into the river upstream from Flint.

                      These corrosives burned the insides of the very old city water system. Old water pipes were typically lead and the lead oxide would seal the inside surfaces so that lead wasn’t released into the water running through the system. Most of the old cities on the east coast are exactly the same.

                      The corrosives that the EPA (in case you are unaware of it that is a Federal Government Agency) allowed to drain into the river burned the inside of the city water system and released heavy lead contamination into the city water supply.

                      People who are unaware of what conditions in this country were before WW II think that everything is new and beautiful and that local governments should somehow tear billions of dollars in piping out and replace it with plastic whose long term effects are unknown.

                      My belief is that these people saying this should be taxed for every city service replacement charges. Or as Ceasar said, “Give the masses what they want” and charge them for every single thing.

                    • R. Kooi December 22, 2017 at 3:39 PM

                      THAT does not even remotely resemble the truth…..UNLESS INVITED into a mine issue…the EPA cannot take action.

                      SUPPLY a source for that TALL TALE about the mines the EPA was supposedly involved with????

                      SINCE the EPA has been under attack for petty REPUBLICAN PARTY REASONS….has had its budgets routinely restricted… I am not surprised if they couldn’t do every thing at the same time to stop

                      industrial & mining abuses…….
                      BUT I WANT TO SEE YOUR SOURCE !

                      YOUR chronology of events is PURE FICTION….pulled right out of your ars.

                      Most old cities…like flint used to do…add chemical to prevent leaching of lead into the water.
                      THAT TOO is not an EPA issue until invited into it……that invite came in 2015…thought the kids were being poisoned since 2014.

                    • Wake December 22, 2017 at 5:14 PM

                      You are a clown. I don’t supply a “source” to morons unable to do a simple google search. What you have shown is that you do not know what happened and why. But you are spending an extraordinary amount of time talking about it from a position of absolute ignorance.

                    • stephen duval December 23, 2017 at 2:15 AM

                      You skipped over Hitler. He was a big environmentalist.

                    • R. Kooi December 24, 2017 at 12:43 PM

                      NOT RELEVANT….meant simply to incite. F. YOU !

                  • Wake December 22, 2017 at 12:36 PM

                    The CIA or any other government agency had nothing to do with LSD. It wasn’t even illegal at the time. There were LSD labs springing up on every campus just like today they are making false opiates that can kill you with a single dose. These college people had a sharp drop in IQ and a complete lapse of direction. I had people telling me that it was completely harmless as they, a year later, committed suicide. A large part of the “green movement” today act exactly like those drugged out people so I suspect that it causes DNA damage that in inheritable. Look at the reactions of R. Kooi and LTJ. From a position of complete ignorance they are trying to convince people of something that doesn’t exist. Even though this article is about Dr. Michael Mann about to be shown as a scammer they still have full faith in his attempt to gain more research grant money.

                    • prometheus11 December 22, 2017 at 1:02 PM

                      CIA MK-ULTRA Project. http://www.history.com/topics/history-of-mk-ultra

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

                      The Macy Conferences and the minds behind mind control. http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/index.php?topic=32643.0

                      Cultural engineering http://espionagecentral.50megs.com/whats_new_3.html

                      Richard Bandler and John Grinder developed NLP. CIA attended NLP workshops:

                      /r/Gangstalking/comments/3c41zp/cia_and_military_hired_cofounder_of_nlp_to_teach/

                      Gregory Bateson was a guest teacher at Esalen Institute. “Bandler and Grinder also drew upon theories of Gregory Bateson, Alfred Korzybski and Noam Chomsky, particularly transformational grammar,[20][23][24] as well as ideas and techniques from Carlos Castaneda.[25]”

                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuro-linguistic_programming

                      “Background and origination of NLP The ideas and approach found in NLP draw from two main areas of thought. The first is cybernetics, a cross-disciplinary view of how systems are organised based on feedback that was developed in the 1940’s and 1950’s, and in which another major influence on NLP, Gregory Bateson, was a core figure. The founders of NLP, Bandler and Grinder, echo central principles of cybernetics when they say that `the basic unit of analysis in face-to-face communication is the feedback loop’ (Bandler & Grinder 1979:2).

                      The second area of thought is the work of the Palo Alto Mental Research Institute in the 1960s, in which Bateson again was involved. Significantly, the Palo Alto researchers emphasised the pragmatics of human communication, which also characterises NLP, and constructivism, which is the idea that people cannot know `reality’ as such, so inevitably they act according to constructions that they create.”

                      http://www.anlp.org/background-and-origination-of-nlp

                      “The NLP Logical Levels of Change Model, inspired by Gregory Bateson and developed by the pioneers of Neuro-Linguistic Programming is very helpful in designing an action plan for change. The Stages of Change give us a general road map of the process of change — a process that has a beginning, a middle, and an outcome……..

                      Gregory Bateson, a well known cultural anthropologist, pointed out that in the processes of learning, change, and communication there were natural hierarchies.”

                      http://www.internet-of-the-mind.com/nlp_logical_levels.html

                      /r/Gangstalking/comments/3c4jsv/gregory_bateson_and_the_countercu

                      http://conspiracyinsider.blogspot.com/2012/06/nlp-conspiracy
                      http://www.tranceworks.com/roots.htm

                      Gregory Bateson

                      “Although initially reluctant to join the intelligence services, Bateson served in OSS during World War II along with dozens of other anthropologists.[19] He spent much of the war designing ‘black propaganda’ radio broadcasts. He was deployed on covert operations in Burma and Thailand, and worked in China, India, and Ceylon as well. Bateson used his theory of schismogenesis to help foster discord among enemy fighters.”

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

                • Wake December 8, 2017 at 5:41 PM

                  stephen – that is the largest danger of the global warming True Believers. They would have power generation cut off for the entire world. They believe man to be a cancer on the Earth and that murdering tens of millions of Chinese and Indians nothing more than a better life for themselves. This was PRECISELY the language that Margaret Sanger used to found Planned Parenthood and this is the same drive behind the “environmentalists” that are trying to press for the USA to remain in the Paris Accord – which said that ONLY the USA had to do anything until after 2020. Of course the rest of the world was for shutting down the US economy so that they could accelerate their own.

                  • Ian5 December 9, 2017 at 1:16 AM

                    Noting that Stephen’s silly, misinformed position on climate change is diametrically opposed to the positions of virtually every US and international scientific academy including NASA, National Academy of Sciences, American Meteorological Society, NOAA, British Atmospheric Data Centre, Environment Canada, IPCC and the American Geophysical Union.

                    • Charles Tery December 13, 2017 at 11:05 AM

                      Explain Gina McCarthy Senate hearing in Jan 16 17 2014. After lengthy obfuscation she admitted there has been no temp increase over the past decade. After her embarrassment the SPA, MISS and NASA fabricated the Temperature Anomaly. The Temp Anomaly has not been defined. Those agencies refuse to explain why they went from Global Mean Tempetature to the Temp Anomaly. Cleary there is no science to support the Temp Anomaly.

                    • R. Kooi December 19, 2017 at 9:16 PM

                      VERIFY from a reliable source !!!!

                      Because I just completed reading her testimony
                      and
                      YOUR COMMENT APPEARS to be a TOTAL FICTION.
                      .
                      If you Read the Daily Caller, you will remember the HEADLINE, a few days ago…
                      .
                      THERE HAS BEEN NO ACCELERATION !
                      in this ONGOING GLOBAL WARMING EVENT !

                      THERE has been NO “PAUSE”
                      .
                      THERE has been NO “HIATUS”
                      .
                      THERE sure as hell been NO “COOLING” !

                    • Charles Tery December 19, 2017 at 9:31 PM

                      Former Obama administration EPA Secretary Gina McCarthy is not a reliable source during her Senate Testimony?

                    • R. Kooi December 19, 2017 at 10:01 PM

                      So just above you say she said there was NO temperature increase
                      and she was worthy of quoting.
                      BUT
                      NOW
                      YOU KNOW that even DAILY CALLER isn’t covering up the Temperature Increases…..
                      NOW, McCarthy is no longer reliable and quote worthy..

                      DESPERATE MUCH?

                    • R. Kooi December 20, 2017 at 8:32 PM

                      PROVE YOU DEPICTION of your testimony is TRUE ! ! ! !

                    • Charles Tery December 20, 2017 at 9:00 PM

                      Google Gina McCarthy Senate Testimony with Senator Sessions. You’ll see lots of hearings where Gina can’t answer or when she does it contradicts global warming.

                    • R. Kooi December 20, 2017 at 9:10 PM

                      YOU LIED !
                      YOU CLAIMED SHE SAID there was NO change in temperatures world wide….that is a damnable lie !
                      NOW
                      YOU
                      ARE TRYING
                      TO CHANGE
                      THE SUBJECT
                      from
                      your
                      lie !!!

                    • Charles Tery December 20, 2017 at 9:21 PM

                      I can see you never looked it up. Typical of a Brown SHIRT

                    • R. Kooi December 21, 2017 at 2:46 PM

                      WHERE IS YOUR PROOF!

                      She N EVER “admitted there has been no temp increase”
                      in fact quite the opposite is true.

                      I read the damn testimony….YOUR COMMENT IS A LIE !

                      “after her embarrassment the SPA, MISS and NASA fabricated the Temperature Anomaly”
                      is similarly a lie !

                      SEVERAL NATIONS have Satellites, Digital Weather Balloon launches etc…that have constantly challenged and then verified the Temperature Increases.

                      YOU LIE !

                      Dr. John Christy … on the story in DAILY CALLER… actually admitted TEMPERATURE INCREASES AROUND THE GLOBE …. saying there has been NO ACCELLERATION…
                      in the ongoing warming of the earth.

                    • Charles Tery December 21, 2017 at 6:44 PM
                    • Robert December 22, 2017 at 1:39 PM

                      Sen Jeff Sessions made the claim. As his time ran out.
                      McCarthy basically did an eye roll.

                      https://www.c-span.org/video/?317244-1/administration-defends-climate-change-plan&start=8475 about 2:21 in from start of hearing, but this should be the comment.

                    • Charles Tery December 22, 2017 at 6:03 PM

                      Clearly you didn’t view my link Gina was threatened with contempt of Congress after that she did in fact state there has been no increase in Global Temperature over the past decade.

                    • Robert December 22, 2017 at 6:16 PM

                      Your link seems to have disappeared. The video proceedings are a 5 hr video. There is a closed caption search available on site. Avail youself of it and send the results.
                      Just as I did to show the lawerly trick pulled by the then Sen. Sessions

                    • Charles Tery December 22, 2017 at 6:28 PM

                      Nope it’s still there you’re just too obtuse to see it.

                    • Robert December 22, 2017 at 7:49 PM

                      Oh, I see. Instead of just redoing it, or linking to your comment which has the link, you’ve found it better to insult.

                      However, I did find your link ( ) and as I stated, it is a 5 hr viv. Actually, 5:42.

                      You didn’t quote McCarthy, you didn’t cite when in the proceedings it was said

                      Which, if you’d tried that in a 6th grade or higher research report, would have brought an ‘F’.

                      “0 points
                      Created citations which were incomplete or inaccurate, and provided no way to check the validity of the information gathered.
                      Failed to use information ethically.”

                      https://www2.uwstout.edu/content/profdev/rubrics/middlelschresearchrubric.html

                      And climate science denialists want to be taken seriously…..

                    • R. Kooi December 22, 2017 at 6:33 PM

                      PROVIDE A SPECIFIC SITE for this damnable lie

                    • Robert December 22, 2017 at 8:05 PM

                      First, you haven’t adequately supported your assertion of what was said.

                      Second, your wording implies Issa did the threatening after making this statement you claim.

                      Here’s a rather fuller account, with quotes, of the that part of the proceedings

                      https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060001953

                      And note that McCarthy is not quoted there about saying anything like that.

                      Third, I haven’t found a source quoting McCarthy saying anything similar to your assertion. It flies in the face of logic that McCarthy would.

                      So. From here, all I’m seeing is someone who can’t support their claims and jumps to insulting rather than doing so.

                    • Robert December 22, 2017 at 8:12 PM

                      “…agencies refuse to explain…”
                      First question
                      https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/faq/

                      “..not been defined”
                      First question
                      https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/faq/

                      Need more help?
                      Penultimate question
                      https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/faq/

                    • Wake December 27, 2017 at 10:20 AM

                      The NASA temperature records have been kept and the changes in them have been recorded. Now it is always possible for these changes to have been made for newly found reasons to correct the record. But that isn’t what occurred – the records were changed with every reading rising in the same percentage. This occurred at least two times. So on the records of those who kept copies of the temperature records we have the original records and two rises. We have had “the hottest year ever” business and then when you look into it the “rise” in temperature is one tenth the error margin. So THAT is all an F-ing lie as well.

                      The fact is that this is all big business and the money trail was published by Forbes long ago. https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/08/23/the-alarming-cost-of-climate-change-hysteria/#33a854957ebb

                      We’ve watched as Ian and LTJ have constantly lied about this stuff because as members of the Church of Global Warming it is their duty to lie about it. Too bad neither of them has the slightest training in science and make up for it with “but Dr. Mann says”.

                    • Ian5 December 27, 2017 at 2:42 PM

                      Posts silly link to a 6- year-old rubbish article written by a well-known climate contrarian and disinformation professional. Larry Bell has no climate science credentials whatsoever. Hasn’t published a single scientific journal article on the topic. Absolutely nothing. Yet you present him as an authority on the subject. Weak and deliberately misleading.

                    • Wake December 27, 2017 at 4:15 PM

                      I’ve been waiting for your credentials to have the capacity to judge anyone about anything. Judging from your other postings I wonder how you can feed yourself. It is DR. Larry Bell and you are, as far as I can tell, not even a high school graduate. People who have received a doctorate can generally deal with statistics and data. You certainly cannot.

                    • Ian5 December 27, 2017 at 6:45 PM

                      Dr. Larry Bell? And who might he be? if you are referring to the Larry Bell that authored the silly Forbes article that you cited upthread, that Larry Bell does not have a PhD, a fact easily verified. Moreover, he hasn’t published any peer-reviewed science on climate science or a related field. Nothing. Please stop intentionally trying to mislead readers.

                    • Wake December 27, 2017 at 7:02 PM

                      “I am a professor and endowed professor at the University of Houston where I founded and direct the Sasakawa International Center for Space Architecture and head the graduate program in space architecture. My background deals extensively with research, planning and design of habitats, structures and other support systems for applications in space and extreme environments on Earth. I have recently written a new book titled “Climate of Corruption: Politics and Power Behind the Global Warming Hoax”. It can be previewed and ordered at http://www.climateofcorruption.com. Additional information about my book and views can be found on my YouTube address: http://www.youtube.com/climateofcorruption.”

                      You simply are not capable of thought are you?

                    • Ian5 December 27, 2017 at 7:11 PM

                      Thanks for clarifying that Bell does not hold a PhD nor entitled to use the title “Dr. Bell” as you erroneously suggested above. Shameful dishonesty.

                    • LIBTARD December 29, 2017 at 3:46 AM

                      Bill Nye has no climate science credentials but he’s the face in public debates

                    • Ian5 December 29, 2017 at 3:53 AM

                      You don’t like Nye? Then take some initiative and review the science.

                    • LIBTARD December 29, 2017 at 3:56 AM

                      I’m just calling you out for your hypocrisy. Why should I believe hypocrites , like you and Nye and other like minded libtards?

                    • Ian5 December 29, 2017 at 4:06 AM

                      No its only hypocrisy in your imagination. Once again, go educate yourself and come back and tell us what you learned: https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

                    • LIBTARD December 29, 2017 at 4:07 AM

                      You didn’t deny Nye doesn’t have any science credentials. Thanks for the validation.

                    • LIBTARD December 29, 2017 at 3:57 AM

                      Answer me this Einstein. Is it global warming or regional warming ?

                      Be careful how you answer. Lol

                    • Ian5 December 29, 2017 at 4:03 AM

                      Start by educating yourself, then come back and tell us what you learned: https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

                    • LIBTARD December 29, 2017 at 4:05 AM

                      You can’t answer. LOL.

                      Wow, you folded faster than I thought you would.

                    • Robert December 27, 2017 at 7:47 PM

                      Your post would have some veracity if you actually quoted and cited McCarthy saying that. Ideally, since it was a hearing, there could be a vid.
                      So. Why not do as even the average 6th grader does routinely, and bring documentation and supporting details to your claim?

                    • Wake December 20, 2017 at 4:56 PM

                      Circa 1985 ALL truth about the climate was no longer available. Of COURSE most of the world’s scientific community could “agree” with the NASA assessment because it was an attempt to hobble the US production engine that control most of the world’s production. NO ONE ELSE in the world was required to do ANYTHING. Only the US. This gave each and every government progressively more and more power. And the investment community decided that they could also get rich quick by selling carbon credits.

                      If you don’t have the brains that God gave a goat then I suggest you stay out of conversations you know nothing about or even worse are nothing more than a paid shill.

                    • R. Kooi December 20, 2017 at 8:37 PM

                      What an absurdly asinine comment…even for YOU !

                      Explain the 1958 Scientific Community Report to President Eisenhower…warning of the MASSIVE pumping of TOXIC WASTE GASES into the atmosphere for over 100 years…and the threat of Global Climate Changes.

                      Explain the 1965 Scientific Community Report to President Johnson…warning even more sternly of the THREAT of Global Warming and Climate changes.

                      1st a Fun Factoid:
                      “Glen Reese, Ph.D Physics, KSU
                      CO2 is So Small a Part of the Atmosphere ? ? ?
                      A small fraction of 5 x 10^18 kg of atmosphere is still a lot of CO2.
                      About 10^15 kg of CO2. If it was compressed into dry ice,
                      it would form a shell around the planet over 2 mm thick.
                      It’s enough to block a lot of IR radiation from escaping to space
                      in accordance with the Laws of Thermodynamics.

                      The Discovery of Global Warming January 2017

                      https://history.aip.org/climate/timeline.htm

                      Timeline (Milestones)

                      1800-1870
                      Level of carbon dioxide gas (CO2) in the atmosphere,
                      as later measured in ancient ice, is about 290 ppm (parts per million).
                      .
                      Mean global temperature (1850-1890) is roughly 13.7°C.
                      .
                      First Industrial Revolution. Coal, railroads, and land clearing speed up greenhouse gas emission, while better agriculture and sanitation speed up population growth.
                      1799
                      Alexander von Humboldt, Thomas Jefferson
                      Climate Change postulated because of Human Activities!
                      1824
                      Fourier calculates that the Earth would be FAR colder if it lacked an atmosphere. =>Simple models
                      1859
                      Tyndall discovers that some gases block infrared radiation. He suggests that changes in the concentration of the gases could bring climate change. =>Other gases
                      1896
                      Arrhenius publishes first calculation of global warming from human emissions of CO2. =>Simple models
                      1897
                      Chamberlin produces a model for global carbon exchange including feedbacks. =>Simple models
                      1870-1910
                      Second Industrial Revolution. Fertilizers and other chemicals, electricity, and public health further accelerate growth.
                      1914-1918
                      World War I; governments learn to mobilize and control industrial societies.
                      1920-1925
                      Opening of Texas and Persian Gulf oil fields inaugurates era of cheap energy.
                      1930s
                      Global warming trend since late 19th century reported. =>Modern temp’s
                      Milankovitch proposes orbital changes as the cause of ice ages. =>Climate cycles
                      1938
                      Callendar argues that CO2 greenhouse global warming is underway, reviving interest in the question. =>CO2 greenhouse
                      1939-1945
                      World War II. Military grand strategy is largely driven by a struggle to control oil fields.
                      1945
                      US Office of Naval Research begins generous funding of many fields of science, some of which happen to be useful for understanding climate change. =>Government
                      1956
                      Ewing and Donn offer a feedback model for quick ice age onset. =>Simple models
                      Phillips produces a somewhat realistic computer model of the global atmosphere. =>Models (GCMs)
                      Plass calculates that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will have a significant effect on the radiation balance. =>Radiation math
                      1957
                      Launch of Soviet Sputnik satellite. Cold War concerns support 1957-58 International Geophysical Year, bringing new funding and coordination to climate studies. =>International
                      Revelle finds that CO2 produced by humans will not be readily absorbed by the oceans. =>CO2 greenhouse
                      1958
                      AAAS delivers to President Eisenhower, a research report and Warning about Climate Changes caused by global warming and Industrial Gas/Chemical Emissions.
                      Telescope studies show a greenhouse effect raises temperature of the atmosphere of Venus far above the boiling point of water. =>Venus & Mars
                      1960
                      Mitchell reports downturn of global temperatures since the early 1940s.=>Modern temp’s
                      Keeling accurately measures CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere and detects an annual rise. =>CO2 greenhouse The level is 315 ppm. Mean global temperature (five-year average) is 13.9°C.
                      1962
                      Cuban Missile Crisis, peak of the Cold War.
                      1963
                      Calculations suggest that feedback with water vapor could make the climate acutely sensitive to changes in CO2 level. =>Radiation math
                      1965
                      American Association for the Advancement of Science delivers to President Johnson, Research Report & Warning, with Spot On accurate projections about Climate change for 2015.
                      Boulder, Colo. meeting on causes of climate change: Lorenz and others point out the chaotic nature of climate system and the possibility of sudden shifts. =>Chaos theory
                      1966
                      Emiliani’s analysis of deep-sea cores and Broecker’s analysis of ancient corals show that the timing of ice ages was set by small orbital shifts, suggesting that the climate system is sensitive to small changes. =>Climate cycles
                      1967
                      International Global Atmospheric Research Program established, mainly to gather data for better short-range weather prediction, but including climate. =>International
                      Manabe and Wetherald make a convincing calculation that doubling CO2 would raise world temperatures a couple of degrees. =>Radiation math
                      1968
                      Studies suggest a possibility of collapse of Antarctic ice sheets, which would raise sea levels catastrophically. =>Sea rise & ice
                      1969
                      Astronauts walk on the Moon, and people perceive the Earth as a fragile whole. =>Public opinion
                      Budyko and Sellers present models of catastrophic ice-albedo feedbacks. =>Simple models
                      Nimbus III satellite begins to provide comprehensive global atmospheric temperature measurements. =>Government
                      1970
                      First Earth Day. Environmental movement attains strong influence, spreads concern about global degradation. =>Public opinion
                      Creation of US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the world’s leading funder of climate research. =>Government
                      Aerosols from human activity are shown to be increasing swiftly. Bryson claims they counteract global warming and may bring serious cooling. =>Aerosols
                      1971
                      SMIC conference of leading scientists reports a danger of rapid and serious global change caused by humans, calls for an organized research effort. =>International
                      Mariner 9 spacecraft finds a great dust storm warming the atmosphere of Mars, plus indications of a radically different climate in the past.=>Venus & Mars
                      1972
                      Ice cores and other evidence show big climate shifts in the past between relatively stable modes in the space of a thousand years or so, especially around 11,000 years ago. =>Rapid change
                      Droughts in Africa, Ukraine, India cause world food crisis, spreading fears about climate change. =>Public opinion
                      1973
                      Oil embargo and price rise bring first “energy crisis”. =>Government
                      1974
                      Serious droughts since 1972 increase concern about climate, with cooling from aerosols suspected to be as likely as warming; scientists are doubtful as journalists talk of a new ice age.=>Public opinion
                      1975
                      Warnings about environmental effects of airplanes leads to investigations of trace gases in the stratosphere and discovery of danger to ozone layer. =>Other gases
                      Manabe and collaborators produce complex but plausible computer models which show a temperature rise of several degrees for doubled CO2. =>Models (GCMs)
                      1976
                      Studies show that CFCs (1975) and also methane and ozone (1976) can make a serious contribution to the greenhouse effect. =>Other gases
                      Deep-sea cores show a dominating influence from 100,000-year Milankovitch orbital changes, emphasizing the role of feedbacks. =>Climate cycles

                      Deforestation and other ecosystem changes are recognized as major factors in the future of the climate. =>Biosphere
                      Eddy shows that there were prolonged periods without sunspots in past centuries, corresponding to cold periods .=>Solar variation
                      1977
                      Scientific opinion tends to converge on global warming, not cooling, as the chief climate risk in next century. =>Public opinion
                      1978
                      Attempts to coordinate climate research in US end with an inadequate National Climate Program Act, accompanied by rapid but temporary growth in funding. =>Government
                      1979
                      Second oil “energy crisis.” Strengthened environmental movement encourages renewable energy sources, inhibits nuclear energy growth. =>Public opinion
                      US National Academy of Sciences report finds it highly credible that doubling CO2 will bring 1.5-4.5°C global warming. =>Models (GCMs)
                      World Climate Research Programme launched to coordinate international research. =>International

                    • Wake December 21, 2017 at 11:31 AM

                      This global warming hoax has one point – to STOP the development of the third world. To murder Africans and Indians and Chinese because of the White man’s racism.

                    • Ian5 December 21, 2017 at 12:03 PM

                      Yes of course…thousands of scientists the world over, working for decades in multiple disciplines and jurisdictions, in the public, private and not-for-profit sectors…all part of a global conspiracy to murder Chinese, Indians and Africans. You go ahead and cling to that ridiculous, extreme notion.

                    • Wake December 21, 2017 at 12:11 PM

                      In the first place since H. W. Bush the US started spending $2 Billion/yr. All you had to say was you wanted to prove global warming and YOU were in the money. So don’t give me your crap about how all these scientists believed in this for one second. The actual money spent is $1.5 Trillion and that would make ANYONE say ANYTHING. With your ignorance of science it isn’t surprising that you will stick to your guns.

                    • Ian5 December 21, 2017 at 3:11 PM

                      What a creative imagination you have. Misinformed but nonetheless imaginative.

                    • Wake December 22, 2017 at 12:10 PM

                      Tell me where you live Ian5. I would really like to meet you. I think that publishing a picture of you and what you have done so far with your life would show a great deal to the world.

                    • Ian5 December 22, 2017 at 12:49 PM

                      More distraction. My physical location and appearance has no bearing whatsoever on the science, evidence and implications of climate change. Why not educate yourself: https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

                    • Wake December 22, 2017 at 5:41 PM

                      We grow tired of people who are so obviously mentally 16 years old and slow at that. When I came back from Vietnam from my Air Force hitch I was walking through the LA terminal with a plane load of Army. Little MFers like you were marching up and down screaming “Baby killers” as the nicest thing. We were all walking down to pick up our duffle bags when one SOB spit on my uniform. That guy’s jaw shattered on contact. The cops came running down there to grab me and stopped at the last second and looked around. There was an entire planeload of Army mad as hell surrounding them. Finally with a little judgement those cops picked up that POS and carried him out of there to an emergency hospital. And as we walked down through those scum protesters it was like the parting of the Red Sea. Like you, not one of them had considered the personal effect of your actions. I will tell you again you twerp – I have been in the front edge of science for 40 years and more. My first job out of the Air Force was nuclear research. What have you done jerkoff? Don’t give me some NASA website when they are liars like all of you “environmentalists”. You’re nothing more than another Margaret Sanger who wished to murder everyone other than the upper white elite. Who founded Planned Parenthood that are all placed in black or other minority neighborhoods and kill 40% of the business in black babies. So, yes, what you look like is really important because I think you have a face to smash in. Before and after photos would be a nice page in facebook with your name on it.

                    • Ian5 December 22, 2017 at 11:46 PM

                      “Little MFers like you”, “you twerp”, “jerkoff”, “liars like all of you”, “murder everyone”, “kill 40% of the business in black babies”, “a face to smash in”, etc, etc.

                      >> Clearly you have some issues. And none of your outrage has any relevance on the science, evidence and implications of climate change. And no, you are not on the “front edge of science”. You are far behind and simply repeating the tired, old talking points of disinformation professionals…and are convincing no one.

                    • Robert December 23, 2017 at 12:12 AM

                      94-99% returnees reported friendly reception.
                      Planes would land at military base, not civ airport

                      https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/13/opinion/myth-spitting-vietnam-protester.html

                    • Wake December 27, 2017 at 2:41 PM

                      I notice that you’re more than willing to take that picture completely out of context. When was THAT picture taken and where? It certainly looks like a group of families on a military base. The only places I saw friendly receptions was at Travis Air Force Base. Why would you be more willing to accept the line of some scummy leftist over people who actually experienced it in person? There is something really wrong with you liberals.

                    • Robert December 27, 2017 at 4:20 PM

                      First of all, I quoted the NY times for their discussion of two survays.
                      You don’t talk about that.

                      Second, I noted the airports planes landed
                      You don’t talk about that.

                      Third, the article specifically address the claims, the near mythological story you tell.

                      And the picture has the photographers name, and the military unit those families were a part of.
                      Read up. The photo well represents the context of the article.

                      “Why would you be more willing to accept the line of some scummy leftist …”
                      Corroborated by nationally represented accounts and research.
                      And, by the way, first hand experience.

                      And I’d really like to read how that looks like an on base photo.

                    • Wake December 27, 2017 at 4:43 PM

                      Robert – let me take your points in line:

                      1. “Even The Times once quoted, matter-of-factly, a veteran telling of how he arrived stateside from Vietnam on a stretcher with a bullet in his leg, only to be splattered with rotten vegetables and spat on by antiwar college kids.

                      Whoppers like these go unchallenged by reporters and scholars perhaps because of their memoirist first-person quality, stories told by the men who say it happened to them.”

                      So even though the Times reported this, it’s untrue. Doesn’t that give you a really uneasy feeling the in the pit of your stomach?

                      2. Commercial landings to military bases didn’t come until late in the Vietnam Airlift. Exactly how in the hell do you suppose they made interconnecting flights for the myriad bases they had to go to?

                      3. In my previous postings I noted NOT just the experience I had but the fact that I did the Avionics recovery for 3 years during the Vietnam Airlift. I saw this happen at ALL of the major airports but especially at San Francisco International Airport.

                      4. That picture did NOT say it was at a military base or where. It said “people welcoming home military.” Exactly what is your point in saying otherwise? Unless you somehow have something different than the picture I’m seeing?

                      And by the way – don’t think for one second that surveys aren’t designed to arrive at a conclusion. Any social research group well knows how to do surveys so that their beliefs are upheld with a survey. For instance – surveys show that climate change is believed in by 97% of all scientists. Scientists find that interesting because less than 30% actually do.

                    • Robert December 27, 2017 at 5:08 PM

                      I will note that by not including the whole paragraph in your quote you’ve changed the meaning of your material.
                      That is pretty poor behavior, ethically, academicaly, intellectuslly.

                      I was landing on airbases from 67 . The article corroborate’s that.
                      V. You making a claim. Like your ‘fractured jaw’ claim.

                      3 is again you making claims. Which was much the point of the article;that most of the claims grew to near mythology and with little factual basis or evidence.
                      So, basically, your storytelling is just reinforcing the findings of the nyt article.

                      4. Your claim: “It certainly looks like a group of families on a military base.”.
                      I said the photo was in context to the article. Vets generally recd good treatment on landing.

                    • Wake December 27, 2017 at 6:46 PM

                      By quoting the entire paragraph I change it’s meaning???? That’s just about the most audacious thing you could say. It proves your own poor ethics!

                      Exactly what is “I was landing on airbases from 67” supposed to mean?

                      In my experience which is, I’ll warrant, a great deal wider than yours, that is what I saw. I had my own personal experience of being spit on in LA International. I also worked in all of the major airports around the San Francisco bay area all the way down to Moffett Field and San Francisco International, Oakland International and Travis AFB where the protesters would be lined up outside of the base picketing the AFB.

                      “And the picture has the photographers name, and the military unit those families were a part of.” is exactly what you said.

                    • Robert December 27, 2017 at 7:35 PM

                      Yup. Read your excerpt, then go read whole para.

                      Then tell us what the first part of the paragraph says.

                      Again, you’re making claims with no evidence. Assertions which you have no basis to form a statement from.
                      “..great deal wider than yours,”

                      And again, I’m going to restate the thesis of the article I linked to: the tales of spitting and other ill-treatment has not been borne out in facts. The stories have commonalities that are assumed and don’t fit the basic facts on the ground.

                      Yup, you’ve got the facts about the photos provenance.

                      And agsin, I’ll point out that we have your story v.actual research.

                    • Robert December 30, 2017 at 11:30 AM

                      “I was glad the reporter was interested in the origin of these stories, because beginning even before the war ended, news organizations had too often simply repeated them — even though some stories had the hallmarks of tall tales all over them. Even The Times once quoted, matter-of-factly, a veteran telling ….”

                      Thanks for the days long demonstration of what it takes to fabricate a devoid of fact position.

                    • Wake December 30, 2017 at 5:53 PM

                      Let me guess – EVEN though it was written in the New York Times it is your claim (on the weight of exactly whom again?) that this was a myth.

                      http://www.startribune.com/disrespect-for-vietnam-vets-is-fact-not-fiction/160444095/ is another experience altogether. Complete with incidents.

                      And https://www.deseretnews.com/article/40449/VIETNAM-VETS-RECALL-THEIR-HOMECOMINGS—-OFTEN-PAINFULLY.html
                      “John J. Quirk, South Holland, Ill.

                      After serving in Vietnam from June ’66 to June ’67, I returned to the States to a wonderful reception.

                      It was the first week in June. I landed at Travis Air Force Base in California, went to the Oakland Army Terminal, and was cleared to go home for 30 days’ leave. I bought a ticket for a flight to Chicago that was scheduled to depart at approximately 4 p.m. Pacific Time. As I walked through the terminal, I noticed several long-haired people but thought nothing of it until I was approached by a young couple who stoped me and asked if I were returning from Nam.

                      As they were smiling and seemed friendly, I said yes. With that they both started calling me names — Baby Killer and Fascist Dog, among others — before the girl spat at me as her friend shoved me.”

                      “David Alvarez, San Jose, Calif. The first time I was in transmit from my ship to a temporary duty station. It was the fall of 1970 and I was in Sacramento, Calif., bus station. I was wearing my dress blue uniform with my Vietnam service ribbons, and I was carrying my sea bag over one shoulder. I was confronted by five anit-war protesters — two females and three males. They stopped to question me about my feelings about the war. I declined to comment. Suddeny one of the females began calling me a baby killer and spat on me.”

                      “The second incident occurred when I returned from Vietnam in the fall of 1971. I was in my dress uniform in San Francisco airport waiting for my wife to arrive from out of state, when a guy ran up to me, called me a war monger, spat on me and ran off. I started after him, but I lost him in the airport crowd.”

                      These are letters ONLY from those who happened to read that particular columnist. And were willing to recount painful experiences.

                      But to leftist crap like Robert it’s all lies.

                      And do you know why? Because Obama WANTED to continue his war and so had to make people love the soldiers and so he put the word out and the leftist media ran as he beckoned. This is the way of socialists. They stick together like crap and toilet paper.

                    • Robert December 30, 2017 at 6:14 PM

                      “whom” would, of course, be the author of the nyt article you misrepresented by your selective quoting.

                      Again, yet again, you can quote modern ( 1989) sources talking about what a particular writer claims, just as you can write your ‘fractured jaw’ stories. Stories that have similarities, tropes that don’t fit, and parts that don’t match the facts on the ground.

                      Rational readers know to read the primary documemts. The one discussed in the nyt article.

                      And, we’ll also note the attmepts at insulting namecalling,

                    • Wake December 30, 2017 at 6:30 PM

                      Whom would be someone other than the author of the New York Times inserting HIS OPINION. Meaning of course that both YOU and HE intended to mislead people and not I.

                      While you are talking about “tropes” I find that extremely interesting since the use of that word became popular among hippies. But you ain’t old enough for that so I’ll ask you again – were you one of those who had drug using hippy grandparents that left you alone in the crib while they got high? And you intend to spend the rest of your life pretending that they were just good and you had explanations of why they couldn’t have their jaws broken as well?

