Original. Student reported. Your daily dose of Right-minded news and commentary from across the nation
EXCLUSIVE: Prof Fired For Calling Global Warming ‘Unproved Science’ Stands Firm

American University statistician tells The Fix: Belief in climate catastrophe ‘simply not logical’

If one would have asked statistician Caleb Rossiter a decade ago about global warming, he says he would have given the same answer that President Barack Obama offered at a recent commencement address.

“He castigated people who don’t believe in climate catastrophe as some sort of major fools,” Rossiter says of the president’s speech, adding he would have agreed with the president – back then.

But Rossiter would give a different answer today.

“I am simply someone who became convinced that the claims of certainty about the cause of the warming and the effect of the warming were tremendously and irresponsibly overblown,” he said in an exclusive interview Tuesday with The College Fix. “I am not someone who says there wasn’t warming and it doesn’t have an effect, I just cannot figure out why so many people believe that it is a catastrophic threat to our society and to Africa.”

For this belief – based in a decade’s worth of statistical research and analysis on climate change data – Rossiter was recently terminated as an associate fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies, a progressive Washington D.C. think tank.

Rossiter wrote an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal titled “Sacrificing Africa for Climate Change,” in which he called notions of climate catastrophe “unproved science,” and shortly thereafter received word from the institute that his position was terminated.

“Unfortunately, we now feel that your views on key issues, including climate science, climate justice, and many aspects of US policy to Africa, diverge so significantly from ours,” their note to Rossiter stated.

Rossiter will continue to offer courses on math, history, politics and statistical analysis at American University, he just landed a deal to write a book on his experiences teaching inside high poverty high schools in D.C., and he recently returned from the Sudan, where he spent time as a Fulbright fellow.

And he will continue to teach college students that the data behind “catastrophic climate change” does not stand up to scrutiny – after all, it’s how he came to hold such opinions himself.

About a decade ago, Rossiter assigned his international statistics students a paper that asked them to analyze some topic of international affairs using statistics. When one female student turned in a paper on humans’ role in global warming, he gave her an F.

“She came to see me and said, ‘But Doc, it’s not fair, I am just repeating exactly what they said,” he recalled. “And I said, ‘That’s impossible, because the evidence you cited here is just wishful thinking, there is no real data.’”

“So I sat down with her and we looked over the article, which is one of the classic ones in climate change in which they developed a computer model that tries to say how much of the half a degree rise in temperature can you attribute to natural variation or the Arctic oscillation, or whatever the hell is going on up in the north there when the seas gets warmer and colder over long periods, things sort of like El Niño- or is it human [caused]?”

“I had to raise her grade because she certainly had cited the evidence they had given, but I just couldn’t give her much of a grade because she should have been able to see – as most people should be able to see – that the computer models were just guessing and sort of notional, and just kind of playing around to get a good fit, but didn’t have much scientific basis.”

“So I became quite interested in this phenomenon,” he added. “So many of my colleagues and so much of educated America and liberal newspapers and all just believe that mathematicians have set up models that should make us very certain that the recent half-degree uptick from 1980 to 2000 was human caused – when in fact they were just playing with the models. I use models a lot, and these were pretty weak.”

From then on, Rossiter specifically assigned students papers to look at global warming and climate change issues, and over the years graded hundreds of papers on the topic. The results from this further solidified his belief that the global warming crisis is one that’s man-made.

“So there is really two big statistical questions: what caused the little warming, and what effect did the warming have on these other climate variables?” he said. “I am a pretty decent statistician, I have taught for many, many years. The data that support the headlines are very, very weak, very, very notional, and simply not logical.”

“You couldn’t have this many terrible effects from a half a degree rise in global temperature. It’s probable that there are some, but it gets a little boring because it’s always weak data, because that is the nature of a tremendously complex system.”

Over the years, he’s broken a few students’ hearts when they learn of this truth.

“I have had students who are very strongly pro-the global warming movement in my classes, of course, because most young people have heard this already,” he said. “And when I have them actually do the study, and take apart an IPCC [International Panel on Climate Change] claim, sometimes they break into tears, and they say ‘I can’t believe this is the only class I’ve ever been in in which anyone has ever told me there is even an issue.’”

“I always enjoy that but, I would enjoy it the other way, too,” he said. “I always really push them to evaluate, dig down and learn the arguments of the other side- that is part of education.”

Yet it is Rossiter’s former colleagues at IPS and similar think tanks who refuse to debate him.

“I found at the Institute for Policy Studies no willingness to sit down and talk through the areas in which our analyses diverged,” he said. “For years, I would ask their climate staff, who were not particularly scientific or statistical, they are social activists, to come to my classes and debate me, to talk it out with me in front of the IPS board.”

There is a reason they won’t, he adds.

“I think they believe … that you give legitimacy to the ‘denialists’ if you debate them,” Rossiter adds. “I think that’s a terrible idea. … At IPS, like many other places, people don’t want to debate it because they have this funny statement that, and Mr. Obama repeats it every time he opens his mouth, ‘the debate is over.’ I have never heard a more remarkable statement in my life about anything.”

College Fix contributor Dominic Lynch is a student at Loyola University Chicago.

Like The College Fix on Facebook / Follow us on Twitter

Add to the Discussion

  • Danthraxus

    I LOVE people of any political stripe who are more interested in actually analyzing things than in merely pushing an agenda. I give professor Rossiter high marks indeed!

    For my own part, I also initially found the idea that humans have warmed up the climate by burning vast quantities of fossil fuels to be entirely plausible. But the more I’ve investigated it, completely dispassionately, the more convinced I’ve become that the evidence just isn’t there. And then it becomes disturbing that there is this chorus shouting “How DARE you not BELIEVE?! The Science is SETTLED!”

    Even Newton himself did not “settle” Science. And as professor Rossiter, a statistician for Pete’s sake, points out–the models being used are poor. Not overwhelming out of the ballpark home runs like “Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica,” but instead “weak.”

    So what will the alarmists say? No doubt professor Rossiter, a progressive intellectual, is just in the pay of big oil. Yeah. Right.

    • guest

      If burning fossil fuels warms up the climate, then Obama should be fined and put in jail for his violations. He and his daily, nonstop entourage of jets and secret service set a record for putting miles on those huge fossil burning planes, along with the extra cargo planes that ship his massive entourage of armored 3 ton vehicles that follow him everywhere he jets off to (that get about 3 mile per gallon). Can you college kids not see the irony and hypocrisy of this fool? All for lame speeches and daily $32,000 a plate fund raisers. The worst POTUS in history. He should be impeached.

    • Smat

      YES!! Great point. I too like people of any political stripe who analyze and speak their minds rather that pushing an agenda…well put!! I can agree or disagree and sometimes it makes me think through may own analysis and question it. We are all looking for truth.

    • Mike A

      So the guy goes to a media outlet to push a book by claiming hes a ‘climate change denier’ and you give him high marks based on not pushing an agenda? Hahaha

      • Danthraxus

        What book? Can you even read? He was dismissed from a liberal think tank because his mathematics don’t square with their politics. Save your “hahaha” for the depth of ignorance you display in your remark.

        • Bart

          His mathematics don’t square with any mathematician’s, either.

          Glass houses and stones.

          • Danthraxus

            Ah, Bart Bart Bart.

            Bernoulli would have been content to die
            Had he but known such a squared cosine two pi.

            You don’t know the first thing about it. No doubt mathematics does not square with your politics. But guess what? That just makes you look stupid.

            Please show a single example of a mathematical error in Dr. Rossiter’s statistical analysis. This should be very easy, since you claim no mathematician would agree with him.

          • Bart

            Cute Cyberiadism aside, you make a great many assumptions about my politics. I have none. I’m apolitical, and disinterested in the whole left-right cosmogeny of America, not being American.

            Which may make me look foreign to you, but the last time I checked was not a sufficient condition to confer stupidity.

            To show Dr. Rossiter’s mathematics square with virtually no other mathematicians, one need merely point out that something over eleven thousand peer-reviewed climatology papers confirm the position Dr. Rossiter disputes, and fewer than three percent of peer-reviewed published papers dispute the consensus view.

            No example is needed, when the facts speak so plainly for themselves. It would be up to Dr. Rossiter, who’s making the extraordinary claim that all climatologists who hold the consensus position are wrong, to furnish disproof of each of them. When he begins this feat, I’ll be glad to look for errors he makes.

          • Andrew70

            “Peer-reviewed”? Ah the boilerplate defense of “climate scientists” and their sock-puppets on the Internet:

            “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !” (http://www.di2.nu/foia/1089318616.txt)

          • Bart

            Except, that bold boast never bore fruit. Kevin beat some reason into Phil’s noggin on the subject. Both papers were explored by the IPCC in the next report. They simply weren’t very important.

            Is it surprising that someone gets passionate about their work to the point they say something stupid in private exchanges?

            Oh, and when you look at the reason for Jones’ offense at the papers, you might agree with him. They were laughably bad.

            Soon & Baliunas’ paper, the first of the two, was so awful that several editors resigned from the publisher, it was withdrawn, and it has been very thoroughly debunked since.

            Kalnay & Cai, authors of the second paper, came up with an estimate for UHI that was at least five times higher than anyone before or since, and BEST shredded the analysis of this paper quite thoroughly.


            Why do you keep repeating lies that anyone familiar with the inquiries and matters know the truth about?

          • Danthraxus

            You should have, then, corrected me for saying “pi” instead of “phi,” since you correctly adduce Cyberiadities, but based on your last two replies I herby publicly retract my defamation of you as an ignoramus. You (now) clearly are not one. You are nevertheless mistaken. You are a believer in N-rays, and have not yet realized it. Time will tell.

          • Bart

            You still have me mistaken for someone else; I don’t live to provide a quibbling service to eristic Lemmings, or to blue pencil blog comments.

            We don’t need time to tell; Newton tells us, from the very source you introduced to the comments, that once we have inferred a proposition from (all) observations using no more assumptions than are necessary, allowing no more exceptions than are needed, confirming all effects of like causes are universal on like subjects that we should view the proposition as accurate or very nearly true until new observation requires amendment of the explanation.

            We have that now. It’s AGW; we will mitigate our GHE emissions or we will increase the Forcing in the complex climate system, increase the energy within the atmosphere to levels unknown in the lifespan of our species, end up with disruptions in every natural system we have ever relied on at great cost disproportionate to any plausible benefit of burning fossil fuels at such high rates; we already now need to make frequent adaptations to frequent state changes in climate and dependent activities like agriculture, fishing, transportation and travel at great cost attributable to burning fossil fuels.

            The few profit from dumping wastes into the air, and the many suffer for it. What’s the right policy response to that?

          • Ed Snack

            Bart, unfortunately simply spouting ad-him without giving any examples is typical of the alarmist side of the debate. They won’t argue statistics because they can’t, the statistical work used to justify many if not most of the alarmist work is shoddy and often downright shonky. It relies heavily on post selection screening and almost exemplifies overfitting.

            This is unsupportable by professional statisticians, which as Dr Rossiter has found puts them on the outer.

            You want to be taken seriously, debate the mathematics seriously, don’t do “drive by” ad-hom. Your little aphorism about glass houses is very, very, apt. Climate science “math” is not like any other, it is specifically used to give the answers desired, not those found in that data.

          • Bart

            I have 10,883 examples.


            Perhaps you can tell me which of my examples use post selection screening, and which best exemplify overfitting?

          • Arimathean

            Just because all the members of an intellectually inbred clique agree with each other doesn’t mean they’re right – no matter how many of each other’s articles they publish and cite.

          • Bart

            No, they’re only right if their claims are valid and verified on their own merits.

            So.. these 10,883 remain right, until you invalidate or falsify their claims. Since you make an extraordinary claim, you’d better provide some pretty extraordinary evidence.

            Let us know if you need more time.

          • gtrmath

            Are you a mathematician? Let’s find out. Prove the square root of two is irrational: Step one – assume it rational. Step two – let it = p/q where p and q are relatively prime. Next step? Know any calculus? Prove the area of an ellipse = pi(ab) and show its perimeter can be found from the sum of an infinite series. Last of all what’s the probabilty the climate models will be correct in the next 50 years, seeing they’ve been wrong for the last 25?

          • Bart


            You’re throwing around proofs from a high school math textbook as some sort of test of cred?

            You want induction demonstrated for you like a puppy performing tricks on a newspaper?

            Transire suum pectus mundoque potiri.

            However, when you suggest “the climate models” — what, all of them? — have been ‘wrong’, are you referring to the case where using Arctic climate models at higher resolution, the recent Arctic melt trend was more accurately predicted than the GCM runs could do, or do you mean the oft-touted impossible standard of perfection of comparing the known-wrong RSS five-year trend to the GCM ensemble?

            The probability that RSS will continue to diverge from ensembles is imponderable, as it would require predicting truly unpredictable factors like volcanic eruptions, the next industry-halting economic crash, and whatever new mistakes RSS may make.

            As Cowtan and Way have demonstrated, a similar case can be made with respect to HadCRUT.

            Climate models model aspects of the climate, not the whole thing. GCMs are sufficient to show current trends cannot be accounted for by Physics absent the Greenhouse Effect.

            Speaking of periods of global temperature on spans of less than 30 years generally belies ignorance of the need to filter short-term sources of variability. Go ahead, if you like demonstrations of mathematical prowess: show us how to remove the Hale Cycle from the global temperature trend.

          • gtrmath

            There are no induction arguments here. Calculus of Variations (the integrals that arise when trying to find the perimeter of an ellipse) is a graduate school topic; not in any high school textbook. The job of a mathematician is to establish the validity of an argument. Any hard science has mathematical validation, your wonderful climate science high priests of doom are desperately wanting in this area. Your own words prove that you are not a mathematician. Try faking you’re something else.

          • Bart

            The joke, as you missed it, is that your questions are addressed in Newton’s Principia, the very document Danthraxus cites earlier.

            Maybe your high school was less ambitious than mine, as we most certainly took on these questions. There was no guarantee we all answered them while in high school, but maybe that we were looking for the answers was why so many of us went into STEM.

            The job of a logician is to establish the validity of an argument; the job of a mathematician is to establish its veracity (in essence, are we comparing apples to apples vs. how many apples are there?).

            For instance, logically your assertion of “no induction arguments here” would be valid if http://www.mathpath.org/proof/sqrt.irrat.other.htm did not show us the steps you used in your square root of two question were textbook Induction or textbook Well-Ordered. You’re comparing Newton’s apples to your bluster. There’s no amount of mathematics that can tell us how much of your bluster is worth a single Newtonian apple.

            And since it’s as easy as typing in a search term to Google to find the textbook solution to your shiboleth, you might want to think up a better test of mathematical credibility.

            I note, you haven’t even begun to address my question. Do you need more time?

          • gtrmath

            An indirect proof is used to prove the square root of two is irrational you pedantic twit, even a sharp high school student might know that! A real mathematician doesn’t need internet links to support an argument. Do you even know what proof by mathematical induction is, without looking it up on the internet? Look up the proof for the Binomial Theorem or DeMoivre’s Theorem for induction proofs. Elliptic Integrals are not in Principia, they came after Newton’s time in the work of Euler. Go back to being an activist, I’m not going to waste my time with your non-mathematical sophistry.

          • Bart

            One notes you have still not taken on the question I posed on removing the Hale Cycle from the global temperature trend.

            This is a rather easy task, and it is one anyone pursuing claims of sufficient skill to discuss the mathematics of climate ought be able to demonstrate.

            Do you need more time?

          • Andrew70

            That he doesn’t use short-centered principal components analysis to create hockey stick graphs out of noise means he is a far better (and honest) mathematician than you or Michael Mann.


            Also, “The Hockey Stick Illusion, Climategate and the Corruption of Science”, by Andrew Montford

          • Bart

            Since you’re a fan of McKitrick, I refer you to http://qed.econ.queensu.ca/pub/cpp/Dec97/Mckitrick.pdf

            You make a great many assertions about my qualifications and integrity on very limited bases. Hans von Storch has already adequately addressed your concern trolling about Mann’s analyses and red noise. Montford’s book is a ramblingly unreadable hack opinion diatribe of no discernible merit.

            Sure, you _can_ procure almost any shape you want out of data if you use even the best tools badly; this has been well-known for decades, as have adequate tests to tell the difference between artifacts of noise and real effects. Otherwise, no real hockey sticks — or any of the various effects that can be spuriously generated — could ever be found with any sort of certainty, and we know we can find these effects reliably throughout the statistical world by applying appropriate checks.

            The only checks in Montford appear to be the ones he gets from his publisher.

        • Mike A

          The book deal mentioned in the article

          • Danthraxus

            The book on his “experiences teaching inside high poverty high schools”? Yeah, that’s the take-away point from this article. Because, of course, everyone interested in the Global Warming debate can’t wait to read a book on teaching inside high poverty high schools. No doubt he’ll become a billionaire off his best selling tome.

    • Bart

      You are simply wrong about Mr. Newton and the settling of Science. If you read Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, you will find that Mr. Newton specifically required us to regard as accurate or very nearly true that inference from all observations which is simplest in terms of assumptions, most parsimonious in terms of exception, and most universal in application, until such time as new observation requires amendment of the explanation. That’s Mr. Newton’s rule for settling Science from Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica.

      Dr. Rossiter’s failings as a logician and physicist more than adequately explain why he’s wrong, like all followers of Bjorn Lomborg’s extreme progressive intellectual views.

      • Danthraxus

        Evidently you don’t know what the word “settled” means. Nice job looking up “parsimonious” in a thesaurus, but it’s an inappropriate use of that word, too. And you clearly don’t understand the first thing about Newton and are parroting some cliff notes you’ve read, no doubt in an attempt to appear knowledgable. It’s not working.

        You ascribe to Dr. Rossiter “failings as a logician.” On the contrary, he was fired because his demand for statistical rigor ran afoul of the politics of his employers. Please point to an error in his statistical treatment of the data, since you are attempting to present yourself as someone knowledgeable about such things.

        We’re all waiting breathlessly for your perspicacious reply! (and, no, I didn’t use a thesaurus for “perspicacious,” so beware attempting to bandy words with me).

        • Bart

          The man who claims to understand Newton makes a bold assertion indeed. Let’s try to understand a lesser light, first.

          Caleb Rossiter is cited for two principle arguments of logic:

          A. Because there is hardship in Africa, Global Warming is false;
          B. An F student showed me bad Global Warming arguments years ago, therefore all Global Warming arguments are bad.

          To quote GalaxyQuest, it doesn’t take a great actor to spot a lousy one.

          The first argument is echoed from Lord Nigel Lawson’s book of two decades ago, a view repeated by Bjorn Lomborg’s Copenhagen Consensus and for a time fashionable with the UN’s Economic Development agency, until they realized that Africa is a sunny place and by Swanson’s Law, the price of solar power for the lifetime of an electricity generating plant is lower than the price of coal. Caleb Rossiter is simply adhering to a dated precept long since overtaken by new technology developments

          The second argument is called by some the Fallacy Fallacy. That Dr. Rossiter has rejected the evidence of over ten thousand peer reviewed papers in climatology that have come out since his views were changed by his F student is an absurd claim. Have all peer reviewers of thousands of papers over a course of years made statistical errors uncaught by the journal reading public?

          As for pointing to an error in Dr. Rossiter’s statistical treatments of data, I’d be glad to oblige. Could you furnish any of Dr. Rossiter’s statistical treatments?

          It pains me to quibble about definitions of commonly accepted words when they are used so oddly. Words like “fired”, and “settled” ought not need clarification.

          Dr. Rossiter was not fired.

          To be fired, he’d have to have been employed. Caleb Rossiter was dumped from his Fellowship by his Fellows when his two former sponsors withdrew their sponsorship, and no other Fellows — none — stepped in to take their place.

          There may be a metaphor likening being dumped by all of one’s friends and being fired by one’s boss, but I don’t see it working very well in this case.

          You may wish to redirect your arguments about ‘settled’ to their source. That would be Isaac Newton, whom you brought into this.

          You can bandy words with him. http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28233/28233-h/28233-h.htm is a nice version or the original, but if you prefer a common translation:

          1. Admit no more causes of natural things than are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances; (Simplicity of Assumptions)

          2. To the same natural effect, assign the same causes; (Parsimony of Exceptions)

          3. Qualities of bodies which are found to belong to all bodies within experiments are to be esteemed universal; and, (Universality of Application)

          4. Propositions collected from observation of phenomena should be viewed as accurate or very nearly true until contradicted by other phenomena. (Settled Science)

          • Arimathean

            Now that you have warmed up against those strawmen, try taking on what Prof. Rossiter actually said.

          • Bart

            Could you be even more vague?

  • BillM

    “claims of certainty” There have never been any claims of certainty
    “proof”? That word does not exist in Science. A Scientist can only ever state that there is a particular level of evidence to support their claim.
    This article shows that the author and complainant know very little about Science. Even Newton’s laws of motion were never “proven” and are, in fact, only approximations. However they are still “good enough”, like climate science, to be used to connect cause and effect.

    • BTC Vega

      There is, however, such a thing as proof in Mathematics, including statistics. That is what the article is about.

    • Eric Weder

      But they are certain, Bill. The debate is over! Globull warming is a catastrophe! The science is settled! We’re all going to die if we don’t shut off all the lights and move into grass huts! And give all our money to the UN so they can save us all!

    • closedpress.com

      Nonsense….Newtons laws of motions are in fact correct, until you need to look at very small motions, or very fast speeds.

      Climate psuedo-science models….are not correct at any level. Not for global temperatures, not for local temperatures, and not experimentally.

      The difference is you can actually define when Newtons laws of motion will not be suitable, and can switch to relativity, but you can NEVER find a case where the computer models of climate astrology are correct. or even an “approximation”.

      They dont predict past temperatures, current temperatures, yet you believe they will predict future temperatures.

      That is what makes global warming fear mongers….anti-science.

    • kristy624

      But none of the observational data supports their claim. The claim is that as CO2 increases, so will global temperatures. The IPCC states we should have warmed by 0.3C since 2001 and yet in the setting of skyrocketing CO2, there has been no warming in 16 years. So how is that “good enough” to be used to connect cause and effect?

    • no

      You clearly have never tested the statistical significance of the data. You probably do not understand what I just told you.

    • Ericzipp

      So you support the view that we shouldn’t question science. Especially when none of the claims or predictions of this science have been proven true. I really think Newton would have even disagreed with you. The predictions of the IPCC will never get any better than the flip of a coin ( actually they are much worse than a flip of a coin since they use corrupted data as fact.) If the scientist involved don’t question their results with the realities of climate and the physical properties of our world they might never be right more than 1/3 of the time. Show me 1 prediction from the IPCC that has proven correct. The Farmers’ Almanac has had a much better record for centuries of predictions than the latest computer models of the IPCC. The old programming wisdom of garbage in garbage out still holds true.

    • Bjorn Ramstad

      So, you agree, sir. The science is not settled. There should be debate?

      • BillM

        Yes indeed. Scientists must continue their peer-reviewed research and debate to determine what the impacts will be, and we must debate what steps we must take to alleviate those impacts.

  • Hopalong

    There is a link to Rossiter’s CV. Did the author look at it? The number of statistical or scientific publications is exactly zero.

    • Greg Barton

      Why are you excluding all these “scientists” who sign onto warming when THEY have no chops in this field?


    • Eric Weder

      Again with the argument from authority … publishing papers is how those people keep bread on the table. Rossiter is a teacher. Like most of us, he doesn’t have to bow before the altar of globull warming to earn his dinner. He is free to study the matter with an open mind and speak his mind. Up to now without consequence. And for some reason the think tank thought he was smart enough to employ for the last few years? You did note they fired him for not believing, not for poor performance.

