Man-made We're screwed

Man-made We're screwed

"What we found is that temperatures increased in the last hundred years as much as they had cooled in the last six or seven thousand," he said. "In other words, the rate of change is much greater than anything we've seen in the whole Holocene," referring to the current geologic time period, which began around 11,500 years ago.

SamO | June 4, 2013

Brian H,

There is no such thing as a denialist "meme". No more than there was a cigarettes don't cause cancer "meme".

Elon has already said that the same people that lied to the public (Merchants of Doubt) are now in charge of the climate disinformation campaign.

Thank you for helping them.

Brian H | June 4, 2013

Amusingly, the British MET has now conceded (in effect) that it cannot even say warming since 1850 is statistically significant. It has been using an inappropriate test (autocorrelated) instead of the driftless model which fits the data 1000X better. The latter shows no significant warming (160+ years).

nwdiver93 | June 4, 2013

@ Brian H

You forgot to cite your source.... again, but don't worry, I found it

Hey.... look at that.... it disagrees with you.... imagine that....

holidayday | June 4, 2013

We therefore regard the entire AGW speculation as baseless and perverse.

Can you clarify who "we" is?
Are you part of a climate group researching this?

Brian H | June 4, 2013

Here's another more current source:
The Met's response is logically null, a wafflegab about there being multiple ways to analyse things. It evades the point that the best ways refute its significance claims.

"We" refers to those skeptical of the IPCC and all its works. Many, probably most, like me accepted the green consensus till challenged. In the course of trying to refute the challenge, the scientific flimsiness of the consensus became more and more evident. Long before Climategate revealed the shoddy data handling and suppressive gate-keeping that keeps it politically afloat, we knew it for a sham.

JaneW | June 4, 2013

Brian said, " China and India have plans for about 4X the total coal generation of the rest of the world combined, and no interest whatever in sacrificing themselves at the alter of pretend greenness."

I think you meant "altar."

Anyway, read this: The dragon is quenching its fire. China, the world's largest emitter of carbon dioxide, wants its emissions to reach a peak by 2025.

China has already committed to lowering the carbon intensity of its economy: it has promised to reduce the emissions associated with every generated dollar of GDP by 45 per cent between 2005 and 2020. But that won't halt its soaring emissions, and its carbon intensity will still be more than double that in the US and Europe.

Now, Chinese media are reporting that the National Development and Reform Commission wants caps on total emissions from 2016, with a peak a decade later.

Brian H | June 4, 2013

By that time the CO2-phobia delusion balloon will have popped, and the question will be moot.

nwdiver93 | June 4, 2013

Yeah... just like Social Security is going to fail... any day now for the last 80 years. The consensus on AGW has showed no signs of weakening since ~1980. You right-wing nut jobs are pathetic.

nwdiver93 | June 4, 2013
Brian H | June 5, 2013

Already full of holes, being temporarily partially plugged by rent-seeking scientists sacrificing their reputations and standards -- to no avail. Reality has bitten, and is beginning to chew.

“Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age”.—Professor Richard Lindzen MIT [emeritus]

" the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, ... has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist."
Dr. Hal Lewis [late]

nwdiver93 | June 5, 2013

Random quote day? ... OK

"...let's say there's a 99% chance that CO2 is no problem and a 1% chance we're going to cook the planet; I don't think we want to take that 1%..." - Elon Musk

DonS | June 5, 2013

Fossil fuels will eventually be used up, and pollution is undeniably bad, but there no reason to expect the earth to be worse overall with slightly warmer temperatures.

When Leif Erickson was in Greenland and Newfoundland around 1000 AD, Greenland was actually green. Humans coped just fine. That is not to say that some had it worse while others had it better in a warmer earth, but the human race overall did just fine.

Brian H | June 5, 2013

A ground-breaking Self-Organizing Knowledge Extraction model, based on pure data rather than "expert" parameter plugs, found 5 external climate drivers, and no CO2 influence:

Skotty | June 7, 2013

Scientists are extremely resistant to corruption. More so than any other demographic. Though it is possible for a small amount of bias to creep in unintentionally.