                      Rational readers know how to understand what was written and not the intentional misdirection by other people as you have been doing.

                      Since you noted the intended insult I hope you will take it to heart.

                      Especially with your intense ignorance of everything military and your follower attitude which equally matches that of all of the True Believers in the Church of Global Warming. You are doing nothing more than following the liberal line that “we’ve always been the good people, even when we were hanging niggers and Republicans”

                    • Robert December 31, 2017 at 11:25 AM

                      “While you are talking about “tropes” I find that extremely interesting since the use of that word became popular among hippies. ”

                      “..drug using hippy grandparents..”

                      “..liberal line that “we’ve always been the good people, even when we were hanging niggers and Republicans” ”

                      ” True Believers in the Church of Global Warming. ”

                      You are continuing to confuse agenda driven letters written in the late 1980s with reporting done at the time.

                      You also confuse invective , insulting, scare quotes, & irrational claims w no corroborating evidence with forming coherent arguments with supporting data.

                      C.R.A.A.P. TEST

                      Currency: the timeliness of the information
                      When was the information published or posted?
                      Has the information been revised or updated?
                      Is the information current or out-of date for your topic?
                      Are the links functional?
                      Relevance: the importance of the information for your needs
                      Does the information relate to your topic or answer your question?
                      Who is the intended audience?
                      Is the information at an appropriate level (i.e. not too elementary or advanced for your needs)?
                      Have you looked at a variety of sources before determining this is one you will use?
                      Would you be comfortable using this source for a research paper?
                      Authority: the source of the information
                      Who is the author/publisher/source/sponsor?
                      Are the author’s credentials or organizational affiliations given?
                      What are the author’s credentials or organizational affiliations given?
                      What are the author’s qualifications to write on the topic?
                      Is there contact information, such as a publisher or e-mail address?
                      Does the URL reveal anything about the author or source?

                      examples: .com (commercial), .edu (educational), .gov (U.S. government),
                      .org (nonprofit organization), or .net (network)
                      Accuracy: the reliability, truthfulness, and correctness of the content, and
                      Where does the information come from?
                      Is the information supported by evidence?
                      Has the information been reviewed or refereed?
                      Can you verify any of the information in another source or from personal knowledge?
                      Does the language or tone seem biased and free of emotion?
                      Are there spelling, grammar, or other typographical errors?
                      Purpose: the reason the information exists
                      What is the purpose of the information? to inform? teach? sell? entertain? persuade?
                      Do the authors/sponsors make their intentions or purpose clear?
                      Is the information fact? opinion? propaganda?
                      Does the point of view appear objective and impartial?
                      Are there political, ideological, cultural, religious, institutional, or personal biases?

                      http://libguides.library.ncat.edu/content_mobile.php?pid=53820&sid=394505#box_394505

                      Here’s a couple of simple worksheets to print out to help:
                      http://libraryguides.ccbcmd.edu/ld.php?content_id=14159298
                      http://www.juniata.edu/services/library/instruction/handouts/craap_worksheet.pdf

                    • Wake January 1, 2018 at 12:38 PM

                      A Times reporter isn’t good enough a source for proof that there was spitting incidences but is more than good enough to prove the reverse. As I said, your sorts of responses come from the mentally disturbed.

                    • Robert January 1, 2018 at 4:24 PM

                      Note the “even”.

                      Whether the difficulty is willfully induced or not, you’re ascribing a meaning that doesn’t fit to the thesis or the para or the sentence.

                      And noted again, insulting

                    • Mugger December 30, 2017 at 2:10 PM

                      Robert “nitpicks” imaginary faults when he can’t come up with a valid reply.
                      His problem, not yours.

                    • Wake December 30, 2017 at 6:42 PM

                      He has NEVER explained his “I’ve been landing on airbases since 67”. He appears to be implying that he was a commercial airline pilot. Now IF he were and he landed at any other commercial airport he couldn’t MISS the protesters and their actions against the troops. If he WERE a commercial airline pilot they would rotate flight crew out after long flights and he would KNOW that picture had been taken in a base housing complex. Alameda Naval Air Station is no longer an active base but they STILL have these family housing areas and you can still see them in use by perhaps retired lifers or something.

                      In short – he is in fact attempting to lie about this entire incident because that is the latest liberal line.

                    • Mugger December 31, 2017 at 6:11 AM

                      it;s an invented background. All his sock puppet must have separate personalities.

                    • Mugger December 31, 2017 at 1:09 PM

                      Robert is a serial bullzhitter.

                    • Robert December 31, 2017 at 7:33 PM

                      Lots of wrong ‘ifs’.
                      Thanks.

                    • Wake January 1, 2018 at 12:35 PM

                      You are the one that stated, “I was landing on airbases from 67” and then wouldn’t answer any questions about that. You plainly meant to imply that you had direct experience with commercial aircraft landing at military bases.

                      As I noted – besides my own experience in the Air Force, I did electronics instrument recovery on commercial aircraft for three years and they did NOT land at airbases until the end of that three years. The very idea that you could bring thousands of soldiers back with no way to catch interconnecting flights is preposterous. Or perhaps you’re suggesting that they would shuttle soldiers in military buses into the middle of these protesters.

                      There is really something not all there with you. And your kind of responses comes from people who are mentally disturbed.

                    • Robert January 1, 2018 at 4:28 PM

                      Nope. The was no imply.

                      The difference is that mine match to the facts and descriptions as stated in the article.

                      What we have is your claims on climate science and on this topic being driven by ideology rather than facts as research show.

                    • Wake January 2, 2018 at 12:15 PM

                      You are but a liar. And you couldn’t recognize a fact. Why haven’ you explain your “I was landing on airbases from ’67” statement?

                      Submitted by Bruce L. Webb, Feb 8, 2007 17:57

                      Spat on? After two years in theater, I began to meet old Army buddies returning from the “World” who told me harrowing stories about how they’d been “welcomed” home, to such a degree that they volunteered to return to VN rather than be where they were universally reviled for their service. I didn’t believe them – until, on-about-04/15/71 I “processed” off Oakland Army Base enroute home to Texas. As I walked out of the front gate, a very pretty, long-haired blonde girl ran toward me. I smiled at such enthusiasm, but learned quickly as she screamed, “Baby killer”, and SPAT IN MY FACE that my buddies hadn’t lied, Instinctively, I lurched forward to defend myself, but was grabbed by an unseen (GI) hand and jerked backward toward the waiting bus and heard, “It ain’t worth it.” I got on the bus, shocked, humiliated and morally destroyed (no doubt, the plan all along). Only later did I learn that it was an orchestrated act common throughout the US at the time. I see it in my mind’s eye to this day as if it is a bad dream, relived like a bad movie – I would recognize the blonde girl to this day. I will never forget, nor forgive. Bruce Webb, SPC5, USA

                    • Robert January 2, 2018 at 12:54 PM

                      We thank you for again trying to equate reminisces from years (1890s or in this case 2007) past with what the documented reporting shows.

                      Reminisces, anecdotes that have the same non factual points given. Also, claimed expertise in science.
                      Neither of which fit to the facts on the ground.

                      Unsupported claims.
                      And insulting.

                      “While you are talking about “tropes” I find that extremely interesting since the use of that word became popular among hippies. ”

                      “..drug using hippy grandparents..”

                      “..liberal line that “we’ve always been the good people, even when we were hanging niggers and Republicans” ”

                      ” True Believers in the Church of Global Warming. ”

                      You confuse invective , insulting, scare quotes, & irrational claims w no corroborating evidence with forming coherent arguments with supporting data.

                      C.R.A.A.P. TEST

                      Currency: the timeliness of the information
                      When was the information published or posted?
                      Has the information been revised or updated?
                      Is the information current or out-of date for your topic?
                      Are the links functional?
                      Relevance: the importance of the information for your needs
                      Does the information relate to your topic or answer your question?
                      Who is the intended audience?
                      Is the information at an appropriate level (i.e. not too elementary or advanced for your needs)?
                      Have you looked at a variety of sources before determining this is one you will use?
                      Would you be comfortable using this source for a research paper?
                      Authority: the source of the information
                      Who is the author/publisher/source/sponsor?
                      Are the author’s credentials or organizational affiliations given?
                      What are the author’s credentials or organizational affiliations given?
                      What are the author’s qualifications to write on the topic?
                      Is there contact information, such as a publisher or e-mail address?
                      Does the URL reveal anything about the author or source?

                      examples: .com (commercial), .edu (educational), .gov (U.S. government),
                      .org (nonprofit organization), or .net (network)
                      Accuracy: the reliability, truthfulness, and correctness of the content, and
                      Where does the information come from?
                      Is the information supported by evidence?
                      Has the information been reviewed or refereed?
                      Can you verify any of the information in another source or from personal knowledge?
                      Does the language or tone seem biased and free of emotion?
                      Are there spelling, grammar, or other typographical errors?
                      Purpose: the reason the information exists
                      What is the purpose of the information? to inform? teach? sell? entertain? persuade?
                      Do the authors/sponsors make their intentions or purpose clear?
                      Is the information fact? opinion? propaganda?
                      Does the point of view appear objective and impartial?
                      Are there political, ideological, cultural, religious, institutional, or personal biases?

                      http://libguides.library.ncat.edu/content_mobile.php?pid=53820&sid=394505#box_394505

                      Here’s a couple of simple worksheets to print out to help:
                      http://libraryguides.ccbcmd.edu/ld.php?content_id=14159298
                      http://www.juniata.edu/services/library/instruction/handouts/craap_worksheet.pdf

                    • Wake January 2, 2018 at 1:04 PM

                      Robert, I’m just a poor little 73 year old man. What I would like you to do is stop hiding behind a keyboard and tell me these sorts of things to my face.

                    • Robert January 2, 2018 at 1:34 PM

                      Yup, a bout with nerf sticks will settle whether accurate reporting at the time is beaten by reminisces written decades later.

                    • Mugger January 1, 2018 at 4:12 PM

                      Oh Robert,….. what a lame reply.
                      Normal for you of course

                    • Two Americas December 27, 2017 at 4:43 PM

                      FYI, I couldn’t reply to you because I was banned at the food channel for that comment you responded to.

                    • Robert December 27, 2017 at 4:50 PM

                      They both discuss farmers making a living and the state of the food industry. Lots of interrelated topics, though the interviewer really wanted to talk about A.Ws new book rather than what happened in P.R. , etc.

                    • Two Americas December 27, 2017 at 4:52 PM

                      Thanks.

                    • Robert December 27, 2017 at 5:12 PM

                      Re:your banning , politics in food was also much discussed in the interview.

                      Up vote wasn’t for you getting banned, but for bringing up the topic.

                    • Robert December 28, 2017 at 1:58 PM

                      And my post was removed….

                    • Wake December 28, 2017 at 11:54 AM

                      This comment section doesn’t show my answer which I previously posted so I’ll simply repeat:

                      1. Virtually all surveys are nothing more than political assets. Any research organization can make a survey report anything they want it to. Trump won with an large margin and you can still get surveys from the Times that Obama was preferred let alone Hillary.

                      2. I entered the USA from the war zone at LA International. I worked on commercial aircraft for three years and until the very end of the Vietnam Airlift all military came through International airports. Exactly how do you propose men stationed at three dozen different bases around the country would get connecting flights? In short – you don’t know what you’re talking about.

                      3. That story is nothing more than a leftist lie. I told you my experience and if you wish to deny it that is your problem and not mine.

                      http://www.startribune.com/disrespect-for-vietnam-vets-is-fact-not-fiction/160444095/

                      Chicago Tribune: “Homecoming”:
                      “From Library Journal
                      “Were you ever spat upon when you returned home to the United States?” asked syndicated columnist Greene of the Vietnam veterans among his readership. He received over 1000 letters in reply, many recounting specific details of just such a painfully remembered incident. Evidently this recollection of “hippies” (as they are often called in the letters) spitting on combat veterans has become one of the war’s most unpleasant, enduring images. Conversely, other letters describe acts of generosity toward servicemen, from the typical free beers at the bar to a free show. But the over 200 letters excerpted here do more than confirm popular notions. They bring back the incidents of 20 years ago vividly, but not always with bitterness. And they reveal healing solidarity among veterans in response to what for many was not a happy homecoming. Recommended. Richard W. Grefrath, Univ. of Nevada Lib., Reno
                      Copyright 1989 Reed Business Information, Inc.”

                      Almost 3 million Americans served in Vietnam. Most Americans respect not just those who serve in the military but the idea of what Vietnam was about. Obviously YOU do not understand what both Korea and Vietnam were all about.

                      This does NOT change the fact that the Hippies and Flower Children did express hatred for those they came in contact with and did so viciously at major airports. But a truck driver who knows where his freedom’s emanate buying a vet a beer doesn’t mean that these other incidents did not happen.

                      You’d really like to know how that looks like an on-base photo??? You were NEVER in the service obviously. Apparently you were NEVER ON a military base and know nothing at all about the on-base housing for families.

                      I would like to know where in hell you think you have the right to talk about things you don’t know about?

                    • Robert December 28, 2017 at 12:14 PM

                      Again, your claims. And the book review you cited reinforces the nyt article;that the stories have many commonalities that are not well supported by primary documents. Note in particular, the reviewer mentioning the use of “hippies”.

                    • Wake December 28, 2017 at 12:26 PM

                      Let me guess – your real job is a circus clown? Don’t tell me these things never happened because all of the 3 million people who took part in Vietnam never experienced them. You are about as twisted as possible.

                    • Robert December 28, 2017 at 12:28 PM

                      Ahhh, insulting.

                    • Wake December 28, 2017 at 12:29 PM

                      More than insulting if you said anything like that to my face. Believe me. Come to Oakland sometime and we’ll show you a night on the town.

                    • Robert December 28, 2017 at 12:54 PM

                      And there we go…..
                      Thanks for the demonstration.

                    • Wake December 29, 2017 at 3:35 PM

                      I asked you point blank – are you saying these things didn’t occur?

                    • Robert December 29, 2017 at 4:00 PM

                      And I’ve dold you several times. The story you are telling fits to retelling posted many places and those stories not only don’t mesh well with the facts on the ground ,but also contain many illogical pieces.
                      I’m going to stay with reliable sources, extensive research rather than ideologically driven decades after the fact storytellers.

                      This thread is full of antagonistic language, threats, accusations; and you own them.

                    • Robert December 28, 2017 at 12:16 PM

                      Your penultimate paragraph makes assertions that are just unjustified personal attacks.

                    • Robert December 28, 2017 at 12:22 PM

                      Your third to the last paragraph is an effort of equivocation and a restating of claims not supported by primary documentation.

                    • Robert December 28, 2017 at 12:26 PM

                      Your 4th to the last paragraph is a ‘wrap myself in the flag’ and an unsupportable personal attack and a claim not supported by your bringing forward supporting evidence, not to mention wandering far afield from the topic..

                    • Wake December 23, 2017 at 12:44 AM

                      What’s the matter? Are you afraid of a cyber bully? Will you run away from home? Nothing you’ve said has any relevance to science. You haven’t a single qualification in science. Yor hero Dr. Michael Mann is going down hard and there isn’t any talking or quoting NASA that is going to help you help him. You’re nothing more than another disciple in the Church of Global Warming.

                    • LTJ December 24, 2017 at 9:17 PM

                      You’re a liar. Never happened. It would have made headlines – and no such headlines exist.

                      Anywhere. Ever.

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

                    • Wake December 25, 2017 at 1:23 PM

                      I figured that you were some baby fresh out of the womb. The fact is that it happened to me so I expect it happened to others. And eventually this will be coming to you. I expect someone like you will write a book about no one ever believing global warming.

                    • LTJ December 26, 2017 at 11:37 PM

                      Nothing happened to you. That happened to no one – and you insult the dignity of real veterans with your ugly hateful and stupid lies.

                    • Wake December 27, 2017 at 9:55 AM

                      Well, at least we know that you are a little child that never went anywhere and did anything. Between engineering jobs I took a job working for Bayaire Avionics in Oakland. I
                      recovered aircraft avionics for three years. This was the time of the Vietnam Airlift and I saw this so bad that anyone that says it never happened is not mistaken but a liar. The Flower Generation in all its glory. Was that what you got from your human waste grandparents as they were getting high and you were supposedly in their care? So by all means tell me all about how you read a wikipedia entry that said it never happened.

                    • LTJ December 28, 2017 at 2:46 AM

                      Once again you make up nonsense about me – hoping to offend. But offence is only taken at your lies and hatemongering. I’ve known a gamut of Americans from Vietnam vets to draft dodgers – and the draft dodgers have had nothing but respect for the men that actually served.

                      And perhaps I take offense at your arrogant stupidity, as you continue to pretend that you are the one mythical elusive victim of expectorating peaceniks. Do you not understand how ridiculous this pretense makes you seem?

                      You are no veteran.

                      STFU and stop embarassing the men who are. You are nothing but a blustering buffoon.

                    • Wake December 28, 2017 at 9:52 AM

                      We can tell what you think of as a real man – a pole dancer like you.

                    • LTJ December 22, 2017 at 8:47 AM

                      1.5 TRILLION!!!

                      My, thats a fascinating and, of course, given that it’s made by you, totally unsubstantiated claim. Care to try, or shall we just assume you’ve scooped it out of the back of your Depends again, old man?

                    • Wake December 22, 2017 at 12:09 PM

                      You are really scum aren’t you? All you would have had to do is a search but since it’s something you don’t WANT to know you wouldn’t look https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/08/23/the-alarming-cost-of-climate-change-hysteria/#6e106137ebbe

                    • Ian5 December 22, 2017 at 12:46 PM

                      Name-calling…a strategy typical of propagandists and fifth-graders.

                    • Wake December 22, 2017 at 12:57 PM

                      And it doesn’t change the fact that a human garbage bag is making claims without even bothering to look it up. Believe me I would love to get your picture and your work history to publish on the web.

                    • Ian5 December 22, 2017 at 1:04 PM

                      Look what up? The silly and intentionally misleading 2011 article written by disinformation professional and heartland affiliate larry bell?

                    • LTJ December 28, 2017 at 4:31 AM

                      Once again, do you ever read the articles you link before posting them? Do you understand logic?

                      If climate change is not real, how can foreign aid to combat its effects be considered an expense of climate change? Aren’t tropical storms, droughts and flooding simply natural events requiring humanitarian aid?

                      And if “technological subsidy” through tax breaks is to be counted as a climate change expense, surely new tax revenue from burgeoning new industries should be counted as new-found revenue at the same count. Ever hear of Tesla?

                      These are but two of the logical failings and flaws in this article. Can you not recognise nonsense when you read it?

                    • Wake December 31, 2017 at 1:13 PM

                      The Seminal Moment when you realize you have to take a different tack. A different lie. But I must admit you are growing more rediculous by the moment. “IF CLIMATE CHANGE ISN’T REAL WHY WOULD OBAMA GIVE BILLIONS TO HIS SUPPORTERS?” And GEE why would he give $525 Million to Solyndra who the very next day passed out that money to the management and then claimed bankruptcy?

                    • LTJ December 31, 2017 at 2:56 PM

                      If you’re going to accuse me of lying it behooves you to actually point out a lie.

                      As for Solyndra: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/24/opinion/the-phony-solyndra-scandal.html

                      “… if we could just stop playing gotcha for a second, we might realize that federal loan programs — especially loans for innovative energy technologies — virtually require the government to take risks the private sector won’t take. Indeed, risk-taking is what these programs are all about. Sometimes, the risks pay off. Other times, they don’t.

                      It’s not a taxpayer ripoff if you don’t bat 1.000; on the contrary, a
                      zero failure rate likely means that the program is too risk-averse.
                      Thus, the real question the Solyndra case poses is this: Are the
                      potential successes significant enough to negate the inevitable
                      failures?

                      I have a hard time answering “no.” Most electricity today is generated by coal-fired power plants, operated by monopoly, state-regulated utilities. Because they’ve been around so long, and because coal is cheap, these plants have built-in cost advantages that no new technology can overcome without help. The federal guarantees help lower the cost of capital for technologies like solar; they help spur innovation; and they help encourage private investment. These are all worthy goals.

                      To say “no” is also to cede the solar panel industry to China,which last year alone provided some $30 billon in subsidies for its solar industry. Over all, the American solar industry is a big success story; it now employs more people than either steel or coal, and it’s a net exporter.”

                      Odd that someone who likes to rap himself in the Stars and Stripes is so willing to relinquish the industries of the future to China.

                    • Wake January 1, 2018 at 12:26 PM

                      Sorry – you and all of the Warmies have told us that Solar is a sure thing. All of the major power companies around the country have large solar installations.

                      Now you are telling us that it was a huge risk and the loss of a half billion dollars was just one of those things.

                      Nothing more than your BS to cover criminal activity. ALL of the money from that loan went to the upper management as they claimed bankruptcy. The management of the company took THE FIFTH and answered none of the questions.

                      Now you’re trying to support your new lie.

                    • LTJ January 1, 2018 at 1:01 PM

                      A second lie already? You haven’t even revealed the first one yet.

                    • Robert January 2, 2018 at 10:10 AM

                      Tinfoil firmly in place and strapped on….

                      “Wake Ian5
                      13 days ago
                      Circa 1985 ALL truth about the climate was no longer available. Of COURSE most of the world’s scientific community could “agree” with the NASA assessment becauseit was an attempt to hobble the US production engine that control most of the world’s production .”

                      https://disqus.com/home/discussion/cfact/decision_looms_in_michael_mann_tim_ball_8220hockey_stick8221_lawsuit/#comment-3671684796

                    • Wake December 22, 2017 at 12:04 PM

                      Tell me exactly what you know about “thousands of scientists working the world over”. Name these thousands.

                    • Ian5 December 22, 2017 at 12:50 PM

                      Stop being lazy and read the literature.

                    • Johnpd December 23, 2017 at 9:05 AM

                      http://www.prisonplanet.com/lord-monckton-shut-down-the-un-arrest-the-warmist-criminals.html

                      The endgame of the climate scam is to destroy ALL industry, ALL nations, ALL democracy & ~ 95% of humanity.
                      The aim is a Communist/Fascist Totalitarian govt of Banksters & their cronies as feudal Lords over the few remaining peasants in the Hunger Games future paradise they’re herding us towards.

                      http://www.c3headlines.com

                      Click on Quotes.

                    • Wake December 27, 2017 at 2:46 PM

                      If you want to know about the real world I would suggest you get a copy of “The Road to Serfdom” by F.A. Hayek. Though most liberals prefer a 2 minute video. This reading stuff were real knowledge is imparted rather than talking points is just, like man, to serious.

                    • Johnpd January 4, 2018 at 7:13 AM

                      My “to read” list just keeps stretching longer. 🙂

                    • R. Kooi December 31, 2017 at 8:48 PM

                      This Holocene Inter Glacial Warm Period PEAKED
                      in Temperatues about 8000-9000 years ago.
                      Since then,
                      temps have been slowly falling as we slide
                      into Earth’s most powerful cyclical
                      CLIMATE CHANGE: Glaciation ! (ice age)
                      .
                      Look: http://www.realclimate.org/images//Marcott.png

                      We were pulled toward the next ICE AGE !
                      …As Earth is still Being Pulled, in orbit, away from the Sun.
                      ….We should still be cooling toward an ice age, but in the mid 1700’s
                      Earth’s MOST powerful natural Cycle was terminated.
                      the Ice Age was terminated
                      …abruptly…temps started to rise .

                      Direct observations
                      1799
                      Alexander von Humboldt studied, worried and postulated that
                      Human Activites / pollution would CAUSE CLIMATE CHANGE!
                      1799
                      Thomas Jefferson also penned a paper
                      on observed changes in climate which he stated was
                      probably caused by man.

                      1811, Science Tied Warming, Climate Changes directly to
                      Human Activities & Industrialization.
                      .
                      1856 “…the work of Eunice Foote, who three years prior
                      to the start of Tyndall’s laboratory research, conducted
                      similar experiments on absorption of radiant energy
                      by atmospheric gases, such as CO2 and water vapor.
                      .
                      The presentation of her report at a major scientific convention in 1856
                      was accompanied by postulation that even modest increases
                      in the concentration of CO2 could result in significant atmospheric warming.”

                      http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/..
                      .
                      CO2 is rising sharply due to human activity.
                      .
                      Satellite & surface measurements find less energy
                      is escaping to space at CO2/H2O (& other Green House Gasses)
                      absorption wavelengths.
                      Ocean and surface temperature measurements

                      These Research studies find the planet
                      continues to accumulate heat.
                      Year after year.

                      HERE is a line of empirical evidence:
                      that human/industry CO2 emissions are causing global warming.
                      **
                      *
                      Climate Myth / The Skeptic-Denier position.

                      There’s no empirical evidence
                      “There is no actual evidence that carbon dioxide emissions
                      are causing global warming. Note that computer models are just
                      concatenations of calculations you could do on a hand-held calculator,
                      so they are theoretical and cannot be part of any evidence.”
                      (noted DENIER David Evans)
                      ***

                      The line of empirical evidence that humans
                      are causing global warming is as follows:
                      .
                      We’re raising CO2 levels
                      .
                      Human carbon dioxide emissions are calculated
                      from international energy statistics, tabulating coal, brown coal,
                      peat, and crude oil production by nation and year, going back to 1751.
                      .
                      CO2 emissions have increased dramatically over the last century,
                      climbing to the rate of 29 billion tonnes of CO2 per year in 2006 (EIA).
                      .
                      Atmospheric CO2 levels are measured at hundreds of
                      monitoring stations across the globe.
                      .
                      Independent measurements are also conducted by airplanes and satellites.
                      For periods before 1958, CO2 levels are determined from air bubbles trapped in polar ice cores.
                      In pre-industrial times over the last 10,000 years,
                      CO2 was relatively stable at around 180-to-280 parts per million.
                      .
                      Over the last 250 years, atmospheric CO2 levels have increased
                      by about 100 parts per million.
                      .
                      Humans are emitting more than twice as much CO2 as what ends up staying there.
                      Nature is reducing our impact on climate by absorbing
                      more than half of our CO2 emissions.
                      .
                      The amount of human CO2 left in the air, called the “airborne fraction”,
                      has hovered around 43% since 1958.
                      CO2 traps heat
                      .
                      According to radiative physics and decades of laboratory measurements,
                      increased CO2 in the atmosphere is expected/predicted to absorb
                      more infrared radiation as it escapes back out to space.

                      Human Agriculture & Industry is producing 120-135 TIMES MORE CO2
                      than ALL of EARTH’s Volcanoes Combined….every year !
                      ..
                      Leading
                      Scientists
                      Questioned
                      Green House Gas effects in our atmosphere:
                      So,
                      In 1970,
                      NASA launched the IRIS satellite measuring infrared spectra.
                      .
                      Google: Iris Satellite Research Abstract
                      .
                      In 1996,
                      the Japanese Space Agency launched the IMG satellite
                      which recorded similar observations.

                      Google: IMG Satellite Research Abstract
                      .
                      Both sets of data were compared to discern any changes
                      in escaping radiation levels over the 26 year period

                      Google (Harries 2001 research abstract)
                      .
                      What they found was a drop in Escaping Infra Red radiation
                      at the PRECISE wavelength bands that greenhouse gases
                      such as CO2 with H2O, CFC’s, Ozone,
                      Nitrous Oxides, and methane (CH4) absorb energy.

                      The change in DECREASE IN ESCAPING I.R. radiation was consistent
                      with theoretical Expectations / Predictions.
                      .
                      This research & paper found

                      “direct experimental evidence for a significant increase
                      in the Earth’s greenhouse effect” and Warming on Earth.
                      .
                      This result has been confirmed by subsequent research & papers
                      using data from later satellites

                      Google (Griggs 2004 Research Abstract)
                      Google (Chen 2007 Research Astract )
                      .
                      Figure 2: Change in spectrum from 1970 to 1996 due to trace gases.
                      ‘Brightness temperature’ indicates equivalent blackbody temperature

                      Google (Harries 2001 Research Abstract)

                      When greenhouse gases absorb infrared radiation,
                      the energy heats the atmosphere which in turn
                      re-radiates infrared radiation in all directions.
                      .
                      Some makes its way back to the earth’s surface.
                      Hence
                      we Expect/Predict to find more infrared radiation heading downwards.
                      .
                      Surface measurements from 1973 to 2008 find an increasing trend
                      of infrared radiation returning to earth

                      Google (Wang 2009 Research Abstract)
                      .
                      A regional study over the central Alps found that
                      downward infrared radiation is increasing due to the
                      enhanced greenhouse effect
                      .
                      Google (Philipona 2004 research abstract).
                      .
                      Taking this a step further, an analysis of high resolution spectral data
                      allowed scientists to quantitatively attribute the increase in
                      downward radiation to each of several greenhouse gases
                      .
                      Google (Evans 2006 Research abstract)
                      .
                      The results lead the authors to conclude that
                      *
                      *** “this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics
                      that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between
                      greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and Climate Changes caused
                      by global warming.”
                      CO2 & Temperature Marriage:
                      https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=%2f%2bt8mfVF&id=8999BA373F3B7B4F391B144E98514B474B7894CF&thid=OIP._-t8mfVFvINxHRaKkITjvAHaFT&mediaurl=http%3a%2f%2fzfacts.com%2fmetaPage%2flib%2fzFacts-CO2-Temp.gif&exph=377&expw=526&q=graph+co2+and+world+temperature+rise&simid=608046613771259242&selectedIndex=0&ajaxhist=0

                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming#/media/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
                      .

                    • Wake January 1, 2018 at 11:58 AM

                      As I’ve stated before – CO2 is meaningless. What’s more what do you want to bet that NASA doesn’t tell us that this year is another “hottest year ever” despite the fact that all over the world temperatures have been average or below average. Last night was the 2nd coldest temperature on record for New York City.

                    • R. Kooi January 1, 2018 at 12:49 PM

                      and of course, you pick 1 local number to give yourself the illusion that your are talking about GLOBAL warming.
                      Did Breitbart and Daily Caller never mentions the huge heat waves and droughts around the world?

                      Across the middle east, N. Africa…ETC……

                      Sorry you missed it.

                      Deadly heat waves could hit South Asia this century | MIT News
                      news.mit.edu/2017/deadly-heat-waves-could-hit-south-asia-century-0802

                      Bose Grants for 2017 reward bold and … Deadly heat waves could hit South Asia this … found climate change could cause deadly heat waves in South Asia by the end …
                      India facing another summer of deadly heat – CNN
                      http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/24/asia/india-heat-wave-deaths/index.html

                      Apr 24, 2017 · India facing another summer of deadly heat. … 2017 . Chat with us in … said that while 11 states have prepared plans for this year’s heat wave, …
                      Historic Heat Wave Sweeps Asia, the Middle East and Europe
                      https://www.wunderground.com/cat6/historic-heat-wave-sweeps-asia

                      Historic Heat Wave Sweeps Asia, … the 53.5°C reading at Turbat on May 28, 2017, ranks as one of Earth’s top five hottest reliably-measured temperatures on record

                    • Wake January 1, 2018 at 1:59 PM

                      I wonder why you continue to assume that real science isn’t real science?

                      The temperatures I said were about normal or below were from South African, Central Africa, Israel, France, Brisbane Australia, Shanghai, the west coast, central US and east coast.

                      I wonder what is going through your head when you use a link to an article that says that MIT determined that heat wave could happen in decades if nothing is done? As I noted before – NASA has manufactured temperature records since 1980-1990 and NO scientist’s research can be trusted when the data they are working with is faulty.

                      ” Deadly heat waves could hit South Asia” – Do you understand what the word “could” signifies?

                      You continue to offer links that do not work. “Oops, this site is not available”.

                    • R. Kooi January 2, 2018 at 11:34 AM

                      CO2 & Temperature Marriage:
                      https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=%2f%2bt8mfVF&id=8999BA373F3B7B4F391B144E98514B474B7894CF&thid=OIP._-t8mfVFvINxHRaKkITjvAHaFT&mediaurl=http%3a%2f%2fzfacts.com%2fmetaPage%2flib%2fzFacts-CO2-Temp.gif&exph=377&expw=526&q=graph+co2+and+world+temperature+rise&simid=608046613771259242&selectedIndex=0&ajaxhist=0

                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming#/media/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

                      http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1980/plot/gistemp/from:1980/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1997/plot/gistemp/from:1997/trend
                      ****
                      ***
                      2017 is behind only El Niño-amplified 2016. Dana Nuccitelli.
                      Mon 31 Jul ’17 06.00 EDT.
                      .
                      With the first six months of 2017 in the books, average global surface temperatures so far this year are 0.94°C above the 1950–1980 average, according to NASA.Jul 31, 2017
                      .
                      2017 is so far the second-hottest year on record thanks to global …
                      .
                      https://www.theguardian.com/…/2017/…/2017-is-so-far-the-second-hottest-year-on-reco…
                      ***
                      Just like your 1 of a kind records.
                      **
                      China 50.5 °C (122.9 °F) Erbao Township, Turpan, Xinjiang 10 July 2017[37]
                      ***
                      Iran 54 °C (129 °F) Ahwaz
                      Airport (OIAW) 29 June 2017 [
                      ***
                      Oman 50.8 °C (123.4 °F) Buraimi,
                      30 May 2017 [51]
                      ***
                      Pakistan 53.5 °C (128.3 °F) Mohenjo-Daro
                      28 May 2017
                      ***
                      Spain 47.3 °C (117.1 °F) Montoro, Cordoba (as Montoro Vega Armijo) 13 July 2017
                      ***
                      Chile 44.9 °C (112.8 °F) Quillón, Biobio Region[notes 11] 26 January 2017
                      ***
                      Highest Overnight Low: 44.2 °C (111.6 °F) at the Khasab weather station (WMO Index = 41241) in Oman on June 17, 2017
                      ***

                      THE LAST Record Cold World Wide Year was 1909/1911.
                      ***
                      The Thames River routinely froze over 3-4 times per century…hasn’t frozen since 1814 .

                    • Wake January 2, 2018 at 1:42 PM

                      There we go with your comedy routine again:

                      Erbao Township, Turpan, Xinjiang had a previous high of 49.9C. So you think that .6 degrees C show something?

                      Ahwaz International Airport Iran “The highest daily average high temperature is 115°F on July 27.” Did you note that word “AVERAGE”?

                      Buraimi – When I send them a message why does the Omani weather bureau tell me that the hottest temperature ever recorded in May was 34.5 degrees C? And that it never hit 50.8 degrees C anywhere in the entire country of Oman in May of 2017? That the highest temperatures occur at the end of July and rarely exceed 38C?

                      The Thames never froze over from 800-1400 AD. It only commonly froze over during the little ice age.

                    • R. Kooi January 2, 2018 at 11:36 AM
                    • Wake January 2, 2018 at 11:55 AM

                      That chart is an outright lie. It shows about .9 degree C. rise from 1979 until 2016. The ACTUAL change averaged zero. This is the measurements in that time from Dr. Roy Spencer – the lead scientist on the NASA climate satellite program: http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_March_2017_v6.jpg

                    • R. Kooi January 2, 2018 at 12:56 PM

                      This is the same Dr. Roy Spencer and Dr. John Christy
                      …with a record of FALSE STATEMENTS ON CLIMATE…many of which they have been forced to retract….

                      OOOPS !
                      time for a little CROW EATING CONTEST….my bet is on Spencer !
                      FROM THOSE LEADING
                      CLIMATE
                      CHANGE
                      DENIERS.