  • jemcooper

    There can be no doubt about the physics that makes the world warm up when atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration rises, other things being equal, and there can be no doubt that the very substantial rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration over the last hundred years or so is due to man burning fossil fuel.

    But global temperature is always shifting up or down for one reason or another and a rise of a degree or two is infinitely preferable to a fall of the same magnitude.

    The global warming panic is all about man’s fear of change. If we have accidentally managed to stall the next ice age and perhaps even stop the return of ice sheet and permafrost to much of North America and Northern Europe for ever, by burning fossil fuel, that would be wonderful.

    • Greg Barton

      “and there can be no doubt that the very substantial rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration over the last hundred years or so is due to man burning fossil fuel.”

      Oh really?

      One volcano spews more particulates than the entire history of man.

      You who are “invested” in this scam, YOUR day will come.

      Start growing your fingernails Manchurians.

      • jemcooper

        CO2 is a gas not a particulate.

      • Bart

        Could you name that one volcano?

        Are you talking about cumulatively through its entire geological history?

        And.. when was the planet ever cold enough for solid CO2 particles to form?

    • Mycroft

      Really, then maybe you should see the latest studies where it shows tha tthe rise in CO2 lags behind the temp rise. This is natures way of mitigating the temp rise and COOLING the earth back down.
      The other interesting study is the one done by NASA to measure temps on Mars and Ganymeade (sp?). Seems they have registered the exact same temp changes as the Earth. Hm, if global warming is man made, then it follows that the temp rise on Mars must be all the martians driving their SUVs around?

      • jemcooper

        When did I say rising atmospheric CO2 is the only possible cause of planetary warming? When did I say rising sea temperature would not release dissolved carbon dioxide?

    • mrkelly

      Good post. My question is if the rise in C02 over the last hundred years or so that is truely due to man burning fossil fuels is actually substantial compared to what happens naturally? It’s easy to believe that our contribution is substantial if you, like me have absolutely no idea the actual or scientifically accepted ratio. (I have no science, just bias and what “I have heard”.)
      To me, one of the most important questions of our day in relation to global warming that should be the at the foremost of all debates and conversations is.
      Of all green house gasses effecting climate change, what percentage of them is carbon vs water vapor or other. I suspect anyway it’s around 5%.
      And of that 5%, what percent is caused by man burning fossil fuels (Not including other aspects like farming or cow farts.) I suspect anyway around 1%.
      And finally if that 1% did not exist at all, as if man never happened. What are the standard natural global carbon fluctuations throught history? If greater than 1% then no. Man needs to do nothing at all about global warming. The science that man is causing it is a complete fabrication.
      If you as a global warming proponent don’t ask the above questions constantly, then you are indeed the bad guy in the movie. The person that should be shunned and fired from any job you may have that may affect other people in any way because of your own political agenda.

      • jemcooper

        Might I refer you to Wiki.
        Atmospheric CO2 concentration has risen from 280ppm before the industrial revolution to 397ppm today. Prior to this over the last few million years it has varied between 180ppm and 280 ppm as the ice sheets advance and retreat every 100,000 years or so. The increase from 280ppm to 397ppm in the atmosphere only accounts for about half of the CO2 we have put there by burning fossil fuel. The rest has dissolved in the oceans, mainly in the upper few hundred metres, in response to rising atmospheric concentration.

        As the ocean water cools at the poles, and therefore sinks, the extra load of dissolved CO2 is carried to the deeper ocean, but this downflow accounts for less than 10% of our current emissions. We would therefore need to reduce CO2 emissions by at least 90% to stop atmospheric concentration rising. This isn’t going to happen, so lets learn to love and live with what’s coming.

  • 12758

    Statisticians look at the numbers not the science. All he’s done is analyse it in the absence of any understanding of the physics. If you drive a car towards a cliff, statistically everything looks fine until it’s too late – that’s what happens when you ignore the physics. I put more trust in the predictions of atmospheric physics than the blind application of statistics.

    • carrabelle

      Really? A real scientist will PUSH their data forward and argue based upon that data rather than hide the data.

      • 12758

        Mann turned out to be right and all those (well funded) PR companies astroturfing to whip up hostility against him, turned out to be wrong.

        • carrabelle

          Then where is his data?

          • 12758

            All his data has been publicly available for years, are you having trouble using google?

          • Matt

            The raw data is not available. All you can find is the processed temperatures and they also won’t publish the program that did the processing. Since you know so much about stats you should also know that you can’t use processed data as an input to further testing.

          • 12758

            “The raw data is not available.”

            You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts. Even Steve McIntyre acknowledged that the raw data was available. Indeed it formed the basis of a paper of McIntyre & McKitrick’s claiming to show that the hockey-stick was an artifact. A paper which was subsequently shown to have a ‘mathematical error’ which, when corrected for restored the hockey-stick.

            In fact McIntyre & McKitrick’s work has been reviewed by a number of scientists, including Profs. Hans Von Storch, Eduardo Zorita and in particular Prof. Peter Huybers who showed M&M had missed out a step in how to calculate significance levels- the rescaling of variance of the proxies to match the variance in the instrumental calibration period- if you put this step in, then M&M would have got the same results as Mann did in 1998. Also McKitrick put multiple zeros where there was no actual data, which obviously leads to a false cooling and skewed the data. It’s interesting to note that M&M then dropped and shifted their original criticism. Later scientific studies (there are now about 20) have verified the hockey stick shape of Mann’s original work and showed the recent warming of the last 35 years to be exceptional, yet the deniers still push it as if it was debunked.

            However on skeptic web sites you will find the trees have been very carefully selected to produce the desired result. In particular, data from a single site with anomalously low growth is chosen to represent the late 20th century. This has been exposed as yet another scientific fraud perpetrated by climate warming deniers, in an attempt to remove the ‘hockey stick’.

            Tree ring data – hockey stick.
            Glacier retreat since 1600 – hockey stick.
            Bore hole temperature reconstruction back to 1500 – hockey stick.
            CO2 concentrations from ice cores and direct measurements – hockey stick.
            Direct instrumental measurements – hockey stick.
            Lake sediment deposits – hockey stick
            Coral growth – hockey stick
            Stalagmite isotopic composition – hockey-stick.

            Today only amateurs deny the hockey stick.

          • Matt

            It is easy to get the same results when you use the same flawed data. None of these proxies read temperature. They all require some processing to produce something the person creating the proxy says is related to the temperature somehow. With the lack of any statistically significant change in the global temperature for the last fifteen years while the CO2 level has continued climbing has falsified the hockey sticks as the garbage they always were. Remember a thick tree ring just means it was a good year for the tree. It makes no statement as to why it was good. There are many factors involved.

          • 12758

            So do you now acknowledge that you were wrong when you claimed “The raw data is not available”? Why did you make the claim that the raw data was not available? Why should anyone trust what you’re saying about the data now, when just a few hours ago you claimed it didn’t even exist? How can anyone know that your claim didn’t come from from an equally dubious source?

          • Matt

            The raw data is not available They used the same crappy adjusted data that everyone has to use because the raw data is not available. The CRU said many years ago that they lost the original data so only the adjusted temperature data exists. The three surface data sets all use the adjusted data from the CRU.

          • 12758

            “The raw data is not available”

            So you’re calling arch skeptic Steve McIntyre a liar?

            “With yesterday’s release, raw data from 5,113 weather stations around the globe are now in the public domain. The only data missing are those from 10 stations in Poland. The Polish meteorological service, say CRU officials, refused permittence to have their data publicly released. But CRU reluctantly opted to release station data from Trinidad and Tobago against the Caribbean state’s express wish”. See


            So 3 years on you’re still trying to pretend that you haven’t got it? Having the raw data for 10 stations in Poland rather than the processed data for Poland wont make a blind bit of difference. It’s a hockey stick and if McIntyre could have shown otherwise you would have seen it by now. His silence speaks volumes, – denialists are reduced to claiming that the raw data is missing because 0.2% isn’t there. They know that having it wont get rid of the hockey stick – it’s just a way of maintaining doubt.

        • carrabelle

          Where is the raw data from East Anglia that started this whole shebang? I’m and Electrical Engineer, In my field we aren’t able to make up sheet as Climate Scientist’s do.

          • 12758

            95% of the data has been publicly available for almost 10 years. The remaining data with the exception of data from 19 stations in Poland has been available since 27 Jul 2011. The Polish data is available from the Polish Meteorological Service on payment of the appropriate fee and license agreement. I’m rather surprised that you claim to be an engineer give the difficulty you seem to be having using google.

            “In my field we aren’t able to make up sheet as Climate Scientist’s do.”

            That does not seem to have stopped you making up slurs and innuendo.

    • Eric Weder

      But I bet you understand the physics, right? When their models can predict last year’s weather based on the last century I will become interested in their predictions. They can’t.

      • 12758

        “But I bet you understand the physics, right?”

        Yes, as a matter of fact I know it in great detail. Not only am I more qualified as a Mathematician than Rossiter but I also know more about atmospheric physics than him. He’s portrayed as a statistician but isn’t even a member of the American Statistical Association. He doesn’t even have a Wikipedia entry, which ought to tell you how insignificant he is as an ‘academic’.

        Weather is chaotic, climate isn’t.

        • Eric Weder

          I’m sure you know more about atmospheric physics than many but you don’t have a lock on understanding the global picture. Your snobbery is showing.

          Explain why the warming has paused for the last 18 years since you’re so smart. If you say it has gone into the deep ocean, explain the transport mechanism. Then explain why the models that are currently giving wrong results and are incapable of predicting today’s climate based on the past should be trusted in making trillion dollar decisions.

          Academics are quite often fools, it looks like we’ve located one here.

          • 12758

            The questions I have for you are:- Is it worth my while pointing out the errors in the skeptic arguments you present – ie would you change your opinion if they turn out to be wrong? How many times do the best skeptic arguments have to be shown to be false, before you suspect that you might be being duped?

            The term ‘skeptic’ means you accept the possibility that you may be wrong. I’m willing to change my opinion based on evidence. Someone who cannot conceive of the possibility that they might be wrong is not a skeptic nor are they taking a scientific stance, they are a denialist.

            The ‘arguments’ you are presenting have been rebutted countless times. Here is a list of the most popular 232 skeptic arguments and there rebuttals.


            I’m willing to change my opinion based on evidence. In fact I go out of my way to find skeptic arguments, but I’ve never yet found one that wasn’t flawed. The best counter arguments last a few months at most before being shown to be false, the worse turn out to be fraud.

            My guess is that wont look at the evidence because you have too much ego invested in your belief to tolerate any challenge to it. So the questions I have for you is. If your views are too fragile to be exposed to challenge, why do you think they’re worth holding? By refusing to look at evidence you’ve as good as admitted that you don’t believe your own argument.

            I do not want AGW to be true any more than you, but I’m not prepared to ignore the evidence and indulge in wishful thinking.

          • Matt

            Did you really reference SKS as a scientific source. Shame on you. Judging from that reference I have trouble seeing you as a real scientist. Nice sidestep to avoid answering Eric’s questions though.

          • 12758

            So you think I should quote the original research papers? Don’t you think that is a bit too technical for most people to understand? More importantly why are you objecting to skepticalscience, what you afraid of?

          • Matt

            SKS credible!!! Go read some ” Real Science” and leave the Mr Cook’s SKS drivel for the comic pages

          • 12758
          • Matt

            I told you in the other comment the entire SKS site is drivel central and don’t you think the Arctic news blog might be a little biased? Try looking at

          • 12758

            “the entire SKS site is drivel ”

            A claim for which you have produced absolutely no evidence. I know you don’t like it that the site rebuts the claims of denialists, but when you bury your head in the sand and pretend it doesn’t exist, it begins to look like you have no answer to their critique.

            The data on the sites you quote is no different to the sites I quote. They all point to a collapse of Arctic sea ice. What’s more that collapse is sudden – there is no question it is going to be seasonally ice free in my lifetime. That is unprecedented. There is even some evidence that it has not been seasonally ice free for over 800,000 years – “There is no paleoclimatic evidence for a seasonally ice free Arctic during the last 800 millennia”. – Eos, Vol. 86, No. 34, 23 August 2005.

        • Chris Oglesby

          Nowadays, when publicly queried, liberals trot out focus group tested talking points. After this, they stonewall their questioner by changing the subject. But the full depth of their privilege is revealed when the pubic subsequently refuses to be outraged.~

          Melvyn L. Fein Ph.D. is professor of sociology at Kennesaw State University

    • Susan Gate

      Physics also uses statistics and math to arrive at conclusions. What do you think they use? Guesses? In AGW religion that appears to be the case.
      Notice the people in the climate department are activists, not scientists.
      You just can’t wrap your head around the facts that your precious AGW belief may be wrong.

    • Matthew

      Then why won’t they debate him and explain their positions? Why not retain descenting voices for balanced research? I understand that because Obama said it’s settled you believe it must be because Barry never lied or was awarded lie of the year or anything like that.

    • Will Malven

      You’re right, he’s not looking at the physics–because the physics are irrelevant in this case–he is looking at the claims made and the manner in which the data are manipulated. Computer models can only reflect the pre-existing biases of those who create them.

      The models can’t accommodate any of the new data until they have been massaged and “corrected.” That’s not science, that’s creative writing.

      The “predictions of atmospheric physics” are irrelevant, if they are based upon false assumptions gleaned from improperly handled data.

      Bad scientific methods lead to fallacious conclusions.

      • 12758

        You’re just spouting the usual load of nonsense that you’ve lifted from some blog. No one has created a general circulation model that can explain climate’s behavior over the past century without CO2 warming.

        Models predict that surface warming should be accompanied by cooling of the stratosphere, and this has indeed been observed;

        Models have long predicted warming of the lower, mid, and upper troposphere, even while satellite readings seemed to disagree – but it turns out the satellite analysis was full of errors and on correction, this warming has been observed;

        Models predict warming of ocean surface waters, as is now observed;

        Models predict an energy imbalance between incoming sunlight and outgoing infrared radiation, which has been detected;

        Models predict sharp and short-lived cooling of a few tenths of a degree in the event of large volcanic eruptions, and Mount Pinatubo confirmed this;

        Models predict an amplification of warming trends in the Arctic region, and this is indeed happening;

        Models predict continuing and accelerating warming of the surface, and so far they are correct.

        On the other hand denialists predict that whatever it is it must never turn out to be anthropic CO2 even if they have no other explanation. They make this prediction on the basis of – wishful thinking. Now that’s what I call a bad model!

        • Will Malven

          No, unlike people like you, I don’t need to rely on a blog, I am a degreed scientist. I read the information for myself and I am not blinded by these so-called “climate scientists” just because they are part of the academic elitist who have buffaloed you.

          They write the programs around the data, of course they can “explain” the climate’s behavior. That does not make them valid.

          The problem, sporto, is that nothing you say in any way addresses the primary flaw–among the myriad you ignore and the half-truths your comment contains–there is nothing to indicate mankind as the cause, but there is a wealth of climatic history that indicates nature as the cause.

          Warming and cooling are natural processes in the climate system and we have only a very, very minute amount of valid data.

          The people who are doing the “wishful thinking” are you religious zealots of the AGW cult. We have only 150 years of actual temperature data and you clowns are attempting to characterize 500 million years worth of climate change according to that 150 years.

          It’s not only wrong, it’s the most absurd garbage ever proposed.

          • 12758

            “No, unlike people like you, I don’t need to rely on a blog, I am a degreed scientist.”

            You’re no scientist – of that I’m certain. We have over 500 million years worth of data from the geological record and we have a pretty good idea of global temperatures back then – if you knew anything about the subject you would know that already. We also have at least 4 independent proxies for CO2 back then and they all show the same broad pattern.


            Now if you’re a skeptic you will be willing to look at the evidence, if you’re a denialist you’ll make up some excuse why you wont even look at evidence – evidence which might challenge your belief. However if you do that it will tell me that your views are too fragile to be exposed to challenge – so why do you think they’re worth holding? By refusing to look at evidence you’ve as good as admitted that you don’t believe your own argument – you’re frightened you might be wrong so you’re not going to look.

            Unlike you I’m willing to change my opinion based on evidence. In fact I go out of my way to find skeptic arguments, but I’ve never yet found one that wasn’t flawed.

            You have been conned into investing too much ego into a flawed argument. Whereas I have no ego invested in mine which is why unlike you I’m not afraid to look at both sides.

    • mrkelly

      No, mathmatics is also used to predect. See that cliff comming, or measure if it is a cliff at all or someone just telling you there is a cliff so that you will give them money to fix the cliff.

    • Bjorn Ramstad

      For your information.
      JOhn Christy sais in som of his speeches: “Science is numbers, so let’s see what the numbers say”.
      What else than data/numbers should scientists use as base for their conclutions?

      • 12758

        “What else than data/numbers should scientists use as base for ”
        their conclusions?

        How about physics? Anything thing which violate the laws of thermodynamics or conservation of energy is probably wrong….

      • Bart

        Problem is, John Christy means the Book of Numbers. Different thing entirely.

    • Chris Oglesby


      Nowadays, when publicly queried, liberals trot out focus group tested talking points. After this, they stonewall their questioner by changing the subject. But the full depth of their privilege is revealed when the pubic subsequently refuses to be outraged. ~
      Melvyn L. Fein Ph.D. is professor of sociology at Kennesaw State University

  • Aussie Bruce

    It amazes me that people trained totally different disciplines comment with such confidence about something they know precious little about. Does he also comment on the statistical voracity of historical “facts”, challenging the nations history academics, or is that part of his political agenda. I would say he got the boot because he is bit of a goose for talking out of his hat, rather than sticking to what he is paid to do and might have some expertise in.

    • Condor30303

      Yeah, like Community Organizers.

    • Greg Barton

      I’m glad Australia saw through this phoney scam, right Aussie Brucie?

    • no

      Warmers just are not smart enough to analyze their own data statistically and never learned that at a minimum the data should pass tests of statistical analysis at a 95% confidence level. Go ahead and regress the mean temp data on the NASA site, if you are capable, then test the slope against the null hypothesis.

    • Matthew

      Oh, then you must be a climatologist.

  • Nathan

    The good prof has a PhD in policy and had a “20-year career as a practitioner of foreign and military policy”.
    Has a masters in math…..

    OK makes sense, expert in policy, specialises in policy and then becomes a full time academic in math and politics.
    As pointed out above for all his “interest” in climate science he hasn’t published a single paper or journal article on the subject.

    From an academic stand point he has failed in his own demand that real climate scientists come and debate the subject with him.
    He has failed because PUBLISHING your research IS the academic way to debate with other academics. They then peer review your work and publish their own findings themselves linking back to the original work via a citation.

    In my view he is a politics expert with a little math using his title to argue by authority.

    Prof Rossiter publish your statistical research into ANY journal and let your peers decide if it stacks up to the scientific body of knowledge!

    • Eric Weder

      Argument from authority – classic error. You’re a fool.

    • Greg Barton


      He has, we do. Your side got caught skewing data.

      IPCC and East Anglia IS NOT GOING AWAY. You were caught. Pants. Down.

      • This is it exactly, the data was falsified, to push an agenda, halting consumerism in the US and bringing us into a European style economy. The US wealth and freedom angers others that don’t have our privilege.

    • Chris Oglesby

      Nowadays, when publicly queried, liberals trot out focus group tested talking points. After this, they stonewall their questioner by changing the subject. But the full depth of their privilege is revealed when the pubic subsequently refuses to be outraged.
      Nowadays, when publicly queried, liberals trot out focus group tested talking points. After this, they stonewall their questioner by changing the subject. But the full depth of their privilege is revealed when the pubic subsequently refuses to be outraged.

      Melvyn L. Fein Ph.D. is professor of sociology at Kennesaw State University

  • gonetroppo

    Good decision by the College. It’s the same reason Holocaust deniers are ridiculed – they come up with all sorts of bogus history to support ludicrous claims about the lack of evidence on that subject. What’s the difference with climate science deniers? They also pick slim bits of nothing and refuse to engage with the enormous weight of dispassionate, scientific evidence stating that humans are changing our biosphere. A College that employs someone like that will destroy its reputation, and rightly so.

    • Greg Barton

      “pick slim bits of nothing” sound like what warmers are doing.

      THE NUMBERS DONT LIE, but leftist DO. There IS NO WARMING. Why can’t you warmers read the numbers showing a COOLING trend the last 20 years?

      Why in the ’70’s were you same clowns screaming cooling?

      Answer: funding glass houses. Wanna throw some rocks warmers?

    • whodillywho

      Did you actually read the article? He didn’t get fired from the college, he got fired from a think tank.Maybe read the content before you comment.

    • cmdprompt

      Did you read the article? He simply looked at the models and the data they are using to justify the hue and cry around the “upcoming catastrophe” and reached the conclusion that the models are weak and prove nothing. If I have a weak statistical model, I can manipulate it to say whatever I want it to say. He didn’t deny global warming, he refutes their methodology for predicting the cause and the outcome.

      I swear some people treat global warming like a religion. Anyone who questions is burned at the stake. Its dangerous and frightening.

    • Matthew

      We have overwhelming evidence that the Holocaust happened in the past. Climate change is based on models that have proven inaccurite. Get it simple?

  • vendome

    Anyone, including Obama, who uses the word ‘Denier’ in reference to science, is not speaking about or has an understanding of science.

    The word ‘Denier’ is a POLITICAL word and does not belong in scientific language.

    Science is skeptical, it has ALWAYS been skeptical.

    So Obama and other scare mongers like him are speaking Politics instead of Science.

    • SirShillyVonShillington

      Follow the money. Money is all this scam has ever been about, and the elites will fight tooth and nail to keep the money flowing and sheep full of lies. Forward!

      • Will Malven

        It’s a combination. Money AND political power–never underestimate the left’s drive for absolute control.

        • SirShillyVonShillington

          And never forget the left’s past, the crimes they have committed against humanity!

          • BillM

            I think you guys are getting a little psychotic here.

          • Comrade Bill, what are you talking about?

          • powers2be

            When people, branded as deniers, claim and present evidence of a purposeful web of deceit the surest way to know whether or not they are telling the truth is to examine their critics response. If the critic counters with evidence to the contrary then the passive observer has concrete information to question the so called denier. However, when, the critics call them names or make unsubstantiated claims as to their mental health then you can be sure that the real science resides with the Deniers and the believers like BillM are covering up the truth with a religious faith-based fervor to advance a political agenda and Likely a financial flim-flam. Here one can easily detect a large contingent of political Flim Flam men behind the Man Made Global Warm…er Climate Change Scam.

      • redtruckdan

        True!!! in War, politics, love…follow the money

        • SirShillyVonShillington


      • 0.3E9m/s

        I followed the money. It turned out climate researchers work on salary, typically about $60K/yr, and please their grant makers by discovering important stuff that other scientists can work with and extend, not by lying. And it also turned out there is a $900million/year (Brulle 2013 “Institutionalizing Delay”) disinformation project, and one of its themes is a smear against science in general and climate science in particular. Its principal “marketing creatives” make ten times as much as a working scientist.

        • Niff

          Please check his paper. All he has done is categorise some organisations as “deniers” funding climate denial, but then explicitly says he does not look at how much of the gross budget of these organisations is spent in this way….and he cannot identify ANY money actually going to ‘denial’.

          It is completely projection. PLEASE don’t just suck stuff up. Think for yourself.

          • 0.3E9m/s

            That would be true if nobody had ever heard of the “think tank” PR firms named in the study. But those “think tanks” are loud. We’ve got fifty years of their noise on record. Their denial of climate science is already well documented, by them. And if you’d actually read the paper, you’d see you agree with Brulle that their science denial is a broad theme running through their output, and the different themes can’t be accounted for separately.