I would also like to add that it doesn't matter what others do. It is our responsibility to try and be responsible, even if we think no other country will. Doing something you think is bad, and using "but they are doing it" excuses is not morally sound. But this is what some deniers suggest believers should do. Not going to happen.

In the end, the real answer is provided by the deniers. They say we don't know. Right! It is foolish to mess with a single world-wide resource like the atmosphere without knowing what the consequences will be. If we can't say for certain and with consensus that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will have no harmful affects, and especially when there is potential evidence to the contrary, we should make concerted efforts to reduce or eliminate those emissions. Not to mention all the other smog and pollution issues that could be improved.

JaneW | June 7, 2013

"rent-seeking scientists sacrificing their reputations and standards"

And you don't like ad hominem?

Rent seeking scientists like Lindzen, in the pay of OPEC and the oil companies?

JaneW | June 7, 2013

-Self-Organizing Knowledge Extraction model
-inappropriate test (autocorrelated) instead of the driftless model

Statistical nit-picking in the face of overwhelming evidence.

I reiterate: Study of almost 12,000 peer-reviewed studies.
Among those expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming...the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.

Brian H | June 8, 2013

Try, just try, to find documentary evidence for the "Big Oil" money flowing to sceptic scientists. You will only find heaps of unsupported assertions, and the awkward large grants oil companies give to Warmist causes and foundations (Danegeld?). Finding ANY funds flowing to sceptic scientists or writers is a fool's errand. But the US and EU funnel (easily traced and widely publicized) billions into warmist papers, projects, and propaganda.

"Resistant to corruption"? Searching for money to fund projects and pay salaries occupies about half to two-thirds of a lead investigator's time and energy. Promoting Warmism makes it much easier. Questioning it makes it virtually impossible. Guess which they will do.

JaneW | June 8, 2013

"Try, just try, to find documentary evidence..."

The stuff about Lindzen has been documented. He even admitted to working for Exxon.
It was public knowledge that Exxon sponsored a speaking tour of his. Their logo was on the program.

Seems like all the scientists who disagree with you are thieves, and all who agree are saints.

You're smarter than that. You can believe that some scientists are after the money. So can I.
But you can't really believe that thousands of scientists, Nobel prize winners, members of all the major science groups in the world who support AGW are in it just for the money. It's not logically possible. It's not statistically possible.

Many, many are concerned citizens just like you and me.

Brian H | June 9, 2013

The work for Exxon was a single project, far in the past. Is that kind of trivia all you've got? Try this:

JaneW | June 9, 2013

The problem with ad hominem argument.
In a recent post I linked climate skeptic Richard Lindzen to Exxon. The real answer to that should be, "So what." He got money from Exxon. That proves nothing. It doesn't prove he is wrong. It doesn't prove he is lying. It doesn't prove he is biased. It is just as likely that he came to his own conclusions independently, and then Exxon decided to help him get their shared message across.

The same is true of many scientists who have concluded that actions by people are over-warming the planet. Sure they are after grants and funding. Sure they are getting paid by governments. That's how they make a living. Some abuse the system. Many are basically honest. Their position on climate change can be independently arrived at, just as Lindzen may have done, and they are then paid to do the work that proves or disproves what they think.

A surgeon gets paid for operating on you, and may lean toward surgery as the right treatment. Doesn't mean a surgeon will operate when you don't need it, just for the money.

It is not skeptical to think otherwise. It is cynical.