                      The same 2 that Global Warming would END by 2000
                      .
                      A STUNNING ADMISSION:
                      The UAH’s Spencer and Dr. John Christy?
                      —both leading deniers?
                      —reported just last month that the UAH data shows a
                      “Global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978 [of] +0.12 C [0.22F] per decade.”
                      NO PAUSE !
                      NO HIATUS !
                      sure as hell, NO COOLING !
                      SPENCER:
                      “my UAH cohort & boss John Christy, who does the detailed matching
                      between satellites, is pretty convinced that the RSS data is
                      undergoing SPURIOUS COOLING because RSS is still using the old NOAA-15
                      satellite which has a decaying orbit…”

                    • Wake December 30, 2017 at 5:03 PM

                      Then by all means explain the discrepancy between that so-called temperature chart and the one taken by NASA weather satellites from 1979 to present?

                      http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_March_2017_v6.jpg

                    • Wake December 21, 2017 at 11:23 AM

                      Why do you make these claims without a link? And if you do not have a link where do you get this sort of information? From some True Believer site? The fact is that YOU have to both read and understand any of these papers before you start talking about them. I’m not surprised at all that you talk about things that you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about.

                      Firstly, CO2 was suggested as a gas that might cause atmospheric heating by Svante August Arrhenius. He performed NO experiments himself but relied on some experiments that had to do with measuring the color of moonlight done by others. He was attempting to theorize why we had ice ages. That was circa 1886 I believe. Ever since that time people have unsuccessfully attempted to use his theory to show any number of things.

                      As we have seen – when the evidence of global warming is disproved by the numbers NASA has simply changed the numbers. https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf

                      We could also present the information in this video but you don’t have the patience to do anything but scream “GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL” as your handlers have taught you.

                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJBDI7jVMqM

                    • R. Kooi December 21, 2017 at 2:53 PM

                      In laymen’s terms…so YOU can understand !

                      The story in a nutshell: Like most histories, this one begins far back. People had long suspected that human activity could change the local climate. For example, ancient Greeks and 19th-century Americans debated how cutting down forests might bring more rainfall to a region, or perhaps less. But greater shifts of climate happened all by themselves. The discovery in the mid 19th century that there had been ice ages in the distant past proved that climate could change radically over much of the globe, a change vastly beyond anything mere humans seemed able to cause. So what did cause global climate change — was it variations in the heat of the Sun? Volcanoes erupting clouds of smoke? The raising and lowering of mountain ranges, which diverted wind patterns and ocean currents? Or could it be changes in the composition of the air itself? In 1824 a French scientist had explained that Earth’s temperature would be much lower if the planet lacked an atmosphere, and in 1859 an English scientist discovered that the chief gases that trapped heat were water vapor and carbon dioxide (CO2).

                      In 1896 the Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius published a new idea.
                      .
                      By burning fossil fuels such as coal,
                      thus adding CO2 to Earth’s atmosphere, humanity would raise the planet’s average temperature.

                      This “greenhouse effect,” as it later came to be called, was only one of many speculations about climate change, and not the most plausible.
                      .
                      The few scientists who paid attention to Arrhenius used clumsy experiments and rough approximations to argue that our emissions could not change the planet. Most people thought it was already obvious that puny humanity could never affect the vast global climate cycles, which were governed by a benign “balance of nature.”

                      In the 1930s, measurements showed that the United States and North Atlantic region had warmed significantly during the previous half-century.

                      Scientists supposed this was just a phase of some mild natural cycle, probably regional, with unknown causes.

                      Only one lone voice, the English steam engineer and amateur scientist Guy Stewart Callendar, published arguments that greenhouse warming was underway. If so, he and most others thought it would be beneficial.

                      In the 1950s, Callendar’s claims provoked a few scientists to look into the question with far better techniques and calculations than earlier generations could have deployed. This research was made possible by a sharp increase of government funding, especially from military agencies that wanted to know more about the weather and geophysics in general.

                      Not only might such knowledge be crucial in future battles, but scientific progress could bring a nation prestige in the Cold War competition. The new studies showed that, contrary to earlier crude assumptions, CO2 might indeed build up in the atmosphere and bring warming. In 1960 painstaking measurements of the level of the gas in the atmosphere by Charles Keeling, a young scientist with an obsession for accuracy, drove home the point. The level was in fact rising year by year.

                      During the next decade a few scientists worked up simple mathematical models of the planet’s climate system and turned up feedbacks that could make the system surprisingly sensitive. Others figured out ingenious ways to retrieve past temperatures by studying ancient pollen and fossil shells. It appeared that grave climate change could happen, and in the past had happened, within as little as a century or two. This finding was reinforced by more elaborate models of the general circulation of the atmosphere, an offshoot of a government-funded effort to use the new digital computers to predict (and perhaps even deliberately change) the weather. Calculations made in the late 1960s suggested that in the next century, as CO2 built up in the atmosphere, average temperatures would rise a few degrees. But the models were preliminary, and the 21st century seemed far away.

                      In the early 1970s, the rise of environmentalism raised public doubts about the benefits of any human activity for the planet. Curiosity about climate change turned into anxious concern. A few degrees of warming no longer sounded benign, and as scientists looked into possible impacts they noticed alarming possibilities of rising sea levels and possible damage to agriculture.

                      Meanwhile a few scientists pointed out that human activity was putting not only CO2 but ever more dust and smog particles into the atmosphere, where they could block sunlight and cool the world. Analysis of Northern Hemisphere weather statistics showed that a cooling trend had begun in the 1940s; was pollution the cause? (Decades later, scientists would confirm that soaring industrial pollution had in fact contributed to temporary Northern Hemisphere cooling.) The public media were confused, sometimes predicting a balmy globe with coastal areas flooded as the ice caps melted, sometimes foreboding a catastrophic new ice age, sometimes quoting expert assurances that nothing much would change. Study panels of scientists, first in the U.S. and then internationally, began to warn that one or another kind of future climate change might pose a severe threat. The main thing scientists agreed on was that they scarcely understood the climate system. The only policy action they recommended was to fund more research to find out what might really happen. Research activity did accelerate using state-of-the-art computers, international programs to assemble weather data, and adventurous expeditions across oceans and ice caps to gather information on past climates.

                      Most scientists thought a disastrous cooling was unlikely, if only because dust and smog fall out of the atmosphere in weeks, whereas CO2 would linger for centuries. Computer models, improving at the breakneck pace of computing in general, consistently showed warming. With worries about climate change rising, in 1979 the U.S. National Academy of Sciences convened a committee of experts to hash out what could reliably be said. They reached a consensus that when CO2 reached double the pre-industrial level, sometime in the following century, the planet would probably warm up by about 3°C (5.4°F), plus or minus a degree or two.

                      Earlier scientists had sought a single master-key to climate, but now they were coming to understand that climate is an intricate system responding to a great many influences. Volcanic eruptions and solar variations were still plausible causes of change, and some argued these would swamp any effects of human activities. Even subtle changes in the Earth’s orbit could make a difference. To the surprise of many, studies of ancient climates showed that astronomical cycles had partly set the timing of the ice ages. Apparently the climate was so delicately balanced that almost any small perturbation might set off a large shift. According to the new “chaos” theories, in a complex system a shift might happen suddenly. Support for the idea came from ice cores arduously drilled from the Greenland ice sheet. They showed large and disconcertingly abrupt temperature jumps in the past, on a scale not of centuries but decades.

                      The improved computer models also began to suggest how such jumps could happen, for example through a change in the circulation of ocean currents. Experts now predicted that global warming could bring not only rising sea levels but unprecedented droughts, storm floods, and other disasters. A few politicians began to suspect there might be a public issue here. However, the modelers had to make many arbitrary assumptions about clouds and the like, and reputable scientists disputed the reliability of the results. Others pointed out how little was known about the way living ecosystems interact with climate and the atmosphere. They argued, for example, over how much CO2 humanity might be adding to the atmosphere through deforestation. One thing the scientists agreed on was the need for still larger and more coherent research programs. But the research remained disorganized, and funding grew only in irregular surges.

                      One unexpected discovery was that the levels of other “greenhouse gases” such as methane and chlorofluorocarbons were rising explosively. Suddenly scientists found that global warming could come twice as fast as expected — in their children’s lifetimes or even their own.

                    • Wake December 22, 2017 at 12:24 PM

                      If there’s one place you can get valid science it’s from the ancient Greeks. One major volcanic eruption such as any one of the 50 that occur every year among the 1,500 known volcanoes can spew more CO2 into the atmosphere than man has made to date. But man is a demon to people like you. I’ve even seen your kind telling us that “depopulation” is the real answer. Of course not white people – mainly those bad feriners.

                      I have read Arrhenius paper which was in German and he said nothing of the sort. Why do you make such false claims all the time? He performed NO experiments because he didn’t have the time or money to do so. His paper was a thought experiment on why ice ages occurred and he used a paper from another study concerning the spectrum of moonlight. None of this had anything to do with warming.

                      Don’t give us this “subtle changes in orbit” because the
                      Milankovitch Cycles are not subtle in the least.

                      Not only have not one single computer model predicted as little as 5 years into the future accurately but they cannot even be used to tell you what happened 5 years into the past since we have actual data on that.

                    • Wake December 30, 2017 at 4:19 PM

                      Rather than go through your endless tirade of ignorance you stated:

                      “1896
                      Arrhenius publishes first calculation of global warming from human emissions of CO2. =>Simple models”

                      In fact he did nothing of the kind. He performed NO experiments to verify his ideas and he said he didn’t have the money to do so. Instead he relied upon Langley’s papers on the spectrum of moonlight taken on the full moon throughout a year. He even applied “reduction values” rather indiscriminately to Langley’s data. In his paper he stated that the temperature of the Moon was nearly the same as the Earth. He also assumed that CO2 was a constant and his experiments actually had more to do with the strange effects of “aqueous vapor” which he could not really understand.

                      In fact the title of his paper pretty much said it all: “The influence of carbonic acid in the air on the temperature of the ground”. What? No atmospheric heat?

                      “1920-1925 Milankovitch proposes orbital changes as the cause of ice ages. =>Climate cycles”

                      This has NOTHING to do with “man-made global warming” And while this is an important effect the only REAL close match between heating and cooling has turned out to be a combination of sunspots and cosmic rays from outer space.

                      “1965
                      American Association for the Advancement of Science delivers to President Johnson, Research Report & Warning, with Spot On accurate projections about Climate change for 2015.”

                      This is a huge F-ing lie. The report SAID: “that within a few years, climate models would be able to reasonably project future global surface temperature changes.”

                      In fact such projections weren’t made for 10 years and his predictions were as much as 200% off. While NASA states that his END prediction and the present temperatures are equal, the entire temperature data for the LAST 40 years is a blithering lie that doesn’t match the satellite temperature data at all. NASA has even shown huge temperature increases in central Africa where they do not even have weather stations. Dr. Roy Spencer the head of NASA’s weather/Earth temperature satellite program states that there has been no average temperature increases for the last 38 years while NASA has been claiming that there are record temperature years every single year for the last ten years.

                      In short – you know nothing and never did. You read some True Believer website and then make these rediculous statements without even know what they are.

                    • R. Kooi December 30, 2017 at 5:46 PM

                      1.
                      In 1824 a French scientist had explained that Earth’s temperature would be much lower if the planet lacked an atmosphere,
                      and
                      2.
                      in 1859 an English scientist discovered that the chief gases that trapped heat were water vapor and carbon dioxide (CO2).
                      3.
                      In 1896 the Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius published a new idea.
                      By burning fossil fuels such as coal, thus adding CO2 to Earth’s atmosphere, humanity would raise the planet’s average temperature.
                      4.
                      This “greenhouse effect,” as it later came to be called, was only one of many speculations about climate change, and not the most plausible.
                      5.
                      The few scientists who paid attention to Arrhenius used clumsy experiments and rough approximations to argue that our emissions could not change the planet.
                      * 6.*
                      Most people thought it was already obvious that puny humanity could never affect the vast global climate cycles, which were governed by a benign “balance of nature.”
                      7.
                      In the 1930s, measurements showed that the United States and North Atlantic region had warmed significantly during the previous half-century.
                      8.
                      Scientists supposed this was just a phase of some mild natural cycle, probably regional, with unknown causes.
                      9.
                      Only one lone voice, the English steam engineer and amateur scientist Guy Stewart Callendar, published arguments that greenhouse warming was underway. If so, he and most others thought it would be beneficial.
                      9.
                      In the 1950s, Callendar’s claims provoked a few scientists to look into the question with far better techniques and calculations than earlier generations could have deployed. This research was made possible by a sharp increase of government funding, especially from military agencies that wanted to know more about the weather and geophysics in general. Not only might such knowledge be crucial in future battles, but scientific progress could bring a nation prestige in the Cold War competition. The new studies showed that, contrary to earlier crude assumptions, CO2 might indeed build up in the atmosphere and bring warming. In 1960 painstaking measurements of the level of the gas in the atmosphere by Charles Keeling, a young scientist with an obsession for accuracy, drove home the point. The level was in fact rising year by year.

                      During the next decade a few scientists worked up simple mathematical models of the planet’s climate system and turned up feedbacks that could make the system surprisingly sensitive. Others figured out ingenious ways to retrieve past temperatures by studying ancient pollen and fossil shells. It appeared that grave climate change could happen, and in the past had happened, within as little as a century or two. This finding was reinforced by more elaborate models of the general circulation of the atmosphere, an offshoot of a government-funded effort to use the new digital computers to predict (and perhaps even deliberately change) the weather. Calculations made in the late 1960s suggested that in the next century, as CO2 built up in the atmosphere, average temperatures would rise a few degrees. But the models were preliminary, and the 21st century seemed far away.

                      In the early 1970s, the rise of environmentalism raised public doubts about the benefits of any human activity for the planet. Curiosity about climate change turned into anxious concern. A few degrees of warming no longer sounded benign, and as scientists looked into possible impacts they noticed alarming possibilities of rising sea levels and possible damage to agriculture.

                      Meanwhile a few scientists pointed out that human activity was putting not only CO2 but ever more dust and smog particles into the atmosphere, where they could block sunlight and cool the world. Analysis of Northern Hemisphere weather statistics showed that a cooling trend had begun in the 1940s; was pollution the cause? (Decades later, scientists would confirm that soaring industrial pollution had in fact contributed to temporary Northern Hemisphere cooling.) The public media were confused, sometimes predicting a balmy globe with coastal areas flooded as the ice caps melted, sometimes foreboding a catastrophic new ice age, sometimes quoting expert assurances that nothing much would change. Study panels of scientists, first in the U.S. and then internationally, began to warn that one or another kind of future climate change might pose a severe threat. The main thing scientists agreed on was that they scarcely understood the climate system. The only policy action they recommended was to fund more research to find out what might really happen. Research activity did accelerate using state-of-the-art computers, international programs to assemble weather data, and adventurous expeditions across oceans and ice caps to gather information on past climates.

                      Most scientists thought a disastrous cooling was unlikely, if only because dust and smog fall out of the atmosphere in weeks, whereas CO2 would linger for centuries. Computer models, improving at the breakneck pace of computing in general, consistently showed warming. With worries about climate change rising, in 1979 the U.S. National Academy of Sciences convened a committee of experts to hash out what could reliably be said. They reached a consensus that when CO2 reached double the pre-industrial level, sometime in the following century, the planet would probably warm up by about 3°C (5.4°F), plus or minus a degree or two.

                      Earlier scientists had sought a single master-key to climate, but now they were coming to understand that climate is an intricate system responding to a great many influences. Volcanic eruptions and solar variations were still plausible causes of change, and some argued these would swamp any effects of human activities. Even subtle changes in the Earth’s orbit could make a difference. To the surprise of many, studies of ancient climates showed that astronomical cycles had partly set the timing of the ice ages. Apparently the climate was so delicately balanced that almost any small perturbation might set off a large shift. According to the new “chaos” theories, in a complex system a shift might happen suddenly. Support for the idea came from ice cores arduously drilled from the Greenland ice sheet. They showed large and disconcertingly abrupt temperature jumps in the past, on a scale not of centuries but decades.

                      The improved computer models also began to suggest how such jumps could happen, for example through a change in the circulation of ocean currents. Experts now predicted that global warming could bring not only rising sea levels but unprecedented droughts, storm floods, and other disasters. A few politicians began to suspect there might be a public issue here. However, the modelers had to make many arbitrary assumptions about clouds and the like, and reputable scientists disputed the reliability of the results. Others pointed out how little was known about the way living ecosystems interact with climate and the atmosphere. They argued, for example, over how much CO2 humanity might be adding to the atmosphere through deforestation. One thing the scientists agreed on was the need for still larger and more coherent research programs. But the research remained disorganized, and funding grew only in irregular surges.

                      One unexpected discovery was that the levels of other “greenhouse gases” such as methane and chlorofluorocarbons were rising explosively. Suddenly scientists found that global warming could come twice as fast as expected — in their children’s lifetimes or even their own. Gathering at a 1985 conference in Austria, climate experts from 29 nations agreed to call on the world’s governments to consider forging international agreements to restrict greenhouse gas emissions. Policy makers ignored the advice, and the public scarcely noticed.

                      By the late 1970s global temperatures had begun to rise again. Some climate scientists predicted that an unprecedented global warming would become apparent around the year 2000. Their worries finally caught wide public attention in the summer of 1988, the hottest on record till then. Computer modeler James Hansen made headlines when he told a Congressional hearing and journalists that greenhouse warming was almost certainly underway. And a major international meeting of scientists in Toronto called on governments to undertake active steps to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

                      The response was vehement. Corporations and individuals who opposed all government regulation began to spend millions of dollars on lobbying, advertising, and “reports” that mimicked scientific publications, striving to convince the public that there was no problem at all. Environmental groups, less wealthy but more enthusiastic, helped politicize the issue with urgent cries of alarm. The many scientific uncertainties, and the sheer complexity of climate, made room for limitless debate over what actions, if any, governments should take.
                      *****

                    • R. Kooi December 30, 2017 at 5:47 PM

                      To start in,
                      for the scientific story,
                      a good starting-point is the keystone essay on the basic discoveries about The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect, followed perhaps by attempts to explain changes with Simple Models of Climate.
                      If you are interested especially in the social connections of climate studies you could start, for example, with the facts of The Modern Temperature Trend and proceed to the long essay on U.S. Government:
                      The View from Washington, followed by International Cooperation.
                      For basic information and recent developments, see the page of links and bibliography.

                    • Wake December 31, 2017 at 1:20 PM

                      Even this fake model shows that the temperature increases were much less than predicted.

                    • R. Kooi December 30, 2017 at 5:59 PM

                      1. Surface weather station measurements CLEARLY register Warming for over a century !
                      2. Satellite measurements show that the troposphere is warming
                      3. The stratosphere is cooling as predicted by anthropogenic global warming theory
                      (this cannot be explained by solar variability)
                      4. Temperatures at the ocean surface and at various ocean depths show warming as far down as 3000 meters
                      5. Sea level rise…at an increasing rate.
                      6. Gravitometric measurements of Greenland and Antarctica show net ice loss
                      7. Sea-ice loss in the Arctic is dramatically accelerating
                      8. Acceleration of glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica, particularly within the last few years.
                      9. The rise of the tropopause
                      10. Poleward migration of species
                      11. Increased intensity of hurricanes as expected from rising sea surface temperatures
                      12. Accelerating decline of glaciers throughout the world
                      13. Rise in temperatures at greater depths in the permafrost
                      14. Rapid expansion of thermokarst lakes throughout parts of Siberia, Canada and Alaska
                      15. Changes in ocean circulation as predicted by climate models, for example, with temperatures rising more quickly overland
                      16. Disintegration of permafrost coastlines in the arctic
                      17. Changes in the altitude of the stratosphere
                      18. An energy imbalance – the earth is receiving more energy than it emits (Google: Hansen 2005 abstract)
                      19. Poleward movement of the jet streams (Archer 2008, Seidel 2007, Fu 2006)
                      20. Widening of the tropical belt (Seidel 2007, Fu 2006)
                      Note – Some of the evidence listed above are unique to CO2 warming – the carbon “fingerprint”.
                      .
                      “Overlooked by modern researchers is the work of Eunice Foote, who,
                      three years prior to the start of Tyndall’s laboratory research,
                      conducted similar experiments on absorption of radiant energy by atmospheric gases,
                      such as CO2 and water vapor. The presentation of her report at a major scientific convention in 1856
                      was accompanied by postulation that even modest increases in the concentration of CO2 would result in significant atmospheric warming.”

                      http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/..

                    • R. Kooi December 31, 2017 at 1:22 PM

                      “publishes first calculation of global warming from human emissions of CO2”

                      in stead of dealing with that you go into a RABID RANT based on comments from the Hatefilled Envious of his and our world….attacking….but not relevant to WHAT I QUOTED.

                      The FACT is Arrhenius was on target and you & yours are still off target today.

                    • Ian5 December 21, 2017 at 12:33 AM

                      More cluttered, disoriented fluff.

                    • Wake December 21, 2017 at 11:00 AM

                      So what you’re saying is that you are not an American and don’t want the word out.

                    • Ian5 December 21, 2017 at 11:03 AM

                      No you said that. The article is about the misleading views of Tim Ball and Mark Steyn.

                    • LTJ December 28, 2017 at 11:30 AM

                      Funny that both Ball and Steyn fit the description “not an American”.

                    • Wake December 21, 2017 at 10:49 AM

                      The total number of “scientists” that have signed off on the IPCC latest paper are 2500. As it turns out a large percentage of those are not scientists but politicians. And we’re back down to 600 scientists for and 31,000+ having signed the Oregon Petition.

                    • Ian5 December 21, 2017 at 11:01 AM

                      More intentionally misleading rubbish. The Oregon Petition project — organized and coordinated by conservative ideologue Art Robinson – has been thoroughly debunked. Shameful that you continue to reference it.

                    • Wake December 21, 2017 at 12:01 PM

                      If it has been “debunked” then by all means show us where and who has done this.

                    • LTJ December 28, 2017 at 4:07 AM

                      The Wikipedia entry you’ve quoted does a pretty great job of debunking it. Once again, do you actually read your own references, or you cutting and pasting the cherry-picked quotes of others?

                      “Robinson asserted in 2008 that the petition has over 31,000 signatories, with 9,000 of these holding a PhD degree.[1] Most signatories with a PhD hold their degree in engineering.” Nothing climate-related

                      “Approved names on the list included fictional characters from the television show M*A*S*H,[21] the movie Star Wars,[20] Spice Girls group member Geri Halliwell, English naturalist Charles Darwin (d. 1882) and prank names such as “I. C. Ewe”.[22] When questioned about the pop singer during a telephone interview with Joseph Hubert of the Associated Press, Robinson acknowledged that her endorsement and degree in microbiology was inauthentic, remarking “When we’re getting thousands of signatures there’s no way of filtering out a fake”.”

                      “…although the Petition Project website provides a breakdown of “areas of expertise”, it fails to assort the 0.5% of signatories who claim to have a background in Climatology and Atmospheric Science by name, making independent verification difficult. “This makes an already questionable list seem completely insignificant””

                    • Wake December 29, 2017 at 4:26 PM

                      Here is the site of that petition project: http://www.petitionproject.org/signers_by_state_main.php

                      Please show us these fictional characters.

                    • LTJ December 29, 2017 at 5:03 PM

                      Contact wikipedia.

                    • Wake December 31, 2017 at 1:00 PM

                      I gave you the address of the Oregon Petition. YOU made the claim that there are names from MASH and other TV shows. Prove it or by all means be shown for the lying SOB environmentalist pretender.

                    • LTJ December 31, 2017 at 3:03 PM

                      You’re welcome to try to “correct” wikipedia. I’m doubting you’ll have any success.

                    • Robert January 3, 2018 at 10:41 AM

                      W cited wikipedia, then is complaining about what is says?

                    • Robert December 29, 2017 at 5:10 PM

                      Other point’s are the basic logical fallacies of ‘big number to impress’ and falsely ascribed authoritativeness.
                      31k compared to how many b.s. earned a year in the u.s. much less over a 20 or 40 year career and world wide. It’s a laughably small %, even if all the names were somewhat close to climate related expertise.

                    • Wake January 2, 2018 at 12:50 PM

                      Robert – do you mean like “97% of all scientists agree with man-made global warming”?

                    • Robert January 2, 2018 at 1:27 PM

                      “Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*”

                      https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

                      “Based on the evidence, about 97% of climate experts have concluded that human-caused climate change is happening. What We Know helps us understand the science behind the realities, risks and response to the climate challenge.”

                      http://whatweknow.aaas.org

                      There are good reasons why there is such a consensus:nearly two hundred years worth of research which includes every alternative hypothesis. That’s how science works.

                      Further, there is a body of research showing how interested parties funded the ‘debate’.

                      So, all that’s really left are conspiracy theories.

                      WHAT WE KNOW
                      THE REALITY, RISKS, AND RESPONSE TO CLIMATE CHANGE

                      The overwhelming evidence of human-caused climate change documents both current impacts with significant costs and extraordinary future risks to society and natural systems. The scientific community has convened conferences, published reports, spoken out at forums and proclaimed, through statements by virtually every national scientific academy and relevant major scientific organization — including the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) — that climate change puts the well-being of people of all nations at risk. http://whatweknow.aaas.org/get-the-facts/

                      What’s Really Warming the World? Climate deniers blame natural factors; NASA data proves otherwise
                      https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

                      What is climate change? http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-guide

                      Environment and Climate Change Canada https://www.ec.gc.ca/cc/

                      European Climate Adaptation Platform (CLIMATE-ADAPT) http://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu

                      Cornell Climate Change http://climatechange.cornell.edu

                      republicEn: Engaging Conservatives https://www.climatechangecommunication.org/republicen/

                      George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication https://www.climatechangecommunication.org

                      EARTH Institute http://earth.columbia.edu/articles/view/2124

                      And the science condensed :

                      D.3 Detection and Attribution of Climate Change

                      Human influence has been detected in warming of the atmosphere and the ocean, in changes in the global water cycle, in reductions in snow and ice, in global mean sea level rise, and in changes in some climate extremes (see Figure SPM.6 and Table SPM.1). This evidence for human influence has grown since AR4. It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. {10.3–10.6, 10.9}

                      • It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period. {10.3}

                      • Greenhouse gases contributed a global mean surface warming likely to be in the range of 0.5°C to 1.3°C over the period 1951 to 2010, with the contributions from other anthropogenic forcings, including the cooling effect of aerosols, likely to be in the range of −0.6°C to 0.1°C. The contribution from natural forcings is likely to be in the range of −0.1°C to 0.1°C, and from natural internal variability is likely to be in the range of −0.1°C to 0.1°C. Together these assessed contributions are consistent with the observed warming of approximately 0.6°C to 0.7°C over this period. {10.3}

                      • Over every continental region except Antarctica, anthropogenic forcings have likely made a substantial contribution to surface temperature increases since the mid-20th century (see Figure SPM.6). For Antarctica, large observational uncertainties result in low confidence that anthropogenic forcings have contributed to the observed warming averaged over available stations. It is likely that there has been an anthropogenic contribution to the very substantial Arctic warming since the mid-20th century. {2.4, 10.3}

                      • It is very likely that anthropogenic influence, particularly greenhouse gases and stratospheric ozone depletion, has led to a detectable observed pattern of tropospheric warming and a corresponding cooling in the lower stratosphere since 1961. {2.4, 9.4, 10.3}

                      • It is very likely that anthropogenic forcings have made a substantial contribution to increases in global upper ocean heat content (0–700 m) observed since the 1970s (see Figure SPM.6). There is evidence for human influence in some individual ocean basins. {3.2, 10.4}

                      • It is likely that anthropogenic influences have affected the global water cycle since 1960. Anthropogenic influences have contributed to observed increases in atmospheric moisture content in the atmosphere (medium confidence), to global scale changes in precipitation patterns over land (medium confidence), to intensification of heavy precipitation over land regions where data are sufficient (medium confidence), and to changes in surface and sub-surface ocean salinity (very likely). {2.5, 2.6, 3.3, 7.6, 10.3, 10.4}
                      SPM WG1 AR5

                    • Wake January 2, 2018 at 1:49 PM

                      More total and utter rubbish. Out of 4,000 scientists polled 37 said that there definitely was AGW. 2 said that there was definitely NO AGW. The rest said that there was insufficient data to tell one way or the other. They ONLY counted the 39 that made positive statement and even reported THAT percentage incorrectly since they must have been as bright as Robert.

                    • Robert January 2, 2018 at 2:05 PM

                      Ah, the Internet expert on returning vets and climate science is also now versed in statistics.

                      So cocksure, seems you think there is no need to cite what you read.

                      Which doesn’t even meet 6th grade level academic standards.

                      “0 points
                      Created citations which were incomplete or inaccurate, and provided no way to check the validity of the information gathered.”

                      https://www2.uwstout.edu/content/profdev/rubrics/middlelschresearchrubric.html

                      Yet, you, an adult, seem to think those rules don’t apply.

                      Interesting.

                    • Wake January 2, 2018 at 2:55 PM

                      Considering that you are not a Vietnam Vet and I have produced several stories about vets being spit on as well as myself I would say you know absolutely nothing about it except you think you are somehow on the moral high ground by producing a book written by a man who wasn’t there.

                      I am a real scientist and you aren’t. I have the credentials to back it up and you don’t. I understand scientific papers and how to read them and more importantly how to find them and you don’t. YOUR response is to cite a kid’s movie produce by the American Association for the Advancement of Science under Obama in 2014 which is nothing more than a propaganda piece. You always seem to have a tight grasp on the subject.

                      You want citations when any ass could find them with the first Google search.

                      https://climatechangedispatch.com/97-articles-refuting-the-97-consensus/

                      https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/#3d89429b3f9f

                      http://www.al.com/opinion/index.ssf/2016/03/the_myth_of_the_97_percent_glo.html

                      http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425232/climate-change-no-its-not-97-percent-consensus-ian-tuttle

                      You just cannot stop yourself from appearing a moron.

                    • Robert January 2, 2018 at 3:42 PM

                      Yes, you’ve “..produced several stories…”. Written decades after the fact, not in agreement with facts on the ground, nor supported by reporting done at the time.

                      Then you double down making assertions you have no way of supporting, personal attacks,

                      Then, you’ve also become an expert in climate science. Again with no supportable evidence showing why we should accept your word for either professed expertise or the science. And you double down on that by giving us 4 links to a blog, 2 political and business magazines, and a newspaper opinion piece. As though those are the type of sources scientists would use.

                      And followed by more unprovable claims. And more insults.

                      And OPP
                      https://disqus.com/home/discussion/cfact/decision_looms_in_michael_mann_tim_ball_8220hockey_stick8221_lawsuit/#comment-3672694213
                      And Hoax https://disqus.com/home/discussion/cfact/decision_looms_in_michael_mann_tim_ball_8220hockey_stick8221_lawsuit/#comment-3672761399

                      Thanks for showing us what not being able to do a modicum of critical thinking results in.
                      .

                    • Wake January 2, 2018 at 4:16 PM

                      Yeah, everyone that reads this stuff can see your moronic behavior. Those who were there don’t know anything about it and those who weren’t do. You really are one miserable piece of human waste aren’t you?

                      I have shown you that NONE of your references are anything other than a pack of lies. I have described to you how CO2 not only isn’t a “greenhouse gas” but couldn’t be because of the way thermal energy moves about in the troposphere.

                      But you without one bit of training can tell us differently. And why have you told us what you meant when you wrote, “I was flying into airbases in ’67”?

                      Time for you to invent more “facts” that you can’t support.

                    • Robert January 2, 2018 at 5:07 PM

                      WHAT WE KNOW
                      THE REALITY, RISKS, AND RESPONSE TO CLIMATE CHANGE

                      The overwhelming evidence of human-caused climate change documents both current impacts with significant costs and extraordinary future risks to society and natural systems. The scientific community has convened conferences, published reports, spoken out at forums and proclaimed, through statements by virtually every national scientific academy and relevant major scientific organization — including the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) — that climate change puts the well-being of people of all nations at risk. http://whatweknow.aaas.org/get-the-facts/

                      What’s Really Warming the World? Climate deniers blame natural factors; NASA data proves otherwise
                      https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

                      What is climate change? http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-guide

                      Environment and Climate Change Canada https://www.ec.gc.ca/cc/

                      European Climate Adaptation Platform (CLIMATE-ADAPT) http://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu

                      Cornell Climate Change http://climatechange.cornell.edu

                      republicEn: Engaging Conservatives https://www.climatechangecommunication.org/republicen/

                      George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication https://www.climatechangecommunication.org

                      EARTH Institute http://earth.columbia.edu/articles/view/2124

                      And the science condensed :

                      D.3 Detection and Attribution of Climate Change

                      Human influence has been detected in warming of the atmosphere and the ocean, in changes in the global water cycle, in reductions in snow and ice, in global mean sea level rise, and in changes in some climate extremes (see Figure SPM.6 and Table SPM.1). This evidence for human influence has grown since AR4. It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. {10.3–10.6, 10.9}

                      • It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period. {10.3}

                      • Greenhouse gases contributed a global mean surface warming likely to be in the range of 0.5°C to 1.3°C over the period 1951 to 2010, with the contributions from other anthropogenic forcings, including the cooling effect of aerosols, likely to be in the range of −0.6°C to 0.1°C. The contribution from natural forcings is likely to be in the range of −0.1°C to 0.1°C, and from natural internal variability is likely to be in the range of −0.1°C to 0.1°C. Together these assessed contributions are consistent with the observed warming of approximately 0.6°C to 0.7°C over this period. {10.3}

                      • Over every continental region except Antarctica, anthropogenic forcings have likely made a substantial contribution to surface temperature increases since the mid-20th century (see Figure SPM.6). For Antarctica, large observational uncertainties result in low confidence that anthropogenic forcings have contributed to the observed warming averaged over available stations. It is likely that there has been an anthropogenic contribution to the very substantial Arctic warming since the mid-20th century. {2.4, 10.3}

                      • It is very likely that anthropogenic influence, particularly greenhouse gases and stratospheric ozone depletion, has led to a detectable observed pattern of tropospheric warming and a corresponding cooling in the lower stratosphere since 1961. {2.4, 9.4, 10.3}

                      • It is very likely that anthropogenic forcings have made a substantial contribution to increases in global upper ocean heat content (0–700 m) observed since the 1970s (see Figure SPM.6). There is evidence for human influence in some individual ocean basins. {3.2, 10.4}

                      • It is likely that anthropogenic influences have affected the global water cycle since 1960. Anthropogenic influences have contributed to observed increases in atmospheric moisture content in the atmosphere (medium confidence), to global scale changes in precipitation patterns over land (medium confidence), to intensification of heavy precipitation over land regions where data are sufficient (medium confidence), and to changes in surface and sub-surface ocean salinity (very likely). {2.5, 2.6, 3.3, 7.6, 10.3, 10.4}
                      SPM WG1 AR5

                    • Wake January 2, 2018 at 5:43 PM
                    • Robert January 2, 2018 at 6:36 PM

                      Thanks !
                      A ten yr old movie starring several personages who haven’t been publishing in the field certainly corrects the record.
                      /’s

                      But does do a grand job of displaying an inability to use 6th grade tools for determining the quality of a resource.