          • Brambles

            Yep, and I believe they are the same people who denied, over the objections of over 97% of the scientists, that we were heading towards a new ice age. Yep, the same lunatics.

          • 0.3E9m/s

            You can believe that if it serves your emotional need, but your belief has nothing to do with reality. The Ice Age Scare of the ’70s was a phenomenon of the consumer-facing mass media. It wasn’t in the refereed scientific literature. Not “the same people.” Not 97% of scientists. At the height of the Ice Age Scare, scientific papers were running five to one for warming. Whoever told you different lied to you, which you could easily verify, but you’ll go on believing the lie anyway.

          • Steve

            If you believe that 97% of climate scientists believe this crap, you are as ignorant as Obama and Kerry. That 97% is just another made up and manipulated number by the pro global warming clowns. Furthermore, their salaries are buffeted by billions of dollars of government grants and millions of dollars of grants by large corporations.
            James Hansen right now is going through and changing historical temperature records to make the past cooler and the present warmer.
            You need to start looking towards real scientists instead of those whose paychecks are dependent on regurgitating this crap.
            The REAL science shows the exact opposite of what Obama is claiming. Seas are not rising any faster. Hurricanes are not stronger, tornadoes are not more frequent.
            As opposed to you, I get my facts from real scientists and real PHDs. In fact why don’t you do a little research yourself since your posts show you know little or nothing. Find out where that 97% came from.

          • leisureprophet

            Well, Steve, help us all out here & add some references.

        • Pete Austin

          The weakness of the research that you quote is that it confuses “anthropogenic climate change” (which everyone agrees exists because e.g. we all know cities are warmer) with “dangerous anthropogenic climate change” (which is highly debateable).

          It’s based on the answer to a survey question: “Do scientists believe that earth is getting warmer because of human activity?43% replied no, and another 12 % didn’t know. Only 45 % of the U.S. public accurately reported the near unanimity of the scientific community about anthropogenic climate change.”

          It’s clear that a lot of respondents correctly understood this was a question about dangerous climate change and answered accurately and in line with what scientists believe.

          The research then misinterprets their answer and goes off into conspiracy theory.

          • 0.3E9m/s

            “e.g. we all know cities are warmer”
            That’s the urban heat island effect, not AGW.
            I cited Brulle 2013, which is about the structure and financial operations of the anti-science smear campaign. You’re talking about the studies estimating degree of consensus on the fundamentals of climate science. (Cook 2013, Anderegg 2010, the old Oreskes study, etc.) That’s two different topics. The anti-science campaign’s talking point qubbling with those studies has been well addressed elsewhere.

          • Pete Austin

            Climate is changed by land use because e.g. the terrestrial albedo is altered by use, which leads to radiative forcing. Greater London has more rainfall for example. Unless you’re claiming that the effect of cities on climate somehow cancel each other out – for which there is zero evidence – you must admit the world’s cities have changed the climate.

          • mzk1_1

            To claim someone who doesn’t accept your conclusions is anti-science is just sick.

          • 0.3E9m/s

            I’m not talking about accepting conclusions. I’m talking about an organized, professional public relations campaign broadcasting assertions which are demonstrably false. A campaign of lies. That’s what Heartland and Cato and American Enterprise are up to.

        • mzk1_1

          And please their grant makers by making proposals that fit in with the polices they want to push.

          • 0.3E9m/s

            Spoken like a man who has never spent any time with researchers in the physical sciences. Grant makers don’t “push policies.” Maybe “science” worked that way in the middle ages, but since the scientific revolution it just can’t work that way. It’s too competitive. Grantmakers want to increase the prestige of their institutions. That way they get more money to grant next time around. They do that by seeking out proposals which will advance the science, by doing work that others can replicate and extend. Funding liars just doesn’t serve that goal.

          • mzk1_1

            I never spent time with my Dad?

          • Darius

            Hmmm…grant makers don’t push policies? Of course they do. In some cases they shove those policies. Other times they are themselves carried on a wave of groupthink. Social dynamics and politics affect science at as much as any other field. Tenure and grant money generally flows more from corroboration of fashionable facts than iconoclastic breakthroughs. Sure, there are bastions of “pure” science, honest attempts to fund research based on the criteria you describe, but sir, if you’ve been fortunate enough to be sheltered from the blatant politics of many funding mechanisms, consider yourself lucky.

            Simple example: say there was a computer model that more accurately captured the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere, but found that global temperature appeared to be much less sensitive to greenhouse gases than the most popular current models. What if the effect of 1000-5,000 ppm co2 had a net effect no different than 500 ppm? I’m not proposing this is so, but imagine a model that could forecast and hindcast accurately, that suggested it was. How many grant makers would be lining up to fund that research to “increase their prestige” ? The reality is that “prestige” is not scientific. It’s a value judgment. “Increasing prestige” all too often simply feeds confirmation or selection bias.

            Sometimes science is steered in good directions because of this, but counter consensus work often struggles for funding, precisely because it’s so competitive. Few people might knowingly fund “liars,” but heretics aren’t generally flush with cash either.

          • dperry428

            President Eisenhower warned us of involving government in funding of scientific research. His warning has gone unheeded and political agendas are clearly reflected in grants. Just try getting an NFS grant that doesn’t include some mention of “climate change” or “global warming”.

          • leisureprophet

            Maybe you consider it the “middle ages”, but here’s a classic from the 70’s, “There is NO scientific proof that cigarette smoke causes cancer!” Which version do you prefer; medical scientist, doctor, surgeon, or disease specialist? To me, it’s a tossup-they’re all so convincing! but I do prefer the congressional subcommittee “live” version.

    • Mike A

      What? Scientists refer to people as Climate deniers all the time, it’s a word used to describe people who have no knowledge of science and dont understand scientific principles. I suppose they would never refer to other scientists as deniers but again Obama isn’t a scientist. Also this professor isn’t a scientist hes a mathematician, so it’s perfectly apt. Your position makes no sense

      • carrabelle

        He doesn’t has to be a “scientist.” The computer modeling is based upon statistical analysis of collected data. Something a “Statistician” is something well qualified to do. Put your data up for analysis or be called for the charlatan that you are.

        • BillM

          Statisticians work extensively in Science, and opposing scientific groups are always analysing each other’s data. That’s what peer review is.

          • Ed Snack

            BillM, you have a fictitious and erroneous view of peer review.

          • Spetzer86

            Actually, peer review often is more about how the report is written, possibly about the conclusions it draws from the data presented, but usually wouldn’t extend to how the data was collected or where it came from. This will vary from reviewer to reviewer, but don’t read more into peer review than there is.

        • Bart

          Except Caleb Rossiter is a social scientist.

          His statistics is the same as pollsters use to tell politicians what to say, not like the statistics of Nate Silver who can actually predict results.

          Which isn’t to say Nate Silver thinks he knows enough about climate to get it right, either: when Silver talks about climate, he starts with social scientists (like Pielke Jr.) and then consults with Physicists to correct their errors.

          • Andrew70

            As another statiscs expert, Steve McIntyre, has repeatedly shown, the “statistics” of Michael Mann, Nate Silver, and the rest of the IPCC “climate scientists” is fraudulent. Short-centered principal components analysis, anyone? How about Yamal, Bart?

          • Bart

            How do you get that McIntyre’s a statistics expert?

            His entire career was as a mining accountant and lobbyist.

            He didn’t graduate with an advanced degree in statistics, but in political philosophy.

            He’s never taught on the subject. He’s never cited on the subject by recognized authorities.

            Until after he was arm deep in this issue, he was never published in statistics in any way, shape or form; not even a graduate thesis on the subject, nor letter to the editor of any noted statistics journal, at all.

            And he’s only been published in peer review with the support of others with actual cred, albeit weak, of some sort.

            If you’d suggested Steve McIntyre’s a lobbying expert, or a politics (of Canada) expert, you’d have a leg to stand on; statistics expert? He doesn’t even come up to Caleb Rossiter’s level of expertise.

            And the answer to Yamal is independent verification. Yamal has it. Wegman and McIntyre and McKitrick lack it.

        • Truths-Victory

          The fact is Many / Most of the most dire predictions / projection re: CAGW / ‘climate Change’ is based on climate models. Some of the most well known climate scientist / activist use these models to make their [often dire] predictions IE: Jim Hansen, Mike Mann, Alan Robock, the IPCC, etc.
          And you’re right- Since these models involve a lot of statistical analysis [the IPCC AR5 Report is loaded w stats jargon], there’s definitely a role for statisticians to interpret the data & judge how statistically sound these models are.
          This is why a couple of yrs ago 49 ex-NASA administrative managers, scientists [including at-least one meteorologist], astronauts, engineers & tech specialist- wrote a letter requesting that NASA’s Dept then headed by Jim Hansen, refrain from making extreme claims re: CAGW / ‘Climate-Change’ based only on climate-models, & stick to reporting on data based on measurement & observation. And they’re NOT the only ones questioning the validity of these models.

          So now comes the 15yr [& counting] ‘Pause’ as a metric to gauge the validity of ‘climate models’- & it seems by that metric at-lest 2/3s – 3/4s or more [even up to 95% – 95%] of them FAIL the ‘Pause’ test. And all that fail to align w the Pause are [curiously] Too HI, w at-least 2/3s – 3/4s of them being WAY TOO HI. Yet it’s these that’s used to project global temps of over 4-5*C+ by 2100. Those 5% – 10% of models that did / do align w the Pause [IE: that pass the ‘Pause’ test] seem to project global temps in the 1*C – 2*C range by 2100.

      • kristy624

        Yes, climate scientists refer to other climate scientists as deniers.

        Judith Curry being called anti-science by Michael Mann

        If you see something, say something


        Well, I do like the title of Mann’s op-ed. Here is what I see. I
        see a scientist (Michael Mann) making an accusation against another
        scientist (me) that I am ‘anti-science,’ with respect to my EPW
        testimony. This is a serious accusation, particularly since my
        testimony is part of the Congressional record.


        • Mike A

          I guess what I meant is that scientists shouldn’t address each other with buzzwords. The Mann-Curry was odd but I think a reflex of his after dealing with so many critics for so long. Curry is actually favorable of the climate change message and the universities she has been involved with often spend a lot of time publishing on the effects of climate change

          • kristy624

            I think you haven’t read what she has been writing since climategate. She is a skeptic now. No excuses for Mann. She was never criticizing him in her senate testimony which he referred to as anti-science.

      • Mondoman

        Mike A – it implies a whiff of Nazism, and thus cheapens the Holocaust. Dr. Michael Mann last year famously referred to fellow climate scientist Dr. Rob Wilson as a “denier”.
        The term “dissident” seems much more appropriate.

      • NikFromNYC

        Gavin Schmidt who just replaced Jim Hansen at NASA pleads with scientists to STOP comparing debate foes to Holocaust deniers for it renders them ridiculous in doing so:


      • NikFromNYC

        Michael Mann is also a mathematician.

        -=NikFromNYC=-, Ph.D. in carbon chemistry (Columbia/Harvard)

        • Eric Cartman

          “Michael Mann is also a mathematician”
          Hilarious claim. Mikey can barely do statistics. Steve McIntyre debunks Mann every time.

          • Bart

            McIntyre & McKitrick have re-released their same paper “debunking” Mann et al some half dozen times (so far), each time it is re-published (which it is now done automatically by some sort of online mill, it appears), it is shown to fall short. No one else has been able to reproduce McIntyre’s results, except for a very small portion of Mann’s work covering some two percent of Mann’s output, and which Mann himself corrected independently.

            Mann et al have been re-confirmed over a dozen times by others doing novel research on other of the 50 Essential Climate Variables of the World Meteorological Organization, unconnected to Mann’s tree ring data. Independent verification is the standard for experimental science. Mann has it. McIntyre lacks it.

          • Andrew70

            Bart, you are just repeating the lies of Michael Mann about Steve McIntyre and “re-confirmed”.

            The question is, are you repeating those lies out of monumental and willful ignorance or out of mendacity?

            ref: http://climateaudit.org/

          • Bart

            Why go to McIntyre for McIntyre’s view of what McIntyre has done, when you can look at McIntyre’s work in the wider literature, where it’s been pilloried time and again by the few who even bothered to read it?

            McIntyre lacks independent verification. The best that can be said is that McIntyre & McKitrick’s earlier concerns may have had an impact on Mann’s outcomes, but it turns out that they did not, and M&M’s concerns from the fifth re-release of the same paper employing Monte Carlo might be relevant to some types of statistical analyses, but M&M failed to show them relevant to MBH.

            But that’s not me who said so. That’s von Storch & Zorita.

            Mann has since shown how MM05 is simply wrong. Just like MM04, MM03, MM02 and MM01. Now, you might not believe Mann, but if you haven’t taken the time to read Mann’s rebuttal, and presented a valid case against Mann’s rebuttal on its claims and facts, you’ve done nothing at all, except repeat the same lies of others.

            And I really couldn’t care less whether it’s mendacity or wilful ignorance that causes you to do it. Who cares why the persistently wrong are wrong?

      • Andrew70

        It is a DELIBERATE comparison – as you are no doubt well aware – to Holocaust deniers in a despicable tactic to cover up the anti-science, anti-human frauds and philosophies of those promoting CAGW:

        Ellen Goodman: ‘Global Warming Deniers Are Now on a Par with Holocaust Deniers’ http://newsbusters.org/node/10730

        Mark Steyn: “Climate Holocaust Denier” : http://townhall.com/blog/g/e1f72884-3877-4537-8849-f6e13776a492

        Even the US Senate saw the connection:
        U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works Oct 11, 2006 … “The phrase ‘climate change denier’ is meant to be evocative of the phrase ‘holocaust denier,'”

        Nature Magazine calling Lomborg same as Holocaust Denier

        Climate Holocaust Denier

        Andrew Revkin, New York Times liberal bigot, promotes the comparison:

    • BillM

      The word denier is not used by scientists. However, it is indeed used by policy makers, engineers, medical practitioners, amongst many others, who are trying, as they have done for many hundreds of years, to implement science. Another popular term for deniers in engineering is luddites, who have been the bane of our lives for hundreds of years.

      • kristy624

        Kevin Trenberth using the word denier 6 times in a speech:


        Michael Mann constantly uses the term denier and anti-science and attributes those terms to other climate scientists.

      • DaBilk

        What a pant load.

      • Andrew70

        Correct. The word “denier” isn’t used by real scientists. It is however used by “climate scientists” in a deliberate comparison to Holocaust deniers. They haven’t got honest responses to skeptics questions, so they just engage in slander.

      • mzk1_1

        ” who are trying, as they have done for many hundreds of years, to implement science”. You mean like the people who pushed eugenics and all sorts of abusive psychological tactics in the name of science?

      • mzk1_1

        Wow. It is the climate change fanatics who are the luddites, trying to destroy technology and all that it has done to pass a few regulations that they admit will make no difference. We are the pro-technology people, trying to stop the new feudalism where the chosen few pay their indulgences (carbon credits) and the rest freeze in the dark.

    • Proteios

      using science to suppress dissent in one category (lets say climate change) while attacking it for undermining another platform (lets say the direct link between hormone-based contraception and multiple forms of cancer) is a long overused strategy. Im amazed the public hasnt caught onto this. At least somewhat. You are correct in noting that the terms are political and insult any good scientist.

      • 0.3E9m/s

        Nobody’s suppressing dissent in climate science. Minority opinions get published. They tend to deal with areas of active investigation, not stuff that’s been gone over for decades. Rossiter wasn’t censored or suppressed. A think tank’s most valuable asset is its reputation for intellectual integrity. He published an opinion outside his area of expertise in a way that discredited the think tank. They didn’t have any choice.

        • Pete Austin

          He’s a statistician complaining about weak data – totally his area of expertise. This sort of thing isn’t unique to climate science, but it was clearly suppression.

        • Andrew70

          No one is suppressing dissent in climate science? Utterly and wholly FALSE – as any intellectually honest person has long known. The anti-science cretins in the IPCC have been doing that since the first ‘wait a minute…’ popped up from real scientists to their claims of Imminent! Global! Catastrophe!.

          “Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.” (Phil Jones of CRU to Warwick Hughes, 2004)

          “If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone.” (http://www.di2.nu/foia/1107454306.txt)

          “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.”

          “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!” (http://www.di2.nu/foia/1089318616.txt)

        • Steve

          Contrary articles have been suppressed for years. Long tenured professors have been FIRED for not following the global warming bs crowd. PhDs are losing their jobs for actually following the science and the data.
          I’m thinking that you could possibly be Al Gore’s illegitimate child.

    • Bart

      The PotUS had something to do with this, how?

      And no one in Caleb Rossiter’s former club called him a “denier”; they most certainly didn’t disagree with his leftist politics, as he’s further to the left than most of them.

      I’m skeptical of your grasp of the actual facts of the case.

      Do you know any?

    • 0.3E9m/s

      What’s a better English language noun for “one who denies?”

      • jackdale

        “eristic” is my choice.

        • 0.3E9m/s

          Thanks for the excellent new word, but it doesn’t quite capture the sense. The denier is defending his ego from information that threatens to prove him a chump. He’s compelled to do it as long as the threatening info persists. Argument isn’t the goal, making the info go away, or not be threatening any more, is the goal.

          • Niff

            I think it is pretty obvious who is the ‘chump’. Clearly you are a true believer and there is no point interacting with you.

          • jackdale


          • Niff

            Many thanks. better than ‘troll’.

          • DaBilk


          • Andrew70

            And you think comparing skeptics of the lies of Michael Mann, Keith Briffa, James Hansen, Phil Jones, and the rest of the IPCC “climate scientists” to Holocaust deniers is a useful tactic.

            The “info” you want to go away is the reality of fraud after fraud after fraud by the anti-science cretins promoting CAGW:


            The Hockey Stick (ref. “short-centered principle components analysis”).

            Sheep Mountain.

            “Censored” FTP directories.

            Upside Down Tijlander.

            Hide The Decline.




      • Mondoman

        “dissident” seems to cover the situation nicely from both perspectives.

        • Bart

          Dissident implies equal validity of position.

          That’s not the case here.

          I prefer John Oliver’s word for it: “wrong”.

          Who cares what the wrong have to say?

          • mzk1_1

            That’s what the Church told Galileo.

          • Bart


            That surprises me.

            The entirety of what the Church told Galileo is thoroughly documented and available.

            http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/galileo.html gives a nice summary for laypersons.

            Could you cite me the passage where the Church quoted John Oliver or said anything like, “Who cares what the wrong have to say?”

            And don’t worry that I might have trouble understanding the original, I’m pretty good with translating from Latin.

            You’ve reversed the relative positions of the Church and Galileo in your claims, and just have it backwards.

            I’d ask why you’d do such a thing as mansplain to the interwebs with such confidence about a 400-year old trial in a language you don’t understand in a country you know nothing about in a context you couldn’t possibly relate to, but really, who cares what the wrong have to say?

        • mzk1_1

          Heretic is the proper term.

      • Billy___Bob

        What the is word for a personwho predicts .2C/decade warming when nothing close to that has occurred since 1998?

        How about a word for a person who claim less sea ice in the Arctic is evidence of global warming but never admits that sea ice in Antarctica is at record levels?

        In both cases the answer is: Climatologist.

        • 0.3E9m/s

          The phrase for a person who believes a climate trend can be discerned in sixteen years is, I suppose, “unaware of the working definition of climate.” Weather is louder than climate over such a short duration.

          • Billy___Bob

            Actually, the world warmed faster from 1900 to 1945 than after 1945 … and 1945 is when man-made CO2 really started to increase.

            That is 114 years. Not 16.

          • 0.3E9m/s

            The climate’s equilibrium response time (you can think of it as the duration of finite impulse response) to added CO2 is about eighty years. The climate hasn’t fully adjusted to your grandparents’ tailpipe emissions yet, and will still be responding to yours when your grandchildren are old. Only people who don’t understand basic concepts like that would expect to see temperature track CO2 emissions as closely as you do, Billy.

          • Billy___Bob

            If it is 80 years, then all the 1980 – 1998 warming the AGW Cult was screaming about recently was caused by a teensy bit of extra CO2 in 1900?

            You tell whoppers.

            Even the IPCC doesn’t believe such a thing.

            Get a grip on reality.

          • Orson OLSON

            The climate’s equilibrium response time… to added CO2 is about eighty years.” WRONG. Based on comparing the

            isotope mass balance studie of carbon-12 versus radon-22 after nuclear testing, the results show residence times for CO2 of 5 to 10 years. These are well-established geological and atmospheric chemistry facts. (Cf. Prof. Tom Segelstad, University of Oslo.) “0.3E9m/s” is simply parroting the theorized speculations of global warming alarmists – not long established and repeatedly measured chemistry.

          • 0.3E9m/s

            Equilibrium response time is much longer than residence time. Residence time varies by geography. Some places the mean is two years. ERT is global.

          • Steve

            Here is your “97%” consensus..

            First, it was the claim that 2,500 IPCC-related scientists agreed with the 2007 IPCC report. Soon afer it was discovered that the actual number of scientists who actually agreed with the report contents was only 25.

            Next, when the 2,500 shrunk to 25, a couple of University of Illinois researchers conjured up a 2-minute online, anonymous survey that they hoped would deliver some big numbers to crow about. They solicited 10,257 earth scientists and only 77 chose to answer the online survey (yes, only 77). 75 of those “climate scientists” agreed with the survey’s two questions (yes, only 2 questions).

            Voila, the infamous and widely publicized “97%” of climate scientists (75 divided by 77) who thought man was the cause of global warming turned out to be a numeric joke.

          • Andrew70

            Only those who don’t understand basic concepts such as ‘positive feedbacks’ can be duped into believing the lies of Al Gore, Michael Mann, and Barack Obama. Or think intellectually honest people don’t know you are parroting the pseudo-science drivel about “eighty years”.

            Tell us where the evidence in the historical or geological records are that the Earth’s atmosphere is dynamically unstable in response to temperature perturbations – the core hypothesis of your CAGW claims? Why didn’t the “seas boil” as claimed by James Hansen during the Medieval Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period, or the Minoan Warm Period? Or Earth plunge into a real Ice Age during the Little Ice Age?

            If the Earth’s atmosphere acted the way you catastrophe-mongers claim it does, that would have happened. But it DID NOT. Earth’s climate is absolutely a negative feedback control system, but those promoting the Lysenkosist drivel from the IPCC will do anything to avoid discussing the evidence from real scientists.

          • Steve

            You clearly know little or nothing. It’s frightening all that you think you know is pure bs. Dr. Mann must be one of your heroes.

          • Steve

            Why don’t you compare the actual temperature record to the 35 or so climate models that were produced by these fools. They told us without hesitation that a rise in CO2 will result in a corresponding temperature rise. Hmmmmm….what really happened.
            You do realize that the summary of the IPCC report contradicts the data in the report, right?

          • Steve

            A real climate scientist…

            Dr Don Easterbrook – “One thing many people don’t realize is that CO2 by itself is incapable of causing significant climate change. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is 39/1,000ths of one percent. It’s nothing. Ninety-five percent of the greenhouse effect is water vapor, and water vapor is not changing.

            Dr Don Easterbrook is a climate scientist and glacier expert who predicted back in the year 2000 that the Earth was entering a cooling phase for at least the next 20 years and to expect lower temperatures.

            There has been no real warming, only Green fantasy warming for the last 17 years, so it looks like Easterbrook is a rare climate scientist, one whose predictions actually come true.

            A mere 7 years after Easterbrooks prediction Al Gore and the UN IPCC shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for their “planetary emergency” that alleged that Planet Earth was facing catastrophic global warming due to rising levels of CO2.