Brian H | June 9, 2013


Here's a comment from Judith Curry's "Climate, Etc." which summarizes things pretty well (long post):
Wagathon | January 12, 2013 at 12:22 pm
For the purposes of this assessment, risk was defined as the product of likelihood and consequence…
This is an example of setting the precautionary principle on its head.
Speech opposing the motion by Richard Courtney:
Madam Speaker, Friends:
Climate change is a serious problem. All governments need to address it.
In the Bronze Age Joseph (with the Technicolour Dreamcoat) told Pharaoh that climate has always changed everywhere: it always will. He told Pharaoh to prepare for bad times when in good times, and all sensible governments have adopted that policy throughout the millennia since.
It’s a sensible policy because people merely complain at taxes in good times. They revolt if short of food in bad times. But several governments have abandoned it and, instead, are trying to stabilise the climate of the entire Earth by controlling it.
This attempt at global climate control arises from the hypothesis of anthropogenic (that is, man-made) global warming (AGW).
AGW does not pose a global crisis but the policy does, because it threatens constraint of fossil fuels and that constraint would kill millions – probably billions – of people.
There’s no evidence for man-made global warming; none, not any of any kind.
The existence of global warming is not evidence of anthropogenic global warming because warming of the Earth doesn’t prove humans warmed it. At issue is whether humans are or are not affecting changes to the Earth’s temperature that have always happened naturally.
The AGW-hypothesis says increased greenhouse gases – notably carbon dioxide – in the air raise global temperature, and anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide are increasing the carbon dioxide in the air to overwhelm the natural climate system.
But empirical evidence says the hypothesis is wrong.
1. The anthropogenic emissions and global temperature do not correlate.
2. Change to atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration follows change to global temperature at all time scales.
3. Recent rise in global temperature has not been induced by rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations.
Global temperature fell from 1940 to 1970, rose to 1 998, and has fallen since. That’s 40 years of cooling and 28 years of warming. Global temperature is now similar to that of 1990. But atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has increased at a near constant rate and by more than 30% since 1940. It has increased by 8% since 1990.
4. Rise in global temperature has not been induced by anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide.
Over 80% of the emissions have been since 1940 and the emissions have been increasing at a compound rate. But since 1940 there have been 40 years of cooling with only 28 years of warming. There’s been no significant warming since 1995, and global temperature has fallen since the high it had 10 years ago.
5. The pattern of atmospheric warming predicted by the AGW hypothesis is absent.
The hypothesis predicts most warming of the air at altitude in the tropics. Measurements from weather balloons and from satellites both show cooling at altitude in the tropics.
So, the normal rules of science say the AGW-hypothesis is completely refuted.
Nothing the hypothesis predicts is observed, and the opposite of some of its predictions are observed.
But some people promote the hypothesis. They’ve several reasons (personal financial gain, protection of their career histories and futures, political opportunism, and…). But support of science cannot be one such motive because science denies the hypothesis. So, additional scientific information cannot displace the AGW-hypothesis and cannot silence its advocates. And those advocates are not scientists despite some of them claiming they are.
Advocates promote AGW using three kinds of pseudo-science.
They use `argument from ignorance’. This isn’t new. In the Middle Ages experts said, “We don’t know what causes crops to fail: it must be witches: we must eliminate them.” Now, experts say, “We don’t know what causes global climate change: it must be emissions from human activity: we must eliminate them.” Of course, they phrase it differently saying they can’t match historical climate change with known climate mechanisms unless an anthropogenic effect is included. But evidence for this “anthropogenic effect” is no more than the evidence for witches.
Advocates rely on not-validated computer models.
No model’s predictions should be trusted unless the model has demonstrated forecasting skill. But climate models have not existed for 20, 50 or 100 years, so they cannot have demonstrated forecasting skill.
Simply, the climate models’ predictions of the future have the same demonstrated reliability as the casting of chicken bones to predict the future.
Advocates use the Precutionary Principle saying we should stop greenhouse gas emissions in case the AGW hypothesis is right. But that turns the Principle on its head.
Stopping the emissions would reduce fossil fuel usage with resulting economic damage. This would be worse than the `oil crisis’ of the 1970s because the reduction would be greater, would be permanent, and energy use has increased since then. The economic disruption would be world-wide. Major effects would be in the developed world because it has the largest economies. Worst effects would be on the world’s poorest peoples: people near starvation are starved by it.
The precautionary principle says we should not accept the risks of certain economic disruption in attempt to control the world’s climate on the basis of assumptions that have no supporting evidence and merely because they’ve been described using computer games.
So, global warming is not a global crisis but the unfounded fear of global warming is. It threatens a constraint of fossil fuel use that would kill millions – probably billions – of people.

nwdiver93 | June 9, 2013

@ NOT Brian H

Words of advice...'t_feed_the_Troll

Brian H | June 9, 2013

Troll? I've been on this site for at least 4 years longer than you, twerp.