                      C.R.A.A.P. TEST

                      Currency: the timeliness of the information
                      When was the information published or posted?
                      Has the information been revised or updated?
                      Is the information current or out-of date for your topic?
                      Are the links functional?
                      Relevance: the importance of the information for your needs
                      Does the information relate to your topic or answer your question?
                      Who is the intended audience?
                      Is the information at an appropriate level (i.e. not too elementary or advanced for your needs)?
                      Have you looked at a variety of sources before determining this is one you will use?
                      Would you be comfortable using this source for a research paper?
                      Authority: the source of the information
                      Who is the author/publisher/source/sponsor?
                      Are the author’s credentials or organizational affiliations given?
                      What are the author’s credentials or organizational affiliations given?
                      What are the author’s qualifications to write on the topic?
                      Is there contact information, such as a publisher or e-mail address?
                      Does the URL reveal anything about the author or source?

                      examples: .com (commercial), .edu (educational), .gov (U.S. government),
                      .org (nonprofit organization), or .net (network)
                      Accuracy: the reliability, truthfulness, and correctness of the content, and
                      Where does the information come from?
                      Is the information supported by evidence?
                      Has the information been reviewed or refereed?
                      Can you verify any of the information in another source or from personal knowledge?
                      Does the language or tone seem biased and free of emotion?
                      Are there spelling, grammar, or other typographical errors?
                      Purpose: the reason the information exists
                      What is the purpose of the information? to inform? teach? sell? entertain? persuade?
                      Do the authors/sponsors make their intentions or purpose clear?
                      Is the information fact? opinion? propaganda?
                      Does the point of view appear objective and impartial?
                      Are there political, ideological, cultural, religious, institutional, or personal biases?

                      http://libguides.library.ncat.edu/content_mobile.php?pid=53820&sid=394505#box_394505

                      Here’s a couple of simple worksheets to print out to help:
                      http://libraryguides.ccbcmd.edu/ld.php?content_id=14159298
                      http://www.juniata.edu/services/library/instruction/handouts/craap_worksheet.pdf

                      Somewhat odd the best copy you brought forward looks like something done with a cellphone pointed at a TV screen with subtitles.

                      (minor edit to note age of movie that is supposed to be the greatest ever proof that that only denialists think they know ‘the truth’ )

                    • Wake January 3, 2018 at 4:09 PM

                      What YOU know is nothing. Your he-said she-said knowledge without any education is pretty funny.

                      When the court reconvenes you can say all you like about their judgement.

                      http://notrickszone.com/2018/01/01/150-non-global-warming-graphs-from-2017-pummel-claims-of-unusual-modern-warmth/#sthash.xOMSjuoT.x0FtGL4O.dpbs

                    • Robert January 3, 2018 at 4:14 PM

                      Well, obviously, it’s not me, it’s the we –
                      WHAT WE KNOW
                      THE REALITY, RISKS, AND RESPONSE TO CLIMATE CHANGE

                      The overwhelming evidence of human-caused climate change documents both current impacts with significant costs and extraordinary future risks to society and natural systems. The scientific community has convened conferences, published reports, spoken out at forums and proclaimed, through statements by virtually every national scientific academy and relevant major scientific organization — including the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) — that climate change puts the well-being of people of all nations at risk. http://whatweknow.aaas.org/get-the-facts/

                    • Robert January 3, 2018 at 5:52 PM

                      Thanks for your continuing demonstration of an inability to find reputable sources.

                      Here’s a guide to assist your further endeavors :

                      C.R.A.A.P. TEST

                      Currency: the timeliness of the information
                      When was the information published or posted?
                      Has the information been revised or updated?
                      Is the information current or out-of date for your topic?
                      Are the links functional?
                      Relevance: the importance of the information for your needs
                      Does the information relate to your topic or answer your question?
                      Who is the intended audience?
                      Is the information at an appropriate level (i.e. not too elementary or advanced for your needs)?
                      Have you looked at a variety of sources before determining this is one you will use?
                      Would you be comfortable using this source for a research paper?
                      Authority: the source of the information
                      Who is the author/publisher/source/sponsor?
                      Are the author’s credentials or organizational affiliations given?
                      What are the author’s credentials or organizational affiliations given?
                      What are the author’s qualifications to write on the topic?
                      Is there contact information, such as a publisher or e-mail address?
                      Does the URL reveal anything about the author or source?

                      examples: .com (commercial), .edu (educational), .gov (U.S. government),
                      .org (nonprofit organization), or .net (network)
                      Accuracy: the reliability, truthfulness, and correctness of the content, and
                      Where does the information come from?
                      Is the information supported by evidence?
                      Has the information been reviewed or refereed?
                      Can you verify any of the information in another source or from personal knowledge?
                      Does the language or tone seem biased and free of emotion?
                      Are there spelling, grammar, or other typographical errors?
                      Purpose: the reason the information exists
                      What is the purpose of the information? to inform? teach? sell? entertain? persuade?
                      Do the authors/sponsors make their intentions or purpose clear?
                      Is the information fact? opinion? propaganda?
                      Does the point of view appear objective and impartial?
                      Are there political, ideological, cultural, religious, institutional, or personal biases?

                      http://libguides.library.ncat.edu/content_mobile.php?pid=53820&sid=394505#box_394505

                    • Robert January 3, 2018 at 4:17 PM

                      “The likely range of the human contribution to the global mean temperature increase over the period 1951–2010 is 1.1° to 1.4°F (0.6° to 0.8°C), and the central estimate of the observed warming of 1.2°F (0.65°C) lies within this range (high confidence). This translates to a likely human contribution of 92%–123% of the observed 1951–2010 change. The likely contributions of natural forcing and internal variability to global temperature change over that period are minor (high confidence). (Ch. 3; Fig. ES.2)”
                      USGCRP, 2017: Climate Science Special Report: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume I [Wuebbles, D.J., D.W. Fahey, K.A. Hibbard, D.J. Dokken, B.C. Stewart, and T.K. Maycock (eds.)]. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, USA, 470 pp., doi: 10.7930/J0J964J6.

                    • Robert January 2, 2018 at 5:11 PM

                      “I have shown you that NONE of your references are anything ..”

                      “…one miserable piece of human waste…”

                      “..you without one bit of training can tell us differently…”

                      “While you are talking about “tropes” I find that extremely interesting since the use of that word became popular among hippies. ”

                      “..drug using hippy grandparents..”

                      “..liberal line that “we’ve always been the good people, even when we were hanging niggers and Republicans” ”

                      ” True Believers in the Church of Global Warming. ”

                      You are continuing to confuse agenda driven letters written in the late 1980s with reporting done at the time.

                      You also confuse invective , insulting, scare quotes, & irrational claims w no corroborating evidence with forming coherent arguments with supporting data.

                      C.R.A.A.P. TEST

                      Currency: the timeliness of the information
                      When was the information published or posted?
                      Has the information been revised or updated?
                      Is the information current or out-of date for your topic?
                      Are the links functional?
                      Relevance: the importance of the information for your needs
                      Does the information relate to your topic or answer your question?
                      Who is the intended audience?
                      Is the information at an appropriate level (i.e. not too elementary or advanced for your needs)?
                      Have you looked at a variety of sources before determining this is one you will use?
                      Would you be comfortable using this source for a research paper?
                      Authority: the source of the information
                      Who is the author/publisher/source/sponsor?
                      Are the author’s credentials or organizational affiliations given?
                      What are the author’s credentials or organizational affiliations given?
                      What are the author’s qualifications to write on the topic?
                      Is there contact information, such as a publisher or e-mail address?
                      Does the URL reveal anything about the author or source?

                      examples: .com (commercial), .edu (educational), .gov (U.S. government),
                      .org (nonprofit organization), or .net (network)
                      Accuracy: the reliability, truthfulness, and correctness of the content, and
                      Where does the information come from?
                      Is the information supported by evidence?
                      Has the information been reviewed or refereed?
                      Can you verify any of the information in another source or from personal knowledge?
                      Does the language or tone seem biased and free of emotion?
                      Are there spelling, grammar, or other typographical errors?
                      Purpose: the reason the information exists
                      What is the purpose of the information? to inform? teach? sell? entertain? persuade?
                      Do the authors/sponsors make their intentions or purpose clear?
                      Is the information fact? opinion? propaganda?
                      Does the point of view appear objective and impartial?
                      Are there political, ideological, cultural, religious, institutional, or personal biases?

                      http://libguides.library.ncat.edu/content_mobile.php?pid=53820&sid=394505#box_394505

                      Here’s a couple of simple worksheets to print out to help:
                      http://libraryguides.ccbcmd.edu/ld.php?content_id=14159298
                      http://www.juniata.edu/services/library/instruction/handouts/craap_worksheet.pdf

                    • Wake January 3, 2018 at 4:15 PM

                      I’m still waiting for you to produce some explanation of your “flying into airbases in ’67”. You seem to be avoiding that. Why is that?

                      It is pretty funny that you’re pretending to know things that you so obviously are ignorant of. I really like your claim that the people that were there don’t know what happened but teenagers now do.

                    • Robert January 3, 2018 at 4:27 PM

                      I’ve not bothered as you set up your own analysis and assertions which were so laughable as to not need comment.

                      But, to simplify, my experience matches that of the the source I quoted.

                      You’ve chosen to rely on anecdotal reminisces written decades after the fact rather than research based on primary documents.

                      You spending a lot of effort trying to argue a point that didn’t support your main point, which is that the climate science analysis isn’t an accurate representation of what is observed seem pretty consistent, though.

                    • Wake January 2, 2018 at 12:49 PM

                      LTJ – I will ask you again – WHERE DO YOU GET A DEGREE IN “CLIMATE SCIENCE”? What University has such courses?

                    • LTJ January 2, 2018 at 4:12 PM

                      Is your googling finger still in a splint?

                    • Wake January 2, 2018 at 5:15 PM

                      Meaning you haven’t any idea at all. Well, the fact is that “climate scientists” are self proclaimed. There are so many different sciences involved in “climate science” that no one can know more than tiny percentages of the workings of a system that has carried itself from everything from the birth of life that changed the atmosphere from 60% Nitrogen and 39% CO2 to the carbon reduction from life to our present 60% Nitrogen and 39% Oxygen. In other words – the atmospheric chemistry changed so violently that the pretense that trace gases could have any significant effect is preposterous.

                      From continental motions that had all of the land area in one super-continent on several occasions to many continents walking about all over the globe. From an asteroid collisions with the Earth so violent that it destroyed almost the entire reptile species to today where CO2 had reduced to the point where photosynthesis was about to cease, giving us another extinction event. The continental motions gave us such extreme conditions that we can’t even guess though a reasonable estimate would be +1298 F in the region of the Chixculub impact site to the massive global cooling that killed even the water borne dinosaurs in the oceans.

                      That someone as puny as Dr. Michael Mann could think that he could predict anything including what he is going to have for dinner tomorrow is pretty funny.

                      The release of stored carbon in the form of fossil fuels has done nothing for this planet but improve conditions. More people are living better than ever before not only because of having access to more energy but to the improved plant growth from increased CO2 is now feeding more people than existed on this planet just 10 years ago.

                      You as a liberal should be telling us that we should stop allowing third world countries to develop. To refuse them the right to energy, food and water. What your kind have always referred to as “Ethical Depopulation”. Murder multimillions for fear that they might impact your lifestyle despite every fact to the contrary.

                      Or as another of your liberal cohorts said, “We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population so we must enlist the pastors to convince them otherwise.”

                      Your kind of liberal.

                    • Robert January 3, 2018 at 10:36 AM

                      Well done! Amazing how well so many climate science deniers have swallowed the codswallop to the point where they don’t even bother to check the veracity of what their blogs tell them.

                      And that’s with being in front of a device that can render results researchers 20 years ago would have had to go to a library and root through shelves of information to find the answer.

                    • Wake January 3, 2018 at 11:02 AM

                      I particularly like the one that is a degree is social sciences so that you know how to convince people of a false premise.

                      One would expect that if someone were going to use examples they would at least bother to read them to discover that they’re pure BS. But then bloodsuckers usually don’t have anything other than sucking on their mind.

                    • LTJ January 3, 2018 at 11:41 AM

                      That’s all you’ve got? Insignificant nitpicking and more off-target insults?

                      My work here may be done.

                    • LTJ January 3, 2018 at 5:19 PM

                      Turns out you’ve pulled more “facts” out of your Depends again.

                    • Wake December 22, 2017 at 11:59 AM

                      Pretty funny that you are attempting to disqualify extremely high level scientists by saying it was organized by someone you don’t like. Let’s see what happens to Mann. Then most of the people here will laugh in your face. Then you can tell us that the judge was an ideologue.

                    • Ian5 December 22, 2017 at 1:00 PM

                      Organized by Art Robinson of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine…an organization that is one based on ideology not science. Go look it up yourself and apply some basic critical thinking. Its silly “Journal” of American Physicians and Surgeons masquerades as a scientific journal but is nothing of the sort…Listed by Quackwatch as unreliable and untrustworthy…a purveyor of utter nonsense.

                    • Johnpd December 23, 2017 at 9:09 AM

                      Top class, thanks.

                    • Wake December 21, 2017 at 5:17 PM

                      Perhaps you can become President Trump’s science adviser since he doesn’t seem to be able to understand the papers written that show that NASA purposely and with aforethought manufactured false data. This was proven by simple mathematical analysis and the paper was peer reviewed. Because of this false data NO statement by any organization that used that data is reliable. And ALL of your quoted organizations used the NASA counterfeit data.

                      https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf

                      From your screaming and crying defense of global warming I don’t expect you to have sufficient mathematical ability to make proper change for a dollar, but you can show it to someone in your family that does.

                    • LTJ December 21, 2017 at 9:35 PM

                      My dear Wake – you have been shown this unscientific paper residing at a blog site is nonsense at least three times by three separate people. Why do you persist in claiming that it is peer-reviewed and in some way credible?

                      Move along. Find a new argument – because you’re losing face each time you come back with this one.

                    • Wake December 22, 2017 at 11:53 AM

                      I love it when you would like to “disprove” a scientific study by quoting a political site. That’s almost as funny as you making up entire things I was supposed to have said. I have worked directly in science for over 40 years and your qualifications are that you read DeSmogBlog which is the weirdest bunch I’ve ever seen outside of a zoo.

                    • LTJ December 23, 2017 at 9:00 AM

                      Perhaps you have an example of one of these things you’re claiming l’ve made up?

                    • Ian5 December 22, 2017 at 12:15 AM

                      More intentionally misleading rubbish. You provided a single link to an unpublished paper written by well known contrarians, posted to the silly, amateurish ‘tropical hot spot research’ website. No it is not peer-reviewed, published research, and regardless, it does not demonstrate that NASA purposefully manufactured false data.

                    • Wake December 24, 2017 at 4:34 PM

                      How is it that YOU know what the positions of these institutions are? All of them use the temperature data from NASA which was falsified. No research that has used that data is reliable. No claims based on those numbers are true.

                    • R. Kooi December 25, 2017 at 12:08 PM

                      AND IF IT does NOT goose step to YOUR ideological certainty…it must be faked and fiddled with.

                      and
                      research team after research team have tried to prove THAT PREMISE, THAT truly asinine accusation

                      ((( …and ALL have FAILED )))
                      ….trying to grasp the immeasurable notoriety and wealth proving the accusation accurate
                      ………..instead they ALL added to the credibility of GLOBAL WARMING SCIENCE….

                      BUT still you use this meaningless crutch to sustain your DENIAL !

                      Temperature DATA is fudged, fiddled with…manipulated !
                      WHAT ? Ground based Digital Data from 155 different nations
                      is fudged ?

                      World Newspapers and Media giants (SEEKING TO MAKE A LOT OF HEADLINES AND A LOT OF MONEY…proving NOAA & NASA fudged the data)))
                      along with private investigators.
                      …………………..****..found over 30,000 privately
                      owned and operated
                      DIGITAL GROUND WEATHER STATIONS
                      Outside nearly EVERY city and town on Earth…..
                      Farm Bureaus and Coops,
                      Trucking Companies, Bus Companies,
                      Ocean Shipping companies, corporate farms,
                      free ports and Unaffiliated air fields,
                      monasteries, wineries…
                      ..
                      tens of millions of data sets per year……
                      most going back over 20 years.
                      ………….and when the math is ALL done
                      .
                      ((not models for you to fixate and ventilate about))
                      .
                      the math…….down to .01 degree of NASA’s and NOAA’s figures
                      …..after all of your wasted spittle and exasperated exhales of CO2
                      ………YOUR CLAIMS WERE WRONG !

                      That is why the Scientific community has PEER REVIEW
                      …mandatory PUBLICATION IN SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS
                      …..and required REPLICATION before any hypothesis is more widely accepted.
                      …..

                  • R. Kooi December 19, 2017 at 8:58 PM

                    What absolute BALDERDASH !

                    TRUE RELIGIOUS IDEOLOGICAL IDIOCY !

                    The line of empirical evidence that humans
                    are causing global warming is as follows:
                    .
                    We’re raising CO2 levels
                    .
                    Human carbon dioxide emissions are calculated
                    from international energy statistics, tabulating coal, brown coal,
                    peat, and crude oil production by nation and year, going back to 1751.
                    .
                    CO2 emissions have increased dramatically over the last century,
                    climbing to the rate of 29 billion tonnes of CO2 per year in 2006 (EIA).
                    .
                    Atmospheric CO2 levels are measured at hundreds of
                    monitoring stations across the globe.
                    .
                    Independent measurements are also conducted by airplanes and satellites.
                    For periods before 1958, CO2 levels are determined from air bubbles trapped in polar ice cores.
                    In pre-industrial times over the last 10,000 years,
                    CO2 was relatively stable at around 180-to-280 parts per million.
                    .
                    Over the last 250 years, atmospheric CO2 levels have increased
                    by about 100 parts per million.
                    .
                    Humans are emitting more than twice as much CO2 as what ends up staying there.
                    Nature is reducing our impact on climate by absorbing
                    more than half of our CO2 emissions.
                    .
                    The amount of human CO2 left in the air, called the “airborne fraction”,
                    has hovered around 43% since 1958.
                    CO2 traps heat
                    .
                    According to radiative physics and decades of laboratory measurements,
                    increased CO2 in the atmosphere is expected/predicted to absorb
                    more infrared radiation as it escapes back out to space.

                    Human / Industry is producing 135 TIMES MORE CO2
                    than ALL of EARTH’s Volcanoes Combined….every year !
                    ..
                    Leading
                    Scientists
                    Questioned
                    Green House Gas effects in our atmosphere:
                    So,
                    In 1970,
                    NASA launched the IRIS satellite measuring infrared spectra.
                    .
                    Google: Iris Satellite Research Abstract
                    .
                    In 1996,
                    the Japanese Space Agency launched the IMG satellite
                    which recorded similar observations.

                    Google: IMG Satellite Research Abstract
                    .
                    Both sets of data were compared to discern any changes
                    in escaping radiation levels over the 26 year period

                    Google (Harries 2001 research abstract)
                    .
                    What they found was a drop in Escaping Infra Red radiation
                    at the PRECISE wavelength bands that greenhouse gases
                    such as CO2 with H2O, CFC’s, Ozone,
                    Nitrous Oxides, and methane (CH4) absorb energy.

                    The change in DECREASE IN ESCAPING I.R. radiation was consistent
                    with theoretical Expectations / Predictions.
                    .
                    This research & paper found

                    “direct experimental evidence for a significant increase
                    in the Earth’s greenhouse effect” and Warming on Earth.
                    .
                    This result has been confirmed by subsequent research & papers
                    using data from later satellites

                    Google (Griggs 2004 Research Abstract)
                    Google (Chen 2007 Research Astract )
                    .
                    Figure 2: Change in spectrum from 1970 to 1996 due to trace gases.
                    ‘Brightness temperature’ indicates equivalent blackbody temperature

                    Google (Harries 2001 Research Abstract)

                    When greenhouse gases absorb infrared radiation,
                    the energy heats the atmosphere which in turn
                    re-radiates infrared radiation in all directions.
                    .
                    Some makes its way back to the earth’s surface.
                    Hence
                    we Expect/Predict to find more infrared radiation heading downwards.
                    .
                    Surface measurements from 1973 to 2008 find an increasing trend
                    of infrared radiation returning to earth

                    Google (Wang 2009 Research Abstract)
                    .
                    A regional study over the central Alps found that
                    downward infrared radiation is increasing due to the
                    enhanced greenhouse effect
                    .
                    Google (Philipona 2004 research abstract).
                    .
                    Taking this a step further, an analysis of high resolution spectral data
                    allowed scientists to quantitatively attribute the increase in
                    downward radiation to each of several greenhouse gases
                    .
                    Google (Evans 2006 Research abstract)
                    .
                    The results lead the authors to conclude that
                    *
                    *** “this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics
                    that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between
                    greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and Climate Changes caused
                    by global warming.”
                    .
                    Figure 3:
                    Spectrum of the greenhouse radiation measured at the surface.
                    Greenhouse effect from water vapor is filtered out,
                    showing the contributions of other greenhouse gases

                    Google (Evans 2006 Research Abstract)
                    .
                    This Entire planet is accumulating heat
                    .
                    When there is more energy coming in than escaping back out to space,
                    our climate accumulates heat.
                    .
                    The planet’s total heat buildup can be derived by
                    adding up the heat content from the ocean, atmosphere,
                    land and ice.
                    .
                    Google (Murphy 2009 Research abstract)
                    .
                    Ocean heat content was determined down to 3000 metres deep.
                    Atmospheric heat content was calculated from the surface temperature record
                    and heat capacity of the troposphere.
                    Land and ice heat content (eg – the energy required to melt ice)
                    were also included.
                    .
                    Figure 4:
                    Total Earth Heat Content from 1950
                    .
                    Google (Murphy 2009 Research Abstract)
                    .
                    Ocean data taken from Domingues et al 2008.
                    .
                    From 1970 to 2003, the planet has been accumulating heat at a
                    rate of 190,260 gigawatts
                    with the vast majority of the energy going into the oceans.
                    Considering a typical nuclear power plant has an output of 1 gigawatt,
                    imagine 190,000 nuclear power plants
                    pouring their energy output directly into our oceans.
                    What about after 2003?
                    .
                    A map of of ocean heat from 2003 to 2008 was constructed
                    from ocean heat measurements down to 2000 metres deep
                    .
                    Google (von Schuckmann 2009).

                    Globally, the oceans have continued to accumulate heat
                    to the end of 2008 at a rate of 0.77 ± 0.11 Wm?2,
                    consistent with other determinations of
                    the planet’s energy imbalance (Hansen 2005, Trenberth 2009).
                    The planet continues to accumulate heat.
                    .
                    Figure 5: Time series of global mean heat storage (0–2000 m), measured in 108 Jm-2.
                    .
                    So we see a direct line of evidence that we’re causing global warming.
                    Human CO2 emissions far outstrip the rise in CO2 levels.
                    The enhanced greenhouse effect is confirmed
                    by satellite and surface measurements.
                    The planet’s energy imbalance is confirmed by summations of the
                    planet’s total heat content and ocean heat measurements.
                    Figure 2: Change in spectrum from 1970 to 1996 due to trace gases.
                    ‘Brightness temperature’ indicates equivalent blackbody temperature

                    Google (Harries 2001 Research Abstract)

                    When greenhouse gases absorb infrared radiation,
                    the energy heats the atmosphere which in turn
                    re-radiates infrared radiation in all directions.
                    .
                    Some makes its way back to the earth’s surface.
                    Hence we expect to find more infrared radiation heading downwards.
                    .
                    Surface measurements from 1973 to 2008 find an increasing trend
                    of infrared radiation returning to earth

                    Google (Wang 2009 Research Abstract)
                    .
                    A regional study over the central Alps found that
                    downward infrared radiation is increasing due to the enhanced greenhouse effect
                    .
                    Google (Philipona 2004 research abstract).
                    .
                    Taking this a step further, an analysis of high resolution spectral data
                    allowed scientists to quantitatively attribute the increase in
                    downward radiation to each of several greenhouse gases
                    .
                    Google (Evans 2006 Research abstract)
                    .
                    The results lead the Research authors to conclude that
                    **** “this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics
                    that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between
                    greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming.”
                    .
                    Figure 3:
                    Spectrum of the greenhouse radiation measured at the surface.
                    Greenhouse effect from water vapor is filtered out,
                    showing the contributions of other greenhouse gases

                    Google (Evans 2006 Research Abstract)
                    .
                    The planet is accumulating heat

                    • Wake December 20, 2017 at 4:50 PM

                      You are getting tiresome Kooi – CO2 has nothing whatsoever to do with the atmosphere retaining heat. The only real source is H2O in its three phases which is on a world wide average 100 times more common than CO2. And on a real comparison – power generators are distributed around cities and most of the world’s cities are on waterways meaning that the relative humidity is more like 40% around where CO2 is being generated. Man’s addition to the NATURAL production and destruction of CO2 is only 25% and CO2 is a trace gas to begin with. Furthermore CO2 has only THREE very narrow absorption bands and only ONE of them is available to absorb energy. And that band had absorbed every single joule with CO2 levels at between 200-250 ppm. You can worship at the altar of Man-Made Global Warming if you like but don’t try to tell thinking individuals about things you know nothing about.

                    • R. Kooi December 20, 2017 at 8:30 PM

                      Leading
                      Scientists
                      Questioned
                      Green House Gas effects in our atmosphere:
                      So,
                      In 1970,
                      NASA launched the IRIS satellite measuring infrared spectra.
                      .
                      ***********Google: ********Iris Satellite Research Abstract
                      .
                      In 1996,
                      the Japanese Space Agency launched the IMG satellite
                      which recorded similar observations.
                      .
                      ***********Google: ********IMG Satellite Research Abstract
                      .
                      Both sets of data were compared to discern any changes
                      in escaping radiation levels over the 26 year period
                      .
                      ***********Google ********(Harries 2001 research abstract)
                      .
                      What they found was a drop in Escaping Infra Red radiation
                      at the PRECISE wavelength bands that greenhouse gases
                      such as CO2 with H2O, CFC’s, Ozone,
                      Nitrous Oxides, and methane (CH4) absorb energy.
                      The change in DECREASE IN ESCAPING I.R. radiation was consistent with theoretical Expectations / Predictions.
                      .
                      This research & paper found
                      “direct experimental evidence for a significant increase
                      in the Earth’s greenhouse effect” and Warming on Earth.
                      .
                      This result has been confirmed by subsequent research & papers
                      using data from later satellites
                      .
                      ***********Google ********(Griggs 2004 Research Abstract)
                      ***********Google ******** (Chen 2007 Research Astract )

                    • Wake December 21, 2017 at 10:42 AM

                      Is there something that prevents you from understanding what I wrote? “And that band had absorbed every single joule with CO2 levels at between 200-250 ppm.” Imagine that – they found missing wavelengths.

                      Where is this satellite data that shows some sort of decreasing radiation with increasing CO2?

                    • R. Kooi December 21, 2017 at 2:41 PM

                      Had you actually taken those University Courses you claimed to have taken, you would have seen the Studies.

                      “Leading
                      Scientists
                      Questioned
                      Green House Gas effects in our atmosphere:
                      So,
                      In 1970,
                      NASA launched the IRIS satellite measuring infrared spectra.
                      .
                      Google: Iris Satellite Research Abstract
                      .
                      In 1996,
                      the Japanese Space Agency launched the IMG satellite
                      which recorded similar observations.

                      Google: IMG Satellite Research Abstract
                      .
                      Both sets of data were compared to discern any changes
                      in escaping radiation levels over the 26 year period

                      Google (Harries 2001 research abstract)
                      .
                      What they found was a drop in Escaping Infra Red radiation
                      at the PRECISE wavelength bands that greenhouse gases
                      such as CO2 with H2O, CFC’s, Ozone,
                      Nitrous Oxides, and methane (CH4) absorb energy.

                      The change in DECREASE IN ESCAPING I.R. radiation was consistent
                      with theoretical Expectations / Predictions.
                      .
                      This research & paper found

                      “direct experimental evidence for a significant increase
                      in the Earth’s greenhouse effect” and Warming on Earth.
                      .
                      This result has been confirmed by subsequent research & papers
                      using data from later satellites

                      Google (Griggs 2004 Research Abstract)
                      Google (Chen 2007 Research Astract )
                      .
                      Figure 2: Change in spectrum from 1970 to 1996 due to trace gases.
                      ‘Brightness temperature’ indicates equivalent blackbody temperature

                      Google (Harries 2001 Research Abstract)

                      When greenhouse gases absorb infrared radiation,
                      the energy heats the atmosphere which in turn
                      re-radiates infrared radiation in all directions.
                      .
                      Some makes its way back to the earth’s surface.
                      Hence
                      we Expect/Predict to find more infrared radiation heading downwards.
                      .
                      Surface measurements from 1973 to 2008 find an increasing trend
                      of infrared radiation returning to earth

                      Google (Wang 2009 Research Abstract)
                      .
                      A regional study over the central Alps found that
                      downward infrared radiation is increasing due to the
                      enhanced greenhouse effect
                      .
                      Google (Philipona 2004 research abstract).
                      .
                      Taking this a step further, an analysis of high resolution spectral data
                      allowed scientists to quantitatively attribute the increase in
                      downward radiation to each of several greenhouse gases
                      .
                      Google (Evans 2006 Research abstract)
                      .
                      The results lead the authors to conclude that
                      *
                      *** “this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics
                      that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between
                      greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and Climate Changes caused
                      by global warming.”
                      .
                      Figure 3:
                      Spectrum of the greenhouse radiation measured at the surface.
                      Greenhouse effect from water vapor is filtered out,
                      showing the contributions of other greenhouse gases

                      Google (Evans 2006 Research Abstract)
                      .
                      This Entire planet is accumulating heat
                      .
                      When there is more energy coming in than escaping back out to space,
                      our climate accumulates heat.
                      .
                      The planet’s total heat buildup can be derived by
                      adding up the heat content from the ocean, atmosphere,
                      land and ice.
                      .
                      Google (Murphy 2009 Research abstract)
                      .
                      Ocean heat content was determined down to 3000 metres deep.
                      Atmospheric heat content was calculated from the surface temperature record
                      and heat capacity of the troposphere.
                      Land and ice heat content (eg – the energy required to melt ice)
                      were also included.
                      .
                      Figure 4:
                      Total Earth Heat Content from 1950
                      .
                      Google (Murphy 2009 Research Abstract)
                      .
                      Ocean data taken from Domingues et al 2008.
                      .

                    • Wake December 21, 2017 at 4:48 PM

                      OK, I want to know what “University Courses” I have claimed to have taken. I want to know WHY you are spreading false data? I want to know why you are attempting to spread lies about me?

                    • Charles Tery January 26, 2018 at 11:16 AM

                      So what NASA launch IRIS so what is your point?

                    • Dude_of_Voo January 29, 2018 at 9:55 PM

                      A bit about kooki Rick’s flagrant abuse of sanity. NASA launched, not IRIS satellite, but the IRIS instrument, aboard the NIMBUS 6 satellite … Sheesh, he doesn’t know the difference between a spectrometer and a satellite that holds the spectrometer … Anyhow, IRIS recorded some … not all, but some of the infrared spectrum that we care about. The infrared spectra, of concern, the far infrared, is 100/cm to 650/cm, 15㎛ to 100㎛.

                      The IRIS “saw” 400/cm [25㎛] 1600/cm [6¼㎛]. Nimbus -6 IRIS misses these far infrared wavelengths, 25㎛ to 100㎛, wavenumbers 100/cm to 400/cm.

                      The IMG instrument that was carried aboard the Japan ADEOS-1 satellite, was sensitive to 600/cm [16㎛] to 3000/cm [3㎛], missing from 600/cm to 100/cm, or from 16㎛ to 100㎛ in wavelength.

                      Each of the ≈9-month intervals is not a “climate-length” observation… and doesn’t include a full annual cycle, or even compatible segments of the sampled annual cycles. The IMG instrument looked down from October-June, and the IRIS, April to January. Furthermore, the were about 27 years apart.

                      Harries 2001 makes unsubstantiated claims.

                      Harries, John E., et al. 2001 “Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997.” Nature

                      https://www.researchgate.net/profile/John_Harries/publication/12065270_Increases_in_greenhouse_forcing_inferred_from_the_outgoing_longwave_radiation_spectra_of_the_Earth_in_1970_and_1997/links/02e7e5360e06d47ed4000000/Increases-in-greenhouse-forcing-inferred-from-the-outgoing-longwave-radiation-spectra-of-the-Earth-in-1970-and-1997.pdf

                    • Wake January 30, 2018 at 9:38 AM

                      They have test flown an instrument that will fly in low-earth orbit. They will only last months in these orbits so the plan is to launch new ones when required. These devices (damn my concussion ravaged memory can’r remember their name – CRAK?) consist of a silicon wafer with layers of silicon grown to the wavelengths under discussion. This makes these devices an almost perfect blackbody in the low IR. This will make the measurement of radiation from the Earth accurate to almost totality.

                    • Charles Tery December 22, 2017 at 5:59 PM

                      Where does all this IR radiation come from?

                    • R. Kooi December 22, 2017 at 6:41 PM

                      IT’s Magic to an IDEOLOGUE who hid behind the School Room door….Sophomore, High School.

                      Low Energy Short Wave Infra Red Radiation is an Earth Emission..
                      ..
                      AFTER HEAT BUILDS UP from incoming SOLAR LONG WAVE RADIATION….which crosses the Atmosphere as if it were invisible…and enters our Earth system.

                      Low Energy I.R. Radiation is very reactive to atmospheric gasses.
                      H2O
                      CO2
                      Methane
                      Ozone
                      Nitrous Oxide

                      Cfc
                      Hfc
                      Pfc

                    • Charles Tery December 22, 2017 at 6:48 PM

                      Wrong again short wave length is high energy photons. Long wave has much less energy. Where does this IR come from?

                    • ROO2 December 22, 2017 at 6:58 PM

                      There is almost much energy on average radiated in IR at the TOA as there is absorbed in shortwave from the Sun, save for the ongoing energy imbalance and consequent warming.

                      The IR is radiated according to the temperature of the surface and from IR active gas species in the atmosphere.

                    • Charles Tery December 22, 2017 at 11:45 PM

                      Wrong again. IR is produced as it passes through the molecules of the atmosphere. Every time a photon passes through a gas molecule, the photon loses energy and it’s wave length gets longer. Remember it’s UV that gives the sun burn not IR.

                    • ROO2 December 24, 2017 at 11:04 AM

                      Every time a photon passes through a gas molecule, the photon loses energy and it’s wave length gets longer.

                      LOL. Seems you have zero understanding of science. Fancy that.

                    • Wake December 29, 2017 at 4:02 PM

                      Not zero. But he doesn’t understand heat transfer through conduction and radiation perfectly. Sunlight emissions are in the 350 nm to 800 or so nm region. O2 absorbs in a wide spectrum around 250 nm and N2 around 300 nm. CO2 is in the lower IR but as a trace gas it isn’t worth speaking about.

                      So sunlight strikes the Earth after losing about half if its strength from reflection and atmospheric absorption almost entirely from H2O. This is converted from high energy light to lower energy IR though the mass of Earth – 70% of which is oceans or lakes and 30% ground with higher density per unit of volume.

                      The Earth is a pretty well kept environment and man has little to no ability to effect anything other than purely local conditions.

                    • R. Kooi December 30, 2017 at 5:52 PM

                      no !

                    • ROO2 December 30, 2017 at 6:49 PM

                      This is converted from high energy light to lower energy IR though the mass of Earth – 70% of which is oceans or lakes and 30% ground with higher density per unit of volume.

                      LOL. Seems you also have zero understanding of science. Fancy that.

                    • Charles Tery January 25, 2018 at 9:11 PM

                      Where do you think all that IR comes from. It doesn’t come from the Sun. Fancy that who really has zero understanding Science.

                    • ROO2 January 26, 2018 at 7:31 AM

                      Photons do not lose energy and change wavelength Charles.

                      They are either wholly absorbed or not. Their specific energy being related to the necessary quantized energy related to a change in physical state, be it molecular vibrational state or promotion of an electron to a higher energy orbital state.