            At this point is worth remembering that the charter for the UN IPCC only allows the IPCC to consider the hand of man in climate change, so their reports will always attribute natural climate change to Anthropogenic causes.

      • Pete Austin


      • Andrew70

        And you think we don’t know that the use of the word “denier” is deliberately a comparison to Holocaust deniers? It is a despicable slander by those who despise intellectual honesty as much as they despise real science.

      • Brambles

        Infidels, blasphemist, sodomites, apostates, fire kindling?

      • mzk1_1

        You have a problem with facts and research? It is documented that it was explicitly used to make one think of “holocaust denial”, thus cheapening the memory of the victims of the most documented crime in history.
        It’s use is, frankly, anti-Semitic and anti-historical.

    • mzk1_1

      It is also an insult to the victims of the Holocaust. The term was explicitly taken from Holocaust denial. But what does one want from a man who appeared at the organization of a Klansman named Al Sharpton?

    • Joel Thimell

      If man is causing global warming, why is the Earth so much colder now than it was 1,000 years ago? When the Vikings settled Greenland, it was not covered in massive glaciers like today — it was Green.

      • Bart

        An excellent question. The Holocene Optimum is a period of time. The definition of that period has changed, but it is now commonly understood as the period about 4,000 years ago (+/- a wide margin), where the tilt of the Earth brought the Northern Hemisphere into the right position to receive the most light of the Sun, and because there’s more land north of the equator than south, and land tends to heat more from light than ocean does, the Earth tends to get warmest in that position, if all other things remain equal.

        We see this pattern repeat about every 100,000 years as the tilt goes through 50,000 year phases, for at least the last 800,000 years, about 5,000 to 40,000 years of “interglacial” and slightly more “glacial” and a small amount of “transitional” conditions dominating. However, just the tilt of the Earth is not enough to cause this wide swing in temperatures by itself.

        That’s where the concept of the Greenhouse Effect positive feedback comes in: as the ice recedes and oceans heat up, they release CO2, methane, and water vapor into the atmosphere. That cocktail of GHGs (along with NOx as arable land expands), causes the atmosphere to retain heat more efficiently, so the small influence of the tilt on some temperatures leads, for example, the low concentration of CO2 at 180 ppmv to rise to 280 ppmv, with this positive feedback accounting for 93% of the warming we see.

        99.99% of the time since the Eocene ended, CO2 has been in the range of 180 ppmv to 280 ppmv, or 230 ppmv +/-50 ppmv. The exception has been during the optimum of interglacials, when sometimes CO2 got as high as 305 ppmv.. and since the Industrial Revolution, when we humans have burned so much fossil fuel as would raise the CO2 level to over 400 ppmv in just 260 years, that’s 1,000 times as fast as any natural rise of similar amount, and it is now at the same level as when the Arctic Circle was a hot enough desert for camels to evolve there.

        So Vikings settled Greenland — which had pretty much the same amount of glacial ice covering it then as it did 20 years ago — when some of its coast had some green fringes at the height of summer. They spread the word that it was better than it really was to try to encourage settlers, but they always survived mainly by whaling, hunting seals, and some small subsistence farming mostly fed by grains they traded ivory and whale oil for, until the tilt of the Earth crept even further from the optimum, and internal variation and volcanic eruption and lower solar output combined to drive them out.

        Who told you Greenland was ever really Green?

        Because PANTS ON FIRE for them.

  • Richard Magnuson

    Fascists cannot tolerate dissent. Marching towards dictatorship and they don’t even realize it.

    • BillM

      You use the same sort of language Luddites did many years ago.

      • DaBilk

        Get back to your windmills and have fun cooking over a dung fire.

  • fergy turf

    Can’t say anything against the liberal dogma and threaten their lucrative money maker scheme….

    • BillM

      What is this “lucrative money maker scheme” you mention?

  • southernyank

    Love that this guy gives his students the real facts and then let’s them discover the truth for themselves; that is the essence of good teaching. Go Dr. Rossiter!

    • Bart

      I would certainly applaud Dr. Rossiter for such behavior, were it so. Moreso if he instead gave them methods for discovering real facts for themselves and support overcoming obstacles to their search.

      However, as we see the opposite in the treatment of Rossiter’s treatment of those who aren’t his students, to the extent not a single Fellow of his Fellowship would vouch for him, I’m skeptical this is the utopia his students actually encounter from his courses.

      • southernyank

        Re-read the article; they don’t support him because he does not comply with the higher ed orthodoxy on AGW. They refuse to debate him because they don’t want to “legitimize” his viewpoint, so they obviously believe theirs is the only legitimate viewpoint. In other words, agree with us or we will simply ignore you.

        • Bart

          The article is Caleb Rossiter’s side of the story, and it’s an inconsistent story full of gaping holes that ought make anyone skeptical of it, at least skeptical enough to check the facts.

          Rossiter demanded his Fellows come onto his turf and ‘debate’ his carefully groomed students according to his rules. I’ve seen enough ‘debates’ to know what that sort of dog and pony show is, and what it’s for: it ain’t for gettin’ at the truth.

          All of his Fellows; every single one; the whole of a 50-year old Fellowship (http://www.ips-dc.org/staff-and-fellows/) of some two dozen senior members, a volunteer group with very lax requirements, turned their backs on him for what was very clearly manipulative and underhanded behavior of not just them, their staff and their other associates, but also of his students.

          A teacher could tolerate the former, I suppose.

          But the latter?

          Yeah, I’d turn my back on some jerk playing mind games on his students for a political agenda, too.

          • southernyank

            Then you’d have to turn your back on 93% of liberal professors on almost every college campus. I’m a conservative college professor, so I know whereof I speak. Thanks for playing.

          • Bart

            Since when, college professor, did we have to be jerks to hold to high ideals on either end of the spectrum?

            Be willing to be irrational so we could call ourselves right?

            Play mind games and manipulate to be politically active and civic-minded?

            Be ignorant to be conservative, or make stuff up to be progressive?

            What service does it teach the young when our generation genuflects to the altars and doctrines of people we know are just plain wrong, for the sake of team unity?

            You may know cynicism, but if 93% is the number of calculating cynics I’d walk away from on both sides, I’m still 930% better off without them and reasonable, than with them and a victim of their dogma.

          • southernyank

            You use a lot of high falutin’ sounding words, but you aren’t really saying anything. Again, I am curious as to your point.

          • Bart


            A college professor who professes (while droppin’ the hard “g” at the end of a word to simulate a folksy, down-home quality as political propagandists advise those who want to charm with form rather than inform with substance) that words are bad, and pretendin’ not to understan’ is good.

            Fills me with giddy delight at the prospec’ o’ what charmin’ morons southern colleges be turnin’ out, y’all.

            If’n yuh cain’t graps muh pint, mebbe aks a 10-year ol’ tuh splain it tuh yuh.

          • southernyank

            Really, Dude, what’s your point? You still haven’t said anything worth noting, and your attempt at insulting me just sounds like you can’t really explain yourself, so you just take a rhetorical swing at me.

          • Bart

            How hard is this point for a prof?

            If you abuse your students for your own ends by bad teaching, you should not demand good teachers stand up for you.

            Though I suspect you got this point, and are just trying to score some cred with the dumb-it-down set while deflecting a criticism that strikes too close to home.

            How about it?

            Do you use your students to stroke your own political ego at the expense of truth in education?

  • John (magnum)

    Liberal colleges are proof ya just can’t fis STOOOOOPID !

    • But you can subsidize it.

      • banger377

        And elect it President.

        • BillM

          Bitchy statements don’t help the discussion. They only indicate emotional problems within the person making the comment.

          • banger377

            So you’re an obomber voter. Thought so. Just keep in mind that Magnum was speaking in generalities. He didn’t name you specifically, You took what he and others said, saw yourself there, and deduced that you were stupid, to which you took offense and lashed out.

            Go back to trolling.

    • EastSider

      This is most colleges, not just ‘liberal’ ones. There are very few schools, higher education or otherwise, that are not parrots to the liberal thought-speak agendas.

    • Bart

      ..but Rossiter wasn’t fired from his college.

      He was just dumped by his volunteer organization.. which isn’t a college.

      It happened when the two people who sponsored his membership withdrew their sponsorship, which is a condition of remaining in the organization.

      That people buy into the whole ‘fired’ propaganda does, however, prove there is no fix for stupid.

      • John (magnum)

        And you are solid proof !!

      • Mike A

        Shhhh you’re ruining their fun by thinking too much and being intelligent

        • Chris Oglesby


          Nowadays, when publicly queried, liberals trot out focus group tested talking points. After this, they stonewall their questioner by changing the subject. But the full depth of their privilege is revealed when the pubic subsequently refuses to be outraged.

          Read more: The Marietta Daily Journal – Liberal privilege and the lies of the left ~

          Melvyn L. Fein Ph.D. is professor of sociology at Kennesaw State University

      • Chris Oglesby


        Nowadays, when publicly queried, liberals trot out focus group tested talking points. After this, they stonewall their questioner by changing the subject. But the full depth of their privilege is revealed when the pubic subsequently refuses to be outraged.

        Read more: The Marietta Daily Journal – Liberal privilege and the lies of the left ~

        Melvyn L. Fein Ph.D. is professor of sociology at Kennesaw State University

        • Mike A

          What a vaguely worded unsubstantiated claim, clearly I should invest myself in his point of view

  • The “Ministry of Truth” consists of the MSM & universities. Obey or die.

    • BillM

      Who are you saying is dying?

      • DaBilk

        Many who are being denied reliable energy.

        • Bart

          By Swanson’s Law, the most reliable, cheapest energy today ought be solar; it would be far below the price of electricity from coal or natural gas were the installed world solar capacity a mere 250 times what it is now (which would still be only 5% of the world installed electricity base), at a 20% drop in price for each doubling in installed capacity.

          The only reason solar hasn’t had such additional capacity installed is opposition by the fossil fuel lobby.

          And the price of storage?

          Bill Gross builds hot rock storage into his solar farms for practically nothing, as part of their stabilization regime.

          Pumped hydro is extremely economical, and as a bonus gives hydroelectric generation in wet parts of the world, and covered water conservation in dry places.

          Pyrolytic conversion of organic wastes to fuel effectively stores peak production and sequesters carbon as biochar.

          What was that you were saying about reliability?

    • Mike A

      Did you just steal an idea from Harry Potter and claim it as your own?

  • Christopher

    Sue. Sue big.

  • Jack Splat

    Climate Change is a religion and he has been fired for heresy.

    • Katherine McChesney

      I guess Pope Frank will speak out in favor of this heresy at some point. He’s always shooting off his big mouth in favor of things that hurt the average citizen.

      • Smat

        The media misquotes him all of the time. Before passing judgement, go to the Vatican website and read his actual words.

        • Katherine McChesney

          Jesuits have always been known as master deceivers. And there are also ‘Jesuit tricks”. They, those who have taken that dreadful oath of induction, are dangerous and deceptive. Sons of the devil himself.

          • smat

            Where do you get that crap!! People usually defame when truth hits them right between the eyes. Take your self pride and take it to hell!!!! You should feel right at home there.

          • Katherine McChesney

            Because I read the biography of Loyola and have read extensively about the Jesuits and their oath of induction you moron.

      • Mike A

        As a Jesuit his main mission is fight inequalities against those who are poor. Climate change has routinely been identified as having a greater impact against those who are poor. Seems like his position would be pretty cut and dried

        • Katherine McChesney

          As a Jesuit he has been trained to overthrow governments, to infiltrate and cause chaos and deception. Jesuits are far from being good missionaries. Their purpose is to bring the world under the control of the Vatican. That is why Ignatius Loyola organized this deadly group of murderers and deceivers.

        • Tom Moran

          Denying the poor access to cheap, safe , abundant energy is an inequality. Spending trillions to decarbonize instead of billions to give them food, water, housing and access to reliable energy seems like a poorer choice. Unless you think most moms would prefer that nifty solar panel with a compact fluorescent bulb on their dung hut so they can watch their children starve to death?

    • Kurt Leonard

      More like a cult, than a religion.

    • Bob White

      It’s a doomsday cult like any other in history. “Gaia’ is going to destroy humanity unless we repent and kill ourselves down to a ‘sustainable’ population. Throw the babies in the trophet, tear up all industry and go live a childless low impact life in the new urban agenda 21 eco-caves. Serve the masters well or else you are an evil denier and must be punished. Malthus is laughing at us from the flames.

      • BillM

        Let’s not get hysterical.

        • DaBilk


  • If you lie with dogs you get fleas.

  • joules48084

    An overwhelming authority did the same with Galileo centuries ago.

    So much for academic freedom.

    • Katherine McChesney

      You’re speaking of the Roman Catholic church. Pope Frank, at some point, will blow off his mouth in favor of this hoax. Wait for it!

      • Eric Weder

        In that age, the church were the “authorities”.

        • cmdprompt

          Is that any different than this? Global Warming is a religion to many.

        • Katherine McChesney

          Frank think it still is the authority. That’s why he keeps opening his big fat mouth.

    • dave bodine

      completely misrepresented in the common understanding of what happened there…the Pope was not as stupid as the popular histories make him look….anyway, what difference does it make that a very long time ago, there was some seriously anti-scientific sentiment in the world? who cares and what does it have to do with today?

  • closedpress.com

    How could it be “unproved science”…..its not science in the first place.

    It’s a computer model….which has not matched reality. There is nothing “scientific” about that.

    • disqus_hQ19w3VLjt

      Exactly, how is a computer model science.

      • Kurt Johnson

        computer science would come into play…. however, many models must exist to show every possibility so an informed theory can be developed. millions of models. aint nobody got time for that…

      • SirShillyVonShillington

        Computers are very unscientific, as they seem to be prone to “crashing” very often, just ask the IRS..Forward!

    • ErikThordvalson

      GIGO says it all.

    • Bart

      My first computer program was something called ‘Lunar Lander’ in the 1970’s. It modeled the controls needed to deal with the Moon’s gravity with minimum fuel. I was at an age where I also built and flew model airplanes, helicopters and rockets.

      You know, I did the same fuel calculations, the same mass calculations, encountered the same conditions of gravity and thrust, in both types of models. The Physics of the models remained the same, so far as the models were applicable to the variables of interest.

      Perhaps you don’t think Physics is a science, or you don’t believe the Moon landings were real?

      • Menzuodao Pang

        Please compare the Lunar Lander calculations with that of an entire planet’s climate over a time series. Thank you.

        • Bart

          I just did.

          What part of the comparison particularly troubles you?

          That one is simpler and has fewer variables of interest than the other by some orders of magnitude?

          Modern video games have scaled up the concepts of Lunar Lander by many times; we have no reason to believe further such scaling to the complexity of GCMs would invalidate them, especially given the rigorous validation and verification applied, independent development of models (though most are from a common source), and examination by many sets of eyes of what is now open source code.

          In the 1970’s, it took some of the most powerful computers on the planet to meet the needs of Lunar Lander in real time; GCMs have been around since the 1980’s, and by Moore’s Law have doubled in resolution every eighteen months. Right now, anyone who can afford a Parallella, or organize a web-based distributed computation project, can maintain their own GCM.

          Oh, and Lunar Lander?

          Couldn’t anticipate volcanoes or gross human error on the part of the pilot, either. It could, however, adequately model outcomes in ways no human brain could, giving us a tool for making decisions we never were able to arrive at before. Just like GCMs.

          • Menzuodao Pang

            Computing power is one issue which could be resolved in the future – the problem is the model itself. Orders of magnitude of complexity is vastly understated.

          • Bart

            Understated by whom?

            First let’s understand what GCMs are for: the GHE hypothesis led to the prediction that a GCM run with different levels of CO2 would show feedbacks sufficient to explain how smaller CO2 changes could lead to larger temperature effects; when run, the no-feedback models failed to produce results like we see in real world measurements, and the with-feedback models sufficiently demonstrated that we can reject a no-feedback or low-feedback climate system. That’s it. That’s all.

            Using GCMs to predict future surface temperature is ludicrous. Shockingly, it sorta-kinda works sometimes, if you tweak it enough. At least, it beats all other predictions.

            No GCM will ever very accurately predict weather over a span much longer than a week due to Chaos, but that’s a separate issue.

            There is no chance GCMs can predict climate-span surface temperatures very accurately in the sub-century range either, though for different reasons than mere Chaos. We know that there are at least three completely unpredictable major forcings which can affect the climate in the short term to an order of magnitude on the scale of AGW:
            1. Economic policy of nations: another Great Recession like 2008 could have another measurable impact on the atmosphere;
            2. Volcanoes (we’ve had unusually high activity: almost 20 significant eruptions in under 20 years) near the equator, many of them emitting particulates high into the stratosphere, have provably cooled the climate compared to what it otherwise would have been;
            3. Solar changes, though only a few percent of the power of the GHE, can at their extreme have a demonstrable effect.

            All three of these influences are unpredictable; GCM’s ignore them, reality doesn’t.

            Remove these impacts from the past two decades, add in Cowtan & Way’s adjustments to include regions not covered by surface weather stations, and the world’s climate pegs squarely into the range of GCM ensembles, even without counting the heat changes in the deep ocean and the melting of the Arctic and displacement of Antarctic continental ice.

      • closedpress.com

        I have degrees in mathematics and physics….Your program was a simulation that could be verified by actual results.

        Global warnings simulations have yet to actually produce correct results. Not past, not present, and certainly not the future.

        I.e …its not a valid reproduction of the physical system.

        Perhaps you dont actually know what science is or is supposed to do?

        There is a computer simulation called “world of warcraft”….it does not mean you can cast a fireball from your hand.

        • Bart


          A degree in math and one in physics is enough to say what the correct results of a “Global warning simulation” (whatever that is) are?

          No model entirely reproduces any physical system. Models validly reproduce simplifications of aspects of interest from systems in question. GCMs validly demonstrate that multidecadal warming cannot be adequately explained absent GHE and AGW. If you expect them to predict future weather, you’re demanding impossible perfection, just as if you were demanding a Lunar Lander simulation to predict what would happen if we tried to land the vehicle on an undiscovered volcano mid-eruption.

          I was able to “cast a fireball” from my hand using flash paper and a spark ring from a trick shop since long before WoW existed; but by all means, continue mansplaining to the interwebs what science is.

          • closedpress.com

            Luckily…this isn’t rocket science…(not that you would recognize that either).

            They run computer models…these computer models do not match reality….at all. Its not even close. They do not predict past temperatures either. Get it? They are not “approximations”…they are just flat wrong.

            Let me explain to your myopic little mind what science looks like….

            1) you create a hypothesis
            2) you design a falsifiable test that demonstrates that hypothesis.

            Thats called the scientific method. Had you taken middle school physical science…you would have known that.

            Ill give you an example, try to keep up with it,
            Einstein developed a theory of General Relativity, it PREDICTED that light would bend around the sun. He TESTED that hypothesis by observing the light during a solar eclipse. His hypothesis was validated by CORRECTLY predicting what would happen.

            Thus he was validated. Global Warming models have been WRONG since there inception, and they dont accurately predict past KNOWN temperatures.

            This isn’t rocket science …..but like I said…you wouldn’t recognize that either.

            “If you expect them to predict future weather, you’re demanding impossible perfection”….Hey TARD…that is exactly what they say they are capable of. That is exactly what they base their premise on…they have us destroying millions and potentially BILLIONS of lives. Because they say they know whats going to happen….even though at this point over the last 15+ years….they haven’t been right..

            You anti-science global warming tards are the problem.

          • Bart

            “.. they drag you down to their level, then they beat you with experience.”

            Newton said, “Hypothesis non fingo.”

            This is generally translated simply as “I do not form hypotheses;” a closer translation is “I do not feign hypotheses.” It’s the one Einstein preferred, and as you cite Einstein, it is likely you can appreciate it as an appeal to authority, even if you can’t follow the reasoning.

            The general rule Newton applied was valid hypotheses come only from inductive reasoning based on observations when one has cleared out all unnecessary assumptions (which some call Occam’s Razor), and eliminated all extraneous exceptions, and confirmed that what applies to one thing applies universally to all like things. Only such products of induction are accurate or ‘very nearly true’, for Newton. Any other hypothesis is invalid.

            This is how Science goes from the impossible task of considering all ideas one could express and testing each of them as if they were all equal, to considering only those reasonable propositions and stepwise refining them by experiment and observation.

            This ‘falsification’ you propose is a real thing, but you propose it in the wrong order, and offer an absurd version of it not based in fact, nor from a cogent understanding of what has actually gone before.

            You are demanding impossible perfection of models, frothing and ranting and jumping up and down for no more reason than that they clearly exhibit proofs you do not like. GCMs don’t have the power to predict weather past or present — this is very true, and very beside the point as they were never built to — and their creators always knew this.

            GCM’s improve by refinement as their resolution increases and the understanding climatologists have of the state changes of the global climate as its energy levels increase, and ice shifts, and atmospheric composition changes. They’ll never improve to the point of predicting future weather, but the do show us the elements of interest of future climate.

            If you think computer models are going to go away any time soon, then you really don’t understand what a small part of the overall field of Simulation is occupied by climatology. Traffic, consumer behavior, biology, and a hundred other fields use this technology and these techniques, with good understanding and good results.

            Do these simulations predict the future?


            But they do give insights into patterns we could not see without them, just like microscopes or stethoscopes or oscilloscopes might.

          • closedpress.com

            I wonder why I even bother with half wit tards some times.

            You also don’t know what “appeal to authority” means. So stick with astrology, it is as scientifically valid as the non-sense you are spewing.

            Lets make this PAINFULLY simple for your little pea brain.

            If you make a PREDICTION about something, and those PREDICTIONS dont come to pass….You were wrong about your assumptions. If I built a computer simulation that tied the earths temperatures based on the amount of reflection from the tin foil hats, and built an entire computer simulation from it. Then it didnt match reality….guess what….my hypothesis was wrong.

            You’re literally as dumb as a rock to continue saying “yeah…they dont predict current temperatures, past temperatures, but hey they are done on a computer so they must be valid.”

            My argument, shit for brains, is not against using computer simulations, Its that when you simulations dont come close to reality….then its painfully obvious that your simulations were wrong.

            You arguments are literally ignorant….literally the very definition of the word.its not an “impossible standard” to have computer simulations be even mildly correct. When of the 97 computer models….not a single one of them predicted the pause and not a single can project temperatures in to the past. It MEANS with absolute certainty that the simulations are incorrect.

            ….stick to astrology dumbass.

          • Bart


            Seems you’ve realized you’ve been caught out, and now resort to mere ranting and personal attack, leaving reason and pretense of sensibility behind. That didn’t take very long at all.

            Who made these predictions?

            The IPCC carefully documented the climate model ensemble projections, carefully differentiated them from predictions, carefully explained why they weren’t predictions. And they weren’t even IPCC models, but models cited by the IPCC, from sources that also didn’t claim they were predictions.

            The people making the GCM’s predictions appear to be the very people who understand them least.

            You appear to want straw man predictions so you can knock them down, because fallacies are the only way you can get what you want.

            Lying for personal gain.. what’s the word for that?

          • closedpress.com

            You have yet to make a single legitimate argument. You clearly demonstrated you dont know what science is or looks like.

            Your non-sense isnt even a mild attempt at an argument anymore. Your anti-science nut jobs are really getting pathetic, and have only caused massive amounts of suffering to the world and legitimate environmental concerns. Grow up.

            Oh and Ill just leave this right here.


          • Bart

            You’re absolutely right; Christopher Booker does make no legitimate arguments in the piece you link to.

            Though why tell us, here?