Vawlkus | June 10, 2013

Resorting to name calling diver? Classic troll behavior.

Mel. | June 10, 2013

nwdiver93, could you tell us what your native language is?

JaneW | June 11, 2013

Brian is not a troll.
Look around on this site and you will find he is ubiquitous; sometimes perspicacious, sometimes amusing. He is a relentless defender of his view that, "There’s no evidence for man-made global warming; none, not any of any kind."

None of which makes him a troll. None of which makes him right.

JaneW | June 11, 2013

In Judith Curry's article is a link to The U.S. National Climate Assessment and Development Advisory Committee (NCADAC) has released a draft of its report for public comment.

It is a thoughtfully reasoned and documented report. I urge you to read the report, not the biased commentary. Read the actual report.

Brian H | June 11, 2013

It's the key admissions that are important. Insertion of key unjustified assumptions is the core tactic used. Aside from treating model projections as "data", which they are not (other than documentation of what-if scenarios). If it could get past the gatekeepers, there is a strong case to be made that long-term global climate is inexplicably stable punctuated by episodes of inexplicable capriciousness. "Settled (Climate) Science" is a laugh, in the prototypical original example of a chaotic system (hypersensitive to small inputs with 'strange attractor' islands of stability).

Resilience in the face of historical precedent is the only rational and feasible strategy and response. Managing and "mitigating" are fools' errands and conceited illusions. Perfect templates of disastrous hubris. For which millions have already died from fuel and food poverty. "A Crime Against Humanity" (and sanity).

joelbryan | June 12, 2013

I'm living in a tropical country, and all I can say is I feel like a roasted pig! It is so hot nowadays, even my shirts right off my wardrobe is so warm I have to cool it off before wearing them, and my bed is like a heater, and taking a shower in the early morning and the night is like taking a jacuzzi! I'm 30 years old, and I have never experience this extreme climate in the past.

Vawlkus | June 12, 2013

Is your area experiencing record breaking high temperatures? If not, it's all perception.

Brian H | June 12, 2013

A couple of presentations:
Dr. Christy’s Power Point presentation to Congress
Text PDF

Popular scare stories that weather extremes – hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts, floods — are getting worse are not based on fact.
In the U.S., high temperature records are not becoming more numerous.
Climate models significantly overestimated warming during the past 15 years.
Even if climate models were correct, a 50% reduction in U.S. CO2 emissions by 2050 would avert only 0.07°C of warming by 2100.
If a policy is not economically sustainable, it’s not politically sustainable.
The climate change impact of enhancing CO2 concentrations has so far been small compared to the public health and biospheric benefits provided by affordable, carbon-based energy.

Dr Salby on Anthropogenic influence: Hamburg, April 2013

JaneW | June 13, 2013

"It's the key admissions that are important."
That is the response I expected you would have to reading the Executive Summary. Too many of the items there sound to you automatically unjustified. I understand that.

Go past that. Look at the science in each of the chapters. Some will still seem like bs to you.
Some may not. Some of the key assumptions will still seem unjustified. But, some won't.
Go deep.

I'd really like to know what you would find that is actually meaningful.

JaneW | June 13, 2013

"I feel like a roasted pig"
Could still just be weather, not climate.
In Colorado, we've had record heat in several months already.
On the news though, if you listen carefully, they are saying,
"hottest June 12 since 1925."

Until we have ten years of it, I won't believe it is climate.

But, even if it is a weather trend rather than climate change, doesn't mean my house won't burn down.

frmercado | June 27, 2013

Hope this helps the skeptics change their mind.

Mel. | June 27, 2013

frmercado, that was really silly. Sorry.

frmercado | June 27, 2013

Haha but... why?

Mel. | June 28, 2013

frmercado, I think the movie was nice. I guess I didn't get what it was trying to prove.. It is pollution of oceans and rivers that is not being fixed, but people make some nice movies. Let me take back my comment it does not fit in the discussion.

Brian H | June 28, 2013

Trying to create the impression that calving glaciers mean the ice caps are doooomed. Utter nonsense.

JaneW | June 28, 2013

Finally, the President is moving on this area before the Chinese get so far ahead of us in these technologies that we miss out on the billions of dollars to be made.