                      The IR comes from the bulk temperature of the atmosphere.

                      It appears that you are trying to claim that downwelling IR results the Suns energy that changes wavelength on the way to the surface.

                      Given that the atmosphere radiates more energy to the surface than that received from the Sun, you describe a physical impossibility. Quite an achievement. Bravo!

                    • Charles Tery January 26, 2018 at 9:26 AM

                      You should take a Physics class. Then you would know as much about photons as I do. According to you the photon gives up no energy yet can increase the energy state of a molecule or atom. I guess we don’t need the sun if we believe you.

                    • Wake January 27, 2018 at 3:47 PM

                      Charles – look at this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_energy_budget#/media/File:The-NASA-Earth%27s-Energy-Budget-Poster-Radiant-Energy-System-satellite-infrared-radiation-fluxes.jpg

                      While this is not completely accurate it is more accurate than your idea. Photons do not “pass through” molecules on their way to the ground and lose energy.

                      A high energy photon is so close to massless it simply goes between most gases. Raleigh scattering is one of the few ways that photons lose energy on their way to the ground. Other than this you don’t have photons bouncing about in the air.

                      Reflection doesn’t lose energy and approximately a third of the emissions from the Sun that strike the outer atmosphere is reflected by N2, O2, O3 and high altitude clouds.

                      70% of the Earth is covered with oceans and the sunlight that strikes it is in general absorbed by matter such as plankton in the first 10 meters. Land masses in general absorb all light frequencies. Ice is highly reflective. High altitude clouds are composed of solid phase H2O and that’s why they are so reflective. Energy that isn’t reflected is in general absorbed.

                    • Charles Tery January 26, 2018 at 10:34 AM

                      You still seem to think the Sun has no roll in heating.

                    • R. Kooi December 22, 2017 at 7:02 PM

                      ooooops
                      typo

                    • Wake January 27, 2018 at 3:33 PM

                      Kooi is correct. Half of the energy that strikes the outer atmosphere makes it to the ground and is absorbed. This heats the oceans and land masses. This in turn with a far lower energy per mass emits in the lower IR. The gases he mentons indeed absorb this lower IR but all but H2O are in such low amounts that they can be completely ignored. CO2 is the largest minority gas and it composes on 1/100th the average H2O levels. Moreover the absorption frequencies of CO2 are sharply limited and in an area of the lower IR where there is very little energy.

                      The only thing that counts is H2O in its three phases.

                    • Wake December 28, 2017 at 12:20 PM

                      Charles – as you can see the ass R. Kooi doesn’t know.

                      Sunlight in its higher frequencies (known as light) show upon the Earth. Almost all of the energy is in the Ultra Violet (very little), visable light and high infrared. Approximately 30% is reflected by the atmosphere, clouds or the ground (70% of the Earth is covered by water and water is weakly reflective).

                      Some 19% of the incoming radiation is absorbed either by clouds or the atmosphere. And the remaining 51% of the incoming radiation is absorbed by the Earth – the oceans absorb most of it and the land the rest.

                      During the day when the energy absorbed and contained by the Earth exceeds the incoming energy the Earth radiates its energy in the far infrared bands. At night there is little to no incoming energy and so it emits throughout the night in the same energy bands.

                      What is important to know is that because the Earth never gets very warm the energy released is always in the low infrared. This is outside of the absorption lines of most of the atmospheric gases. The one exception is water which is in the atmosphere in all three phases – vapor, water and ice.

                      Because of this heat is not carried in the Earth into outer space via radiation. The radiated IR from the Earth is captured almost immediately by H2O almost immediately and is then moved throughout the atmosphere via conduction and convection. Or more crudely – by molecule containing heat bumping into other molecules and transferring part of their energy to them. The conduction of heat also knocks the molecules further apart – the air become lighter and rises. Cooler air replaces it through convection or the movement of air due to heat and density.

                      As you can see – under these conditions in the atmosphere ALL of the gasses are on the same footing and it doesn’t matter in the least what gas it is.

                    • Charles Tery January 26, 2018 at 11:20 AM

                      I agree with lots of your statement but not H2O. Once H2O(v) gets to above 30,000 feet there is not a lot of other molecules for the heat to be absorbed ergo that a lot of the heat from condensation drifts out into space.

                    • Wake January 27, 2018 at 3:25 PM

                      Water vapor does not drift into outer space. Hydrogen does and some helium. But everything else is too heavy.

                    • Charles Tery December 22, 2017 at 7:00 PM

                      H2O is not a GHG it’s the planet’s heat exchanger. Water vapor goes well above 30,000 feet and then condences into micro ice crystals. At the point of sublimation heat is released and more than half of the heat energy is returned to space.

                    • ROO2 December 22, 2017 at 7:02 PM

                      H2O is not a GHG…more than half of the heat energy is returned to space

                      How?

                    • Charles Tery December 23, 2017 at 1:15 AM

                      You don’t know much about Physics? If you took Science your first observational experiment is watching an ice cube melt and that water go to boil. In Physics we had to solve for how much 1 cc of H20 to evaporate and go to the clouds to condense back into a 1 cc rain drop. Go study some real Science not spewing propaganda.

                    • ROO2 December 24, 2017 at 11:05 AM

                      So you could not answer the question, I see.

                      In Physics we had to solve for how much 1 cc of H20 to evaporate and go to the clouds to condense back into a 1 cc rain drop.

                      It seems your school has a competent at teaching English as it was Physics.

                    • Wake December 29, 2017 at 4:11 PM

                      I would like you to actually look at what you wrote. Criticizing someone’s English while making mistake of equal value makes you look silly.

                    • ROO2 December 30, 2017 at 6:51 PM

                      Criticizing[sic] someone’s English

                      LOL, you must be a Poe, surely.

                    • Wake December 31, 2017 at 12:42 PM

                      Let me guess – you come from outer space and can’t even look up the proper spelling of words.

                    • Charles Tery January 26, 2018 at 10:47 AM

                      Dude do you know how hard it to fight with your phone when it decides for you. Or the fact that the comments section on my phone is really small. And editing on my phone is a nightmare. As my Freshman Comp Prof told us. You need to exercise linguistic humility.

                    • Charles Tery January 26, 2018 at 9:44 AM

                      No Science but plenty of fallacies.
                      I bet you don’t know these 4 Science Giants or what their contributions where. They where all treated with out respect from people like you.
                      1. John Harrison
                      2. Michael Faraday

                      3. Gregor Mendel
                      4. Georges Lemaitre.

                      And people like you had Antoine Lavoisier executed for being a Scientist

                    • Wake January 26, 2018 at 11:56 AM

                      Charles – either answer his question or don’t respond. You have shown you’re not very bright at physics yourself by trying to reference your “professors”. And its not Physics or Science, these are not proper nouns that require capitalization unless you are referring specifically to a course in school.

                      R002 was not asking you how to boil water. He was asking how energy was lost to space.

                      In the troposphere energy radiates from the surface and is captured very rapidly by water vapor which is this thing called “humidity”.

                      Once the radiated energy is captured the movement of this energy into the stratosphere is almost entirely by conduction and convection. Using conduction all gases are pretty much the same so additional CO2 would make no difference.

                      My estimate is that all radiated energy (except for some holes in the absorption spectrum such as the 10 nm hole) is captured in about 1 meter though one authority, whose studies I’ve read, estimated 10 meters from surface level. I calculated the number of CO2 molecules per cubic meter and the emission spectrum of the Earth and it appears that 10 meters would be 100% absorption whereas I am assuming that once energy is captured these molecules rise and are replaced with other CO2 molecules with a dearth of energy. Since this mixing would require time perhaps the 10 meter estimation is better. And since the troposphere is 17 kilometers deep in mid-latitudes it doesn’t really matter. It does demonstrate that radiation really only occurs at the surface interface and heat is moved via conduction.

                      In the stratosphere the energy could not be lost without impinging sunlight. That is – molecules absorb additional energy until they reach the stage at which they can radiate not just the energy from the Earth but the additional energy from the Sun. This is plainly shown by the temperature curve in the stratosphere being inverted – that is, as gas rises it becomes warmer. This is peculiar to the stratosphere.

                      Since radiation occurs in all directions some of this energy is returned to the tropopause. But the absorption and emission frequencies are identical so the almost entire radiation comes from O2 and N2 and hence is absorbed by N2 and O2 to work its way out as many times as necessary for the radiated energy to make it to outer space.

                    • Wake December 29, 2017 at 4:08 PM

                      98 or 99% of the energy that strikes the Earth from the Sun ends up back in space. The rest of it is used to make plant materials. CO2 has to be split into carbon plant material and free O2 and this requires energy.

                      H2O absorbs energy both coming in and going from sunlight down and IR out. It is the only greenhouse gas to actually speak of because the quantities of others are too low to bother with.

                      Both of you are arguing points that you aren’t clear on. So I would like you to stop calling each other stupid while you both are simply unclear on the subject.

                    • ROO2 December 30, 2017 at 6:43 PM
                    • Robert January 2, 2018 at 10:04 AM

                      But, why rely on science and its inconvenient truths when the intertubes so readily provide us with thinking that helps absolve us of our responsibility?

                    • Wake January 26, 2018 at 12:25 PM

                      Robert, exactly what do you know about climatology? Having read an article in Popular Science does not qualify you to make snooty remarks.

                    • Robert January 26, 2018 at 2:54 PM

                      I know there is a near two hundred year body of research that has explored, discussed, analyzed every hypothesis that has been brought forward.

                      I know the consilience of evidence points to one hypothesis.

                      I know that there is a virtual 100% consensus among practicing climate scientists based on that near two hundred year body of research.

                      And I know that the world -minus a few comment threads – has analyzed, developed, and put into action military, public, and corp. plans and policies taking responsibility for our behavior’s effect on the ecosystem.

                    • Wake January 26, 2018 at 5:07 PM

                      1. There is NOT a two hundred year body of research what causes the climate. There isn’t even that long a body of official knowledge of weather prediction.
                      2. IF the evidence pointed to ONE hypothesis it would have been tested. It has and doesn’t work. The computer models using the MANY hypothesis of climate not only cannot accurately predict the future, using the accurate measured data they cannot even predict the past!

                      https://nofrakkingconsensus.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/delinquentteenager_sample.pdf

                    • Robert January 26, 2018 at 5:28 PM

                      Thanks for continuing to demonstrate that you think your incredulity is equivalent to actual expertise.

                      http://www.davidappell.com/EarlyClimateScience.html

                      https://history.aip.org/climate/co2.htm

                      Somehow, you’ve convinced yourself you’re an expert on the topic.

                      Here is a short compilation of book lists to help you disabuse yourself .

                      A Climate Change Reading List For Laypeople
                      https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=121057831

                      The Global Climate Crisis and Capitalism: A Reading List
                      https://www.versobooks.com/lists/3003-the-global-climate-crisis-and-capitalism-a-reading-list

                      Earth’s Water Cycle and Climate Change: Reading List
                      https://www.loc.gov/rr/scitech/SciRefGuides/watercycle.html

                      Climate Change: A Reading List
                      https://bookriot.com/2016/11/27/climate-change-reading-list/

                      1A Earth Sciences – Reading List & Resources
                      https://www.esc.cam.ac.uk/library/research-skills-1/reading-lists/part-1a-earth-sciences-reading-list

                      For Climate Change Reporters, Here’s an Essential Reading List
                      http://www.sej.org/publications/sejournal/climate-change-reporters-heres-essential-reading-list

                    • Charles Tery January 26, 2018 at 10:49 AM

                      Read your link then share with the class so we can engage in debate. If you don’t then you’re just a lame drive by troll.

                    • Wake January 26, 2018 at 12:17 PM

                      This article is making assumptions that simply aren’t true. Look, during the age of Dinosaurs the climate was very much like today and we had over 1% of the Earth’s atmosphere as CO2.

                      It is thought that the initial atmosphere was some 40% CO2 and the Earth was actually cooler then, since the Sun gained heat as it aged.

                      Remember that any of these studies are only the opinions of the scientists who are writing them and unfortunately with the inaccurate temperature data that NASA has been passing out you can’t trust anything about temperature to be accurate.

                      For instance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#/media/File:Global_Temperature_Anomaly.svg

                      Pay specific attention to the time period on the chart from 1980 to present.

                      Now look at the actual satellite data: http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_March_2017_v6.jpg

                      This might appear to you as a slight temperature increase but in fact all it shows is that 1998 was a hotter than normal year and that the summer of 2015 was hotter than normal. All of the rest is nothing more than normal chaotic temperature changes. And despite these higher variations the average temperature actually averages to no change.

                    • ROO2 January 28, 2018 at 5:32 PM

                      This article is making assumptions that simply aren’t true.

                      Perhaps you should elaborate on your evidence free assertion. A link to your peer reviewed rebuttal will suffice. LOL

                      with the inaccurate temperature data that NASA has been passing out you can’t trust anything about temperature to be accurate…Now look at the actual satellite data

                      http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1980/plot/gistemp/from:1980/trend/plot/rss/from:1980/plot/rss/from:1980/trend

                      Same rate of warming in both. Fancy that.

                      You are an idiot, with zero comprehension on the subject you make comment. That your comments substantiate my position is most welcome, do go on…

                    • Wake January 28, 2018 at 6:35 PM

                      By all means tell us what that page is supposed to mean? That higher atmospheric CO2 gives us more wood growth per year? What has that to do with temperature?

                    • ROO2 January 29, 2018 at 4:55 AM

                      By all means tell us what that page is supposed to mean?

                      Is there not a grown up with you that can help?

                    • Wake January 29, 2018 at 10:01 AM

                      After Germany surrendered the SS did not. The SS went through neighborhoods and any civilians that were flying a white flag to identify themselves as non-combatants the SS murdered. Prisoners that were held in SS prison camps were murdered. This is the sort of thing that you warmies think would be appropriate. Your “Sieg Heil” is precisely the same – without an ounce of knowledge you follow your leader. You and Robert snap to attention instantly and proclaim your allegiance to a NASA leadership that has been shown to be liars and criminals. You and Robert, are saying that all of the science out there that shows that AGW is not occurring is “cherry picking” the data. You proclaim the 2500 scientists on the IPCC (most of whom are not scientists at all but politicians, and a large percentage of the real scientists who disagree with AGW) to be far more important than the over 31,000 scientists who have signed the Oregon Petition including over 9,000 PhD’s and at least three Nobel Prize winners. That papers written by math experts and peer reviewed by members of the EPA and a Fulbright Scholar is cherry picking. What became of those Nazi’s? Most of them were finally murdered by their own. What do you suppose will happen to you now that no money is going into AGW “studies” – read phony papers? Very soon like the SS you will be left without your extremist leader and you won’t have anything to do but run around claiming that the world isn’t like it really is.

                    • ROO2 January 29, 2018 at 4:49 PM

                      Thanks for that rant. It’s not every day that one comes across a genuine lunatic on Disqus. It seems remarkable that you claim that established science is in error, yet you also state you are unable to read a graph.

                      I find that hilarious. 😉

                    • Robert January 29, 2018 at 5:23 PM

                      Somebody seems to have missed the function of that slightly larger key on the right.

                      And why teachers from the last hundred years or so stressed the difference between topic sentences and supporting details.

                      Oh, and referencing OPP…
                      But he did well with the circling back to the SS topic…..

                    • ROO2 January 30, 2018 at 6:15 AM

                      Person with rampant conspiracy theories posts video of Illuminati. Is this meant to impress?

                    • Sam Gilman January 30, 2018 at 6:53 AM

                      Jaw drops.

                      Here, have the points. Have the points of my children yay unto the third generation of shape-shifting lizards.

                    • ROO2 January 30, 2018 at 7:02 AM

                      This one is special.

                      He’s a scientist too, don’t you know, except for the blatant contradiction in his commenting history:

                      I got a job working on cars on a used car lot at 14 and worked for a year an a half and the owner paid me off with a used car. Then I could drive across town to work the entire time after school until 10 pm washing dishes at a restaurant. When I turned 17 1/2 I dropped out of school and went into the Air Force. VFW. The training I got there allowed me to work my way up to an electronics engineer better than most.

                      https://disqus.com/home/discussion/thefederalist23/10_things_house_minority_leader_nancy_pelosi_must_think_cost_1000_72/#comment-3731860595

                      The must be a special kind of stupid on offer at the moment.

                    • Sam Gilman January 30, 2018 at 7:17 AM

                      “Better than most” is a giveaway.

                      But you left out the best bit:

                      My work helped one man win a Nobel Prize and another an Emmy Award. Today they don’t want anyone that knows what they are doing. They want people that will follow orders and be under 30.

                    • Wake January 29, 2018 at 6:45 PM

                      What’s even funnier is that you don’t even know what “established science” means. As a scientist I have watched people like you attempt to teach your ideas of science to the rest of us. Since you are a complete idiot not only does that not work but it clues in all of those around you that have enough education to see that you are a total ass. But carry on. This same thing happened when you fools tried to get Hillary elected. The more you spoke the more people turned against you and your asinine ideas. Now we have a study showing that Hillary’s 2 million vote “popular vote” was really a 3.5 million fake vote loss. PLEASE continue to talk.

                    • ROO2 January 30, 2018 at 6:13 AM

                      As a scientist

                      OMG, this just get funnier and funnier.

                      Person that cannot read a graph now claims to be a scientist too. Nicely explained here:

                      http://psych.colorado.edu/~vanboven/teaching/p7536_heurbias/p7536_readings/kruger_dunning.pdf

                      Perhaps, Mr claimed scientist, you would like to set out your object to the greenhouse effect? LOL

                    • classicalmusiclover January 30, 2018 at 8:11 AM

                      “the over 31,000 scientists who have signed the Oregon Petition including over 9,000 PhD’s and at least three Nobel Prize winners.”

                      The Oregon Petition:
                      1. is not fact-checked
                      2. all it requires to claim status as a “scientist” is an undergraduate degree in some science major
                      3. By that definition, the number of people who fit the definition runs to several million, a fact fully consistent with the overwhelming consensus in the expert climate science community who accept AGW as wrong
                      4. It contains the names of many fakes, including the Spice Girls and more than one family pet.
                      5. The Nobel Prize winners who signed it are none of them climate experts .
                      6. Having a PhD does not bestow one with magical all-knowing powers. Very few of the PhDs on the list have the appropriate scientific expertise.

                      The Oregon Petition has become a running joke.

                      Climate scientists receive funding to study the climate, not to argue yay or nay on AGW. AGW is basically taken as a given in the expert community.

                    • falstaff77 January 30, 2018 at 10:24 AM

                      For some reason RSS trend is some ~0.1C/decade higher than GIS ’80 thru about ’98 or so, then about 0.1C/decade lower than GIS ’98 thru present.

                      Hadcrut4 however matches RSS trend closely after ’98.

                    • ROO2 January 30, 2018 at 10:54 AM

                      Given they are measuring different things, and the RSS is considerably more influenced relatively by El Nino events, picking dates and indicating different trends would be completely expected.

                    • Robert January 26, 2018 at 1:28 PM

                      Given C.T.’s implied claim that your source has faulty science, it seems a bit odd there was no effort to link to another published piece that refutes it. Surely the last 7+ years some revered emeritus would have had the time……. not to mention the month it took to come up with such an insightful, witty rebuttal
                      ( https://disqus.com/home/discussion/cfact/decision_looms_in_michael_mann_tim_ball_8220hockey_stick8221_lawsuit/#comment-3727547067 )
                      to your comment…..

                    • Charles Tery January 26, 2018 at 10:48 AM

                      Didn’t you reply back to me that most of the heat never returns back to space??

                    • Wake January 26, 2018 at 12:27 PM

                      Before making a stupid comment like that perhaps you ought to actually look back a couple of postings where a comment nothing at all like your memory was made.

                    • Wake December 22, 2017 at 7:50 PM

                      Charles – I am curious to where you get the idea that you can proclaim one act for water? The heat exchange mechanism is so complex that I am rather put out that you proclaim only a single mechanism and one that is the most minor of them all.

                      At low altitudes water can condense into low altitude liquid phase and even lower as fog and depending on many things can either trap in heat or cause frost which warms the lower atmosphere.

                      At middle altitudes water can appear a gaseous, liquid or ice particles and in all cases it would have a different effect on the atmosphere. At high altitudes it is usually pushed there by heavy storm action and it can be either liquid or ice and usually reflects the sun’s energy in very large percentages.

                      Perhaps you’d like to explain why the upper stratosphere is warmer than the tropopause?

                      Passing crap around as if the atmosphere was some simple one-word easy to understand thing is pretty juvenile.

                      And as ANY IR astronomer will tell you, water is the ONLY significant GHG.

                    • Johnpd December 23, 2017 at 9:30 AM

                      95% + of greenhouse effect is H2O, water, invisible as vapour, or visible as clouds etc. Less than 4% of greenhouse effect is CO2, Carbon Dioxide.
                      Of the CO2 in the atmosphere 95% + is generated by nature. Less than 4% is generated by Man.

                      Man’s CO2 dominates climate change?
                      BWAHAHAHAHA. Wankers at large.

                      57% of atmospheric CO2 is outgassed from warm tropical oceans.
                      Volcanoes contribute significantly, also decaying vegetation, every winter. Animals alone contribute 25X mans’ CO2 output.

                      What you warmunista bedwetters plan to do?
                      Slaughter all the animals?
                      Or the humans? As if I need ask. Communist/Fascist crapheads always love to slaughter millions of people, all for the good of the people, of course.

                      Think Communist USSR, Communist China, Fascist Germany, Communist Cambodia & present-day Fascist USSA.

                      Quantities, in gigatons, are given in Ian Plimer’s H & E book.

                    • Wake December 30, 2017 at 3:03 PM

                      John – these days the True Believers in the Church of Global Warming refer to the murdering of millions – of forbidding the uses of fuel to Africa, India and large parts of the minority world as “Ethical Depopulation”.

                      Do you have this? The outright murder is bad but murder by proxy is really really good. Margaret Sanger said everything that the white liberals have ALWAYS believed:

                      “The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”
                      — Woman and the New Race, Chapter 5, “The Wickedness of Creating Large Families.” (1920) http://www.bartleby.com/1013/

                    • Johnpd January 4, 2018 at 6:54 AM

                      Is there any woman more perverted than one who wants to kill kids?

                      The agendas behind the warming/climate scam are vast depopulation, the destruction of ALL nations, the founding of a world Nazi Govt, based on the UN & the elimination of Christianity.

                      Grim book: Merchants Of Despair, radical environmentalists, criminal pseudo-scientists and the fatal cult of antihumanism
                      By Robert Zubrin, PhD nuclear engineer with 9 patents to his name or pending.

                    • Charles Tery January 26, 2018 at 10:00 AM

                      It is easy because so many of my Science professors said so. If you remove all the water and retain the same atmospheric pressure at sea level. You would see 300 degree temp changes each day. Most likely would be more extreme. I am sorry you still go to the church of CHG. Water is not a CHG even as clouds. What you mistake as a CHG effect at night is in reality a transitory blanket effect.

                    • Wake January 26, 2018 at 11:14 AM

                      What is CHG? I assume that is a typo? You are telling us the heat exchange mechanism for atmospheric H2O which is identical to that of the touted greenhouse gases. Or don’t you understand that temperature stabilization is really what is occurring?

                      The mass of the Earth absorbs the rather small amount of energy that strikes the Earth and makes it to the surface. That energy warms the surface only so much. You can use the Stefan-Boltzmann Law to predict the temperature from the emitted IR or visa versa. While you cannot be absolutely accurate without a coefficient of emission, it is so close to one that it can be safely ignored. This law was really designed to measure the temperature of a star.

                      All of the “energy balance” drawings from NASA show 100% of the energy that falls upon the Earth as being emitted in one manner or another. But we have coal and oil deposits that prove that it is not 100%. While the energy retained must be pretty small it is not 100% emission. And so it should not be presented as such.

                      You and I agree on the actions of water in the atmosphere but please do not invoke the authority of some unknown “professors”. It is plain that you are contradicting me in nothing more than a reworded identical process.

                    • Johnpd December 23, 2017 at 9:34 AM

                      H2O is 95% + of greenhouse effect.

                    • Wake December 24, 2017 at 4:29 PM

                      John – That remaining 5% is all other greenhouse gases combined and that includes Ozone which is damned absorbent between 9.8 um to 9.99 which besides H2O is also near CO2.

                    • Wake December 29, 2017 at 4:15 PM

                      I would hesitate to call it greenhouse effect. This represents H2O converting radiated energy into conductive energy. Since radiation occurs at the speed of light while conduction occurs at the speed of molecular motion you can see why the lower atmosphere is warmer than the tropopause. This entire subject is really screwed up because of the words “greenhouse” and the fact that people have no idea how a greenhouse works.

                    • Robert December 29, 2017 at 5:23 PM

                      The Greenhouse Effect
                      “Instead, parts of our atmosphere act as an insulating blanket of just the right thickness, trapping sufficient solar energy to keep the global average temperature in a pleasant range. The Martian blanket is too thin, and the Venusian blanket is way too thick! The ‘blanket’ here is a collection of atmospheric gases called ‘greenhouse gases’ based on the idea that the gases also ‘trap’ heat like the glass walls of a greenhouse do.”
                      http://eo.ucar.edu/learn/1_3_1.htm

                      How is Earth a greenhouse?
                      “Earth’s atmosphere does the same thing as the greenhouse. Gases in the atmosphere such as carbon dioxide do what the roof of a greenhouse does.”
                      https://climatekids.nasa.gov/greenhouse-effect/

                      Why does CO2 get most of the attention when there are so many other heat-trapping gases?
                      “Heat-trapping gases, in balanced proportions, act like a blanket surrounding Earth, keeping temperatures within a range that enables life to thrive on a planet with liquid water.

                      Unfortunately, these gases—especially CO2—are accumulating in the atmosphere at increasing concentrations due to human activities such as the burning of fossil fuel in cars and power plants industrial processes, and the clearing of forests for agriculture or development.

                      As a result, the insulating blanket is getting too thick and overheating the Earth as less energy (heat) escapes into space. ”
                      https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/CO2-and-global-warming-faq.html

                      Similes work.

                    • Wake December 30, 2017 at 6:56 PM

                      I correctly explained how the warming in the troposphere has to do with CONDUCTION and not radiation. Since the CO2 has slightly more conduction of heat than other gases in fact CO2 is a coolant. Your simile is incorrect. Greenhouses work by blocking OFF conduction and not by acting as a blanket. If you open the door of a greenhouse and let air circulate they became the same temperature inside and out.

                      When you DON’T understand what is being said you should either learn or remain silent. Instead your operation is to spew stupidity.

                    • Robert December 31, 2017 at 11:15 AM

                      Yes, my FIRST CHOICE when looking for science information is to head to the comment section of a climate science denialist blog. ( /s, just in case)

                      The simile works. It is a simile, not the 14 thlecture of a 400 level physics course. That’s why one of te sources is a childrens’site

                      And the only people I’ve run across who want to argue that the simile is a way to disprove the hypothesis are pretend experts on those comment sections.

                      Thanks for continuing to display how a lack of a modicum of critical thinking lead you to your conclusions.

                      C.R.A.A.P. TEST

                      Currency: the timeliness of the information
                      When was the information published or posted?
                      Has the information been revised or updated?
                      Is the information current or out-of date for your topic?
                      Are the links functional?
                      Relevance: the importance of the information for your needs
                      Does the information relate to your topic or answer your question?
                      Who is the intended audience?
                      Is the information at an appropriate level (i.e. not too elementary or advanced for your needs)?
                      Have you looked at a variety of sources before determining this is one you will use?
                      Would you be comfortable using this source for a research paper?
                      Authority: the source of the information
                      Who is the author/publisher/source/sponsor?
                      Are the author’s credentials or organizational affiliations given?
                      What are the author’s credentials or organizational affiliations given?
                      What are the author’s qualifications to write on the topic?
                      Is there contact information, such as a publisher or e-mail address?
                      Does the URL reveal anything about the author or source?

                      examples: .com (commercial), .edu (educational), .gov (U.S. government),
                      .org (nonprofit organization), or .net (network)
                      Accuracy: the reliability, truthfulness, and correctness of the content, and
                      Where does the information come from?
                      Is the information supported by evidence?
                      Has the information been reviewed or refereed?
                      Can you verify any of the information in another source or from personal knowledge?
                      Does the language or tone seem biased and free of emotion?
                      Are there spelling, grammar, or other typographical errors?
                      Purpose: the reason the information exists
                      What is the purpose of the information? to inform? teach? sell? entertain? persuade?
                      Do the authors/sponsors make their intentions or purpose clear?
                      Is the information fact? opinion? propaganda?
                      Does the point of view appear objective and impartial?
                      Are there political, ideological, cultural, religious, institutional, or personal biases?

                      http://libguides.library.ncat.edu/content_mobile.php?pid=53820&sid=394505#box_394505

                      Here’s a couple of simple worksheets to print out to help:
                      http://libraryguides.ccbcmd.edu/ld.php?content_id=14159298
                      http://www.juniata.edu/services/library/instruction/handouts/craap_worksheet.pdf

                      And, love that your conclusion is an insult.

                    • Charles Tery January 26, 2018 at 9:52 AM

                      The hilarious part about your list of institutions all seem to refuse to answer questions on their positions. If you can’t answer questions then your theory is not very sound. Ergo it is most likely propaganda to create an entire class of taxation.

                    • Robert January 26, 2018 at 10:25 AM

                      Oh, really? You have copies of your emailed queries and some form of response saying that?

                    • Charles Tery January 26, 2018 at 10:44 AM

                      Booby that is your only fall back is to use a fallacy. I task you to write to them and ask questions. They won’t reply to you either.

                    • Robert January 26, 2018 at 10:56 AM

                      So, no actual evidence. Thank you for acknowledging your claim was an effort to sidetrack a conversation.

                      Noted, again, that name calling is used rather than taking the effort to learn the science.

                    • Charles Tery January 26, 2018 at 11:02 AM

                      Booby do you know why CO2 is a Green House Gas? What temperature does CO2 become a GHG?

                    • Robert January 26, 2018 at 11:37 AM

                      C.T., that you start your query with namecalling/insulting is indicative.

                      If you really, honestly think there is room for debating basic physics & chemistry behind nearly two centuries of research, please go attend a class at your local community college.

                      Or, if you want to continue entertaining readers hrre, walk us through why you think it is necessary to argue these fundemental points.

                      The world – minus a vanishingly small coterie of pd for denialist blogs and current administration – has moved well past that and is discussing, developing, and putting into action, military, public, and corp. policy to mitigate and adapt to the ecologic effects we are responsible for.

                    • Robert January 26, 2018 at 10:26 AM

                      Especially funny response you’ve given about sites whose main purpose is to present detailed explanations of the science and the effects of our actions.

                    • Charles Tery January 26, 2018 at 10:28 AM

                      Sad thing bobby that all those sites refuse to answer question put to them. It can’t be Science if they refuse to answer questions.

                    • Robert January 26, 2018 at 10:36 AM

                      Your evidence they are acting as you claim?
                      Go missing…

                      And we’ll note your efforts at diminution rather than actually trying to bring forward evidence.

                    • Charles Tery January 26, 2018 at 10:42 AM

                      Before I can bring forth my evidence. I need to find out what you know. It appears you either don’t know much or are afraid of sharing what you know about Climate Change.
                      Let’s start off with my original question. How does CO2 retain so much heat energy that as a trace gas it can increase global temp? None of you useful fools seem to handle answer this basic question on AGW.

                    • Robert January 26, 2018 at 11:03 AM

                      That you think a comment thread is a venue to argue basic physics…..
                      Here, educate yourself. Then realize no one is really arguing the science; instead, we – virtually every country, state, county, city -are developing policies in reaction to what we are doing to our ecosystem.

                      “The likely range of the human contribution to the global mean temperature increase over the period 1951–2010 is 1.1° to 1.4°F (0.6° to 0.8°C), and the central estimate of the observed warming of 1.2°F (0.65°C) lies within this range (high confidence). This translates to a likely human contribution of 92%–123% of the observed 1951–2010 change. The likely contributions of natural forcing and internal variability to global temperature change over that period are minor (high confidence). (Ch. 3; Fig. ES.2)”
                      USGCRP, 2017: Climate Science Special Report: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume I [Wuebbles, D.J., D.W. Fahey, K.A. Hibbard, D.J. Dokken, B.C. Stewart, and T.K. Maycock (eds.)]. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, USA, 470 pp., doi: 10.7930/J0J964J6

                      WHAT WE KNOW
                      THE REALITY, RISKS, AND RESPONSE TO CLIMATE CHANGE
                      The overwhelming evidence of human-caused climate change documents both current impacts with significant costs and extraordinary future risks to society and natural systems. The scientific community has convened conferences, published reports, spoken out at forums and proclaimed, through statements by virtually every national scientific academy and relevant major scientific organization — including the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) — that climate change puts the well-being of people of all nations at risk. http://whatweknow.aaas.org/

                      What’s Really Warming the World? Climate deniers blame natural factors; NASA data proves otherwise
                      https://www.bloomberg.com/g

                      What is climate change? http://www.metoffice.gov.uk

                      Environment and Climate Change Canada https://www.ec.gc.ca/cc/

                      European Climate Adaptation Platform (CLIMATE-ADAPT) http://climate-adapt.eea.eu

                      Cornell Climate Change http://climatechange.cornel

                      republicEn: Engaging Conservatives https://www.climatechangeco

                      George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication https://www.climatechangeco

                      EARTH Institute http://earth.columbia.edu/a

                      And the science condensed :

                      D.3 Detection and Attribution of Climate Change

                      Human influence has been detected in warming of the atmosphere and the ocean, in changes in the global water cycle, in reductions in snow and ice, in global mean sea level rise, and in changes in some climate extremes (see Figure SPM.6 and Table SPM.1). This evidence for human influence has grown since AR4. It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. {10.3–10.6, 10.9}

                      • It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period. {10.3}

                      • Greenhouse gases contributed a global mean surface warming likely to be in the range of 0.5°C to 1.3°C over the period 1951 to 2010, with the contributions from other anthropogenic forcings, including the cooling effect of aerosols, likely to be in the range of −0.6°C to 0.1°C. The contribution from natural forcings is likely to be in the range of −0.1°C to 0.1°C, and from natural internal variability is likely to be in the range of −0.1°C to 0.1°C. Together these assessed contributions are consistent with the observed warming of approximately 0.6°C to 0.7°C over this period. {10.3}

                      • Over every continental region except Antarctica, anthropogenic forcings have likely made a substantial contribution to surface temperature increases since the mid-20th century (see Figure SPM.6). For Antarctica, large observational uncertainties result in low confidence that anthropogenic forcings have contributed to the observed warming averaged over available stations. It is likely that there has been an anthropogenic contribution to the very substantial Arctic warming since the mid-20th century. {2.4, 10.3}

                      • It is very likely that anthropogenic influence, particularly greenhouse gases and stratospheric ozone depletion, has led to a detectable observed pattern of tropospheric warming and a corresponding cooling in the lower stratosphere since 1961. {2.4, 9.4, 10.3}

                      • It is very likely that anthropogenic forcings have made a substantial contribution to increases in global upper ocean heat content (0–700 m) observed since the 1970s (see Figure SPM.6). There is evidence for human influence in some individual ocean basins. {3.2, 10.4}

                      • It is likely that anthropogenic influences have affected the global water cycle since 1960. Anthropogenic influences have contributed to observed increases in atmospheric moisture content in the atmosphere (medium confidence), to global scale changes in precipitation patterns over land (medium confidence), to intensification of heavy precipitation over land regions where data are sufficient (medium confidence), and to changes in surface and sub-surface ocean salinity (very likely). {2.5, 2.6, 3.3, 7.6, 10.3, 10.4}
                      SPM WG1 AR5

                    • Charles Tery January 26, 2018 at 11:12 AM

                      Clearly you don’t. All you can do is copy and paste. Then once confronted you use fallacy and avoid the question. It is hard to debate if you won’t answer.