  • Greg Barton

    England grew wine for Rome.

    Ice core samples revealed periods where temps AND CO2 were much much higher.

    Whatever evidence indicates zero AGW is buried and the whole IPCC and East Anglia debacle was ENOUGH.

    This, like the ACA, is just another method the left uses to CONTROL, TAX and stifle the improvement of the human condition.

    • 12758

      “England grew wine for Rome.”

      Now vineyards are within a hundred miles of the Arctic circle and English vineyards are further north than any which existed in Roman times.

      • dave bodine

        so what? read the Icelandic Sagas from 600-800 where the icebergs came so far south they had to change the shipping lanes….then we got the “little ice age” in Europe…bad for everyone, crops failed, etc.
        The weather is always changing and vienyards farther north are a good thing, not a problem for the world!

        • Bart

          Bad citations from Beowulf and Hiemskringla aside, we know from the CO2 record that we’re talking apples and Agent Orange (TM) here. There’s little in the paleoclimate record that gives granular understanding of global temperatures on the useful 30-80 year band, but the artifacts that would be left by anything similar to anthropocene effects are missing prior to the modern era. We don’t see sudden extinctions across the globe across kingdoms, sudden latitude and altitude jumps, a line in the sediment record showing such a cluster or trend of flood or fire event changes.

          Equating past weather changes with the knowable, provable, demonstrably different rate and level and kind of weather changes of today is simply false equivalence, a form of fallacy. Whenever such claims are examined, such as the study of Marcott et al, we find the changes of the pre-industrial world more like each other and more unlike the changes of the post-industrialization world, the divide sharper, the universality of AGW more dramatic. If anything, the most notorious of the ‘past weather changes’ were periods of remarkable stability compared to today, indicating that the large temperature swings of those past times were internal functions of the system while today’s are clearly due to external forcing.

          Vineyards farther north may be nice for northerners, and all, but when the southern boundary of vineyards moves north faster than the northern boundary, when the soil and grapes are changing their chemistry more rapidly than vintners can adapt, that unsought ‘benefit’ forced on the world by coal-burners and oil drillers is very much a problem they’re causing the world, while laughing all the way to the bank.

  • IndianSoul

    My God, I thought I lived in America not North Korea!! The Liberal communists have taken over our education system. This s*cks!!

    • ryoni

      Guess you didn’t read past the deceptive headline. You would fit in very well in North Korea.

  • freeair

    Global warming is a scam.

    • BillM

      It would be fantastic if that statement were true.

  • James Banzai

    Global change/warming etc, etc is nothing more than an extortion scheme to try and keep governments solvent and prevent leaders from having their heads chopped off. Maybe they can go to Iraq and work with ISIS to see if they can provide funding. I suggest all our leaders and many of the climate change scientist go over and work with them on a solution to our problem.

    • BillM

      Who is going to chop the leaders heads off?

  • Jim Bowman

    Man made warming cultists are the Taliban of environmentalism. Believe or die.

    • BillM

      Who are you afraid of? Are you saying that scientists will start killing people?

      • Jim Bowman

        Do you understand the concepts of analogy, rhetoric and / or hyperbole? You need to revisit English Comp 101.

  • Icarus

    The debate IS OVER, liberals are idiots. We know longer need to debate the fate of these lemmings. They will lead our nation into the economic abyss while progressive devils play pied piper.

  • LibsRinfants

    It’s so satisfying when the left eats their own, isn’t it?

  • Will Malven

    Hey, it’s a leftard institution, they have a right to dictate what political agenda their institute presses.

    He was hired when he supported that agenda, now that it’s not a supportable tenet as far as he is concerned, they have the right to find someone more amenable to their politics.

    Just because they idiots, doesn’t mean they don’t have the right to say who works for them.

    • Bart

      Except he wasn’t hired. He wasn’t paid. He wasn’t an employee.

      He was dumped by a club when his two sponsors refused to have anything more to do with him and no other members of the club spoke up on his behalf.

      This is not a hiring-firing situation. This is a jerk who no one wanted to hang out with anymore.

      That’s not a left-right thing. It’s simply people choosing who they stand up for, and who they don’t have to stand up for.

  • disqus_hQ19w3VLjt

    What country are we living in? The thought police are here.

    • Bart

      If the comments here are anything to go by, thought police would be the most underworked civil servants in America. They’d have more to do if they were unicorn cops.

  • Icarus

    The debate is over, the messiah has spoken???

  • Conservativeliberal

    Pay no attention to the massive fusion reactor in the sky.

    Venus is hottest only because of greenhouse gases. Pluto is only cold because it doesn’t have any.

    ‘Twas Brillig
    And the slithy toves
    Did gyre and gimble in the wabe,
    All mimsy were the borogoves
    And the mome raths outgrabe.

    • Dagjerini

      Thats gotta be from the Hitchhikers Guide. Haven’t read it in 20+ years, but who could ever forget such brilliant prose?
      If we say its the sun, we take the power away from their claims. It really is that simple tho. The sun.
      No more poetry please, me ears are starting to bleed.

      • Dagjerini

        Whoops. Lewis Carroll indeed.

        • adamh2o

          Just off the top of my head, I know Mimsy were the Borogoves was a separate story, but I believe that phrase was also used in Alice in Wonderland. Or Through the Looking Glass, which I guess was the book name.

    • Bart

      Venus is hotter than Mercury.

      Plotting the temperature of the planets by their distance from the Sun shows disparities in the relation of temperature to distance that can only be satisfactorily explained by the Planetary Greenhouse Effect.

      Jeremiah 5:21

  • RLara

    Commenters arguing the professors credentials forget about all the other scientists, including some at NASA who have been quieted. The original data with primary models being “lost” is ridiculous. (maybe Lois Lerners Emails and the global warming data are in the same trash can.)

    • IndianSoul

      Or at the bottom of the Potomac.

  • IndianSoul

    Global warming, oops I mean Climate change, is the biggest Lie that has ever been created to fool the most people possible in to giving up not only their common sense, but a part of their livelihood to support this scam which is to control our lives.

  • Constitution First

    Just when I was about to give up hope there were any honest professors left in academia. Good on you Prof Rossiter.

    For all the rest of you Kool-Aid drinking ritualists; If you teach your students to be idiots, don’t question why they can’t find meaningful employment when they graduate.

    • Mike A

      The guy is a mathematician and doesn’t even lecture on climatology, he never gets to express his view in the classroom, and if he did the university he works at, American, ha a top climate program that works tirelessly to provide data on the dangers of climate change.

      • DaBilk

        Michael Mann C.V.


        Let’s see…
        Ph.D. Geology and Geophysics (geology almost spelled like climatology…the last part anyway)
        M.Phil Geology and Geophysics (see above)
        M.Phil Physics (he’s definitely into the “ics” zone)
        A.B . Math and Physics… no mention of climatology. Must be a charlatan.

        • Bart

          Michael Mann’s CV has the word climate or climatology 653 times in it, including awards at the highest levels in multiple fields of achievement.

          Caleb Rossiter’s has the word ‘climate’ in it once in parentheses as part of a part of a part of a course he taught, ” (with modules on models purporting to explain the causes of climate change and economic development).”

          653:1 seems about right, statistically.

  • goodwood

    im surprised he wasn’t taken out back and shot…

  • Icarus

    The debate is over? What a arrogant, elitist thing to say.

  • morefandave

    The Fourth Reich is here!

  • muggled

    I love Rossiter’s statement at the end that he has never heard a more remarkable statement in his life about anything in regards to barry’s claim that the debate is over. agreed. any person who wants to live in an open society where there is freedom of thought should fall out of their chairs every time someone in authority says something like that. or, maybe we should all start mocking the left by using it at the end of all of our statements.

    • IndianSoul

      Love it! “The debate is over. Period!”

  • SandyH20

    Fascism has officially reached the US shore.

  • ordinary american

    When I went to college in the 60’s I knew then that Communism was alive and well in Cuba, China, USSR and the US University System. What we have now is the “rotton fruits” of a failed educational system but the success of a system of propaganda and indoctrination. The last thing these tyrants want are educated and free thinking graduates. Critical and logical thinking is a death knell to these fascists and racist bastards.

  • billyd1953

    It seems only fair to point out that Rossiter is not a scientist. His expertise is in policy and has nothing to do with science. I realize that on the right one needs no relevant credentials to spout off endlessly on any subject, but among actual intellectuals one is expected to direct one’s comments to those areas that one actually understands and has thorough knowledge of. Rossiter was totally out of bounds and out of his realm in publicly expressing his views on global warming. A think tank cannot maintain its credibility if it allow its employees to randomly express public opinions on topics of special interest to the organization, in which the person has no credentials or knowledge of.

    • Liberos

      “among intellectuals” ??? Give me a frickin break! You wont find more cognitive dissonance than found around a group of so called “intellectuals”.

      • Macon Sense

        Billy suffers delusions of adequacy.

    • Macon Sense

      Likewise then, Obama is out of bounds by expressing his.


      Ad hominem, nothing more.


      Which of the man’s actual arguments do you disagree with and why?

    • Eric Weder

      Statistics are “policy”? I suggest you refresh yourself with the maxim about glass houses.

    • cmdprompt

      I’ll repeat since you obviously didn’t read the article and are incapable of or refuse to read a few posts up:

      He simply looked at the models and the data they are using to justify the hue and cry around the “upcoming catastrophe” and reached the conclusion that the models are weak and prove nothing. If I have a weak statistical model, I can manipulate it to say whatever I want it to say. He didn’t deny global warming, he refutes their methodology for predicting the cause and the outcome.

      He is a mathematician. He teaches math. Their models are garbage.

      I’ll steal something someone else on here said because it was so well put: When they can accurately predict LAST YEARS weather based upon the data from the LAST CENTURY using their pseudo-models then maybe I’ll take them seriously. Until then, bugger off AGL religious nutjobs. (that last part was mine).

    • Ernest – TrollFighter#1

      “statistics – the science that deals with the collection, classification, analysis, and interpretation of numerical facts or data, and that, by use of mathematical theories of probability, imposes order and regularity on aggregates of more or less disparate elements.”

      straight from dictionary dot com
      it seems only fair to point out that youre an idiot
      i realize that on the left you people speak/type before you think and never do due diligence or proofread.
      now, i feel compelled to teach you that a statistician is a scientist: one that deals with collections of data or “statistics” which is directly related to the models this scientist, Prof. Rossiter, was analyzing for the LAST DECADE.

      …but youre a leftist and youre smarter than him and anyone else

    • Chris Oglesby
    • Matt

      No one needs any degree from a school or membership in an organization to be a scientist. All you have to do is use the scientific method to investigate your theory. From what I read he used the scientific method to investigate the models so he is a scientist.

  • Goreloon

    Yep…you believe us or else….hey Demoncraps….don’t forget to iron your brown shirts today!!

    • muggled


  • Liberos

    Government fascism is taking over everything.

  • Farfel McNoodle

    congratulations for your article making the drudge report!
    very good article Dominic. statistics and the mathmatical technics used are only as good as the raw data gathered. You will need many more thermocouples on the surface of the planet and in the ocean and heavens for finite element models to be accurate. how many “social activists” know how to apply heat transfer and thermodynamics models via FEA? global waming fans such as obama don’t even consider the sun in the simulations. not everyone can be an engineer like farfel so don’t get excited by GW fanatics:)

  • Macon Sense

    If you refuse to be a useful idiot sheep, you will be punished by those who claim to love tolerance and celebrate diversity.

  • UnknownRider

    It’s curious to me how those who call themselves progressive, as though they embrace change, beat the drum of fear of change to garner support from the masses. At the same time, they say we must have a more modern system of governance, when their “new” system is really the law of the tribe: people smarter know better what is right for you and you will accept their premises and assumptions – or else.

    • earldumarest

      They see the Constitution as backwards. The “progress” is moving away from a constitutional form of government respecting the autonomy of the 50 states and moving to one giant government that takes care of the needs of everyone.

  • earldumarest

    American University has always been far left.

  • Harry S. Sebastian

    There are always consequences for pointing out the Emperor is naked.

  • Victor Cachat

    He called the left’s religion a religion.
    Based on faith, not fact.

  • Worgenator

    When I see a phrase like “Climate Justice” I fear for the future more than anything. 2+2=4 people and you will become a martyr for not accepting 2+2=5

  • Until my chickweed problem stops – global warming is ‘Unproved Science’

  • ruetschi

    I used to be a democrat. Then I started thinking for myself and analyzing the data and the facts and guess what. I am now conservative. Don’t listen to all the hype and think for yourself. It makes you smarter and more informed.

    • Mike A

      Clearly it didnt work for you, maybe while you thought you were reading ‘data and facts’ (about what who knows) you were really just staring at a wall or reading a coloring book you mistook for a journal or newspaper.

      • Mike A

        It may not be fantastic to be mean but the majority of the conservative voting block votes based on emotion and faith not understanding. Thats why theyre the voting against their own interest belt. To claim that you’re a conservative because you’re smarter and have read ‘facts and data’ goes against the actual evidence of why people vote conservatively. To assume liberal equates to dumb is a comment that deserves all of the ridicule I just gave it.

        • Andrew70

          And those who follow the collectivist religion of Marx and Mussolini aren’t voting based on emotion?

      • ruetschi

        If you must know the truth, I was reading my Bible and I came across a passage in the book of James where it said if you ask God for wisdom He will give it to liberally. My view points starting changing after that. As for you my friend, you are the typical democrat. Don’t debate somebody on the issues because you will lose. Just make fun of them and belittle their intelligence. I know all about you, I used to be a liberal dem.

  • Bailers77

    The destruction of the climate and planet has become an orthodoxy much as Christianity was in the past. We’ve entered the inquisition phase now. Hopefully we come to the reformation soon.

  • Diogenes60025

    Here are eleven facts on carbon dioxide:

    1. Only 3.4% of all carbon dioxide emissions arise from human

    2. Carbon dioxide, while subject to (temperature-driven?)
    cycles, is in equilibrium and in balance;

    3. The residence time of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is 5
    years, more or less;

    4. Limestone (CaCO3) and other carbonate rock is the ultimate
    sink for all carbon dioxide, where it remains for tens of millions
    of years;

    5. Oceans quickly absorb ambient atmospheric carbon

    6. Conversion of all dissolved carbon dioxide to carbonate
    rock in seawater occurs quickly,

    7. Oceans are highly alkaline, and strongly buffered, and
    cannot become acidic by absorbing CO2 from the air–only more or less alkaline;

    8. Carbon dioxide of human origin behaves the same as carbon
    dioxide of natural origin;

    9. Human carbon dioxide emissions have no measurable affect on

    10.Global warming may be occurring, but is caused by factors other
    than carbon dioxide.

    11. Carbon dioxide is not carbon and is not a pollutant.

    • Mike_E_V

      You know Mr. Trump would say, “You’re fired!” Such logical, proven facts do not belong in this arena. 🙂

    • Bart

      1. If you charge 3.4% more against your credit card annually for 265 years and your kind carbon cycle kicks in only 3% gifts to you as a buffer, you get a roughly 45% increase in your debt; this is where we’re at now at 400 ppmv. We’re in CO2 debt to the carbon cycle, charging 0.4% more than the carbon cycle can buffer. Your first ‘fact’ is simply wrong according to Mauna Loa evidence and the simple rules of compound interest.

      2. Carbon dioxide levels are in dynamic equilibrium on a roughly 100,000 year span, around 230 ppmv +/- 50 ppmv for 99.999% of the past 840,000 years, according to ice core records. The only exception is the past 60 years, where we’re now 70% above the 230 ppmv average our entire species evolved under. Your second ‘fact’ is simply wrong, according to ice core evidence.

      3. The residence time of a CO2 molecule in the atmosphere cannot be expressed as a mean, and the rate of draw down of CO2 from the atmosphere tells us to expect at least 1,000 years of elevated CO2 level due the CO2 we’ve released to date. This can be seen in the geological record repeatedly from ancient volcano CO2 emissions in the distant past when volcanoes were many hundreds of times more active than today.

      4. Sure. So what? Limestone forms as tectonic activity exposes new rock for weathering to sources of CO2, and as sea life converts CO2 to shell: as the pH of the ocean drops, sea life converts CO2 more slowly; as the ocean warms, limestone forms more slowly. Your fourth fact points the opposite direction of your implication.

      5. Cold oceans quickly absorb CO2 when the levels are above equilibrium levels compared to geological timespans. Our oceans are now warming, and releasing CO2 as a positive feedback. Your fifth fact is a half-truth.

      6. .. on geological timescales in ideal conditions. See #4. Your sixth fact is a half-truth.

      7. Oceans are mildly alkaline, but their pH is measurably dropping. As the pH scale is logarithmic, if expressed instead as a linear percentage we know the oceans become some 15% more acidic every decade. “Acidic” is a relative term, and has no special religious meaning as you imply by your semantic quibble. Your seventh fact is mere propaganda.

      8. So what? Your eighth fact is a red herring.

      9. Claims of no direct measurable effect in contradiction to elementary Physics are no more impressive when made about CO2 than when made about perpetual motion machines. You can’t make a perpetual motion machine, and you can’t dump unlimited waste into an open system as a forcing without consequences. Your ninth fact is an outright lie.

      10. Your concessionary tenth fact contradicts the simplest, most parsimonious, most universal explanation as examined by well over ten thousand peer-reviewed and published climatology studies which have withstood public commentary and debate of scientists for years. It is simply a fringe lunatic claim of no merit.

      11. The laws of the US and two rulings of the Supreme Court agree the right body in the USA to decree what is and is not a pollutant is the EPA; the EPA quite rightly deems CO2 a pollutant. Even if it didn’t, the sciences of industrial hygiene, biochemistry, environmental chemistry, and several other specialties would recognize CO2 as a pollutant by textbook definition. Your eleventh fact is just plain lying.

    • glenncz

      Don’t forget what we are talking about is CO2 going from about 350ppm to 400pm. Which means that 1 in 20,000 part of the atmosphere changed from “something” to CO2. This 1/20,000th part is more important than the 1/100 part of the atmosphere that are H20 vapor, the oceans, the sun, planetary orbits, the earths magnetic field and so on…..

      • Bart

        100% of the carbon in you comes directly or indirectly from the CO2 in the atmosphere, unless you’re wearing a diamond stud in a navel piercing or have some kind of plastic implant.

        100% of the carbon in every plant and animal comes from CO2 in air, indeed in all life aside from deep-dwelling archaea.

        You’re forgetting that the natural level of CO2 in air over the past 800,000 years at least averages around 230 ppmv +/- 50 ppmv; your 350 ppmv seems an arbitrary figure cherry picked out of the middle of the last century at random. We’re now at 74% above the average CO2 level of the past million years, and got there in less than 300 years pretty much just by burning coal and oil.

        We can isolate the influence on global temperature of the regular, periodic influences of bodies outside the atmosphere. We know what they are, and compared to the with-feedback GHE, they are small or short-lived, and inevitably average out to no net effect. We can estimate the sensitivity of the Earth to changes in insolation, and can confirm this estimate by TOA imbalance, and know the effect is very small, perhaps a thirtieth, of the influence of CO2E. We can show that H2O level in the air, and its form whether vapor or aerosol, is a positive feedback of CO2E level, and amplifies the GHE. This is all established in multiple well-documented studies, publicly available, and easily checked.

        CO2 isn’t only a temperature-changing chemical pollutant. It also changes the behavior of the main hormones in plants, making them weedier and less nutritious, too. It lowers the pH of the ocean, and the very optical properties of our sky are changed by CO2’s influence just due to human contribution. Sure, these effects may move through their tipping points at different rates and with different severity of impact, but dismissing them is purely minimization of the costs we all feel for the profit of the few who drill for oil and blast for coal.

  • alan


  • dlei

    More proof that this is not about “science” by any stretch of the imagination. It’s about money, power, politics, social engineering, and wealth redistribution.

    Don’t believe our theory? You’re fired.

  • jcarob

    Obama’s ONLY talent is that he excels as a demagogue. He is unfit to hold the office of President of the United States. I believed that in 2008 and I strongly believe that today.

  • no

    And who would know the AGE fraud better than an expert in the mathematics of statistics? All one has to do is regress the mean temp data on the NASA Web site then test the slope against the null hypothesis for stat. sig.

    • cmdprompt

      STOP USING MATH. Math infuriates the AGW religious nutjobs.

  • “Unfortunately, we now feel that your views on key issues, including climate science, climate justice, and many aspects of US policy to Africa, diverge so significantly from ours,”


    You just can’t make this stuff up.

  • Kalusa

    To: Professor Caleb Rossiter
    From: IRS
    You are requested and directed to appear at IRS HQ in Washington DC. You should bring all financial records from the previous seven years. This is a routine audit and has nothing to do with your status as a denier and critic of the Supreme Commander.

    • Mike_E_V

      I would like to comply but my computer crashed destroying the very years you wish to audit. Also my dog at the letter you sent me so I didn’t really receive it.

      • Kalusa

        If true, you should probably pack a toothbrush, because you’ll be going to jail. Do as we say, not as we do. Signed, Your IRS Agent.

  • “And as professor Rossiter, a statistician for Pete’s sake, points out–the models being used are poor.” Danthraxus

    Not only were the models “poor”, they were manipulated, (falsely fabricated) to provide a desired result.

  • phydeaux70

    This is a real shame because this is exactly what we should be teaching in college, high school, and grade school. How to think and prove or disprove a claim.

    This goes much further than climate, this is the core of learning. Learn to question, compute, and arrive at a conclusion based on facts. What colleges do now is start with a conclusion and work backwards.

    Totally backward. Kudos to this teacher for sitting with his students and trying to educate him. Seems to me people would really like this if his conclusions met theirs, that just seems like such the wrong idea to base the termination of a career on.

    • UnknownRider

      Are you sure they even bother to work backwards, rather than just accepting theory as fact?

  • vadave

    What is climate justice? The term sounds like it is based in the political realm to be used for the justification of imposing climate taxes. If so who will determine the amount of tax, who will collect the tax, who will receive the tax and how will those monies be spent and by whom to improve the climate? Who receives this justice, Mother Earth? Al Gore is worth an estimated $500 million making him wealthier than the evil, super-rich 1%er Mitt Romney all in the name of protecting the planet, “for the children”. This raises the skeptic alert.

    • Ernest – TrollFighter#1

      yeah the term “climate justice” jumped right off the page for me also

      wikipedia has a page of racist bullshart describing how the effects of climate change disproportionately affect minorities….even though the morons are talking about weather…

      i thought it was gonna be about how industrialized nations are “reaping the benefits of climate change” or something…but apparently the victims of Katrina were really just victims of Climate Injustice

  • MSeeSquared

    Although the risk of losing a significant liberal cause is one thing, what is more at risk to these guys is the billions of dollars in federal grant money.

    • Wavy1

      Ding Ding Ding we have a winner. “what do you mean they are giving away billions for research if we say a new Ice age is coming?” Dang straight gonna get me some of that. What, What was that now they want to give away billions to say the world is heating up, dang I was just starting to settle in on the iceage. Yeah sure we can make some nubers go that way as long as there is money in it. Yeah hahhaha it does pay the bills dont it

      • Bart

        The deal is, they get the same money, and keep getting it, no matter what they find out, so long as it withstands independent validation and verification.

        Take the example of Richard Muller’s Berkeley Earth Sciences Temperature project, funded by the Koch brothers, Bill Gates and others. They started out saying they would disprove Global Warming using the best Nobel Prize statistics methods and the most data, and they invited Anthony Watts and Judith Curry to join their team, and both of them signed on, along with a few other noted skeptics.