                    • Robert January 26, 2018 at 11:24 AM

                      Yup. Absolutely correct. Go learn science in a science class. That you think there is any actual debate on the basic chemistry and physics only points to a diehard opinion that you don’t want to be considered responsible for your actions.

                      Now. If you want to discuss Capitalism, religious idiocy, nationalism, and general human disregard having gotten us here and what the best efforts to adapt, mitigate, there is plenty of space on this opinion site.

                    • Wake January 26, 2018 at 1:14 PM

                      No scientist can be expected to give an accurate assessment if he is being handed bad data no matter how honest he is. And as I showed above – NASA has been changing raw data in a manner that mathematicians says is impossible. What’s more, you NEVER change raw data. You publish another chart with any corrections you feel necessary with complete explanations of what and why corrections were made.

                      They actually have done this with the sea level changes. And they killed all of their veracity with that.

                      By direct measurement at most sites since the civil war sea levels have been measured. This is very difficult in the best of times but they were showing sea level rises of a single mm per year. Suddenly in 1980 they claimed that sea levels were changing at 2 mm per year.

                      When examined we discovered that NASA was claiming that the core of the Earth was shrinking at 1 mm per year and so the sea level would have to be increasing at 2 mm per year to show 1 mm per year sea level increases.

                      Uhh, that shrinkage has NEVER been measured. It is a wild-assed guess that comes from the fact that although we are gaining star-dust at a rate of 40,000 tonnes per year, we are losing 50,000 tonnes of hydrogen and helium each year as it floats off into outer space because Earth’s gravity field is too light to hold it against the solar wind.

                    • Robert January 26, 2018 at 1:44 PM

                      Even 6th grade students understand that :
                      1 -claims need to be supported by evidence.
                      2 -Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” Carl Sagan.

                      https://www2.uwstout.edu/content/profdev/rubrics/middlelschresearchrubric.html

                      “When examined we discovered…”

                    • Wake January 26, 2018 at 3:15 PM

                      Perhaps you don’t understand these sorts of things – if NASA claims that there is shrinkage due to the core cooling THEY have to demonstrate extraordinary evidence and not me.

                    • Robert January 26, 2018 at 3:23 PM

                      Perhaps you should try re-reading what I posted and note who it was posted to.

                    • Wake January 26, 2018 at 4:58 PM

                      This is a social media. If you want to hold a private conversation go to Facebook and use private messaging. Does it bother you that I have answers for your misinformation?

                    • Robert January 26, 2018 at 5:22 PM

                      Ummm, I posted that to you….
                      And your answers hold little to no weight without substantive supporting resources. That was the point.

                      You claim, with no evidence, to have expertise. I point to actual, real people and institutions who have demonstrated their expertise.
                      And have pointed out the world has accepted that expertise and act based on that understanding.

                      You counter w more claims and unsupported assertions.

                    • Robert January 26, 2018 at 1:49 PM

                      “NASA has been changing raw data in a manner that mathematicians says is impossible…”

                      The average 6th grader know that there needs to be an in text citation following that.
                      https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/02/
                      https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/747/02/

                    • Wake January 26, 2018 at 3:35 PM

                      Firstly, I have cited the source of that study many times. Second, what sort of ass uses suggestions on how to write social science papers about mathematics? You do not REFERENCE anything but your source of data and statistical analysis does not require references.

                      But since your memory is one of two postings long: https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf

                      As for peer review:

                      “The Undersigned Agree with the Conclusions of this Report:
                      Dr. Alan Carlin
                      Retired Senior Analyst and manager, US Environmental Protection Agency,
                      Washington, DC.
                      Author, Environmentalism Gone Mad, Stairway Press, 2015.
                      Ph.D., Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
                      BS, Physics, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA.

                      Dr. Harold H. Doiron
                      Retired VP-Engineering Analysis and Test Division, InDyne, Inc.
                      Ex-NASA JSC, Aerospace Consultant
                      B.S. Physics, University of Louisiana – Lafayette
                      M.S., Ph.D., Mechanical Engineering, University of Houston

                      Dr. Theodore R. Eck
                      Ph.D., Economics, Michigan State University
                      M.A, Economics, University of Michigan
                      Fulbright Professor of International Economics
                      Former Chief Economist of Amoco Corp. and Exxon Venezuela
                      Advisory Board of the Gas Technology Institute and Energy Intelligence Group

                      Dr. Richard A. Keen
                      Instructor Emeritus of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Colorado
                      Ph.D., Geography/Climatology, University of Colorado
                      M.S., Astro-Geophysics, University of Colorado
                      B.A., Astronomy, Northwestern University

                      Dr. Anthony R. Lupo
                      IPCC Expert Reviewer
                      Professor, Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri
                      Ph.D., Atmospheric Science, Purdue University
                      M.S., Atmospheric Science, Purdue University

                      Dr. Thomas P. Sheahen
                      Ph.D., Physics, M.I.T.
                      B.S., Physics, M.I.T.

                      Dr. George T. Wolff
                      Former Chair EPA’s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
                      Ph.D., Environmental Sciences, Rutgers University
                      M.S., Meteorology, New York University
                      B.S., Chemical Engineering, New Jersey Institute of Technology”

                    • Robert January 26, 2018 at 3:46 PM

                      Thanks for yet again showing you really have a unclear concept on what citing a reliable source means.

                      Or, quite obviously what supporting an assertion means…

                    • Wake January 26, 2018 at 5:27 PM

                      What do you find unreliable about a paper that was reviewed by the manager of the EPA, a NASA consultant, a Fulbright scholar, an Instructor Emeritus of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, a member of the IPCC, a PhD scholar in physics from MIT and the Former Chair EPA’s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee?

                      Or perhaps you object to the fact that the paper was written by a psychiatrist, an econometrician and a meteorologist despite the fact that understanding the acts of people like you who insist you know what you’re talking about when you haven’t the slightest training requires an understanding of the mental states that would lead you to continue arguing about these things?

                    • Robert January 26, 2018 at 5:31 PM

                      1 – “a paper”
                      2- unpublished
                      3- multiple logical fallacies
                      4- attempted insulting

                    • Robert January 26, 2018 at 3:27 PM

                      Wow, nearly a dozen resources explain the basic science…
                      Basic science with a consilience of evidence from a near 200 year body of research.

                      And the response is…

                      Wait for it….

                      Unsupported and near conspiracy level assertions.

                    • Wake January 26, 2018 at 5:12 PM

                      When you don’t know what you’re talking about would you please not post? Or if you believe you do know what you’re talking about perhaps you can offer real references and not Climate Kids.

                    • Robert January 26, 2018 at 5:23 PM

                      Keep playing with the logical fallacy creator.

                    • Robert January 26, 2018 at 5:33 PM

                      So, other than an Attack the Messenger, you don’t have anything.
                      Other than a shade of ‘America, love it or leave it’.

                      Thanks.

                    • Robert January 26, 2018 at 3:35 PM

                      Somehow, you’ve convinced yourself you’re an expert on the topic.

                      Here is a short compilation of book lists to help you disabuse yourself .

                      A Climate Change Reading List For Laypeople
                      https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=121057831

                      The Global Climate Crisis and Capitalism: A Reading List
                      https://www.versobooks.com/lists/3003-the-global-climate-crisis-and-capitalism-a-reading-list

                      Earth’s Water Cycle and Climate Change: Reading List
                      https://www.loc.gov/rr/scitech/SciRefGuides/watercycle.html

                      Climate Change: A Reading List
                      https://bookriot.com/2016/11/27/climate-change-reading-list/

                      1A Earth Sciences – Reading List & Resources
                      https://www.esc.cam.ac.uk/library/research-skills-1/reading-lists/part-1a-earth-sciences-reading-list

                      For Climate Change Reporters, Here’s an Essential Reading List
                      http://www.sej.org/publications/sejournal/climate-change-reporters-heres-essential-reading-list

                    • Charles Tery January 26, 2018 at 10:30 AM

                      Can you explain who CO2 at such a pitiful small amount can retain so much heat? Please use your own words not a link. I can debate with you I can’t debate with your deaf link

                    • Robert January 26, 2018 at 10:52 AM

                      The science says what the sciences say. That you think your incredulity implies the science is wrong only points to your inability or unwillingness to understand what that nearly two hundred years of research says.

                      If you had a science source supporting your talking point virtually copy/pasted from paid for from denialist blogs, we’d see it

                      Instead, we get your claim that no efforts to explain the science are available to you.

                      Here are some additional learning opportunities:

                      “The likely range of the human contribution to the global mean temperature increase over the period 1951–2010 is 1.1° to 1.4°F (0.6° to 0.8°C), and the central estimate of the observed warming of 1.2°F (0.65°C) lies within this range (high confidence). This translates to a likely human contribution of 92%–123% of the observed 1951–2010 change. The likely contributions of natural forcing and internal variability to global temperature change over that period are minor (high confidence). (Ch. 3; Fig. ES.2)”
                      USGCRP, 2017: Climate Science Special Report: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume I [Wuebbles, D.J., D.W. Fahey, K.A. Hibbard, D.J. Dokken, B.C. Stewart, and T.K. Maycock (eds.)]. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, USA, 470 pp., doi: 10.7930/J0J964J6

                      WHAT WE KNOW
                      THE REALITY, RISKS, AND RESPONSE TO CLIMATE CHANGE
                      The overwhelming evidence of human-caused climate change documents both current impacts with significant costs and extraordinary future risks to society and natural systems. The scientific community has convened conferences, published reports, spoken out at forums and proclaimed, through statements by virtually every national scientific academy and relevant major scientific organization — including the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) — that climate change puts the well-being of people of all nations at risk. http://whatweknow.aaas.org/

                      What’s Really Warming the World? Climate deniers blame natural factors; NASA data proves otherwise
                      https://www.bloomberg.com/g

                      What is climate change? http://www.metoffice.gov.uk

                      Environment and Climate Change Canada https://www.ec.gc.ca/cc/

                      European Climate Adaptation Platform (CLIMATE-ADAPT) http://climate-adapt.eea.eu

                      Cornell Climate Change http://climatechange.cornel

                      republicEn: Engaging Conservatives https://www.climatechangeco

                      George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication https://www.climatechangeco

                      EARTH Institute http://earth.columbia.edu/a

                      And the science condensed :

                      D.3 Detection and Attribution of Climate Change

                      Human influence has been detected in warming of the atmosphere and the ocean, in changes in the global water cycle, in reductions in snow and ice, in global mean sea level rise, and in changes in some climate extremes (see Figure SPM.6 and Table SPM.1). This evidence for human influence has grown since AR4. It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. {10.3–10.6, 10.9}

                      • It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period. {10.3}

                      • Greenhouse gases contributed a global mean surface warming likely to be in the range of 0.5°C to 1.3°C over the period 1951 to 2010, with the contributions from other anthropogenic forcings, including the cooling effect of aerosols, likely to be in the range of −0.6°C to 0.1°C. The contribution from natural forcings is likely to be in the range of −0.1°C to 0.1°C, and from natural internal variability is likely to be in the range of −0.1°C to 0.1°C. Together these assessed contributions are consistent with the observed warming of approximately 0.6°C to 0.7°C over this period. {10.3}

                      • Over every continental region except Antarctica, anthropogenic forcings have likely made a substantial contribution to surface temperature increases since the mid-20th century (see Figure SPM.6). For Antarctica, large observational uncertainties result in low confidence that anthropogenic forcings have contributed to the observed warming averaged over available stations. It is likely that there has been an anthropogenic contribution to the very substantial Arctic warming since the mid-20th century. {2.4, 10.3}

                      • It is very likely that anthropogenic influence, particularly greenhouse gases and stratospheric ozone depletion, has led to a detectable observed pattern of tropospheric warming and a corresponding cooling in the lower stratosphere since 1961. {2.4, 9.4, 10.3}

                      • It is very likely that anthropogenic forcings have made a substantial contribution to increases in global upper ocean heat content (0–700 m) observed since the 1970s (see Figure SPM.6). There is evidence for human influence in some individual ocean basins. {3.2, 10.4}

                      • It is likely that anthropogenic influences have affected the global water cycle since 1960. Anthropogenic influences have contributed to observed increases in atmospheric moisture content in the atmosphere (medium confidence), to global scale changes in precipitation patterns over land (medium confidence), to intensification of heavy precipitation over land regions where data are sufficient (medium confidence), and to changes in surface and sub-surface ocean salinity (very likely). {2.5, 2.6, 3.3, 7.6, 10.3, 10.4}
                      SPM WG1 AR5

                    • Charles Tery January 26, 2018 at 10:58 AM

                      WOW you know how to copy and paste. A lot words but mostly it is a contrivance. It is still only a trace gas at 400 ppm. How does it retain so much heat? Can you answer that without a link or a copy and paste?

                    • Robert January 26, 2018 at 11:45 AM

                      Well nearly a dozen resources show that your efforts to argue basic physics is a ludicrous position to cling to in an effort to not accept what the world -minus a few denialist blogs- knows and has taken responsibility for our behavior to heart by developing military, public, and corp. policy and plans to mitigate and adapt to our changing ecosystem.

                    • Wake January 26, 2018 at 12:57 PM

                      You are not arguing basic physics. None of your comments have shown you understand basic physics. Again let me repeat – looking for something that will back your position and then using that as some sort of reference is not science. It is nothing more than bias. I have designed and programmed spectrometers and gas analyzers. I can tell you unequivocally that increasing CO2 would make no difference because all of the energy in those absorption bands is already saturated at perhaps 250 ppm or so. What’s more, plant growth is seriously affect by CO2 that low. Photosynthesis ceases at 180 ppm and the increase in CO2 is feeding the world.

                    • Robert January 26, 2018 at 1:37 PM

                      Absolutely correct that I’m not arguing basic, foundational physics.

                      “…plant growth is seriously affect by CO2 that low. ”
                      Interesting given how ~280, what we’ve had from the beginning of agriculture, has allowed farm and forest to flourish for so many centuries.

                      Again. There is -other than a few Internet comments – no one arguing that the basic physics is wrong.
                      Indeed, the world has understood the basics, understood the science is solid, and have developed, researched, and put into action policies based on that acceptance of the xcience and our effects on our environment.

                      All you are doing is showing how you are unwilling to take responsibility for your actions.

                    • Wake January 26, 2018 at 3:27 PM

                      Tell me how you know what CO2 levels were 12,000 years ago which is approximately the start of real agriculture? If you read: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/stomata.html you will discover that over the last 15,000 years that CO2 level has averaged about 310 ppm but with some wild swings that show ticks as high as 340 ppm. This is as much as 25% more than the ice core research shows.

                      You are rather comical trying to use popularity of an idea as proof of its accuracy.

                    • Robert January 26, 2018 at 4:16 PM

                      Wow, a whole body of research easily available at scholar . google and you found….
                      geocraft

                      So, what you’ve demonstrated is
                      1-that your incredulity does not mean you are right
                      2 – a lack of intellectual curiosity, rigor, and critical thinking skills
                      3- a source that agrees with your conclusion is worth more to you than what basic research skills would have rendered.

                      Background: Unprecedented Rise of CO2

                      “Over the past million years, atmospheric carbon dioxide has been generally low and fluctuated predictably within a window of 200 to 300 ppm. This, the researchers explain, has sustained the current icehouse – a time marked by continental ice at the polar regions – under which humans have evolved. This trend has been abruptly interrupted by the pronounced rise of carbon dioxide over the past 100 years to the current level of 401 ppm—one not seen on Earth for at least the past 3.5 million years.”
                      https://phys.org/news/2016-10-ancient-co2-future-climate.html

                    • Wake January 26, 2018 at 6:31 PM

                      I realize that it was too much for you to read the article.

                      The actual papers which you haven’t any capability of understanding was:

                      http://droyer.web.wesleyan.edu/RPP.pdf

                      https://debunkhouse.wordpress.com/2015/03/09/stomata-posts/

                      But of course if you were bright enough to actually research anything you’re find a technique called “Geocarb” which uses geological rock degradation from CO2 to estimate CO2 levels in the atmosphere. These show CO2 levels to be even higher than the stomata research.

                      This shows among other things that there was a very low CO2 levels directly following the Maunder Minimum. The colder the oceans the less outgasing of CO2 and the more it absorbs. As the oceans warm they outgas CO2. It takes a VERY long time to warm 300 million cubic miles of seawater. But I’m sure you’re not interested in that.

                      Your interests lie in using an ignorant term like “denialist”. The proof positive that you haven’t a clue what is going on around you.

                    • Robert January 26, 2018 at 7:03 PM

                      Ah,,,,,, insulting,
                      generic link w no quoted material,
                      disreputable site
                      a paltry selection of cherry picked resources….

                      And why cite geocraft then say “The actual papers …”

                      And it would be interesting to see your thesis statement or hypothesis driving your cites.

                    • Wake January 26, 2018 at 12:47 PM

                      Here is a study that shows that 400 ppm contrary to the claims of the enviro-whackos is neither unusual or particularly high.

                      http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/stomata.html

                      There is a chart there that demonstrates wild differences between plant stomata research and the ice dome samples.

                      For years I’ve been saying that these ice samples are wildly inaccurate when it comes to CO2 and this is proof of it.

                    • Wake January 26, 2018 at 12:41 PM

                      Robert, I should have known that you get your information from “climatekids”. The description of how a greenhouse works is incorrect.

                      And if CO2 acted like the roof of a greenhouse the upper atmosphere would be warm and it is not. “In mathematical speak that is 9.8°C per 1,000 meters. However, if you’re in a cloud, or it is snowing/raining, the temperature decreases by about 3.3°F for every 1,000 feet up you go in elevation. Thus meaning it’s a change of 6°C per 1,0000 meters”

                      Please don’t look around to find anything that can support your view and then use that as some sort of accurate reference.

                      NASA has been changing their temperature data. You should NEVER change your actual measure data but make new charts that explain what corrections you’ve made and why.

                      And especially when any competent mathematician can look at the changes and see that they could not have been due to correcting for calibration errors: https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf

                      “The conclusive findings of this research are that the three GAST data sets are not a valid representation of reality. In fact, the magnitude of their historical data adjustments, that removed their cyclical temperature patterns, are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data. Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever –despite current claims of record setting
                      warming.

                      Finally, since GAST data set validity is a necessary condition for EPA’s GHG/CO2 Endangerment Finding, it too is invalidated by these research findings.”

                      “The Undersigned Agree with the Conclusions of this Report:
                      Dr. Alan Carlin
                      Retired Senior Analyst and manager, US Environmental Protection Agency,
                      Washington, DC.
                      Author, Environmentalism Gone Mad, Stairway Press, 2015.
                      Ph.D., Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
                      BS, Physics, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA.
                      Dr. Harold H. Doiron
                      Retired VP-Engineering Analysis and Test Division, InDyne, Inc.
                      Ex-NASA JSC, Aerospace Consultant
                      B.S. Physics, University of Louisiana – Lafayette
                      M.S., Ph.D., Mechanical Engineering, University of Houston
                      Dr. Theodore R. Eck
                      Ph.D., Economics, Michigan State University
                      M.A, Economics, University of Michigan
                      Fulbright Professor of International Economics
                      Former Chief Economist of Amoco Corp. and Exxon Venezuela
                      Advisory Board of the Gas Technology Institute and Energy Intelligence Group
                      Dr. Richard A. Keen
                      Instructor Emeritus of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Colorado
                      Ph.D., Geography/Climatology, University of Colorado
                      M.S., Astro-Geophysics, University of Colorado
                      B.A., Astronomy, Northwestern University
                      Dr. Anthony R. Lupo
                      IPCC Expert Reviewer
                      Professor, Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri
                      Ph.D., Atmospheric Science, Purdue University
                      M.S., Atmospheric Science, Purdue University
                      Dr. Thomas P. Sheahen
                      Ph.D., Physics, M.I.T.
                      B.S., Physics, M.I.T.
                      Dr. George T. Wolff
                      Former Chair EPA’s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
                      Ph.D., Environmental Sciences, Rutgers University
                      M.S., Meteorology, New York University
                      B.S., Chemical Engineering, New Jersey Institute of Technology”

                    • Robert January 26, 2018 at 1:13 PM

                      Sorry you think the nearly dozen resources can be exemplified by a single source. That transparent use of a logical, fallacy points out just how empty your efforts are in trying to argue basic, foundational research of the past nearly two centuies.

                      Meanwhile, the rest of the world has taken science and learned from it. And have accepted our responsibility of working within the ecological system that allowed us to flourish.

                      And have taken the effort to resesrch, develop, and put into action public and corp. plans to mitigate and adapt to what we’ve done.

                    • Wake January 26, 2018 at 4:30 PM

                      What I think is that your entire line of thought is exemplified with the label “Climatekids”. Look, I don’t like to insult you but you don’t understand science and physics. You are stuck in the era of Obama when “97% of all scientists believe in man-made global warming”.

                      No one that has ever worked in science could EVER believe that 97% of all scientists could agree on anything including whether chickens lay eggs. Who was part of the 97% that NASA quoted? The American Medical Association! Now there is some group that could be expected to know climatology. And the Boy Scouts of America.

                      This is an unlimited amount of information out there that shows that there has been warming between 1898 and 1940, but thanks to NASA fiddling with the data we can’t really tell if there has actually been any warming since then. And the most we look into it the more questions arise.

                      Some dumbass study looked into the dilatory effects of higher levels of CO2 on the plants. They discovered that the higher levels of CO2 cause reductions in protein, zinc and vitamin A production in plants. What they fail to say is that greenhouses normally run 550 ppm NOW. Or that this can easily be countered by using different types of plant food as most farmers do.

                      If you want to believe that you world is coming to an end then perhaps you ought to sell everything you have and go see the hot spots in Europe. Go see the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem. See the pyramids in Egypt. Make the most of your short time on Earth because men are destroying the planet right? I watched so many people kill themselves with drugs because, “like dude, there’s no future here” that I can’t count them. The Flower generation was as stupid as the Millennials.

                    • Robert January 26, 2018 at 4:44 PM

                      Yet we have multiple studies, multiple databases, multiple methodologies all pointing to similar conclusions.
                      And, as far as I’ve seen, a paper by Lord Monkton and a bunch of comment thread, and some denialist blog posts saying they’re wrong.

                      I’ll go with reputable, repeatable research over incredulity
                      “No one that has ever worked in science could EVER believe that 97% of all scientists could agree on anything including whether chickens lay eggs. “

                    • Wake January 26, 2018 at 5:31 PM

                      Then perhaps you ought to explain that to Congress because they actually caught NOAA manufacturing false data:

                      https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/25472-congress-investigates-fraudulent-science-used-by-noaa-to-push-un-global-warming-treaty

                    • Robert January 26, 2018 at 7:16 PM

                      You missed something….

                      Quote?
                      Gone missing….

                      Here’s one:
                      “…published a 4,000-plus word exposé on the NOAA/Karl study on the prestigious website of Dr. Judith Curry…”

                      No mention of actual official action, sanction, no mention of actual journal published work

                      … just conservative political commentary .

                      Or as Stein put it; ‘there’s no there there’.

                    • 9.8m/ss January 26, 2018 at 8:32 PM

                      That’s an opinion piece in the John Birch Society newsletter, and, of course, it grossly distorts the facts. Congress didn’t catch NOAA manufacturing anything. Despite the noise in political opinion outlets like Newamerican, Dr. Bates doesn’t actually fault the scientific work Karl and his team did. Bates had designed a new validation and archiving system for NOAA, and it wasn’t ready in time for Karl’s project to use it. So Karl decided early in the project to keep using the system already in production. Bates wanted him to delay his project so it could use his new system and Karl refused. All of his complaints about Karl’s operation boil down to that dispute.

                    • Wake January 28, 2018 at 6:30 PM

                      Apparently you’re one of those people to who “John Birch” has some negative meaning. Have you ever read anything published by them or are you simply the run-of-the-mill hack who follows the social media where someone said something negative about them and so you feel compelled to follow them?

                      If that isn’t enough try this one: https://tinyurl.com/y79xpfng or https://tinyurl.com/y75yoq4k or if you have the time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJBDI7jVMqM

                    • Robert January 26, 2018 at 4:46 PM

                      Ah, another paid for denialist blog talking point brought forward “thanks to NASA fiddling “.

                      Thanks.

                    • Wake January 26, 2018 at 5:44 PM

                      The use of the word “denialist” fits you perfectly. Anyone that uses that term simply is an incompetent boob. Since you don’t know anything about science you even have to invent a word for those who do!

                    • Robert January 26, 2018 at 6:45 PM

                      Check the first example sentence…..

                      denialist
                      NOUN
                      A person who refuses to admit the truth of a concept or proposition that is supported by the majority of scientific or historical evidence.

                      ‘the small minority of very vocal climate change denialists’
                      as modifier ‘the denialist view’
                      More example sentences
                      ‘To the skeptics’ discomfort, their arguments are frequently quoted by the denialists.’
                      ‘So far the pattern is for the emails to look a lot less suspicious once they’re put into context, and for the denialists to oversell what they’ve found.’
                      ‘Since the denialists are denying, drastic measures are required.’
                      ‘While the greenhouse denialists reject such scenarios outright, more hard-headed ruling-class planners take them more seriously.’
                      ‘It is probably true that The Day After Tomorrow’s special effects-driven excesses have given the greenhouse denialists a propaganda free kick.’
                      ‘Those who did speak up were “bludgeoned quite strongly” and labelled denialists.’
                      ‘He hints darkly that, though some ‘denialists’ are ‘not evil’, others ‘cross the line between what could arguably be protected free speech’.’
                      ‘Then there’s the well-funded greenhouse denialist think-tanks on the lookout for any evidence, argument or anecdote that might raise public doubts – legitimate or otherwise – about the growing strength of the scientific consensus.’
                      ‘And just, by the by, you are about the third or fourth left-winger I have seen on the net saying that the dissidents “are more properly termed denialists”.’
                      ‘Thank you for Talbot’s excellent series of articles debunking the myths propagated by the AIDS denialists.’
                      ‘The HIV denialists do not all belong in one category.’
                      ‘But denialists have never been interested in understanding the science, after all, if they understood it, they could not be in denial anymore.’
                      ‘They are the problem, and they need to acknowledge that fact and start cleaning up their own mess rather than spouting denialist rhetoric.’
                      ‘Until recently, AIDS researchers and activists in the United States tended to regard the denialists with derision, assuming they would fade away.’
                      ‘He came under the influence of a group of maverick scientists known as Aids denialists.’
                      ‘The denialist position within the government has put the fear of God into the medical establishment, who will do nothing to counter it.’
                      ‘But many in the medical establishment say the sacking of her deputy is evidence that he remains an “Aids denialist” who questions the link between HIV and the disease.’
                      ‘The denialist side was actively subverting the peer review process.’
                      ‘We need to recognise that the denialist movement is a true grass-roots phenomenon, though this does not make it any less reactionary.’

                      https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/denialist

                    • Wake January 26, 2018 at 6:57 PM

                      You are really a hoot. There is also dictionary definitions of Maui Wowie and Acapulco Gold. This does not mean that it wasn’t an invented term by people like you for those who know what they’re talking about.

                    • Robert January 26, 2018 at 7:27 PM

                      Wow.
                      Wowie

                      You’ve jumped the shark.

                      “invented term ”

                      I wonder now if we’re not headed off into some Chomskian linguistic diatribe….

                    • Robert January 26, 2018 at 4:47 PM

                      Ah… there’s a solid critique “Some dumbass study looked into…”

                    • Wake January 26, 2018 at 6:35 PM

                      This from the guy whose reference was “Climate Kids”.

                    • Robert January 26, 2018 at 6:42 PM

                      And quotes from AR5
                      And nearly a dozen sources… None of whitch you’ve been able to argue are not accueate. Which is why you’re reduced to two logical fallacies as your sole source of argument.

                    • Robert January 26, 2018 at 4:48 PM

                      And a leap into the hedge…
                      “The Flower generation was as stupid as the Millennials.”

                    • Wake January 26, 2018 at 6:38 PM

                      Yet you aren’t capable of understanding a paper written mathematically proving that NASA and NOAA manufactured data to prove what the environmentalists wanted proven. You’re showing yourself less capable by the second.

                    • Robert January 26, 2018 at 8:24 PM

                      Tinfoil….
                      “..NASA and NOAA manufactured data to prove what the environmentalists wanted proven…”

                      No math needed.

                      Thanks

                      Also see:
                      “Who was part of the 97% that NASA quoted? The American Medical Association! Now there is some group that could be expected to know climatology. And the Boy Scouts of America.”

                    • Robert January 26, 2018 at 4:49 PM

                      With no examples.

                      “And the most we look into it the more questions arise.”

                      Thanks

                    • Robert January 26, 2018 at 5:07 PM

                      Leading off with logical fallacies is never a good idea….

                      “What I think is that your entire line of thought is exemplified with the label “Climatekids”. “

                    • Robert January 26, 2018 at 4:51 PM

                      Where did the “undersigned” get their collaborative work published?

                    • Wake January 26, 2018 at 6:46 PM

                      You simply cannot keep yourself from exposing your total ignorance of science. 99% of all studies are never published in public literature. The AAAS would publish a very small amount. Where do you suppose the rest would be published?
                      In extremely low distribution specialty publications like “American Journal of Biochemistry and Biotechnology” or “American Journal of Immunology”. But you have my permission to continue with your supreme stupidity.

                    • Robert January 26, 2018 at 7:29 PM

                      Fonzie tried to bolster sinking ratings. That isn’t a good technique for trying to prove an argument.

                      “99% of all studies are never published in public literature. “

                    • Robert January 26, 2018 at 8:24 PM

                      “The description of how a greenhouse works is incorrect.”
                      Noted: you make no effort to show who has a correct version, or produce your own explanation.
                      Or accept it as an analogy.

                    • Wake January 28, 2018 at 6:22 PM

                      If you don’t know how and why a greenhouse works why don’t you look it up and then look at the stupid explanation Mann makes in his paper? Exactly why do you post if you are incapable of looking things up beyond Climatekids?

                    • Robert January 28, 2018 at 7:34 PM

                      Quotes.
                      Cites.
                      Gone missing.

                      Understanding what an analogy is and why they are used.
                      Gone missing

                    • Wake January 28, 2018 at 7:39 PM

                      I do not offer “quotes” to someone that can’t understand them. I do not need to cite anything since your jackass idea that there is ANY analogy between a greenhouse and the way CO2 is supposed to act is totally incorrect.

                      Run back to Climatekids and cry.

                    • Robert January 29, 2018 at 12:30 PM

                      Meanwhile, the rest of the world is acting on what the observations, models, theory all agree on.

                      Here is a compilation of resources discussing what a complete analysis of the body of literature says. I’ll stick with reputable research, not what some anonymous Internet commenter wants to argue about whether greenhouse is an analogy or not..

                      “The likely range of the human contribution to the global mean temperature increase over the period 1951–2010 is 1.1° to 1.4°F (0.6° to 0.8°C), and the central estimate of the observed warming of 1.2°F (0.65°C) lies within this range (high confidence). This translates to a likely human contribution of 92%–123% of the observed 1951–2010 change. The likely contributions of natural forcing and internal variability to global temperature change over that period are minor (high confidence). (Ch. 3; Fig. ES.2)”
                      USGCRP, 2017: Climate Science Special Report: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume I [Wuebbles, D.J., D.W. Fahey, K.A. Hibbard, D.J. Dokken, B.C. Stewart, and T.K. Maycock (eds.)]. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, USA, 470 pp., doi: 10.7930/J0J964J6

                      WHAT WE KNOW
                      THE REALITY, RISKS, AND RESPONSE TO CLIMATE CHANGE

                      The overwhelming evidence of human-caused climate change documents both current impacts with significant costs and extraordinary future risks to society and natural systems. The scientific community has convened conferences, published reports, spoken out at forums and proclaimed, through statements by virtually every national scientific academy and relevant major scientific organization — including the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) — that climate change puts the well-being of people of all nations at risk. http://whatweknow.aaas.org/get-the-facts/

                      What’s Really Warming the World? Climate deniers blame natural factors; NASA data proves otherwise
                      https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

                      What is climate change? http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-guide

                      Environment and Climate Change Canada https://www.ec.gc.ca/cc/

                      European Climate Adaptation Platform (CLIMATE-ADAPT) http://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu

                      Cornell Climate Change http://climatechange.cornell.edu

                      republicEn: Engaging Conservatives https://www.climatechangecommunication.org/republicen/

                      George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication https://www.climatechangecommunication.org

                      EARTH Institute http://earth.columbia.edu/articles/view/2124

                      And the science condensed :

                      D.3 Detection and Attribution of Climate Change

                      Human influence has been detected in warming of the atmosphere and the ocean, in changes in the global water cycle, in reductions in snow and ice, in global mean sea level rise, and in changes in some climate extremes (see Figure SPM.6 and Table SPM.1). This evidence for human influence has grown since AR4. It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. {10.3–10.6, 10.9}

                      • It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period. {10.3}

                      • Greenhouse gases contributed a global mean surface warming likely to be in the range of 0.5°C to 1.3°C over the period 1951 to 2010, with the contributions from other anthropogenic forcings, including the cooling effect of aerosols, likely to be in the range of −0.6°C to 0.1°C. The contribution from natural forcings is likely to be in the range of −0.1°C to 0.1°C, and from natural internal variability is likely to be in the range of −0.1°C to 0.1°C. Together these assessed contributions are consistent with the observed warming of approximately 0.6°C to 0.7°C over this period. {10.3}

                      • Over every continental region except Antarctica, anthropogenic forcings have likely made a substantial contribution to surface temperature increases since the mid-20th century (see Figure SPM.6). For Antarctica, large observational uncertainties result in low confidence that anthropogenic forcings have contributed to the observed warming averaged over available stations. It is likely that there has been an anthropogenic contribution to the very substantial Arctic warming since the mid-20th century. {2.4, 10.3}

                      • It is very likely that anthropogenic influence, particularly greenhouse gases and stratospheric ozone depletion, has led to a detectable observed pattern of tropospheric warming and a corresponding cooling in the lower stratosphere since 1961. {2.4, 9.4, 10.3}

                      • It is very likely that anthropogenic forcings have made a substantial contribution to increases in global upper ocean heat content (0–700 m) observed since the 1970s (see Figure SPM.6). There is evidence for human influence in some individual ocean basins. {3.2, 10.4}

                      • It is likely that anthropogenic influences have affected the global water cycle since 1960. Anthropogenic influences have contributed to observed increases in atmospheric moisture content in the atmosphere (medium confidence), to global scale changes in precipitation patterns over land (medium confidence), to intensification of heavy precipitation over land regions where data are sufficient (medium confidence), and to changes in surface and sub-surface ocean salinity (very likely). {2.5, 2.6, 3.3, 7.6, 10.3, 10.4}
                      SPM WG1 AR5

                    • Robert January 28, 2018 at 7:38 PM

                      If there are errors in any of those resources, quote, cite, and explain why w links to supporting science.

                      Til then, all you’ve done is a logical fallacy -Attack the Messenger.
                      And cherry picking.
                      And attempted insulting by example.

                    • Johnpd January 4, 2018 at 7:10 AM

                      Agreed. I think of the greenhouse effect as a probable nett cooling effect: daytime solar insolation warms Earth, especially at or near equator, mostly oceans. This evaporates water as vapour which rises & forms clouds, which reflect back to space the Sun’s radiation. Nightime these clouds reflect Earth’s heat,which is trying to escape to space, back down to Earth.