        Well, BEST found the opposite of what they were looking for: Global Warming is far, far more certain than the IPCC had been claiming in AR4, and far hotter, too. Curry and Watts jumped ship, but the numbers don’t lie.

        So you have to wonder who’s paying the people who jump off projects when the conclusions don’t match their sponsors’ dictates?

        • Matt

          Richard Muller never was a skeptic. The only reason anyone thinks he was is due to his disgust with Mike Mann’s shenanigans with the hockey stick where truncated the series to “HIDE THE DECLINE”. He has always been a warmist.

          • Bart

            Relevant to anything, how?

            Or are you saying the Koch brothers aren’t skeptics?

            Muller’s “Hide the Decline” presentation was simply a straw man, in any event, claiming Mann said and wrote things that simply Mann never did. That Muller was wrong on Hockey Stick doesn’t disprove the mathematics of the BEST team.

            Or are you claiming that every single member of BEST is lying about the numbers, all of which are openly published and have been reviewed many times?

          • Matt

            They aren’t lying but when you use the same flawed numbers you get the same flawed result. GISS has fiddled and ajusted the temperature data so much it is no longer data it is BU**S*IT. Mann did fake the hockey stick other wise he wouldn’t have removed the data that didn’t agree with the result he wanted. A true scientist publishes all of the data not just what agrees with the conclusion.

          • Bart

            BEST didn’t use GISS.

            It didn’t reproduce GISS’ methods.

            It did, however, on something like a half dozen times as much data as GISS used, confirm GISS’ results, independently.

            Perhaps you have some voodoo ESP voices in your head that can tell you who is and who isn’t a true scientist, but I’d suggest if you do, that makes you the least credible judge of who is or isn’t one.

            Mann’s hockey stick has been reproduced over a dozen times by other paleoclimate studies independent of is, using other data. Look up Marcott et al for one example stringing together six dozen paleoclimate records, producing the same hockey stick.

            Independent verification is the timeworn test of valid science; Mann has it. You don’t.

  • Semprasectum

    We live in very dangerous times . . .

  • redtruckdan

    Saul Alinsky tactic, insult degrade the opposition…

  • graphx

    He should issue a direct debate challenge to Bill Nye.

  • Reminds me of the Pope (government) vs. Galileo (science). Political beliefs trump science.

  • RationalInquirer

    So what about this guy being fired?

  • Barry’s fringe GreenBaggers are hyperventilating because Struggling Hard Working Middle Class Americans don’t care about this hoax any longer, they have shifted some time ago to focusing like a laser on their quality of life rapidly declining.

  • VanceJ

    When it comes to Global warming, it really is simple, follow the money, who is benefiting from the scare tactics ?

  • somatic60

    The climate change alarmists are very touchy and quite insecure. Academia is generally open to a multiplicity of crackpot theories and alternative view points. However, climate change is like a fanatical religion. Cross them at your own peril….. So, I enjoy mocking them every chance I get, haha.

  • BobDow123

    As disturbing as this article appears, there is a somewhat positive side to it. The man-made global warming is slowly collapsing under the weight of mounting disconfirming data and newer, more accurate and descriptive models. Behavior like this (i.e., a fascist-like intolerance for dissent and debate) is yet another tell-tale sign of a dying idea. Put another way, the “warmists” (and their sycophants in the media) are just starting to “feel the heat.”

  • Clipper

    The biggest liars are the ones who try to shut every one else up. Political correctness is the mark of a society of slaves. Until the politically correct are brought to justice, we will be living in an crony capitalist, oppressive, mind control, police state.

  • White Dude

    Being fired from a Left-Wing think tank because you don’t hold politically correct scientific views is something that looks really good on a resume.

  • Doc3

    The goal of climate change has been to enact cap and trade taxes so the government can stick their greasy fingers in our pockets and redistribute our wealth to third world Nation’s. Liberal fools like California have passed this tax and will find out when their utility bills skyrocket what is the intended result. Meanwhile the mass migration of companies moving out of California to the open arms of business friendly States continues.

  • redtruckdan

    Please!!! millenial’s…Wake Up. You have been used as useful idiots…

  • ProBizConservative

    So much for diversity of opinions and thought…

    Mr. Rossiter figured it out: that the “climate change” ruse is merely designed to line the pockets of the chosen few (see: Crony Capitalism, or Donors rewarded for…)

  • Mike_E_V

    As hotly debated a subject climate change has become, the real story here is the proponents lack of interest in having other scientists duplicate their theory based upon current available information used to arrive at a conclusion. It is in everyone’s best interest with such passionate subjects to have the opposing viewpoints exposed in a hopefully heated debate over the issue in question. Why are the proponents of climate change (Is that its current name??) unwilling to debate the opponents of it? As with any democratic institution, issues are tossed about before anything is settled. Not so with climate change yet no one knows why the proponents are so unwilling to speak publicly with the dissenters of same. Climate change will continue to be treated as unproven science until those who say it is happening agree to discuss it with those who say it is not happening. Until that happens the public believes, along with many knowledgeable scientists, climate change rhetoric doesn’t pass the smell test.

    • cmdprompt

      AGL is a religion, not science.

  • MidNightRider2001 .

    If you oppose the population control agenda of either global warming or gays are born that way, you will be terminated.

  • Vote GOP

    Wow, they eat their own when this much money is involved.

  • Major Kong

    guess he didn’t get invested in natural gas like all the rest of the “believers”.

  • Clete Torres

    If there was any truth to AGW, those promoting it wouldn’t try so hard to silence those who disagree.

  • somatic60

    Environmental Studies majors are aflame with new students. Colleges are cranking out grads at breakneck speed. So many are liberal arts-based. Thin on science and long on politics and feelgoodism.

  • UnknownRider

    Only in America could a President who cut classes to smoke “choom” now lecture us on science and get away with it.

    • donniea

      The obama rodeo clown has more credibility than the obama president clown.

  • dachu3

    These progressives, they are not so tolerate as they want all of us to be, right?

  • gman51

    You simply cannot express an opposing view to that of the tolerant, open-minded, non-biased left.

  • Whirlwinder

    Education in America is more Marxist than Education in Russia. Global warming is a hoax and is a way for big government to take more freedoms away from us while shifting billions of dollars from the private economy to government.

  • B Hussein.

    Notice how liberals always attach the word justice to their pet causes – climate justice, economic justice , social justice, environmental justice, marriage justice.. If their causes are about “justice” then who dare oppose !

    • Ernest – TrollFighter#1

      also justice doesnt need adjectives…it simply means fairness and applies everywhere
      those are just fundraising keywords to show that democrats are in touch with the little people

  • OriginalRankinRedneck

    It’s maddening to know that the ex-Vice Crackpot-in-Chief (Al Gore) has become a multi-gazillionaire selling his global warming drivel to adoring airheads and other brain-dead sycophants.

    • Ernest – TrollFighter#1

      laughing himself all the way to the bank…
      before people started to call him on it, Al Gore’s “carbon-footprint” probably rivaled many impoverished nations

  • Victor Cachat

    We need Separation of Leftist Church and Science!

  • TheMobstersAreRunningtheAsylum

    I used to work for Envirotest Systems (the Smog Dog people) which was based in Illinois. I think they are not called ESP or Environmental Systems Products and are based in Connecticut. I worked in Cupertino, CA. They worked a lot with CARB or California Air Resource Board to make sure their agenda was pushed. I’ll never forget the day I walked in the office and saw then Illinois Governor Jim Edgar in our reception area. He was taken aback that I knew who he was.

    Chester Davenport was our Board Chair. If you look up Chester Davenport, it should be enlightening. Others involved were Vernon Jordon, Yousef Jackson, lots of folks like that. We paid regular money to Skadden Arps, Akin Gump, Williams and Connolly and lots of other Washington firms. It is all a scam to extort money from US citizens and funnel it to the pockets of the rich and the mobsters to keep them in power. And I have no idea why the media is silent about it and has been for over two decades.

    Welcome to Amerika.

  • Will Malven

    If “the science is settled,” then it’s not science, it’s political dogma.

    Science is never “settled.” Einsteins THEORY of Relativity is only valid until or unless it is disproven, but it remains a THEORY, not a law or an absolute (even the “laws of thermodynamics” are merely probabilities based on endless experience, not “absolutes,” though you will never live to see them violated).

    Don’t get me wrong, theories are all-encompassing, supported by experimentation, and not simply hypotheses, but nonetheless, they are never absolutes–science doesn’t recognize absolutes.

  • Liberalism is becoming redefined by the present LeftGov and its co-conspirators in education and media into a new hybrid combining the worst characteristics of totalitarianism and fascism.

  • Dunnyveg

    Yes, this is the reason so many scientists are on the global warming bandwagon. They are hardly profiles in courage, but they are employed.

  • Grendel007

    The longer this debate that is already over goes on the more people see climate change/catastrophe/warming/cooling/ doom IS all a tool of politicians

  • Susan Gate

    Well gee I thought the second hand smoke and cancer link was settled.
    OOps guess not.
    Journal of the National Cancer Institute
    The study found no statistically significant relationship between lung cancer and exposure to passive smoke, however. Only among women who had lived with a smoker for 30 years or more was there a relationship that the researchers described as “borderline statistical significance.”
    I know the alarmists like to point to that as somehow proof that AGW is settled.

  • The problem with blaming CO2 for global warming, presuming that temperatures are actually increasing due to human activity, is that CO2 is used by plants to build tissue.

    Each and every carbon atom in carbohydrates is pulled, literally, from thin air. Every leaf on every tree is a carbon sink. All of the plants everywhere around the world work each day to pull carbon from the atmosphere.

  • RxRight

    Like the many lies that have been uttered out of the POTUS’s mouth; the truth will one day find its way out of all the manure that is drowning it out. Global warming IS a lie. The amount of climate scientist’s no longer fearing for their jobs continues to grow. As a matter of fact, its embarrassing to listen to Gore and his lemmings because their message is so fanatical and so desperate that the truth, greed, is now crystal clear.

  • doug1961

    They won’t debate because they know what Caleb knows…global warming is a hoax.

  • BigIronRam

    For this belief – based in a decade’s worth of statistical research and analysis on climate change data – Rossiter was recently terminated as an associate fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies, a progressive Washington D.C. think tank.

    Diversity for thee, not for me…

    LMAO at the “progressives”

  • Frank Segesman


  • Mike_E_V

    There is no consensus on climate change but the left does not care about that. Follow us, we know best. Look at Detroit! One of our better performing models of progressivism.

  • PolarBearPoop

    So in other words, the headline should be,” Professor Fired For Speaking the Truth.”

    • Bart

      Volunteer Dumped By Entire Volunteer Membership For Being Persistently Wrong On Facts

  • Crosshairball

    The rest of the world is getting an education and what we get here in the US is global warming propaganda. Furthermore, and this is the elephant in the living room, the propaganda is in place to keep us from the truth of what is really causing real climate change which is our shadow goverment’s use (along with the US military) of chemtrails and HAARP based ionospheric tampering.

    • 12758

      I’ve got news for you, the US is the only country where global warming is seen as controversial. Every other country accepts it as fact. Only in the US does the anti-science message get any traction, and then only among the non-scientific public.

      • Chris Oglesby

        ‘And so liberals grow up in a bubble of self-deception. Their self-esteem is grounded in conforming to beliefs that do not accord with reality, but which nevertheless earn them gold stars and certificates of achievement.’

        ‘Then they enter the real world. Yet for them, it is not altogether real. The books they read and the television shows they watch confirm their special status. Liberal newsreaders and authors assure them they are better than their conservative peers. Clearly, they are more generous and insightful than these relics.’

        ‘Nowadays, when publicly queried, liberals trot out focus group tested talking points. After this, they stonewall their questioner by changing the subject. But the full depth of their privilege is revealed when the pubic subsequently refuses to be outraged.’

        Melvyn L. Fein Ph.D. is professor of sociology at Kennesaw State University.

        Read more: The Marietta Daily Journal – Liberal privilege and the lies of the left

  • Twerk_this_Obama

    To deny “climate change” is to rebel against the Marxist overthrow of the US.

  • donniea

    The chancellor of a university in our state has an extensive background as an environmental scientist. Her university-provided home is in a heavily wooded area adjacent to the campus. She has directed that the snakes be eradicated from the areas around the home because she saw a couple outside in the yard. Do environmentalists think that the environment is something they can control on a whim?

  • epapa

    Remember that NASA Dr. Hansen dreamed all this up garbage in 1970 when his model predicted that the Gulf Stream would freeze solid by 1980. When that didn’t happen, he revised his model to show global warming. After infusions of cash from Sorus and algore, he jumped to more false conclusions. The Medieval Warming Period, from 900AD to 1400AD, when all the glaciers melted proved them all wrong. Polar bears survived, the sea level didn’t rise, and the average life expectancy increased by 10 years with the longer growing season. Bring on warming. We have nothing to fear.

    • 12758

      “Bring on warming. We have nothing to fear.”

      It’s about Texas had another drought.

      • Matt

        Seeing as most of Texas is a semi-arid area I would expect it to have a few droughts because of course that is the definition of semi-arid area. I cannot believe that anyone is worried about a 0.79 degree C warming over 153 years. By the way that figure is from the latest IPCC report, not the SPM but the real report. So get a grip.

        • 12758

          “I would expect it to have a few droughts ”

          The longest drought on record? If a 0.79 degree C rise meant all temperature went up by that amount there would be no problem – but it doesn’t mean that. The planet takes about a thousand years to get back into equilibrium if you inject a large dose of CO2. In getting back into equilibrium you get extreme weather events.

          At the peek of the last glacial maximum (ice age) the when you average over the entire world it turns out to have only been about 6 °C cooler: For people living in Northern Europe and Canada it’s the difference between walking around in a t-shirt and a mile of ice over your head (yes it was that thick).

  • Platlin .

    For years now scientists at Nasa, the Eroupean Space Agency and others have reported that the entire solar system is warming. How is it that my Suv is responsible for warming on mars. And this is the point. No one doubts that there is climate change going on, the only dispute is the cause. Now with carbon tax and other draconian messures, the globalist are given willingly the mother of all tools to control the economies and people of virtually every nation on earth. When we are all slaves to the elite I hope you sheeple who wouldn’t allow the debate rot in you know where.

    • 12758

      “For years now scientists at Nasa, the Eroupean Space Agency and others have reported that the entire solar system is warming.”

      1. No they haven’t.
      2. When your argument is founded on lies you haven’t got an argument.

  • MostlyRight

    This issue has been about politics and power and money from the very beginning.

  • 12758

    So a failed academic who has published NOTHING on climate science and got sacked for incompetence. Is to champion the denialist cause. All I can say is, they’re scraping the bottom of the barrel on this one.

    • UnknownRider

      Questions for you:
      1) On what basis do you assert he is a “failed academic”?;
      2) What is your basis for your claim he has “published NOTHING”?;
      3) What is the relevance of his publishing history to the presence or absence of the truth of his conclusions based on his statistical and climate model analysis?;
      4) On what basis do you claim his “incompetence”?
      Absent thoughtful, relevant answers, it would seem you are in the “I’ve learned what to think” camp, not in the “how to think” camp.
      In short, you’ve been brainwashed during your public “government” education.

      • 12758

        On the basis of your questions I can only conclude that you’re incapable of using google to do an elementary search. He ISN’T a statistician and calling him one doesn’t qualify him as one. His elevation to ‘denialist sainthood’ is more an indication of the desperate scramble to find academics to support the denialist line.

    • cmdprompt

      And yet another reading comprehension impaired outcome of public propaganda/education. Was pathetic, now bordering on tragic. Evidence that critical thinking, logic and reading comprehension are completely absent from the education system.

    • Ernest – TrollFighter#1

      you cannot even publish a grammatically correct sentence and we are all supposed to listen to you

      also, the fact you call it “the denialist cause” exposes your bias and proves you have no understanding of science

      • 12758

        ” …and we are all supposed to listen to you”

        No. You are NOT supposed to listen to me. It is a characteristic of denialists that they do not listen to evidence. I’m a damned sight more qualified in this field than you and that’s a fact.

        • Matt

          You have spewed a pile of crap but I haven’t seen any evidence put forth in any of your writing except for a vague SKS referance which had me laughing out loud.

    • Chris Oglesby

      Liberals, because they are liberal, assume they are more compassionate than anyone who disagrees with them. From elementary school on, they are praised for their concerns about the welfare of others — even though this kindness is only manifested in verbal declarations.

      Likewise, from the earliest grades, their teachers applaud their superior intelligence. Since they agree with the principles they are being taught and regurgitate them on cue, they are regarded as unusually perceptive. Critical thinking, although orally encouraged, is, in practice, punished.

      Read more: The Marietta Daily Journal – Liberal privilege and the lies of the left

  • jack_foobar

    All science is denial, until a hypothesis is proven as law. If this wasn’t the case, half of you would have dropped dead from disease and malnutrition.

  • UnknownRider

    Rules for Radicals and from the Little Red Book: Teach them What to think, not How to Think.

  • Bill Booth

    He is fortunate that , that was the limit of what was done to him The federal ministry of truth could send him to a reeducation camp..

    • UnknownRider

      For the most part we don’t need “re-education” camps because we have government education camps in the first place.

  • jbszeus

    They don’t care about whether it’s true or not. This is the mistake AGW opponents keep making. It’s about doing whatever it takes to make us all stop using fossil fuels. That’s it. It’s not any more complicated than that. Assuming they have a desire to find out the truth simply plays into their hands. They want to control us, not debate us or have anyone muddy things up with facts.

  • Cindy Otis

    A REAL scientist is always skeptical – but is always open to new ideas and new PROOF. There is NO PROOF that man-made global warming is real. There just isn’t. Yes there are doctored studies and falsified results that advance an ideology, but there’s no SCIENTIFIC PROOF. It’s all theories and conjecture – most of which has been proven to be wrong already. When someone tells you “the debate is over” they are clearly an ideologue and not a scientist. For a true scientist the debate is never over – there’s always room for discovery.

    The firing of a professor because he doesn’t believe in global warming is a clear indicator that the global warming cult has nothing to do with science. It never has. It’s always been about power and money. Global warming is a lot like Bigfoot, UFOs, and the Loch Ness monster – lots of people say they believe in it and you have lots of “evidence” that’s not really evidence. But until you have conclusive proof it’s not science.

    • 12758

      On that basis there’s no proof that smoking causes cancer or that the Earth is approximately spherical.

      • Matt

        12758 smoking doesn’t cause cancer it just increases the chance of getting cancer. Do YOU understand the difference? If smoking caused cancer then everyone who smoked would get cancer and they don’t. I have been high enough to see the curve of the earth so yes I have proof that the earth is approximately spherical

    • Bart

      Ah. The No True Scotsman Fallacy.

      The Physics of AGW have been well-known and thoroughly explored for a century. Heat-seeking missiles couldn’t work without this Physics. We wouldn’t understand how eyes could be blue though they contain no blue pigment without this Physics. We have some 50 Essential Climate Variables as defined and studied by the World Meteorological Organization, and there have been several hundred paleoclimate studies on geological timescales, all establishing evidence that has only one explanation that when using the simplest assumptions, the most parsimony of exceptions, and the greatest universality of application as accurate or very nearly true.

      Cindy, you’re simply stating false claims.

      Dr. Rossiter was not fired from anything. He lost the sponsorship of people in a volunteer club, and no one else in the club stood up for him. No one. It only would take two, out of the entire club’s membership, and they couldn’t be questioned for it or disciplined for it, as it’s a club, it doesn’t pay them, and it has no power to pressure its members.

      Science doesn’t work on ‘conclusive proof’; every explanation is accurate or very nearly true only until new observations require it be amended. The accurate truth right now is AGW.

      And really, how is it surprising to find out we can’t dump wastes into the air without consequences?

  • Platlin .

    For years now scientists at Nasa, the Eroupean Space Agency and others have reported that the entire solar system is warming. How is it that my Suv is responsible for warming on mars. And this is the point. No one doubts that there is climate change going on, the only dispute is the cause. Now with carbon tax and other draconian messures, the globalist are given willingly the mother of all tools to control the economies and people of virtually every nation on earth. When we are all slaves to the elite I hope you sheeple who wouldn’t allow the debate rot in you know where.

  • Gus diZerega

    Funny how this man is so much wiser that thousands of scientists and yet summarily gives a student an ‘F’ based on a claim he later admitted was false and so raised her grade.

    The Rupert Murdoch standard of integrity and logic.

    • adamh2o

      He gave her an F because her paper made no sense. He raised it because he realized the information she was getting was wrong so it wasn’t totally her fault.

      • Gus diZerega

        That makes sense if it were NOT the case that the overwhelming amount of scientific papers published reported what she accepted as valid. As he admits. You do not flunk a student whose paper is in keeping with the vast majority of published research on a subject.

        I have given more than one ‘A’ to students for papers I believed were competently and creatively argued using a generally respected framework I disagreed with. And I did not give As out very often.

        He confusers teaching with demanding intellectual subordination – a common failing among professors of many different views, but in his case taken to an extreme.

        I can see why such an authoritarian twit was fired.

        • cmdprompt

          He teaches math. The models don’t work, the math doesn’t work. This has nothing to do with intellectual subordination. Math is either right or wrong. Period. In statistics, “right” falls within an acceptable margin of error. This isn’t a creative writing class. What do you want him to do? Write a new statistical theory to accommodate your religion?

          “But teacher… I read some AGW religious nutjob’s paper and he said 2 + 2 == 10! So how can you give me a bad grade? I referenced my work!”

          • Gus diZerega

            Bull. He gives very little description of what happened, but when thousands of scientists, many of whom are well versed in math – much better than you or me -b read the data and its implications differently then the issue is not like 1+1= 2 or 10.

          • cmdprompt

            LOL, you make some amazing assumptions here. Many mathematicians have looked at the data. Using standard statistical modelling the conclusions drawn from the climate data are fallacious at best. This is just ONE more person to look at what the AGW zealots have postulated and cried bull.

            I guarantee you that most of those thousands of scientists you have referred to have never looked at the data or the models the AGW evangelicals are using that can’t predict the weather LAST YEAR based upon the historical data that they have. Crappy model, crappy assumptions based upon it.

            You have no idea what my background is. Don’t assume you do.

          • 12758

            “Many mathematicians have looked at the data. Using standard statistical modelling the conclusions drawn from the climate data are fallacious at best”

            Name them and cite the paper with their research, or your statement is just a lie.

          • Chris Oglesby

            Nowadays, when publicly queried, liberals trot out focus group tested talking points. After this, they stonewall their questioner by changing the subject. But the full depth of their privilege is revealed when the pubic subsequently refuses to be outraged.~Melvyn L. Fein Ph.D. is professor of sociology at Kennesaw State University

        • Ernest – TrollFighter#1

          there is no intellectual subordination in statistics
          this was not an opinion paper
          it was a statistical analysis
          he analysis either falls in the margin of error
          or it is manipulated to the point where an objective party cant help but notice its arbitrary nature

          • Gus diZerega

            Every major journal of which I am aware treats GW as a reasonably settled fact and human actions as a significant cause. Statistics do not and never have spoken for themselves. They require a theoretical framework to make a case. (100% of milk drinkers die within 130 years of having imbibed milk.) The article gave next to no information about that issue or what actually happened beyond that one professor’s side of the story. The story as he recounted it did not give confidence in his judgment.

            The other side has a long record of distorting the data and character assassination (remember Heartland and Kaczynski? I do. or the continual claims scientists disagree with the oil companies because they are in it for the money? A Karl Rove reversal as if there ever was one.)

            The article is insufficient to prove any case at all and the bulk of scientific research on the subject supports the position you, EXXON, and the Kochs dislike. Nor is it sufficient to prove he was suppressed. Might have been, but 100% still in need of evidence.