                      This keeps the Tropics temperate both day & night, while deserts at temperate latitudes will boil daytime & freeze nightime.
                      As a greenhouse gas, CO2 is negligible, especially over 400 ppmv, where we are now.

                      Make sense?

                    • Charles Tery January 26, 2018 at 11:14 AM

                      can you support your claim?

                    • Johnpd January 29, 2018 at 10:40 AM

                      Climatologist Dr. Tim Ball’s book: Human Caused Global Warming
                      the biggest deception in history.

                      Page 27: Good graphic: Greenhouse gases are approx 2% of total atmosphere. 4% of greenhouse gases are CO2. 3.4% of Co2 is caused by human activity.

                      do the maths. Human CO2 drives the climate? Bollix.
                      Animals alone breath out 25 times human CO2.
                      The CO2 contributions of the mid-ocean 40,000 mile volcanic ridges are uncounted.

                      Page 56 : 400,000 year ice core records show warming ALWAYS preceded increases in CO2, as warming oceans outgas CO2. The time-lag is about 800 years plus or minus 200 years.

                      Warming is a cause of increased CO2, not an effect.

                      Page 57: Graph showing NO correlation over 600 Million years CO2 vs Earth’s tropical & ice ages.

                      Geology Prof Ian Plimer’s book: Heaven and Earth global warming: the missing science.
                      Page 180: At present (2009) 186 Billion tonnes CO2 enter the atmosphere from all sources, of which 3.3% comes from human activities. More than 100 Bln tonnes (57%) from oceans & 71 Bln tonnes is exhaled by animals (including humans).

                      Pages 374 &375: increases in CO2 have a logarithmically decreasing effect on temperatures. Graph to show negligible effect of CO2 on temperatures above 400 ppmv, where we are now.

                      Page 366: All CO2 does is slow down heat loss.
                      (IE, it does NOT cause heat gain. That’s the Sun’s job.)

                      Page 369: more than 98% of the effect of atmospheric greenhouse gases is due to water vapour. Page 370: two good graphs.

                      I believe I am safe in my statements.

                    • Johnpd February 6, 2018 at 10:32 AM

                      Book: Heaven and Earth global warming: the missing science
                      Prof. of geology Ian Plimer.
                      Book: Human Caused Global Warming the biggest deception in history
                      Climatologist Dr. Tim Ball.
                      drtimball.com
                      Book: Climate Change the facts 2017
                      22 essays, edited by Jennifer Marohasy.

                    • Charles Tery December 22, 2017 at 5:58 PM

                      How does a TRACE gas do all this Hogwarts magic? Can you explain it?

                    • Wake December 24, 2017 at 4:30 PM

                      Charles – indeed it must be magic. What is more magic is that the people that talk about global warming don’t have any educations in science and yet will argue all day that they know something because they read an article in Popular Science.

                  • R. Kooi December 24, 2017 at 11:36 AM

                    YOU claim CO2 was LOW to begin with….upon what basis do YOU make that determination.
                    HUMAN’S and Nearly Every Animal & Plant on earth have
                    NEVER EXISTED WITH ATMOSPHERIC GASES AT THIS LEVEL
                    ….let alone where your advocacy of CO2 WILL BE LEADING US ! ! ! !
                    UPON WHAT SKILL SET ARE YOU PONTIFICATING SAINT HOOD FOR CO2

                    • Wake December 24, 2017 at 4:15 PM

                      Exactly what sewer do they pull you kind of creatures out of? The original Earth’s atmosphere was about 60% Nitrogen and 39% CO2. Plant life evolved from that, and eventually animal life evolved to take advantage of plant life. In the last full blown ice age the atmosphere was still 10% CO2. That was about 110,000 to 11,000 years ago. We are presently in an Interglacial Period in that same Ice Age.

                      If you have no education stop trying to spread ignorance around.

                    • Wake December 25, 2017 at 1:26 PM

                      When someone is as stupid as you, you simply aren’t worth the time to bother with.

                  • John G December 31, 2017 at 6:44 AM

                    What if addressing global warming didn’t do what you fear, but would instead make America stronger, wealthier, and healthier?

                    Here is a group of leading Conservative economists that have proposed a solution to address global warming from greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels with a market-based, revenue neutral solution:

                    http://clcouncil.org

                    Carbon Dividends would make America stronger.

                    The reason the Clcouncil.org and others think this is important to do is because serious people take scientific consensus seriously. Here is the executive summary of the Fourth National Climate Assessment. Read the highlights for a fact-based summary of the state of the science:

                    https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/executive-summary/

                    Here is why some people are confused about the validity of the science: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/

                    Heartland Institute and CFACT are two of the PR firms that got fossil fuel industry money and promote Doubt about the real science. Watch ‘Merchants of Doubt’ to get the big picture.

                    • Robert December 31, 2017 at 11:47 AM

                      More evidence supporting ” Here is why some people are confused about the validity of the science:”

                      Institutionalizing delay: foundation funding and the creation of U.S. climate change counter-movement organizations

                      ” This paper conducts an analysis of the financial resource mobilization of the organizations that make up the climate change counter-movement (CCCM) in the United States. Utilizing IRS data, total annual income is compiled for a sample of CCCM organizations (including advocacy organizations, think tanks, and trade associations). These data are coupled with IRS data on philanthropic foundation funding of these CCCM organizations contained in the Foundation Center’s data base. This results in a data sample that contains financial information for the time period 2003 to 2010 on the annual income of 91 CCCM organizations funded by 140 different foundations. An examination of these data shows that these 91 CCCM organizations have an annual income of just over $900 million, with an annual average of $64 million in identifiable foundation support. The overwhelming majority of the philanthropic support comes from conservative foundations. Additionally, there is evidence of a trend toward concealing the sources of CCCM funding through the use of donor directed philanthropies.”
                      http://drexel.edu/~/media/Files/now/pdfs/Institutionalizing%20Delay%20-%20Climatic%20Change.ashx?la=en

                      ” “The climate change countermovement has had a real political and ecological impact on the failure of the world to act on the issue of global warming,” said Brulle. “Like a play on Broadway, the countermovement has stars in the spotlight – often prominent contrarian scientists or conservative politicians – but behind the stars is an organizational structure of directors, script writers and producers, in the form of conservative foundations. If you want to understand what’s driving this movement, you have to look at what’s going on behind the scenes.”

                      To uncover how the countermovement was built and maintained, Brulle developed a listing of 118 important climate denial organizations in the U.S. He then coded data on philanthropic funding for each organization, combining information from the Foundation Center with financial data submitted by organizations to the Internal Revenue Service.

                      The final sample for analysis consisted of 140 foundations making 5,299 grants totaling $558 million to 91 organizations from 2003 to 2010. The data shows that these 91 organizations have an annual income of just over $900 million, with an annual average of $64 million in identifiable foundation support. Since the majority of the organizations are multiple focus organizations, not all of this income was devoted to climate change activities, Brulle notes.”

                      Not Just the Koch Brothers: New Drexel Study Reveals Funders Behind the Climate Change Denial Effort
                      http://drexel.edu/now/archive/2013/December/Climate-Change/

                      There once was a polar bear – science vs the blogosphere
                      By Bart Verheggen

                      https://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2017/11/29/there-once-was-a-polar-bear-science-vs-the-blogosphere/
                      longer
                      https://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2017/12/22/how-blogs-convey-and-distort-scientific-information-about-polar-bears-and-arctic-sea-ice/

                      …and Then There’s Physics also discusses it at
                      Polar Bears and Arctic sea ice
                      https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2017/12/03/polar-bears-and-arctic-sea-ice/

                    • John G January 1, 2018 at 9:28 PM

                      Those are great resources, thanks.

                      It’s difficult to understand how anyone can let themselves be fooled by AGW deniers any more, when confronted with the fact that the fossil fuel industry has spent a billion dollars a year for thirty years to get people to lie about the science to delay addressing carbon emissions from fossil fuels.

                      Here are some of my favorites…

                      Exxon knew 40 years ago: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/

                      Exxon vs the world:
                      https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2016/11/30/503825417/exxonmobil-vs-the-world

                      The legal implications are closing in on the fossil fuel industry. I hope the AGW deniers we see have lots invested in the fossil fuel majors stocks. I don’t think it will be much longer before the big industry players are held legally responsible for causing extremely high costs by delaying rational action for decades: https://insideclimatenews.org/news/09112017/climate-change-sea-level-rise-fossil-fuel-exxon-chevron-bp-study

                      And of course there is also Naomi Oreskes and ‘Merchants of Doubt’. https://youtu.be/LNPRgR-2o-A

                    • Robert January 2, 2018 at 10:16 AM

                      Thanks! And thanks for the further resources, also.

                    • Robert January 2, 2018 at 10:35 AM

                      The denialism runs deep and swift….

                      When published research on denialist funding is given, the only response is ‘can’t be. Doesn’t fit what my employers told me’

                      David Wojick➡ Robert
                      9 days ago

                      “That $900 million a year is ridiculous. I can believe $9 million, maybe even $19 million, but that is about it. The number of professional skeptics is maybe about a hundred, including me, …”

                      https://disqus.com/home/discussion/cfact/the_greens_are_losing_the_international_climate_fight/#comment-3676987757

                      https://disqus.com/home/discussion/cfact/the_greens_are_losing_the_international_climate_fight/#comment-3679008746

                    • John G January 2, 2018 at 9:45 PM

                      A billion dollars a year is nothing to an industry that clears a hundred billion or two in profit a year. It’s a drop in the bucket, and has succeeded in delaying action and keeping those profits flowing so from a stockholder’s perspective was well worth it. Well, for a stockholder who doesn’t live on Earth or have any kids on Earth that is.

                    • Robert January 3, 2018 at 10:51 AM

                      One small consolation with the trumptastic Nov ’16 is the reaction. Getting some regulations overturned is actually fueling a bigger, stronger reaction. Hence the ‘retirements’.

                    • Wake December 31, 2017 at 7:15 PM

                      Sorry John – that isn’t conservative. It is a sort of victimization that is a little difficult for none economists to understand. Those founding companies are the ones that would grow rich trading in carbon credits. Certainly the American economy would grow. But it would grow in the sector that trades these credits.

                    • John G January 1, 2018 at 6:01 AM

                      You’ve got the Carbon Dividends solution confused with cap and trade, but they are as different as apples and oranges.

                      Thanks for looking, but spend a little more time reading about the Carbon Dividends policy and you’ll see. There are no carbon credits involved. (I agree, cap and trade is a convoluted solution only a politician could love). Carbon Dividends is a direct fee on fossil fuel production based on the greenhouse emissions of coal, oil, and natural gas, and the money collected is returned to American households each month on an equal basis.

                      https://www.clcouncil.org/our-plan/

                      Carbon Dividends has the backing of leading Conservative economists, past treasury secretaries of and secretaries of state (of Republican administrations):

                      https://www.clcouncil.org/founding-members/

                      As far as being a conservative plan, what could be more conservative than an efficient, market-based solution to conserve our natural resources for future generations that doesn’t grow government?

                      The big business endorsements can be justified for two reasons: addressing the global warming problem with a carbon fee, dividend, and border adjustment solution is necessary and would grow the economy, which will be good for business. The fourth pillar, eliminating regulation, will help businesses by reducing costs. If you just want the first parts, take a look at this policy instead: http://citizensclimatelobby.org/basics-carbon-fee-dividend

                  • R. Kooi January 2, 2018 at 11:44 AM

                    Yours is yet another BIG LIE….by the BIG GREEDY
                    FOSSIL FUEL MONOPOLY ! !

                    take for example:
                    1. Breitbart’s James Delingpole CLAIMED 400 new scientific papers show global warming is a myth.

                    Numerous studies have found near-unanimous scientific agreement on human-caused climate change, with perhaps the most well-known study on the matter finding that 97 percent of scientific papers taking a position on the cause of global warming agree that humans are behind it.

                    And this year,
                    a review of the 3 percent of papers that deny climate change found that they were ALL FLAWED.

                    Nonetheless, Breitbart writer Delingpole claimed that 400 scientific papers published this year demonstrated that climate change is a “myth,” basing his article on a post on the denialist blog No Tricks Zone.

                    The fact-checking website Snopes roundly debunked Delingpole’s article, giving it a “False” verdict after speaking with authors of some of the cited papers who said their work was grossly misinterpreted or misrepresented….”

                    I have reviewed over 100 of the Scientists who supposedly were critical of Global Warming Science…ALL but ONE are strong supports and contributors to the preponderance of evidence for Global Warming and threatening CLIMATE CHANGES !

                • prometheus11 December 19, 2017 at 12:53 AM

                  Investigate for yourself who created WWF in 1962 and what they were promoting. Combine the anti-science paradigm with MK-ULTRA drugging of American youth and Adorno’s radio music project. Frankfort Schoo trained Theodore Adorno worked with the Tavistock Institute, an arm of British Intelligence. Together with the Congress For Cultural Freedom these organizations succeeded in creating an anti-science paradigm shift among the boomer population. In other words, the Anglo-American oligarchy created the New Left/Green counter-culture for the purpose of destroying the United States committee the to scientific and technological science.

                • R. Kooi December 22, 2017 at 1:13 PM

                  WHAT?

                  Kill off 6 billion people.

                  WHAT DO YOU SMOKE ?

                  • stephen duval December 23, 2017 at 2:13 AM

                    Killing off 6 billion people is the anti human Green agenda.

                    • R. Kooi December 24, 2017 at 12:43 PM

                      what an ignorant raving of a self delusional ideologue

              • CB December 18, 2017 at 3:02 PM

                “Thank you for the science exercise.”

                Anyone can post to youtube. It doesn’t mean what they are posting is science… and on a fossil-funded propaganda outlet like this one, it’s really wiser to be skeptical.

                “CFACT has received over $4.1 million in funds from Donor’s Trust and Donor’s Capital Fund between 2002-2011, plus an additional $582,000 from ExxonMobil between 1998-2012”

                http://www.desmogblog.com/committee-constructive-tomorrow

                • Wake January 31, 2018 at 3:00 PM

                  Indeed anyone can. But the Oregon Petition will only accept signatures from highly educated scientists. Presently they have over 31,000 signatures and over 9,000 of them from PhD’s stating that AGW does not exist. On the opposite hand the IPCC paper was supposedly authored by 2,500 “scientists” but the majority of these “scientists” were politicians without a lick of scientific training. And MANY of the scientists on that list claim that their work was either totally misrepresented or simply marked as “for AGW” when they were neutral. On NASA’s part we have scientists having to SUE NASA to get their names off of the “FOR AGW” list as NASA simply took anyone that didn’t give an absolute “no” as being “for”. And come on – 97% of all scientists for? That is an impossible number. Not to mention that 97% includes the American Medical Assoc. and the Boys Scout of America. Now there are some real climate scientists.

                  desmogblog is nothing more than a PR garbage site. Why would you use that as a reference?

                  https://tinyurl.com/y6wnmt25 is a list of 150 papers disproving the claims of global warming.

                  https://tinyurl.com/gtn5wpl is an article that shows that the IPCC employed STUDENTS and not qualified experts as their “scientists”.

                  https://tinyurl.com/ycce23nl is a list of seven papers that actually predict global cooling as one would expect since warm periods normally have run their course in a little over a century.

                  https://tinyurl.com/y79xpfng This pretty clearly demonstrates that NASA “fixed” the data in a manner that plainly shows a lot of hanky-panky going on.

                  As you say, ANYONE can make a youTube video but not anyone is famous PhD’s and there are NUMEROUS anti-global warming videos by just such professors.

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sq3lvKj7qmk
                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhW-B2udhQw
                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyztWNW2HsM

                  The entire Internet is covered with real science that proves AGW is a hoax and a fake. WHY would incompetent fools posting on these sites that haven’t one year of high school science to their names the one’s arguing that AGW is real? Don’t you think about these peculiarities for one second?

                  • Ian5 February 2, 2018 at 9:45 PM

                    Stop lazily citing the silly Oregon Petition project – it is unreliable, thoroughly debunked rubbish. Organized and coordinated by Art Robinson – he hasn’t published a single peer-reviewed article on climate science. Robinson was president of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine a political advocacy group that is based on ideology not science. He has extreme views on climate change, AIDS, homosexuality and evolution. Go look it up yourself and apply some basic critical thinking. The OISM’s silly “Journal” of American Physicians and Surgeons masquerades as a scientific journal but is listed by Quackwatch as unreliable and untrustworthy…”a purveyor of utter nonsense”.

                    • Wake February 3, 2018 at 2:28 PM

                      And yet as is usual with you True Believers, I don’t see any citations of these supposed “debunkings”. Only your usual sniveling that someone else said that someone else said that someone else said. As with all stupid asses you want to use one or two extremists to discredit tens of thousands of great scientists. I would say that you should be ashamed of yourself but True Believers don’t have that capacity.

              • Johnpd December 20, 2017 at 10:39 AM

                Spot on.

              • Johnpd December 23, 2017 at 9:42 AM

                Very well said, you have the picture, Prometheus11.
                http://www.green-agenda.com

            • LTJ September 20, 2017 at 8:00 PM

              The “Friends of Science” are anything but.

              Perhaps you’d consider the actuarial approach recommended here: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-window-is-closing-to-avoid-dangerous-global-warming/

              ,,though I’m guessing you’ll just add Scientic American magazine to your vast list of conspirators.

              • stephen duval September 27, 2017 at 9:17 PM

                All you did was refer to an article that did not address any of the scientific facts that I referred to.

                This is not a scientific argument.

                Show that what I am saying is false or irrelevant. Otherwise you are just making an argument to authority. Doesn’t work in science.

                • LTJ September 27, 2017 at 9:49 PM

                  You have no science on your side – you have only a string of unsubstantiated claims from gawd-knows-where and a youtube clip of an electrical engineer speaking at a climate change denial conference.

                  https://www.desmogblog.com/steve-goreham

                  • stephen duval September 27, 2017 at 11:10 PM

                    “You have no science on your side” – unsubstantiated claim

                    “you have only a string of unsubstantiated claims from gawd-knows-where” – you have not disputed even one of them

                    “youtube clip of an electrical engineer speaking at a climate change denial conference” – more ad hominem attacks that are irrelevant in a scientific discussion

                    http://www.populartechnology.net/2011/04/truth-about-desmogblog.html

                    DeSmogBlog is a smear site founded by a scientifically unqualified public relations man, James Hoggan and funded by a convicted money launderer, John Lefebvre. The irony here is their favorite tactic is to attempt to smear those they disagree with as funded by “dirty money”.

                    Since its creation in 2006 the site has done nothing but post poorly researched propaganda with a clear intent to smear respected scientists, policy analysts or groups who dare oppose an alarmist position on global warming.

                    • LTJ September 28, 2017 at 2:38 AM

                      My statement that you have no science is substantiated by the fact that all of your idiocy is (wait for it) completely without substantiation!

                      Try providing your sources for your laundry list of bullshit – and using better ones than “popular technology” to quote about Desmogblog, because PT is just another in the circle-jerk of denialist sites that constantly reference each other rather than scientific sources or facts. Here’s a hint: The misfit computer geeks writing and editing at PT aren’t scientists and using a search engine isn’t scientific research.

                      BTW, the facts about John Lefebvre are here: https://www.creators.com/read/jacob-sullum/02/07/netellers-open-and-honest-conspiracy

                      Facts do matter. Your slander doesn’t, because whether Lefebvre’s fortune came from gambling is immaterial to the fact that your boy Steve Goreham has no credentials whatsoever that qualify him to speak on the topic of climate change.

                    • stephen duval September 28, 2017 at 12:19 PM

                      You seem determined to avoid a discussion of science. I asked you to pick one of my 8 statements to dispute. All you do is name call.

                      Lets start with number 1.Every year the temperature swings about 60 degrees F. We are supposedly in a crisis because the temp rose 1.4F (.8C) over 100 years.

                      Have you noticed that the temp in the summer is 90F and in the winter 30F. That is an annual swing of 60 degrees. Do you dispute that?

                      It is religious dogma for alarmists that ” the temp rose 1.4F (.8C) over 100 years”. Do you dispute that?

                      If you do not dispute either of these statements then you must accept my first statement as true.

                    • LTJ September 28, 2017 at 11:43 PM

                      You continue to insist that you are ‘sciencing’ when you are clearly unfamiliar with the concept. Science requires verifiable data. It requires parameters. You have provided neither in your sweeping claims.

                      At which point on the planet does the temperature swing about 60°F? Where on the planet is the temperature 90°F in the summer and 30°F in the winter? Why does it matter in a discussion of the impact of global warming?

                      And the globe is warming, by more than the “religious dogma for alarmists” you describe. It approached .99°C last year:

                      https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/jul/31/2017-is-so-far-the-second-hottest-year-on-record-thanks-to-global-warming#img-3

                    • stephen duval September 30, 2017 at 5:22 PM

                      Is it possible for you to discuss something without name calling?

                      My first claim is:
                      “1.Every year the temperature swings about 60 degrees F. We are supposedly in a crisis because the temp rose 1.4F (.8C) over 100 years.”

                      You quoted the Guardian newspaper for an increase of .99C. I believe that you may have made a typo and that should be .94C.

                      I was referencing the alarmist Bible, the IPCC AR5 Summary for Policymakers p5
                      “The globally averaged combined land and ocean surface temperature data as calculated by a linear trend, show a warming
                      of 0.85 [0.65 to 1.06] °C, over the period 1880 to 2012”
                      http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf

                      The IPCC is claiming a crisis based upon an increase of .85C (1.5F) over a period of 132 years.

                      You inquired about the location for temperature swings.

                      http://www.weatherexplained.com/Vol-1/Record-Setting-Weather.html has some interesting data.

                      For Alabama, the record high temp is 112F and low is -27F a difference of 139F.
                      For Colorado, the record high temp is 118F and low is -61F a difference of 179F.
                      For Maine, the record high temp is 105F and low is -48F a difference of 153F.

                      Browning Montana experienced a change in temp from 44F to -56F, a difference of 100F in 24 hours
                      Granville ND experienced a change in temp from -33F to 50F, a difference of 83F in 12 hours

                      You asked “Why does it matter in a discussion of the impact of global warming?”

                      The purpose is to put a change of .85C (1.5F) over 132 years in context. Daily swings in temperature of 15F are common and annual swings in temperature of 60F are common. Changes in temp over 24 hours of 83F and 100F have been recorded.

                      It matters because this temperature observation (.85C over 132 years) is used to justify trillions of dollars of investment. If we do not have a climate crisis, this money could be used to provide clean drinking water and sewage treatment for billions of people.

                    • LTJ October 1, 2017 at 8:35 AM

                      You poor, delicate hypocritical little snowflake.

                      That is the last name I shall call you.

                      This is a collosal waste of time. You are unable to ever consider facts that disturb your conspiracy-driven world view. You cannot simply admit that the world has continued to warm since 2012. You contradict the facts presented without justification or a reference provided for your own claim once again (.94°C vs .99°C – really?).

                      And you make absurdly bizarre claims about TRILLIONS of dollars. And ridiculous assumptions that the few billion actually devoted to the cause last year would have been re-deployed in the third world if had not been spent in the interest of saving our own asses from our own developing crisis,

                    • Latimer Alder October 5, 2017 at 2:38 AM

                      ‘the world has continued to warm since 2012’

                      Maybe so.

                      But so what?

                      Is a warmer, greener world a better place than a colder, greyer one? Or not?

                      Please show your working.

                    • Charles Tery December 13, 2017 at 11:15 AM

                      As of January 2014 according to Gina McCarthy. There has been no temp increase over the past decade. That statement proves Michael Mann ‘s Global Warming Hiatus.

                    • Wake December 15, 2017 at 6:27 PM

                      In all fairness since NASA has manufactured data instead of presenting the actual temperature records you can’t blame other scientists for arriving at the wrong answers using NASA’s data.

                    • classicalmusiclover December 15, 2017 at 9:45 PM

                      Do you think it is fraudulent to adjust raw data to account for biases and anomalies in the instruments and timings of measurements?

                    • LTJ December 18, 2017 at 1:21 PM

                      So we’re to ignore the record back-to-back temperatures seen in 2014, 2015 and 2016?

                      Why is that?

                      Is it the same reasoning that has you ignoring the fact that five of the annual temperatures in the decade you claim was not warming actually ranked in the top ten of all time during that period?

                    • Charles Tery December 18, 2017 at 3:09 PM

                      Did you look up EPA Secretary Gina McCarthy’ s Senate Testimony? Do you know who Josh Willis is? The Temperature Anomaly is a fabrication. It is not the real Global Mean Temperature. You keep believing in your make believe temp anomaly.

                    • R. Kooi December 22, 2017 at 6:32 PM

                      I’ve read it. and no where does she say Temperatures have not increased.

                      Even Denier Dr. John Christy has finally admitted the TRUTH….over 1.19C in a little over 100 years.
                      versus historical Natural Cyclical temperature changes that AVERAGE 1C in 7500 years.

                    • Charles Tery December 22, 2017 at 6:38 PM

                      You couldn’t have read it. It’s a video. You’re wrong again as usual. Global Temp feel in the mid 1200s. It dropped from 63 f to 53f. Your 1.5 increase is well within the margin of error. It did start to warm up in the 1820s.
                      How does a TRACE gas increase global temp?

                    • R. Kooi December 22, 2017 at 6:58 PM

                      IT is CALLED the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD…every hearing is recorded and transcribed.
                      you said
                      “Global Temp feel in the mid 1200s”

                      Medieval warm period (MWP), also called medieval warm epoch or little climatic optimum, brief climatic interval that is hypothesized to have occurred from approximately 900 ce to 1300 (roughly coinciding with the Middle Ages in Europe),”

                      This is the Holocene inter glacial warm period

                      World Wide It peaked about 8000 years ago

                      World Wide Temps have been falling slowly since then

                      That ENDED rather abruptly around 1750-1780

                      Thomas Jefferson noticed and postulated that human activities were change the climate

                      Alexander von Humboldt noticed and postulated that is was human caused “CLIMATE CHANGE”

                      http://www.realclimate.org/images//Marcott.png

                    • Charles Tery December 23, 2017 at 12:58 AM

                      I have Biology, History, and Art
                      There is a preponderance of trees that don’t agree with the MAP.. The coast redwood, giant sequioia, creosote Bush circles, and the ancient Bristlecone Pine, they all have tree rings from the 1200s showing it got colder. History in the 1200s William Wallace was born and at that time no one was talking about warm days. In the 1200s many cultures collapsed due to global cooling. Greenland started to whiten up, the end of
                      This is a short list of cultures that didn’t make it into the 1300s due to global cooling.
                      DANISH NORDIC EMPIRE
                      Mayays, Chocoan, Timbuktu, this is a,short list. Art if you notice that people in the paintings are wearing lots of clothes as if it is cold all the time.

                    • stephen duval October 5, 2017 at 10:08 AM

                      “You poor, delicate hypocritical little snowflake. “ You must have learned your debating skills at Yale.

                      “You contradict the facts presented without justification or a reference provided for your own claim once again (.94°C vs .99°C – really?). “

                      Obviously you also learned to read at Yale. The first sentence of YOUR reference is “With the first six months of 2017 in the books, average global surface temperatures so far this year are 0.94°C above the 1950–1980 average, according to NASA. “ Maybe you can explain how you read that as a .99C increase.

                      Your reference: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/jul/31/2017-is-so-far-the-second-hottest-year-on-record-thanks-to-global-warming#img-3

                      My claim is not .94C. My claim is .85C over 132 years taken from IPCC AR5 Summary for Policy Makers, the Bible of the Greens.

                      “would have been re-deployed in the third world if it had not been spent in the interest of saving our own asses from our own developing crisis. “

                      If you are going to waste billions, never mind the trillions required to prevent Globull Warming, you might as well do something useful, as in save lives by improving drinking water and sewage treatment in the third world.

                      It would only take a few tens of millions to prevent 1 million African women and children dying from malaria every year if religious zealots in the Green movement were willing to admit that Saint Rachel Carson was just another purveyor of junk science and lift the ban on DDT.

                      But Green narcissist only think about themselves.

                      But maybe the Greens are not just selfish. Maybe they are also genocidal. After all their anti human religion regards humanity as a plague spreading across the surface of the world. And the “carrying capacity” of the Earth is only 1 billion. Something has to be done about the other 6 billion inhabitants of the world.

                      Just think, if you had been born 500 years ago, you would be sacrificing virgins to appease the weather gods rather than shutting down nuclear energy and coal plants.

                    • LTJ October 5, 2017 at 8:58 PM

                      ROTFL!

                      I do enjoy it when you double-down on your mistakes. You wouldn’t care to get together for a poker game, would you?

                      The 2017 reference has next-to-nothing to do with the 2016 reference, and even less to do with 2012. Do try to keep up.

                      BTW, I didn’t learn to read at Yale – but then again, I only spent a day there. Here in Canada, we learn to read starting in kindergarten, and are pretty much expected to have it mastered before leaving grade school. So sorry to hear about the deficiencies in education in your country.

                      Although it does explain the bizarre and illogical leaps you make with all your other assumptions…

                    • Wake December 13, 2017 at 12:34 PM

                      I will ask you again – what are your credentials to make ANY comments regarding science?

                    • Wake December 15, 2017 at 1:59 PM

                      What the greens are going for now is forced sterilization of Africans, Chinese and Indians. As astonishing as it is from the same mouths that scream “racism” if you tell a Asian joke (Asians are presently the highest paid ethnic group and obviously don’t need protection from high school students like LTJ) we are hearing that the only possibility of saving the world is depopulation. And where would it be necessary? The three countries mentioned. While the white elite don’t need such measures of course. Only the white lower classes.

                    • LTJ December 15, 2017 at 2:04 PM

                      Wow.

                      Where in the twisted recesses of your syphallitic brain did that nonsense come from?

                    • Wake December 13, 2017 at 12:33 PM

                      Sorry but according to Dr. Roy Spenser, the head of the NASA weather satellite project launched in 1979, there hasn’t been any warming that is outside of the normal chaotic weather patterns. And the average temperature since 1979 has remained static. Obviously you are going to quote either NASA or papers written using the counterfeited NASA temperature records. But it has been proven that NASA “fixed” the temperature records and any papers written using that data are worthless.

                      https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf

                      This paper establishes not just the fact that NASA has changed the raw data which is the worst thing a scientist can do but has done it in such a manner that even officials from the EPA peer reviewed this paper and agree with the findings.

                    • Latimer Alder October 5, 2017 at 2:34 AM

                      ‘ It requires parameters’

                      An example of where/how ‘it requires parameters’ would help my understanding.

                    • Wake December 9, 2017 at 3:01 PM

                      He so obviously is uneducated I have to wonder. He is unaware that a parameter is nothing more than a single part of a set.

                    • Latimer Alder October 5, 2017 at 2:36 AM

                      Even in little temperate UK I’ve measured a swing of over 60F between winter and summer temperatures.

                    • LTJ October 5, 2017 at 9:39 AM

                      So what’s the latitude, Latimer?

                      BTW, that’s an example of a parameter for you. Others to consider: altitude, longitude, period, median vs average vs extreme, the equipment used and its positioning – basically all the factors involved in making your results reproducible.

                    • Latimer Alder October 5, 2017 at 11:16 AM

                      Ah .So a parameter is just another piece of data.

                      Why didn’t you say so? Does ‘parameter’ sound better? More tekkie?

                      In case you’re interested, I measured the minimum of -16C at Lat 56N, and the max of 34C at 51N. That’s a 50C (90F) range. All within our small island temperate maritime island.

                      I really cannot persuade myself that civilisation wil come to an end if teh average were to increase by 2C and the range therefore change to -14C to +36C

                      Can you?

                      Please show your working.

                    • LTJ October 5, 2017 at 8:46 PM

                      A parameter is not just another piece of data. Parameters are the specifics that allow others to verify the data you provide.

                      I fear the examiners at your old university are ashamed of you.

                    • Latimer Alder October 6, 2017 at 2:24 AM

                      Your fear is unfounded. Sleep easy on their behalf.

                      Toodle pip.

                    • Wake December 9, 2017 at 3:00 PM

                      As a simple question – if you don’t know what you’re talking about and it’s clear to anyone with an education – why are you posting?

                    • LTJ December 14, 2017 at 8:54 AM

                      …and why do I warrant so much of your attention whenever I do?

                    • Wake December 15, 2017 at 1:46 PM

                      For a simple reason – you and your kind believe that you can lie about anything without response by those who know better. You are a jackass if you actually believe what you’ve published and you are a liar and a fool if you don’t.

                    • LTJ December 15, 2017 at 2:00 PM

                      …and yet I’ve consistently shown your claims to be false and misleading.

                      I might be a jackass (I’ve been called one by better women than you), but you seem to be less clever than this one – and unable to leave it alone.

                    • Wake December 15, 2017 at 2:23 PM

                      Then give us a numbered list of what you have shown. Your claim that Mann has released his data is a total lie. He has not as proven by a court order for him to release it that he has ignored. You haven’t made one single point – instead you have spent your time here name calling because you have neither the ability nor knowledge to have anything of worth to say.

                    • LTJ December 15, 2017 at 5:26 PM

                      I have spent my time here being accused of name-calling by hypocritical people who have called me jackass, brown shirt and worse.

                    • Wake December 15, 2017 at 5:50 PM

                      Actually you have spent your time here telling everyone that they didn’t know what they were talking about. You started by telling us all that a woman reporter with a degree in art knows more about science that real scientists do.

                      You then discounted any opinions of Edward Teller because he has died after signing the Oregon Petition.

                      Then YOU as a completely non-credentialed person who more than obviously is totally ignorant of science told everyone here that a man with a masters of science degree doesn’t know anything because he says that we don’t have any AGW.

                      You then went on to tell us all that anyone that you didn’t like didn’t know what they were talking about unless they agree with AGW.

                      You are so plainly a little man afraid of everyone around you that it’s funny. You show that you think you’ve been bullied and that you can “get even” with them with the anonymity of an Internet comment group.

                      Now be a good boy and go back to playing with your legos.

                    • LTJ December 16, 2017 at 4:26 AM

                      Once again you resort to making absurd assumptions (while knowing nothing about me) because you are incapable of factual debate.

                      I made no statements about any woman reporter. You continue to discount her reporting based primarily upon her sex, it would seem. Rather ridiculous, when you could be discussing the article.

                      And once again you resort to insults and namecalling. And then you hypocritically say that I’m the one trying to ‘get even’ here?

                      I’m trying to make it clear that the facts and the science support the thesis of AGW. This site exists solely to obfuscate those facts and deny the scientific consensus – which is why you are here, seeking comfort and support for your own delusion.

                    • Latimer Alder October 5, 2017 at 11:24 AM

                      Reproducible? I doubt it. These were not measurements of a controlled experiment but of the weather itself. I don’t think weather is exactly reproducible.

                      Unless you have a weather maker?

                      If so, please can you arrange for my humble home at 51N, 1W to get the climate of the Loire Valley that we were promised 40 years ago.

                      I have been eagerly awaiting ‘global warming’ to have brought us this climatic improvement ever since.

                      But sadly without effect so far.

                    • LTJ October 5, 2017 at 1:31 PM

                      So it seems you “science” like our friend Stephen here – which is to say, not at all.

                      And like so many of the denialist ilk, you believed Al Gore and the sensationalist press, and have been disappointed. And for some reason you want to blame that on real scientists, rather than on the folks who wildly exaggerated their findings.

                    • Latimer Alder October 5, 2017 at 2:22 PM

                      I fear the examiners at my old University disagree with you. They managed to award me not just one but two degrees in a ‘hard’ science… and unless chemistry has drastically changed in the last 30-odd years I imagine that those degrees are still pretty much valid today.