          • Ernest – TrollFighter#1

            “They require a theoretical framework to make a case. (100% of milk drinkers die within 130 years of having imbibed milk.)”

            liberals are so contrarian and argumentative that if you let them talk long enough they eventually prove your own point


          • Gus diZerega

            Hard to believe your comment is as dense as it is since I gave a statistic that obviously had an absurd theory behind it. If you knew much about statistics you would know statisticians argue a lot over the meaning of supposedly objective statistical data. I won;t waste my time with your responses any more.

          • Ernest – TrollFighter#1

            smh you cant even comprehend a comment and im supposed to just accept your interpretation of the global warming statistics

            you havent wasted any of your time with my comments….of the two comments i made towards you, you have addressed zero of the substance within them, you have failed to comprehend my points and while complaining about me you have proven the point of the professor mentioned in the article…have a good day

          • Chris Oglesby

            Liberals trot out focus group tested talking points. After this, they stonewall their questioner by changing the subject. But the full depth of their privilege is revealed when the pubic subsequently refuses to be outraged.~Melvyn L. Fein Ph.D. is professor of sociology at Kennesaw State University.
            Read more: The Marietta Daily Journal – Liberal privilege and the lies of the left

          • Matt

            No one I know denies that the globe has warmed 0.79 degrees C in the last 153 years(IPCC reference). I also agree that humans played a small part in that warming. It is the catastrophic part of the CAGW we don’t believe in. The oil companies fund the WWF, Sierra club Greenpeace and others. They don’t fund skeptics.

        • Chris Oglesby

          Nowadays, when publicly queried, liberals trot out focus group tested talking points. After this, they stonewall their questioner by changing the subject. But the full depth of their privilege is revealed when the pubic subsequently refuses to be outraged.
          Melvyn L. Fein Ph.D. is professor of sociology at Kennesaw State University.

        • kristy624

          But didn’t he ask for real observational data and not data based on climate models?

    • cmdprompt

      One more reading comprehension impaired outcome of public propaganda/education. Pathetic really.

      • Ernest – TrollFighter#1

        i assume you are referring to Gus as that outcome, right?

        • cmdprompt


    • Chris Oglesby

      If one is a liberal, lies are accepted as essential to promoting benevolent causes. The rabble does not appreciate the benefits heaped upon them; hence, it is OK to manipulate them into submission. Whatever the falsehood, the worst criticism will be that one “misspoke.” Or maybe one was quoted “out of context.”

      Read more: The Marietta Daily Journal – Liberal privilege and the lies of the left

  • UnknownRider

    Isn’t public (government) “education” grand?

    • Mike A

      He got fired from a private (non government) think tank and returned to part time work at a private (non government) university. So your post doesnt make sense

  • Jeff

    This professor actually sounds like a REAL teacher and statistition. So much of what is taught in colleges in the west is simply leftist dogma and propaganda. I feel sorry for this generation of children. They are brainwashed, not educated. Their critical thinking skills are laughable. All they will be able to do is tread in the muck of political correctness while helping to usher in the decline of western civilization.

  • Jeff

    Global warming is more of a religion than science. It is not meant to be examined. It is to be believed on faith alone. The religion of the left. And yes, they are more fanatical than most cultists.

  • blankho

    Yes if you are not a believer, then by default you are an non-believer and have no place at the pulpit. I’m a little embarrassed for him when he says up until he examined the data in great detail, he was a believer. Shouldn’t a good scientist be neither a believer or non-believer until he becomes convinced by the evidence. Science today, at least Climate Science, is a fraud.

    • Ernest – TrollFighter#1

      for his own survival he had to be a believer…how else does he get a teaching job and a position at IPS

      • Mike A

        Hes a social scientist his job has nothing to do with climate. Basically his job is finding out what percentage of people feel happy while living next to a river and decide if theyre connected

    • Bart

      The ‘examination’ Dr. Rossiter describes sounds extremely special, and unlike any qualified scientific stance I’ve ever heard of.

      Caleb Rossiter claims the badly understood arguments of the few sources cited by a single F student YEARS ago — meaning at least 10,000 Climatology papers have been published since — convinced him forevermore that all of AGW was wrong? This is known as the Fallacy Fallacy: if one can find a single poorly-argued case, one can use it to exterminate all valid arguments. It’s simply illogical, and profoundly absurd.

      • kristy624

        He is looking at the observational data. The climate science was “settled” back in 1992 just on the basis of climate models. During the time from the 1980s to 1998, the earth was warming along with increased CO2. But now that we have skyrocketing CO2 with no temperature increase in 16 years, one definitely has to say that the hypothesis has failed. The null hypothesis of natural processes controlling the climate has still not been falsified.

        • Bart

          I’ve been looking at the observational data since 1984. It took me until 2011 to find sufficient observational data from all WMO 50 Essential Climate Variables to conclude at a Sigma Six level that AGW was confirmed, nullifying the hypothesis of internal processes.. which by the way is no more the ‘natural’ null hypothesis than perpetual motion would be, given that both ‘natural variability’ and perpetual motion simply defy the most knowable and testable laws of Physics.

          Only one single satellite record, the privately-generated RSS, shows no warming in 16 years, and it is known to be heavily weighted to a seriously broken instrument.

          As a running mean, on any timespan with above a 95% confidence interval, the warming of the Earth has continued as an uninterrupted trend without pause, hiatus or stoppage for the entirely of the past six decades.

          • kristy624

            If there has been pause in warming, why are the scientists trying to figure out what is going on?

            “But the pause has persisted, sparking a minor crisis of confidence in the field. Although there have been jumps and dips, average atmospheric temperatures have risen little since 1998, in seeming defiance of projections of climate models and the ever-increasing emissions of greenhouse gases. Climate sceptics have seized on the temperature trends as evidence that global warming has ground to
            a halt. Climate scientists, meanwhile, know that heat must still be building up somewhere in the climate system, but they have struggled to explain where it is going, if not into the atmosphere. Some have begun to wonder whether there is something amiss in their models.


            And according to the IPCC, between the years 2000-2009, growth in CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning was, on average, 3% per year, which exceeds the growth estimated by 35 of the 40 SRES scenarios. Human-caused greenhouse gas emissions set a record in 2010, a 6% jump on 2009 emissions, exceeding even the “worst case” scenario cited in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. AR3 in 2001 projected a temperature rise of about 0.2 °C per decade for the next two decades for all SRES scenarios.

            So in the presence of skyrocketing CO2, global temperatures should have risen almost 0.3C by now. The null hypothesis has yet to fail, but the AGW hypothesis has failed. There is no way CO2 can be the main contributor to warming if in the presence of skyrocketing CO2, global temperatures have not responded as the climate models predicted.

          • Bart

            We’re talking about different things.

            For me, surface warming of the globe requires understanding its parts, and either removing for known sources of variability (like the Hale Cycle or volcanic eruptions near the equator that put sufficient particulates into the stratosphere, or ocean circulations), or smoothing the curve over long enough spans to filter the short-term variability. To get to a 99% CI, that’s 32 years. We could do better, where there enough temperature measurements, but only about six sevenths of the Earth’s surface has even the most crude station data of any use.

            Models don’t have this issue. Models are omniscient within their modeled world. They tune to the insolation, they assume the volcanic activity, they parameterize human industrial activity, they cover all poles and remote locations and oceans. They may do these things with too crude granularity to be adequate on a five-year average scale (what is invariably reported by people reporting a “Pause”), but with Moore’s Law, within a decade we can count on that improving. And GCMs certainly got the Arctic and the deep oceans wrong, in terms of anticipating how the new states of regional climates would change the fundaments of the global response.

            But if you include the Arctic, the deep ocean, the 32-year average, you see no pause, no hiatus. It just isn’t there in the data.

            So when you exclude the parts of the system that you don’t seem to like, sure, you can manufacture an apparent hiatus. It doesn’t make your cherry-picked picture right. It just makes you a cherry-picker.

          • Matt

            Only one problem “THE OUTPUT FROM MODELS IS NOT DATA” So when you check the real data in all four of the temperature records there has been no statistically significant warming in the last 17.5 years. This is not cherry picking it is just taking today’s temperature and go back in time until you see the same temperature. For the satellite record it is over 17 years of basically no change. So the majority of the models have been falsified.

          • Bart

            One: to falsify a GCM would require falsifying it on its variables of interest; this isn’t hard to do if you’re interested in short term surface temperatures, as the people putting out the models in the first place readily recognized from the start; if you’re hooked on the idea that GCMs will tell you the future of surface temperature, you just haven’t been paying attention, and can go away happy as a clam in ignorance of what’s really being talked about.

            Two: the planet is asymmetric north and south; you cannot meaningfully compare half-year temperature trends globally without some very advanced work we have no reason to believe you are employing. If you are adjusting for the differences of the hemispheres, please let us know how; if you aren’t, please restrict your claims to whole numbers of years or multiples of twelve months or 364.25 days.

            Three: there are more than four temperature records; the principle ones people look at are UAH and RSS for satellites — since they share most of their source input, essentially overlapping data — and HadCRUT and GISS for surface records — again, these share most of their source inputs. Only RSS of these four shows no actual trend in the past seventeen years. This is generally ascribed to RSS’s uncompensated use of a satellite known to have sprung a coolant leak in its sensors.

            Four: Cowtan and Way have demonstrated that the one seventh of the globe most poorly covered by ground stations includes the most rapidly warming portions of the planet.

            Five: GCM falsification cuts both ways. The more rapid decline of Arctic Summer Sea Ice was anticipated years ago by high resolution Arctic simulations; their great accuracy as revealed by more rapid than predicted-by-GCM melting did indeed falsify the GCM’s, showing them to be too conservative. ARGO and GRACE have shown that more of the heat budget of the Earth has gone into the deep ocean and melting of the continental ice of the Antarctic than GCMs predicted, too. Deep ocean warming forces CO2 out of solution, amplifying positive feedback. Antarctic continental ice flowing into the ocean raises sea levels and amplifies ocean margin feedback.

          • Matt

            You leave me with so many questions. How is the deep ocean warming without warming any of the intervening ocean layers. The Antarctic ice is at an all time high. Argo wasn’t showing any warming until they adjusted the output. The Grace satellite has also had issues. The continental ice on Antarctica cannot melt the summer temps are still -30C. The sea ice is so high because the sea temps are too low to melt the ice bergs. There are no large positive climate feedback’s or we wouldn’t have the existing climate. There is no coming back from a positive feedback unless a larger negative cancels it out. I see we both agree with Henry’s law so we understand that the planet warmed and then 800 to 1000 years later the CO2 rose as shown in the ice core record.

          • Bart

            That’s funny. I’ve seen your many questions before. Are you a regular reader of WUWT?

            One: why do you assert there is no warming of “the intervening ocean layers”? Do you mean you don’t believe in downwelling of warmer water due to haline concentration? Or have you done an exhaustive survey of the oceans and found none?

            Two: Antarctic winter sea ice is at an all time high and gives every indication of increasing further; this however is a tiny fraction of the overall Antarctic ice mass. It’s true the Antarctic upheavals aren’t homogeneous across the continent, with some areas slightly gaining mass while others more rapidly lose it, but this is consistent with external forcings and overall warming of a region famous for averaging some 40 degrees below freezing.

            Three: Could you clarify your question about ARGO’s adjustments? It sounds like you’re claiming an uncalibrated instrument is superior to a calibrated one.

            Four: GRACE has been independently corroborated by repeated field studies to have shown that Antarctic continental ice is decreasing overall at least as fast as its sea ice skirt is increasing.

            Five: Melting is not necessary in a region of sufficient conditions of aridity, insolation, pressure and windspeed, where sublimation dominates.

            Six: Actual ocean water temperature measurements contradict your claims about the cause of the high Antarctic sea ice levels. The more plausible explanation is changes in winds, and transfer of ice mass from the continent to the sea, along with some thermal expansion.

            Seven: “No large positive climate feedbacks or we…” what does that even mean?

            Eight: Many feedbacks follow sigmoid trend lines, and there is no mystery to sine curves; tipping points and sudden state changes also often break extreme feedback patterns. However, the chaos associated with such breaks, the unpredictable nature of such waves when amplified by external forcings and return to normalcy, are inevitably at least as complex as the evolution of the excited state, and so doubly costly.

            Nine: higher resolution studies of ice cores have in the past year shown that CO2 rises as feedbacks of temperature rise are more nearly immediate, within decades at most. Likewise, as CO2 rises, so does the temperature. There is a feedback mechanism. There are positive feedbacks in the release of other GHE’s. The best estimate of long term climate sensitivity tells us that climate sensitivity is likely no single figure but a group of states centering on figures between 1.2 and 6, mostly dominated by a range around 2.95 +/- 0.1.

          • kristy624

            How long have we been measuring the deep oceans?

          • Bart

            Neither long enough nor well enough, considering how truly cheap it would be to do better and for how long we’ve had the technology to do it. It’s almost like we collectively don’t want to know enough about our planet.

            If it were a car, you can bet we’d be all up under the hood tinkering and probing and checking the levels every possible way.

            It’s our only vehicle, and if it breaks down, we have a very long walk on a rough road to a service station or rental place.

          • kristy624

            My point is there is no way we have accurate temperatures of the deep oceans, but even if the missing heat is in the deep oceans, then that’s a good thing as it isn’t coming back out.

          • Bart

            You know, we used to think that about the Great Lakes and sewage. They’re so big, human influence is so small, there’s no way it’s going to come back out.

            We were wrong about that. Hygiene doesn’t work that way.

            What is carrying some portion of the heat budget into the deep ocean isn’t well known. Why should we assume it will just keep carrying heat down at the same rate as it is now? We don’t know how much heat it was carrying down before, if any. We don’t know if the state of these channels of heat to the deep might flip over — observations tend to confirm that such reversals are commonplace — and instead lock heat at the surface moreso than ever before.

            That’s why your point gives us no comfort. Argumentum ad Ignoratio ought not lead to certainty of invulnerability.

            Do you have any other reason to believe in your own invulnerability to the consequences of all the dumping of burnt fuel in the world into the air?

          • kristy624

            Ok, so the 2nd LAW of thermodynamics is now wrong. Nothing like dismissing science to make you feel better.

          • Bart

            You’ll have to explain how you went from what I said to violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.. Or better yet, don’t bother, as it’s simply not true.

            Sure, a few years of the deep oceans absorbing more heat than usual has likely happened. So what?

            The mechanism for that shift of more heat than usual into the deep is not well-explained; our understanding of such shifts tells us they are also prone to sudden flips, or changes in phase. What’s the opposite of greater absorption by the deep?

            That’d be lesser absorption by the deep.

            And for all that, the deep ocean absorption hypothesis at best accounts for about a quarter of the ‘missing heat’; volcanic activity accounts for about a sixth; missing measurements from remote rapidly warming parts of the surface accounts for another seventh. Changes due the economic crash of 2008 account for about a tenth of the difference. Changes in solar output accounts for about the same amount. Multiple ocean circulations, arctic sea ice state change, albedo changes, and atmospheric restructuring account easily for the rest, all told.

            The climate is complex. Our monitoring is poor and haphazard. The deep ocean is too simple an explanation to wish away all the consequences of dumping waste into the air, and will not keep us from the harmful results of bad behavior by the greedy and short-sighted.

          • kristy624

            Oh lord. CO2 is not some toxic waste. It’s not like pollution. You can’t compare CO2 to sewage waste dumped in our waters. And look at what you wrote: The climate is complex. Our monitoring is poor and haphazard. you got that right, but yet the science is SETTLED. I never wished away the heat into the deep ocean. That was Kevin Treberth since he can’t find that missing heat, he just dumped into the deep oceans without any kind of proof, just a model. Tell him his hypothesis is too simple.

          • Bart

            You make some rather extraordinary claims. SCotUS has ruled not once but (counting this morning), three times affirming the EPA’s power to deem CO2 a pollutant.

            Not that anyone needs an agency to tell them that dumping waste is polluting. What is your proof that such a simple fact is somehow so wrong that CO2E, with all its documented harms, is not a toxic waste, is ‘unlike’ pollution?

            Sure, the climate is complex. Sure, there are some 50 essential climate variables. In a complex system where some of the variables of interest point one way, and some another, we might have a worthwhile debate; in the climate system every one of the 50 variables points toward AGW and harms as a result. That level of consilience takes us past complexity concerns.

            Harmful AGW is the inference from all the observations requiring the simplest assumptions, the fewest exceptions, with the most universal application; we are obliged by reason and the principles of Science established three hundred years ago by Newton to view as accurate or very nearly true the settled proposition that CO2 is a pollutant, until such time as new evidence absolves the polluters of the duty to pay for the mess they’re creating, and stop their pollution.

            As for cherry-picked sound-bites from Trenberth, why don’t you ask him what his out-dated quote really means, and what he thinks now?

            Because every time someone, like Tom Di Liberto ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2014/06/23/claim-that-global-warming-has-decelerated-is-troubling-misleading-viewpoint/ ) does, it becomes clear to any reader that Trenberth is not on your side.

          • Andrew70

            Then why do the most prominent “climate scientists” – political actors who pretend to be real scientists, admit to each other their worries about the NON-warming of the last 17 years?

            Kevin Trenberth (http://www.di2.nu/foia/1255352257.txt):
            “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”

          • Bart

            Wow. Trenberth’s Travesty.


            Can you maybe trot out a less debunked fallacy next time?

  • TTjr

    I personally would rather watch the food growing belt move north from a couple of degrees of warming, than watch thousands of feet of ice move south at a mile a year. Long live the melting period!

    • Bart

      Thing is, the non-food growing belt is also moving north at the same time.

      More heat doesn’t always equate with better crops if you don’t get regular, reliable water along with it.. and what makes you think the soil of the Tundra is any readier to support intensive agriculture than the soils of any other desert?

      Did you really think we were in danger of thousands of feet of ice moving south a mile a year any time soon? That’s kinda extraordinarily alarmist. What’s your extraordinary evidence?

  • adamh2o

    You know, 40 years ago, almost nobody believed in black holes. Now it’s almost globally accepted. And yet now Stephen Hawking is saying “Ah, ah, ah, maybe we should take another look at this”.

    Point being, in science it is never a matter of “The science is settled. Case closed.”

    That’s not the way science works.

  • Charles Reichley

    “Debate is over” means “I have no idea how to win a debate with you”.

    Remember, Obama told us two years ago that the war in Iraq “is over”. And we can see how that worked out.

  • Number 6

    The Global Warming crown have morphed into a cult which would make Rev. Jim Jones proud.

  • joules48084

    Let’s face it, guys, when a leftist screams. GLOBAL WARMING DENIER, someone’s meal ticket is getting threatened.

  • Bart

    Dr. Rossiter’s issue stems from poor grasp of how climate models work; this isn’t surprising for a social statistician, but it is disappointing.

    I have a model car. I drive it on a plastic track. It’s a really good, reliable model car, but it does not predict car accidents. Climate models can’t predict volcanoes (which sometimes influence global temperature, but not in a statistically very useful way), can’t predict solar trends (which are running the opposite of their normal relationship with global temperature these days), and don’t have the granularity to capture the effects of external forcings on extreme weather we know from Chaos Theory to expect.

    Climatology has 50+ climate variables plus all of Physics all pointing the same direction. Consider the works of Parmesan & Yohe, Lovejoy, Hansen, Mann, Cowtan and Way, and the thousands of others who have passed peer review on this subject and published.

    All Dr. Rossiter seems to have is Bjorn Lomborg’s faulty oft-trotted-out excuse: there’s something bad somewhere in the world, so Physics can’t be real.

    • 12758

      If he’s a statistician why isn’t he a member of the American Statistical Association?

      • Bart

        Who cares?

        It’s the claims that matter, not the person making them.

        Since the claims appear invalid, a better question is why isn’t Rossiter a member of a logical association?

    • Matt

      Bart read the climategate E-mails. Peer review is B***S**T. If you don’t spew the mantra you don’t get published. Also you cannot include all of the variables in a climate model when you have no idea what all of the variables are or the sign of the feedback the variables represent.

      • Andrew70

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

      • Bart

        Climategate I, II, or the soon-to-be-released III?

        The records of the first eight official inquiries?

        The responses of the principles to the email releases?

        Steve McIntyre’s views on them?

        Steve Mosher’s views?

        Warwick Hughes’ views?

        Judith Curry’s views?

        Peer review has its problems, but you’ll note that the IPCC isn’t a peer-reviewed journal, nor is it restricted to peer-reviewed articles, nor did the effects claimed in the emails of keeping out others’ views actually happen.

        I’m not impressed; Climategate comes down to a hack done by a hacker of a bunch of nerds with little to no social skills, and the release of carefully stitched together partial correspondences from over a decade to make something that wasn’t happening look like it might happen, somehow.

        And when you get over pondering unknown unknowns in a circularity of Argumentum Ad Ignoratio, try to catch up with the rest of us who have moved on.

        • Matt

          Obviously you haven’t read the E-mails so there is no point to continuing this conversation until you do.

          • Bart

            Thank you for providing this example of a correct conclusion following a false premise.

            We’re agreed this conversation is pointless. You, because you don’t believe someone in possession of the facts can disagree with you, and I because I’m in possession of the facts.

  • 12758

    On the one side you’ve got best scientific minds in the world on the other you got a bunch of bloggers – hoodwinked and indoctrinated by rampant free-market ‘think tanks’, whose interest is to eliminate all possible restrictions on corporate behavior.

    The debate in the scientific literature ended years ago, the ‘debate’ in the public sphere is being kept alive by assorted unqualified denialist bloggers – but that is not a debate it is a PR campaign. This guy (sacked for incompetence by the way) is being used as just another tool to hoodwink the public.

    • Mike A

      Thank you I’ve been saying this forever. Climate scientists were stunned by the call from the media to ‘hear both sides’ because the consensus was reached a decade ago

    • kristy624

      That is so not true. I suggest you read Dr. Judith Curry’s blog. There are many, many scientists who don’t believe the debate is over.

      Climate researchers are now engaged in a debate about whether their
      science is being crippled by a compulsion to conform. They wonder if
      pressure to reach a consensus is too great. They ask if criticism is
      being suppressed. No less is at stake than the credibility of research
      evidence for climate change and the very question of whether climate
      research is still reliable. – Spiegel


      It is gratifying to see leading scientists and thinkers ‘stepping off the
      reservation’ to provide interpretations of climate science and thoughts
      on how we should respond, that differ from the IPCC assessments and the
      more alarmist interpretations.


      • Mike A

        Dr Curry doesnt happen to be one of them, her department would actually probably never hire anyone who published a paper in the negative on climate change

        • kristy624

          Sorry, she is a skeptic and believes the science is not settled.

          Judith Curry: “With regards to climate science, IMO the key issue regarding academic
          freedom is this: no scientist should have to fall on their sword to follow the science where they see it leading or to challenge the consensus. I’ve fallen on my dagger (not the full sword), in that my challenge to the consensus has precluded any further professional recognition and a career as a university administrator. That said, I have tenure, and am senior enough to be able retire if things genuinely were to get awful for me. I am very very worried about younger scientists, and I hear from a number of them that have these concerns.”


          • Mike A

            No youre misunderstanding her situation, she isnt a climate skeptic, shes, for unknown reasons, trying to give them an arena to speak in but she doesnt actually share their view.

          • kristy624

            Right, then that is why she wrote all about how the IPCC AR5 weakens the case for AGW.