                      And FWIW my specialist subject was in computer modelling high-atmosphere reaction kinetics as as part of the ozone hole panic. Sadly my model was shown to be wrong ..as the actual data did not match predictions..a lesson it seems today’s ‘climate modellers’ are eventually learning too.

                      As to Al Gore, I doubt if that failed theologian could point to the Loire Valley on a map..no doubt – like so any of our transatlantic friends – thinking it somewhere beyond Cooba.

                      The predictions in question were made much nearer to home..by the climate alarmist/modellers from the UK Met Office. I will be seeing a few at a lecture ext week and will pass on your thoughts that they are not ‘real’ scientists.

                      Stay tooned (as I believe the expression is) for their gratitude-filled replies.

                    • Wake December 20, 2017 at 5:40 PM

                      You have yet to show that you know anything. That all you are doing is complaining about others knowledge probably because it is so far evolved above yours that you appear a chimpanzee in comparison.

                    • Wake December 9, 2017 at 2:54 PM

                      Let me guess – you don’t know a thing about weather? TODAY in the San Francisco bay area the temperature swing from morning until 4 pm will be from 36 degrees to 80 degrees.

                      Give some more of your deep knowledge obtained from the Guardian.

                    • Wake December 9, 2017 at 2:52 PM

                      I could go through a great deal of effort to explain how the ground temperature monitoring since the end of the civil war has been deeply flawed. Moreover we could discuss how NASA was using ground temperature data from several sites around the world where there WERE NO GROUND STATIONS. But this is rather pointless. The True Believers here have their Church of the Global Warming and intend on staying their course.

                      Dr. Roy Spencer who was NASA director for the weather satellite program that started in 1979 make the point – there has been NO WARMING other than the normal chaotic weather patterns since the satellites were launched.

                    • classicalmusiclover December 4, 2017 at 12:44 PM

                      It’s odd that you dismiss DeSmogBlog as a “smear site” while linking to Popular Technology.

                    • stephen duval December 5, 2017 at 3:59 PM

                      Why is that odd. At least Popular Technology is honest even if it targets a less educated market. DeSmogBlog is pure propaganda.

                    • classicalmusiclover December 5, 2017 at 4:03 PM

                      If you think that Popular Technology is an honest broker and not the politically-overdetermined bottom feeder it so obviously is, then you lack basic critical thinking skills.

                    • stephen duval December 5, 2017 at 8:02 PM

                      I really dont read Popular Technology so I have no opinion on your assessment. DeSmogBlog on the other hand is definitely propaganda.

                    • Wake December 13, 2017 at 1:21 PM

                      All of these references show that climate change is a hoax.

                      https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf

                      https://cyclintom.wordpress.com/2016/06/17/climate-change-for-scientists/

                      https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/01/25/ir-expert-speaks-out-after-40-years-of-silence-its-the-water-vapor-stupid-and-not-the-co2/

                      As for honest temperture monitoring: If you look at
                      http://www.surfacestations.org/ you will discover almost no monitoring sites that didn’t have large errors.

                      http://principia-scientific.org/another-new-paper-slays-co2-greenhouse-gas-thought-experiment/

                      I could go on but the True Believers here can’t understand these papers so going into finer detail isn’t going to achieve anything.

                    • Wake December 15, 2017 at 8:07 PM

                      I would like to meet you. I think that you and I could rapidly come to an understanding of what you know and what you do not.

                    • Wake December 15, 2017 at 8:03 PM

                      I have looked at Popular Technology and DeSmogBlog.

                      Firstly, Popular Technology is extremely accurate. They don’t say that there isn’t climate change – they make the point that if there IS climate change it is small and manageable. And that man is unlikely to be the source of these small changes. That the 97% paper was written by Cook et al. in Australia and was purposely written in such a way as to mislead people.

                      DeSmogBlog: This is a looney Church of Global Warming advocates. They throw around key words that they think that they have taught people to fear; Big Oil, Brexit is bad, Anti-Wind (I own stock in PG&E and have access to their financial statements and wind and solar cost 10 times as much energy as they EVER develop), and get this one “Study: Babies With Low Birth Weights More Likely Near Pennsylvania Fracking Sites” What is fracking? Simply the pumping of WATER into the oil wells that causes the cracking of the rocks around the well and releases the addition petroleum and natural gas – this isn’t POSSIBLE to affect human birth.

                      “UK Government Won’t Say Why Theresa May’s Special Advisors Met with a Koch-Founded Think Tank” Another shot at demeaning “big business” and the pretense that somehow AGW has been caused and maintained by big business.

                      It would not be possible to detect a larger disparity between the honesty of Popular Technology and the crackpot scheming of DeSmogBlog.

                    • Wake December 13, 2017 at 12:46 PM

                      I designed and programmed the digital portion of the automation of the Polymerase Chain Reaction chemistry that we used to identify the HIV virus that was in the world’s blood banking system. This gave Dr. Kary Mullis a Nobel Prize in Chemistry. Later I expanded it to be a 16 axis instrument for analyzing DNA. The Project Leader, Dr. Michael McCown became lecturer in chemistry in a major university. I later designed both gas and liquid chromatography instrument requiring full knowledge of spectroscopy. I programmed the poison gas detector used by the military to discover those weapons of mass destruction that so many liberals claimed didn’t exist. I designed and programmed communications boards used in the initial International Space Station. I designed and programmed instruments used to detect various forms of cancer. Automated syringe pumps and many other things requiring advanced knowledge of many sciences. You could take my word that the idea of AGW is a hoax but I’m sure you won’t because it’s something that you want to believe is true.

                    • classicalmusiclover December 13, 2017 at 1:39 PM

                      While I am sure that your personal achievements in the physical sciences are quite solid, you have demonstrated no knowledge or competence whatsoever on the subject at hand, which is based on atmospheric physics. Your citation below of numerous science-denial sites below, including notably Tony Heller, further underscores this fact.

                    • Wake December 13, 2017 at 3:00 PM

                      You are free to discount my abilities all you like. Though I am curious as to why you don’t cite any of your own from which point to judge. Tony Heller has a Bachelors of Science in geology and a Masters in Engineering which most likely puts him miles above you in scientific knowledge and the ability to research things correctly. So if you have any equal training in scientific method by all means let us know.

                    • classicalmusiclover December 13, 2017 at 3:27 PM

                      Tony Heller is a liar, incompetent when it comes to climate science, and a mentally unbalanced conspiracy theorist. He is so off the deep end that he has been banned from WUWT.

                      Engineering is not a degree that automatically conveys competence or fluency in the natural sciences. For one thing, engineers are often flummoxed by the concept of scientific uncertainty.

                    • Wake December 13, 2017 at 3:57 PM

                      NO education automatically gives you competency in anything. That is why 80% of all college graduate never work in their major. But I have followed Heller’s work and he is more than competent.

                      We haven’t heard from you what your field of competency is in. As for “conspiracy” – that is a FACT and not a fiction.

                      https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf

                      That is a published and peer reviewed paper that SHOWS that NASA doctored raw data. The peer reviewers were from THE EPA and agree with the findings.

                      So I suggest you go crawl back into the hole you came from and take your own incompetence with you.

                    • classicalmusiclover December 13, 2017 at 4:32 PM

                      “I have followed Heller’s work and he is more than competent”

                      —Simply, LOL.

                      The is not peer-reviewed paper. It was never published in a peer-reviewed publications. And having a bunch of non-experts agree with its conclusions is not how peer review works. Wallace, d’Aleo, and Idso are all fringe figures and science-deniers. The citations in the paper are all to the work of skeptics and AGW deniers, some of which wasn’t peer reviewed, others of which have been refuted.

                    • Wake December 13, 2017 at 4:38 PM

                      Still waiting for your credentials. You show one point – you are oblivious to the fact that MOST scientific papers are not peer reviewed. Now where was it that you gain all this scientific expertise that you’ve so far failed to demonstrate?

                    • classicalmusiclover December 13, 2017 at 4:51 PM

                      I never claimed to be an expert, though my claim to science literacy comes from having taken some atmospheric physics in college and following the issue of climate in the journals for the last 30 years. But I do listen to those who are, and I generally find that people who are actually engaged in first-hand research are more reliable than people who like Heller who cherry-pick, conspiracy theorize, and make assertions about “fraudulent data” based on utterly ignorant misconceptions about how leading science agencies collect, process, and analyze data.

                    • Wake December 13, 2017 at 6:07 PM

                      So you don’t know anything about spectroscopy but think that a class you took 30 years ago qualifies you to identify fact from fiction.

                      You believe in peer review and I JUST gave you a paper that was peer reviewed by EPA scientists that AGREED that NASA had counterfeited the raw temperature records. But Heller is a wild-eyed cherry picker for saying nothing more than that paper written by mathematicians, without a bone to pick, did.

                      https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/01/25/ir-expert-speaks-out-after-40-years-of-silence-its-the-water-vapor-stupid-and-not-the-co2/

                      That isn’t “cherry picked”. It is an article written by an IR Astronomer who said that he was forced to keep his mouth shut to keep his job.

                      I think that there is something wrong with you. You admit you know nothing about this and are plainly a True Believer in the Church of Global Warming. Your religious experiences are of no value so please don’t go on about them as if you could convert people that have worked in science for decades.

                    • classicalmusiclover December 13, 2017 at 9:17 PM

                      You keep circling back to Tony Heller.

                      It’s hilarious.

                    • Wake December 13, 2017 at 10:52 PM

                      No, actually I keep circling back to someone that is incompetent to judge the intelligence of anyone else.

                    • classicalmusiclover December 13, 2017 at 10:53 PM

                      It is true. Tony Heller is incompetent to judge the intelligence of anyone else.

                    • Wake December 13, 2017 at 11:06 PM

                      Well tell you what – lets see what happens to Michael Mann since you’re such a great believer in the Church of Global Warming.

                    • classicalmusiclover December 13, 2017 at 11:08 PM

                      Why? Is he on trial or under indictment or in danger of losing his job?

                      I get the impression that you view the greenhouse effect as a fraud.

                    • Wake December 14, 2017 at 10:13 AM

                      Firstly you don’t seem to understand what it would do to a so-called scientist’s reputation to be shown to have committed scientific fraud. He was ordered to show his data by the court and he did not. When the court reconvenes he will be found at the very least guilty of contempt of court. And very likely ordered by the court again to make his data available to the public.

                      You get the impression? I have shown that NASA has committed fraud, that the chart that Michael Mann made called the hockey stick did not show either the Medieval Warm Period or even the little ice age. Both of these things were a blatant attempt to imply that the temperature on this planet is not controlled by the Sun but by components of the atmosphere that are here in such dramatically low amounts that they could have no effect since the energy in their spectroscopic absorption ranges has been in saturation from before any warming events. If there even IS a warming event and not just recovery from the little ice age.

                      Greenland’s glaciers have not retreated to the levels they were at before the little ice age. And present satellite measurements show that ice is being deposited on Greenland’s glaciers at a faster rate than it is melting off of the base which is at a lower altitude.

                      Perhaps you are perfectly willing to bow at the altar of the Church of Global Warming but no one that knows science would be.

                    • classicalmusiclover December 14, 2017 at 10:26 AM

                      Mann’s data is publicly available online and always has been. It is ridiculous to claim that he did not show or that he withheld his data. There will be no contempt of court ruling.

                      You failed in your attempt to show that NASA has committed fraud.

                      There have been at least 3 dozen paleoclimate reconstructions by scholars all around the world. Every one of them is a hockey stick. The claim that Mann “did not show” the MWP or LIA is nonsense.

                      The issue is that neither the MWP nor LIA was synchronously warmer than temperatures today.

                      Your attempt to disprove the greenhouse effect is rather hilarious.
                      Do you dispute the existence of greenhouse gases (or that CO2 is one of them), as Dr. Ball does?

                    • Wake December 14, 2017 at 11:35 AM

                      It always amazes me that those who know the least are those who scream the loudest: http://principia-scientific.org/breaking-fatal-courtroom-act-ruins-michael-hockey-stick-mann/

                      I know spectroscopy and CO2 only contributed to a small amount of warming up to levels of about 250 parts per million. This put the single absorption line that isn’t totally covered by H2O into total saturation meaning NO increases in CO2 would have any measurable effects.

                      Moreover, because of the density of the atmosphere in the troposphere virtually ALL heat transport is accomplished not via radiation but from conduction and convection. This means that CO2 is no different from any other gas. In fact since CO2 has a lower specific heat it actually is a coolant rather than a heater.

                    • Wake December 18, 2017 at 6:04 PM

                      Tell you what – describe the entire existence of this article and Dr. Mann’s lawsuit IF as you say all his data is already published. I’m waiting.

                    • classicalmusiclover December 18, 2017 at 6:08 PM

                      1. This article exists because it is one of the purposes of CFACT to lie about climate science and smear mainstream scientists.
                      2. The source of the CFACT article’s claims is Principia-Scientific International, an amateur science denial blog run by a non-scientist lawyer friend of Tim Ball, who is either the blog’s sole author or the author of more than 90% of its context.
                      3. The obvious purpose of the article is to whitewash Ball and intensify the smears on Mann, including defending Ball’s smears of Mann as somehow credible

                      You seem to have not bothered to learn critical reading in college.

                    • Wake December 18, 2017 at 7:37 PM

                      Let me guess – you like classical music as a break from your job as a carnival clown?

                      It was Dr. Michael Mann who brought the lawsuit because he knows what is going to happen to him when it is proven that Dr. Ball is correct. Instead of simply paying Mann off to simply avoid the time and effort to fight a lawsuit Ball called Mann’s bluff. Mann answered completely wide-eyed and freaking out by asking for time to develop his case. The DEFENSE agreed on the stipulation that Mann supply his data.

                      Since Mann BROUGHT the suit he should have had a case to begin with. He obviously didn’t. His data would have proven Dr. Ball 100% correct and Mann would then be finished – he would be immediately fired by Pennsylvania State University and couldn’t be hired at Taco Bell thereafter.

                      That IS the case – Coming back from recess where Mann is screaming in agony over what is coming to him he WILL be found in contempt of court because the only stipulation to his recess was the handing over of his data. Because he will be found in contempt his case WILL be thrown out of court.

                      You can make any lame charges about someone or another making “false claims” (this after your lame “his data is all on-line) and that is not going to make any difference in the case.

                      The law is clear cut and that line is even more clear in Canada.

                    • classicalmusiclover December 18, 2017 at 9:08 PM

                      You have an avid fantasy life. You apparently never noticed that the trial is not about the science or any data at all. It is about defamation, of which Ball is obviously guilty.

                      If Mann’s data is so obviously fraudulent and hidden how come
                      a) his data is freely available from his Penn State website
                      b) Penn State hasn’t fired him yet
                      c) how does he continue to get published in the leading science journals
                      d) how come the doctoral program he supervises hasn’t lost its accreditation
                      e) how come Yale hasn’t been discredited for awarding a PhD to him.

                    • Wake December 19, 2017 at 10:26 AM

                      A) Why didn’t you offer a link then? On the off chance that you had a clue I went to both Penn State and Michael Mann’s sites and neither showed any data. Here’s a clue – A CHART IS NOT THE RAW DATA.
                      B) Until he loses a court case of this type the University will continue to back him since he used to represent research grant money. Now that Trump has stopped government grants for research into global warming his value has greatly diminished.
                      C) You will have to give me a link there as well since I couldn’t find one iota of scientific research published by Dr. Mann. The last paper he has his name on with another couple of nuts has a conclusion that the extreme weather event are increasing more than previously suspected and that they should use a form of calculus that is based on personal expectations. Seems like your sort of paper. Oh yeah, it wasn’t peer reviewed. (Psst – extreme weather events would drop in a warming world since weather is caused by temperature differences from the tropics of Cancer and Capricorn and their related polar regions)
                      D) See B above.
                      E) My how your imagination does fly. What exactly does Yale have to do with acts done by their past students?

                    • classicalmusiclover December 19, 2017 at 1:55 PM

                      Why do you think that it is a good thing for the US government to cease funding of climate change research?

                      Do you think state governments and international governments should be pressured to follow suit?

                    • Johnpd December 20, 2017 at 12:38 PM

                      You, CML, are a bare-faced, stupid ignorant liar.
                      I hereby challenge you to a public debate on the subject of CAGW: Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming, preferably recorded for youtube.
                      🙂
                      Put up or shut up, blowhard.

                    • classicalmusiclover December 20, 2017 at 2:44 PM

                      You seem stupid, and not a little unhinged.

                    • Johnpd December 21, 2017 at 4:27 AM

                      No recorded debate, then, sh1te-for-brains?
                      Just like Al Gore would rather run a televised marathon in his skivvies than face Lord Monckton in debate: you’re all mouth, no backup.

                    • classicalmusiclover December 21, 2017 at 6:44 AM

                      Why do you think “potty peer” Chris Monckton has any credibility on this issue? Is it because he has a British accent? Is it because he also disputes the theory of evolution? Or is it because he is a conservative?

                      Your Al Gore obsession is duly noted.

                    • jmac December 21, 2017 at 7:39 AM

                      Lord Mockton = You’ve been duped by another con-man (shill)

                      To see how he does it, please watch:
                      Monckton Bunkum Part 1 – Global cooling and melting ice https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbW-aHvjOgM&list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP&index=17

                    • Johnpd December 23, 2017 at 7:45 AM

                      Which is why Monckton thrashed Gore in a Brit court of law?
                      Covered in all 3 books I ref. above.
                      Judge got bored at 9 lies, called it a day.
                      Gores’ lies can’t be spread in Brit schools without a 70 page booklet of facts.
                      There is a total of 35 lies.
                      Count exaggerations & misleading statements, that racks up to 60.
                      Gore is still repeating the same lies: he’s a fraud.

                    • jmac December 23, 2017 at 9:46 AM

                      More Monckton caught lying again
                      Monckton Bunkum Part 2 – Sensitivity https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTY3FnsFZ7Q&list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP&index=18

                    • Johnpd December 23, 2017 at 8:44 AM

                      No debate then, thicko?

                    • Wake December 17, 2017 at 12:27 PM

                      As a last comment to you I will explain this but since you aren’t here to learn anything but to attempt to disturb the conversation it won’t make any difference:

                      As you can see by looking at the pictures of the lower half of the Greenland glacier – it is black from volcanic soot from a far distant past eruption. This is causing the lower part of the glacier to melt. The glacier is none-the-less growing faster than the lower part is melting.

                      https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/greenland-ice-sheets-2017-weigh-suggests-small-increase-ice-mass

                      Furthermore the ice record is only 38 years long meaning that we have no idea what the melts are caused by and melts like our present on also occurred in three previous years widely spaced.

                      Quite frankly I don’t care what you believe. All of your crying isn’t going to help Dr. Michael Mann get out from under the mess he has buried himself in.

                    • LTJ December 18, 2017 at 1:55 AM

                      Did you even read your link? It does not support your views. It makes it very clear that this year is an anomaly.

                    • jmac December 14, 2017 at 6:33 AM

                      Sensible people ignore Steve Goddard.

                      There is also the fact that Tony Heller (Steve Goddard is his internet name) routinely presents US temperature data as if it is a stand-in for global temperature data. This is not only dishonest; it is dumb .

                      Who Is Tony Heller? https://tonyhellerakastevengoddard.com/who-is-tony-heller/

                    • Wake December 15, 2017 at 6:18 PM

                      In case you are unaware of it – the IPCC based ALL of their claims based on a study of 600 papers from American scientists using US temperature data. And 400 of those 600 authors have now said that they were either misrepresented as positive when they were neutral or that their papers were presented as positive when they were strongly negative. Can you tell us what your credentials are? No man who criticizes other without presenting their own knowledge of the subject is worthy of even noticing.

                    • jmac December 16, 2017 at 9:15 AM

                      Hoo boy, are you ever stupid. Show us all the citations used in IPCC 5th report.

                    • Wake December 17, 2017 at 12:40 PM

                      So what you’re saying is that you don’t know how to look it up yourself and need your hand held while you’re calling someone else stupid?

                    • jmac December 17, 2017 at 12:46 PM

                      No idiot. I am saying that if you were to post all the citations of the IPCC report, everyone would see either what a liar you are or how stupid you are.

                    • Wake December 17, 2017 at 4:28 PM

                      If you don’t believe me show me wrong or shut up. Jackasses that want everyone to prove that their 2nd grade teacher was right and scream “stooopid” without one single ounce of their own knowledge are a real scream.

                    • jmac December 17, 2017 at 5:49 PM

                      #facepalm You conspiracy nuts.
                      Do you not even know where to find that? Did Heller not tell you.
                      LOL Who told you “the IPCC based ALL of their claims on a study of 600 papers from American scientists using US temperature data”?

                      Go here, pick a chapter, download the citation file. Do that for all chapters for each WG.

                    • R. Kooi December 18, 2017 at 6:56 PM

                      and you have been in science for 40 years ?
                      LOL
                      …but you throw a hissy-fit like a 14 year old spoiled British School Brat.

                    • R. Kooi December 18, 2017 at 6:57 PM

                      oh, and here is that lets-Pretend we are a scientist for 40 years….throwing another temper tantrum……..

                      POOR POOR PITIFUL YOU !

                    • Sam Gilman December 17, 2017 at 11:33 PM

                      “In case you are unaware of it – the IPCC based ALL of their claims on a study of 600 papers from American scientists using US temperature data.”

                      I think the IPCC would be surprised by that. What we can learn from your statement, assuming honesty on your part:
                      – you haven’t looked at the IPCC reports directly.
                      – you have relied on a third party source that is patently unreliable.

                      So what was your source for your claim?

                    • Wake December 22, 2017 at 12:51 PM

                      Tell us Sam – are you aware that the IPCC has had 5 Assessment papers? Tell me what the difference was between the first, the second, the third, the fourth and the fifth or please do not tell me anything that shows that you didn’t actually read any of them.

                    • Sam Gilman December 22, 2017 at 7:53 PM

                      Are you suggesting the IPCC is wrong because its view has evolved in line with newer evidence?

                    • Wake December 22, 2017 at 8:04 PM

                      First off you haven’t followed the conversation and jumping in with some dumb statement isn’t putting you in a particularly good light. Secondly what do YOU PERSONALLY know about the IPCC? Name the 2500 “scientists” that have their names on the 5th assessment.

                    • Sam Gilman December 23, 2017 at 12:03 AM

                      Why did you put scientists in scare quotes?

                    • R. Kooi December 18, 2017 at 2:59 PM

                      That is SIMPLY NOT TRUE….I have READ many many studies used as IPCC basis….scientists from all over the world, studies from all over the world

                      “….More than 830 Authors and Review Editors from over 80 countries were selected to form the Author teams that produced the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5).They in turn drew on the work of over 1,000 Contributing Authors and about 2,000 expert reviewers who provided over 140,000 review comments.

                      See the complete list of AR5 Authors and Review Editors. For statistics and regional coverage among the author teams see the AR5 page.

                      For the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) released in 2007, over 3,500 experts coming from more than 130 countries contributed to the report (+450 Lead Authors, +800 Contributing Authors, and +2,500 expert reviewers providing over 90,000 review comments). …”

                    • Wake December 18, 2017 at 5:57 PM

                      Doesn’t it embarrass you people to not read what is written and to retort things that weren’t said? I said THE FIRST IPCC assessment. After the political structure saw that it could obtain power; and the investment structure saw that they could earn money by investing in carbon credits you simply could not keep a job in climate science without requesting research funding to prove that it existed whether it did or not.

                      https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=youtube+michael+savage+climate+change&&view=detail&mid=55D9288B902F0F42030A55D9288B902F0F42030A&&FORM=VDRVRV

                      I have worked in science for over 40 years and I have worked closely in spectroscopy. No one can debate me on CO2 and the preposterous charge that it can make any changes in atmospheric conditions. Moreover as a yachtsman and member of one of the oldest yacht clubs in America I can verify that sea levels certainly haven’t changed measurably in the last 70 years that I’ve lived on the San Francisco bay.

                      What’s more a peer reviewed study SHOWS that NASA has manufactured data making absolutely false data. No scientist could make any accurate studies when NASA management was destroying the true data.

                      https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf

                      Climate change isn’t just a hoax – it is a criminal act that is designed to give politicians and governments more power and investment companies and HUGE new source investment profits.

                    • classicalmusiclover December 18, 2017 at 6:10 PM

                      So, what you are saying (if I may interject) is that your experience in spectroscopy tells you that CO2 cannot be a greenhouse effect (“the preposterous charge that it can make any changes in atmospheric conditions”).

                      If that is the case, how do you explain that nearly every widely used atmospheric physics textbook discusses a greenhouse effect from CO2 and that none other than Carl Sagan attributed the fact that Venus has a warmer surface than Mercury to a runaway greenhouse effect.

                    • R. Kooi December 18, 2017 at 6:49 PM

                      An early example of a colorimetric analysis is Nessler’s method for ammonia, which was introduced in 1856. Nessler found that adding an alkaline solution of HgI2 and KI to a dilute solution of ammonia produces a yellow to reddish brown colloid, with the colloid’s color depending on the concentration of ammonia.
                      By visually comparing the color of a sample to the colors of a series of standards, Nessler was able to determine the concentration of ammonia. Colorimetry, in which a sample absorbs visible light, is one example of a spectroscopic method of analysis.

                      At the end of the nineteenth century, spectroscopy was limited to the absorption, emission, and scattering of visible, ultraviolet, and infrared electromagnetic radiation.

                      Since its introduction, spectroscopy has expanded to include other forms of electromagnetic radiation
                      —such as X-rays, microwaves, and radio waves
                      —and other energetic particles
                      —such as electrons and ions

                    • Wake December 21, 2017 at 12:04 PM

                      Does your cut and paste supposed to show that you know anything?

                    • R. Kooi December 21, 2017 at 3:02 PM

                      We were discussing Global Warming.
                      ..
                      Not my base of Knowledge
                      or
                      YOUR LACK OF UNIVERSITY TRAINING !

                    • R. Kooi December 18, 2017 at 6:53 PM

                      Leading
                      Scientists
                      Questioned
                      Green House Gas effects in our atmosphere:

                      So,
                      In 1970,
                      NASA launched the IRIS satellite measuring infrared spectra.
                      .
                      Google: Iris Satellite Research Abstract
                      .
                      In 1996,
                      the Japanese Space Agency launched the IMG satellite
                      which recorded similar observations.

                      Google: IMG Satellite Research Abstract
                      .
                      Both sets of data were compared to discern any changes
                      in escaping radiation levels over the 26 year period

                      Google (Harries 2001 research abstract)
                      .
                      What they found was a drop in Escaping Infra Red radiation
                      at the PRECISE wavelength bands that greenhouse gases
                      such as CO2 with H2O, CFC’s, Ozone,
                      Nitrous Oxides, and methane (CH4) absorb energy.

                      The change in DECREASE IN ESCAPING I.R. radiation was consistent
                      with theoretical Expectations / Predictions.
                      .
                      This research & paper found

                      “direct experimental evidence for a significant increase
                      in the Earth’s greenhouse effect” and Warming on Earth.
                      .
                      This result has been confirmed by subsequent research & papers using data from later satellites

                      Google (Griggs 2004 Research Abstract)
                      Google (Chen 2007 Research Astract )
                      .
                      Figure 2: Change in spectrum from 1970 to 1996 due to trace gases.
                      ‘Brightness temperature’ indicates equivalent blackbody temperature

                      Google (Harries 2001 Research Abstract)

                      When greenhouse gases absorb infrared radiation,
                      the energy heats the atmosphere which in turn
                      re-radiates infrared radiation in all directions.
                      .
                      Some makes its way back to the earth’s surface.
                      Therefor
                      we

                      Expect/Predict

                      to find more infrared radiation heading downwards.
                      .
                      Surface measurements from 1973 to 2008 find an increasing trend of infrared radiation returning to earth

                      Google (Wang 2009 Research Abstract)

                    • Johnpd December 20, 2017 at 12:26 PM

                      Right on. 🙂

                    • R. Kooi December 18, 2017 at 7:00 PM

                      “….the IPCC based ALL of their claims on a study of 600 papers from American scientists using US temperature data….”

                      PROVE IT !

                      I have googled a random sample from all of the reports and they are widely distributed all over the world…and relatively current statements of each are supportive or even MORE worried about man made Global Climate Change.

                    • R. Kooi December 19, 2017 at 7:54 PM

                      Would it be tooooo much to ask for some verification of that statement.

                      I have read a great many studies referenced by the IPCC reports 1-5…as I transitioned to an understanding of Global Warming….
                      I have looked at MANY of the authors…who are from all over the world…as are MANY of the Researchers>

                    • Wake December 19, 2017 at 8:14 PM

                      I suggest you simply watch this video. It’s an hour and a quarter but it covers a lot of ground. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJBDI7jVMqM

                      I know spectroscopy and know that the CO2 stuff is BS.

                    • R. Kooi December 19, 2017 at 9:50 PM

                      I prefer the original research with references.

                    • R. Kooi December 18, 2017 at 7:12 PM

                      A regional study over the central Alps found that
                      downward infrared radiation is increasing due to the
                      enhanced greenhouse effect
                      .
                      Google (Philipona 2004 research abstract).
                      .
                      Taking this a step further, an analysis of high resolution spectral data allowed scientists to quantitatively attribute the increase in downward radiation to each of several greenhouse gases
                      .
                      Google (Evans 2006 Research abstract)
                      .
                      The results lead the authors to conclude that
                      *
                      *** “this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and Climate Changes caused by global warming.”
                      .
                      Figure 3:
                      Spectrum of the greenhouse radiation measured at the surface. Greenhouse effect from water vapor is filtered out,
                      showing the contributions of other greenhouse gases

                      Google (Evans 2006 Research Abstract)
                      .
                      This Entire planet is accumulating heat
                      .

                    • Johnpd December 20, 2017 at 1:00 PM

                      Proving, perhaps that there’s no shortage of charlatans willing to produce crap for a dollar, or a pound or a mark or a buck, or that there’s no shortage of snake oil salesmen to misrepresent decent science and advocate said crap.
                      Yes, this means you, birdseye. 🙂

                    • R. Kooi December 19, 2017 at 7:57 PM

                      Is there really a consensus on global warming?
                      .
                      Michael Barnard, Low-carbon Innovation Strategist
                      Updated Apr 26, 2017
                      .
                      “Depending on the method, the many studies on this subject show that from
                      97.1% to 99.99% of climate scientists — defined as researchers publishing
                      in peer-reviewed journals — accept that the climate is rapidly changing
                      due to human actions. The degree of severity they ascribe to impacts of
                      climate change varies according to their specific areas of study and their models,
                      but those ranges are captured in the IPCC 5 scenarios,
                      all of which show not only warming but significant negative impacts.
                      The high end and very recent study shows 99.99% consensus.
                      .
                      James L. Powell, director of the National Physical Sciences Consortium,
                      did the most recent of several peer-reviewed,
                      published studies showing the overwhelming consensus by climate scientists
                      on anthropogenic climate change.
                      .
                      Here’s what he says:
                      If the consensus were 97%, then to find 3 peer-reviewed articles that reject AGW,
                      one would need to read, on average, 100 articles.
                      Instead, to find even a single rejecting article,
                      one must read nearly 5,000 articles.

                      The true consensus on AGW cannot be as low as 97%.
                      […]
                      The only sound and practical way to judge the extent of a scientific consensus
                      is to search for articles that reject the prevailing theory. For 2013 and 2014,
                      I found that only 5 of 24,210 articles
                      and
                      4 of 69,406 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.
                      Home Page
                      His full paper is linked from that site.
                      Also very recently, Benestad et al published a paper in the journal
                      Theoretical Applied Climatology in July 2015.
                      They spread an even wider net than Powell, looking at every significant paper
                      ever published in a peer-reviewed journal that denied anthropogenic climate change.
                      They found 38 papers.
                      A common denominator seems to be missing contextual information or
                      ignoring information that does not fit the conclusions,
                      be it other relevant work or related geophysical data. In many cases,
                      short-comings are due to insufficient model evaluation,
                      leading to results that are not universally valid
                      but rather are an artifact of a particular experimental setup.

                      Other typical weaknesses include false dichotomies, inappropriate statistical methods,
                      or
                      basing conclusions on misconceived or incomplete physics.
                      […]
                      We also note that several of these papers involved the same authors
                      and that the different cases were not independent even if they involved different
                      shortcomings. Some of the cases also implied interpretations that were
                      incompatible with some of the other cases, such as pronounced
                      externally induced geophysical cycles and a dominant role of long-term
                      persistence (LTP); slow stochastic fluctuations associated with
                      LTP make the detection of meaningful cycles from solar forcing difficult
                      if they shape the dominant character in the geophysical record.
                      Page on springer.com
                      It other words, the papers don’t agree with one another,
                      they are written in fairly obvious ignorance of reasonably well known
                      science and modelling basics and there are a handful of authors
                      who keep writing stuff that’s in denial, not a large number of them.

                      The authors of this paper — disclosure:
                      I’ve communicated with Lewandowsky, one of the authors, many times
                      — bend over backward to avoid saying the obvious about the authors,
                      instead treating them with respect and suggesting reasons why they might,
                      possibly, maybe have just been accidentally ignorant.
                      But what about that 97%?
                      .
                      Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals
                      show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree:
                      Climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities.
                      In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide
                      have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following
                      is a partial list of these organizations,
                      along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.
                      .
                      Scientific consensus:
                      Earth’s climate is warming
                      .
                      Here are the five major papers that arrived at 97%:
                      J. Cook, et al, “Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming
                      in the scientific literature,” Environmental Research Letters
                      Vol. 8 No. 2, (June 2013); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024
                      Quotation from page 3: “Among abstracts that expressed a position on AGW
                      [Anthropogenic, or human-cause, Global Warming], 97.1% endorsed the
                      scientific consensus. Among scientists who expressed a position on AGW
                      in their abstract, 98.4% endorsed the consensus.”
                      W. R. L. Anderegg, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,”
                      Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Vol. 107 No. 27, 12107-12109
                      (21 June 2010); DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107.
                      P. T. Doran & M. K. Zimmerman,
                      “Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,”
                      Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union Vol. 90 Issue 3 (2009), 22;
                      DOI: 10.1029/2009EO030002.
                      N. Oreskes, “Beyond the Ivory Tower:
                      The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” Science Vol. 306 no. 5702, p. 1686
                      (3 December 2004); DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618.
                      So we have seven peer-reviewed and published papers which use different techniques,
                      published from 2004 to 2015, which show that the consensus among
                      climate science papers is in excess of 97% and that there are a
                      tiny number of dissenters who are making obviously incorrect statements.

                      You can argue with one paper which has not been reproduced.
                      It’s harder to argue with a paper whose results have been reproduced.
                      And it’s much harder to argue with multiple different methodologies
                      which arrive at the same result.
                      In the case of climate scientists having a very strong consensus on the
                      basics of anthropogenic climate change, consilience is extremely high.

                    • Johnpd December 20, 2017 at 12:56 PM

                      Consensus is politics, not science, you long-winded fool.

                    • stephen duval December 23, 2017 at 2:45 AM

                      https://www.sott.net/image/s18/367222/large/Adjustments_vs_CO2.gif

                      This graph shows temp adjustments versus atmospheric concentration of CO2 . The relationship is almost linear with an R**2 of .98

                      This shows that the USHCN temperature adjustments are a deliberate attempt to make the temperature vary with CO2 concentration. With an R**2 of .98, this shows deliberate fraud.

                    • R. Kooi December 18, 2017 at 7:13 PM

                      READING your comments clearly shows NO higher education.
                      Name Calling Juvenile is more accurate.