      • 12758

        I don’t find her blog at all credible. It is yet another manufactured and unfounded conspiracy theory. If you read her blog you will only get one side of the story – with some very pertinent facts missing. Try reading:


        What really knocks a hole in the ‘Bengtsson conspiracy’ theory (which you seem to be alluding to) is that his paper was rejected before he even joined the GWPF. Papers get rejected all the time and mostly authors will correct any errors or deficiencies in the paper and resubmit. In this case he made it public and it got printed on the front page of the Times, so the journal decided to print the reason for the rejection. Its reasons for rejecting the paper were entirely justified.

        “It is gratifying to see leading scientists and thinkers ‘stepping off the reservation’ to provide interpretations of climate science and thoughts on how we should respond, that differ from the IPCC assessments and the more alarmist interpretations.”

        Why is that gratifying? I would rather have the truth than a falsehood concocted just to please me.

        Judith Curry speaks of McCarthyism and witch hunts. In comparison to what Bengtsson got we have a collection of death threats sent to climate scientists Phil Jones.


        • kristy624

          You stated this: “The debate in the scientific literature ended years ago, the ‘debate’ in the public sphere is being kept alive by assorted unqualified denialist bloggers – but that is not a debate it is a PR campaign.”

          So you are calling Judith Curry, a climate scientist, “unqualified” and a “conspiracy theorist.” Now what does Curry have to gain by questioning the consensus? You claim her blog only gives one side, but yet you would rather have her side silenced, thus giving only one side. Here she breaks down the IPCC AR5. Tell me what in her assessment is a falsehood.


      • Bart

        I too recommend Dr. Curry’s blog, as a portal to much that is informative about climatology, astrology, and Dr. Curry’s other interests.

        However, I wouldn’t normally stop at Curry’s blog posts; indeed I find myself better off just clicking through the links she provides and going to her original sources rather than imbibing second-hand Dr. Curry’s sometimes surprising interpretations of the actual facts.

        Her blog is very au courant and topical; Dr. Curry’s conclusions however, are generally best as examples of how logic fails under the influence of confirmation bias.

  • USMC 64-68

    Among leftists/liberals/progressives, there’s always a price to pay if you counter their propaganda with truth.

    Everything they run is enforced by P.C. conformity.

    The libtards call that “science” but it’s actually intellectual fascism.

  • Tony

    It’s often somebody from a little bit OUTSIDE of the fray who can see the real trouble. Or somebody from OUTSIDE of the groups expressing their consensus. E. G., Joseph Lister (who had a very hard time persuading surgeons and obstetricians that antisepsis was crucial), Gregor Mendel (whose work in genetics was done for the most part in his garden) …. Someone down below says, almost in the same sentence, that the statistician in question is a fool, because he doesn’t understand the complexity of the computer models being used to predict climate change, AND that the 50+ variables involved render those models quite provisional. But that is exactly what the statistician was saying! The greater the number of variables, the greater the possibility that even a tiny variation in one of them, or a tiny mistake as to their interaction, will result in something quite different from what you expect. Statisticians know this better than meteorologists do. It does not matter what the statistics in question are supposed to describe …

    • 12758

      If he’s a statistician why is he not on the membership list of the American Statistical Association (the premier professional organization for statisticians)? Oh that’s right, he doesn’t qualify as a statistician!

      The only vaguely ‘mathematical’ paper I can find of his is “The Mathematics of Musical Scales, a paper in number theory, Fall 2000” and to call that a ‘mathematical paper in number theory’ is risible. Every other publication of his is political – arms control, foreign policy etc.

      If you’re going to overturn a consensus you have to know at least as much about the subject as those who hold the consensus – he’s published nothing in peer reviewed literature in the fields of statistics, climate, or physics, with the exception of one (non-peer reviewed) paper largely attacking Al Gore on climate. The one thing that did reveal was just how little he knew.

      In case you think this is person attack on him it isn’t – it’s taken from his own CV. He isn’t some sort of expert.

      • Tony

        I’ve been a college professor for more than 25 years, and so naturally I have the insider’s low opinion of professional academic organizations, some of which are absurdly corrupt and incestuous. I am the most published author at my school and (probably) in my state, and I long ago dropped my membership in our field’s “premier” association. A man is a statistician if he studies and (perhaps) teaches statistics, and that’s not something you can tell from published work, necessarily. The question is not what the man’s paper credentials are, but whether he is correct in his assessment. And I do believe that, academic incest being what it is, it’s not only possible but likely that a consensus can develop which is no more than an echo chamber of received opinion and circular references.

        • 12758

          “A man is a statistician if he studies and (perhaps) teaches statistics, and that’s not something you can tell from published work, necessarily”

          Then he is NOT a statistician by YOUR criteria.

          “I am the most published author at my school and (probably) in my state…”

          Blog sites don’t count. Academic journals do – provided they’re in the field of statistics. Perhaps you’d care to cite your academic research papers – so I can verify that your claim is not bluff? By that I mean published in proper journals, ‘Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences’ for instance not a blog or web site.

          • Mike A

            The guy is definitely a theology professor

      • Chris Oglesby


        Nowadays, when publicly queried, liberals trot out focus group tested talking points. After this, they stonewall their questioner by changing the subject. But the full depth of their privilege is revealed when the pubic subsequently refuses to be outraged.

        Melvyn L. Fein Ph.D. is professor of sociology at Kennesaw State University

        • 12758

          I’m talking about Caleb Rossiter, the subject of this article. I have no idea what you’re talking about.

      • Andrew70

        If you don’t like honest statisticians, you will really hate Steve McIntyre or Edward Wegman.

        • 12758

          He’s not a statistician, McIntyre has both been caught manipulating data and Wegman plagiarizing data. So yes, I don’t think much of them.

  • Joe Parente

    So “right-minded campus news” means misleading headlines? The Professor wasn’t fired from his teaching job, he was fired from a progressive think-tank. But by the comments below, many people seem to believe he was fired from American University, where he will still be teaching classes. I note FOXNation picked this up, they must be proud of you for the distorted “journalism”.

    And to help the good professor out a little
    “I just cannot figure out why so many people believe that it is a catastrophic threat to our society and to Africa.”
    That’s cause you’re a statistician, not a climate scientist

    • Chris Oglesby


      Nowadays, when publicly queried, liberals trot out focus group tested talking points. After this, they stonewall their questioner by changing the subject. But the full depth of their privilege is revealed when the pubic subsequently refuses to be outraged.

      Read more: The Marietta Daily Journal – Liberal privilege and the lies of the left ~

      Melvyn L. Fein Ph.D. is professor of sociology at Kennesaw State University

  • Mike A

    So the guy goes on record to push an upcoming book, by pretending to be against climate science and claiming hell teach students it doesnt exist even though hes a mathematician and wouldn’t be lecturing any students who have anything to do with climatology…I guess I get it? Wooo that guy

    • Andrew70

      What’s wrong with being against “climate science”. As intellectually honest people know, “climate science” isn’t actually science, since it’s practitioners refuse to follow the Scientific Method. Anyone who looks at this with an open mind quickly finds out about things like “CENSORED” ftp directories, Yamal, Upside-Down Tijlander, Hide the Decline, Gleickgate, 28Gate, Glaciergate, etc.

      • Mike A

        Hahahaha and tell me what you know of the scientific method. The rhetoric that deniers use is easily refutable but theyre people who dont even bother to understand climate or time. It says a lot when the people who are against it dont understand it so they have to try and discredit the institution. Oh climate science is bad because we think its a scheme to make money. Thats not having any actual leg to stand and having to resort to pretending whats discovered it is untrustworthy. Its lowest common denominator thinking that you are apparently comfortable joining right into

      • Mike A

        Hmmm all of our agriculture is strategically positioned to take advantage of specific climate areas so maybe we should think twice about altering the climate so that we can actually have food and water. What a crazy conspiracy!

  • Mike A

    Oh by the way for anyone interested the university he works at, American, has an amazing climatology program and does relentless work providing information and data on the dangers of climate shifts

  • Joe Parente

    Ah I see. You get called out on the misleading headline and instead of answering like a man, you delete the comment. Liars are such cowards.

  • Joe Parente

    Ah, I see. Its not the “warmists” who stifle “debate”, it’s the deniers. Good to know.

    • Chris Oglesby

      Liberals, because they are liberal, assume they are more compassionate than anyone who disagrees with them. From elementary school on, they are praised for their concerns about the welfare of others — even though this kindness is only manifested in verbal declarations.

      Read more: The Marietta Daily Journal – Liberal privilege and the lies of the left

  • David G. Musser

    I come down 50 50 on this. I think if he comes up with an assignment for his students and they draw conclusions he doesn’t personally agree with or peronally views as “weak” he needs to try to separate his politics from theirs which I understand is difficult to do. But he needs to recognize they wont agree with his conclusions from the data for personal political reasons and not hold their politics against them when handing out grades. Having said that I don’t think its right for the university to fire him simply for his beliefs against climate change. Universities pride themselves on free speech and free exchange of ideas, mom and apple pie. when it suits them of course. what this professor doesn’t understand is by being against gW he is putting the universities’ position in favor of climate change in jeopardy, which might kill their ability to get large sums of cash from their funders. this has largely to do with $ not principles. always has been.

    • David G. Musser

      I say 50 50 because if I wrote a paper arguing climate change is largely crap (which I agree it is) I wouldn’t want a pro global warming professor of mine to give me an F just because he supports it. But I also think an anti climate change professor should have just as much freedom to express his view as pro GW professors do. But this again this is about $ not principles.

    • Mike A

      I think you have a misunderstanding/mistrust of academia. First hes a social statistician who would never conduct a class even associated with climate and works most likely part time at the university. Also the money aspect is kind of over hyped by people who have outrage at academia because its one of the most misunderstood aspects.

      As a professor of Earth Sciences I can attest that it would be very very difficult for a student to turn in a paper that was ‘anti-climate change’ that could receive anything higher than a D. The paper the student turned in would have to be a lit review and there are very few papers denouncing AGW, even less that have credibility. A students paper depending on what discipline of Earth Science the class was based on would most likely be full of generalities and speculation. The understanding of physics and chemistry probably just wouldnt be present.

  • BillM

    There is quite a lot of self-loathing demonstrated in the remarks relating to this article. Comments really need to be a little more reasonable and less emotional. Emotional outbursts are not demonstrative of a sensible and logical opinion and must obviously be ignored.

  • 0.3E9m/s

    Of course, he wasn’t really “fired.” He’s still employed at Am U. Institute for Policy Studies has a reputation for scientific integrity (unlike, e.g., Heartland Institute). Rossiter’s unprofessional action threatened that reputation. They didn’t have much choice.

    • Andrew70

      Heartland has a far, far better record for scientific integrity than the Lysenkoists who promote the CAGW scam. They have demonstrated a commitment to the Scientific Method. All the scammers have is leftist political philosophy, contempt for the Scientific Method, and criminal fraud, as Peter Gleick so ably demonstrated.

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

      • ThisNameInUse

        Heartland is funded by the oil industry, and uses its funds to put up billboards comparing scientists to terrorists. If that’s your idea of “scientific integrity”, I really feel sorry for you.

        And your tired, contrived “climategate” was investigated by eight separate independent bodies around the world. Same result from all of them: no scientific wrongdoing whatsoever.


  • Mike A

    He got fired from a private (non government) think tank and returned to part time work at a private (non government) university. Exactly where is this anti public education/government sentiment supposed to come from?

  • dave72

    Thé Global Warming Hysterics will be happy when thé comet hits. All that ice will lower thé earth’s temperature by 1.71426384967421154 degrees, according to my latest model, which I constructed this morning, right after I did the crossword.

  • 0.3E9m/s

    Skepticism is the backbone of science. Scientific skeptics follow and understand their field, which is the only way they can find real flaws in it as they are created. A person who dismisses an entire branch of the physical sciences and recites talking points developed to undermine public confidence in that field isn’t skeptical, he’s in denial. “Denier” (or “denialist”) is the best word for that person. Calling him a “skeptic” belittles real scientific skeptics, just as calling those public relations firms that cook up the talking points “think tanks” diminishes real think tanks.

  • NikFromNYC

    Proven scam in a single glance, Mann:


  • Manuel de Moustache

    i don’t know what to believe, but there seems to be dissonance between making a living and not following the trend

    • Bart

      I’d be the most concerned person in the world if not following the mob meant my job would be threatened; I like doing what I do, and I never jump off bridges just because my friends do.

      But when we look at whether what “seems to be” actually is, we find the opposite of the headlines to be true. Caleb Rossiter didn’t get fired — if anything, his income is increasingly secure from all the notoriety he’s gained from his outlandish claims — from his college, he got dumped by his fellows. There’s another recent case like this, orchestrated by the British-tax-scam anti-science cult, the GWPF: Leonart Bengtsson had a denialist paper turned down by a reputable publisher, he complained to his GWPF friends, “joined” their group for a month and then “resigned” due to the pressure of his papers not being published.

      It appears what “seems to be” is a carefully constructed lie.

  • Alan Poirier

    Call me a denier. I don’t care. I’m so tired of the lies and misrepresentations. Global warming has become nothing less than a religion with high priests and apostates. It is disgusting what has been done to science. Even more disgusting is the fact the “true believers” cannot see what they are doing is wrong.

    • Mike A

      None of that is true or has any real meaning. Youre just complaining. In your wild fiction where its all a big elaborate religion you couldn’t name any of the people who hold the positions you’ve made up, you cant recite any dogma, you cant even identify a purpose. You just say meaningless words that you’ve heard someone else say before about a wild fake conspiracy

    • ThisNameInUse

      I wonder why you didn’t present even one of the supposed “lies and misrepresentations”. Actually, I don’t. We know the act and the dance by now. Innuendo till the cows come home, and no actual data that backs up your denial.

      I’m glad you’re comfortable with your classification. Acceptance of who and what you are can be the first step in dealing with denial. Ironically, even for dealing with denial about denial, lol.

  • WinstonSmith2012

    Part of a speech delivered by David Victor of the University of California, San Diego, at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography as part of a seminar series titled “Global Warming Denialism: What science has to say” (Special Seminar Series, Winter Quarter, 2014):

    “First, we in the scientific community need to acknowledge that the science is softer than we like to portray. The science is not “in” on climate change because we are dealing with a complex system whose full properties are, with current methods, unknowable. The science is “in” on the first steps in the analysis—historical emissions, concentrations, and brute force radiative balance—but not for the steps that actually matter for policy. Those include impacts, ease of adaptation, mitigation of emissions and such—are surrounded by error and uncertainty. I can understand why a politician says the science is settled—as Barack Obama did…in the State of the Union Address, where he said the “debate is over”—because if your mission is to create a political momentum then it helps to brand the other side as a “Flat Earth Society” (as he did last June). But in the scientific community we can’t pretend that things are more certain than they are.”

  • Andrew70

    A scientist is someone who follows the Scientific Method. That requires allowing independent verification of one’s work by making the raw data, computer codes, algorithms, etc., available to anyone who wants to know if the claims made are accurate. “Climate scientists” keep their data and methods secret as POLICY – they are not scientists.

    Steve McIntyre at ClimateAudit for years – even before Climategate – exposed this policy by the leading lights of the CAGW movement: Michael Mann and the Hockey Team, Phil Jones, Keith Briffa, Lonnie Thompson, and all the core IPCC “lead authors”.

    The reason for the policy of secret data and methods has become clear when they are discovered (like Mann’s “CENSORED” ftp directory) or forced out (like Briffa’s Yamal data by a Royal Society publication) – the raw data is cherry picked, then massaged with phony statistical methods, or just literally turned upside down. Phrases like ‘short-centered PCA’, ‘Yamal’, and ‘Upside Down Tijlander’ are infamous among those who have dared take an honest look behind the “climate science” curtain.

    “The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption of Science” by Andrew Montford is a very readable history of the CAGW movement up to the release of the Climategate emails.

    • ThisNameInUse

      Meanwhile, in the fresh-air world outside of Klimate Konspiracy Theorist Bubble, this contrived “climategate” scandal was investigated by no fewer than EIGHT independent and respected bodies around the world, and somehow every one of them found the same thing: zero scientific wrongdoing of any kind:


  • ThisNameInUse

    So I’m wondering if all Loyola students are as poorly educated in the sciences as the author of this gullible piece, or if it is just Mr. Lynch here. I just read all of Rossiter’s opinion piece at the WSJ, a notorious home for climate science denial. Let’s put aside for a moment the fact that Rossiter has exactly zero background in climate science and no expertise in commenting on it. His entire objection to the scientific consensus that we are warming the planet apparently boils down to two talking points. They are pitifully threadbare.

    1. “Then, as now, the computer models simply built in the assumption that
    fossil fuels are the culprit when temperatures rise, even though a
    similar warming took place from 1900 to 1940, before fossil fuels could
    have caused it.”

    This is just a sad attempt at trolling. It doesn’t even rise to the “quality” of the average brain-dead denialist troll on a comment board. Basically it’s a complete strawman. Climate scientists don’t attribute the warming from 1900 to 1940 to greenhouse gases at all. There was an actual steady rise in solar radiation during that time period which explains the global temperature increase. However, from 1950 on, solar output was falling, even as temperatures rose at levels many times faster than at any point in the past thousand years. A nice succinct explanation can be found here:


    2. “Yet even the IPCC acknowledges that the average global temperature today
    remains unchanged since 2000, and did not rise one degree as the models

    The squawking about the models being “wrong” relies on many red herrings and misleading notions. The first is the erroneous idea that models are simply a mean expectation line and nothing more. Models – in any field of science – have confidence intervals built in. This is precisely because any projection based on known forces is also subject to extraneous noise sources. In the case of climate – EVERY SINGLE possible noise source during the past 15 years has coincided in the direction of spurious cooling. There have been many papers on these sources, which Rossiter (who I guess can be excused since he’s not a scientist at all, so why should he know anything about this subject he’s commenting on, right?) pretend do not exist. Surface ocean effects (La Nina) have been unusually prevalent, causing upwelling cooling from the ocean depths. Volcanic activity, which has a cooling effect in the short term due to sun-blocking aerosols, has also been way above normal. And solar output, which has short term noisy effects on the otherwise rising global temperature, was dropping during that period. Still with all of these spurious and unpredictable cooling effects, we remained at the warmest level in recorded history. For the few people here who actually care to learn about what’s happening, they can find out more here:


    • Bart

      While I agree with all of your facts and conclusions (which is unusual, I can generally find something to dispute in an argument), I disagree with your opinion about Mr. Lynch, the author and journalist.

      Mr. Lynch has done a journalist’s job. He began with the story of President Obama’s commencement address, found an interesting source — and we must admit the curmudgeonly Dr. Rossiter is an interesting specimen — of conflict, and presented an alternative view questioning authority and challenging his readers.

      That Mr. Lynch is wrong on facts and too complacent in his interview of Dr. Rossiter, has not picked up yet the newsie’s nose for a deceptive interviewee or the real investigator’s ability to skeptically pelt a subject with hardballs until the truth comes out, that’s perhaps asking a bit much of a college student.

      You blame an editor for those faults in an article. 😉

  • Brambles

    Wow, this whole global warming issue is turning into a cult, with people actually losing their jobs for not bowing in fealty to the new God Of Climate Change. If I were that professor I would sue the sh*t out of the University.

  • Brambles

    You might as well try to convince the apostolic, pentecostalist, snake-handling wingnut “Christians” that there is some question regarding the deity of Jesus.

  • Bart

    “I am simply someone who became convinced that the claims of certainty about the cause of the warming and the effect of the warming were tremendously and irresponsibly overblown. I am not someone who says there wasn’t warming and it doesn’t have an effect, I just cannot figure out why so many people believe that it is a catastrophic threat to our society and to Africa.”

    Notice the careful phrasing here.

    Not the cause and effect, but the claims of certainty are the matter, but it doesn’t sound that way until you parse it carefully. Which exact claims are left as a glittering generality, for us to fill in for ourselves from the demons of our own imaginings.

    And Africa?
    Sure, Africa’s in a great deal of peril for a great many reasons, and that’s a shame, but what about Africa deserves special calling out?

    Then we’re told with great certainty that “For this belief – based in a decade’s worth of statistical research and analysis on climate change data – Rossiter was recently terminated as an associate fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies, a progressive Washington D.C. think tank.”

    But this isn’t true. We look at the email dumping Dr. Rossiter as an associate fellow of IPS, a volunteer group with a very small paid staff of which Caleb Rossiter wasn’t one, and we find that it is Dr. Rossiter’s persistent behaviors toward his fellows and associates that led to his sponsors withdrawing their sponsorship, and that not a single one of twenty other fellows would sponsor him. That’s so the opposite of what Rossiter’s sour grapes complaint sounds like.

    Read the whole email, and note the dates, instead of only the cherry-picked line, “Unfortunately, we now feel that your views on key issues, including climate science, climate justice, and many aspects of US policy to Africa, diverge so significantly from ours.”

    Rossiter’s paid job will not be affected by this dumping by IPS, but the notoriety might help his book sales.

    Let’s look at the folksy story he tells about the time Rossiter was right and 97% of all scientists were wrong about the data behind “catastrophic climate change” and how he came to hold such opinions himself.

    About a decade ago — that’s some 10,000 peer-reviewed climatology papers ago — Rossiter gave a student an F.

    “She came to see me and said, ‘But Doc, it’s not fair, I am just repeating exactly what they said,” he claims. “And I said, ‘That’s impossible, because the evidence you cited here is just wishful thinking, there is no real data.’..

    “So I sat down with her and we looked over the article, which is one of the classic ones in climate change in which they developed a computer model that tries to say how much of the half a degree rise in temperature can you attribute to natural variation or the Arctic oscillation, or whatever the hell is going on up in the north there when the seas gets warmer and colder over long periods, things sort of like El Niño- or is it human [caused]?”

    “I had to raise her grade because she certainly had cited the evidence they had given, but I just couldn’t give her much of a grade because she should have been able to see – as most people should be able to see – that the computer models were just guessing and sort of notional, and just kind of playing around to get a good fit, but didn’t have much scientific basis.”

    This story omits some key details, like what was the paper Rossiter takes issue with, and it gets at least one point glaringly wrong. Calling the AMO sort of like El Niño is a bit like calling a tomato sort of like a suspension bridge.

    Saying computer models are “just guessing and sort of notional” is a level of vagueness that makes the whole tomato-suspension bridge thing look reasonable by comparison.

    We don’t see Rossiter’s claims, we see claims about his claims about someone else’s claims: no numbers, no technical terminology, no specifics.

    We can’t disprove what Dr. Rossiter is saying technically, because he’s saying nothing, but using a great many words to get there.

    “So I became quite interested in this phenomenon; so many of my colleagues and so much of educated America and liberal newspapers and all just believe that mathematicians have set up models that should make us very certain that the recent half-degree uptick from 1980 to 2000 was human caused – when in fact they were just playing with the models. I use models a lot, and these were pretty weak.”

    Now, I use models a lot too. And it’s true that some of the models are what we would describe as ‘weak’.

    However, there are a great many different models, stretching across fifty distinct climate variables.

    We also don’t only have the time period from 1980 to 2000 to examine.

    We have Physics, we have the chemistry of the oceans, we have observations of the habitat shifts of hundreds of species of animals and thousands of plants worldwide. The certainty we can express on the causes of the specific rise of temperature of 1980 to 2000 is statistically above 99%, due the agreement of so many independent sources of information.

    Rossiter’s brainswashing of students in the ensuing decade on the topic of climate change may be innocent, from his point of view, but it hardly seems that way when you note he’s teaching them things that are just plain wrong.

    “So there is really two big statistical questions: what caused the little warming, and what effect did the warming have on these other climate variables?” he said. “I am a pretty decent statistician, I have taught for many, many years. The data that support the headlines are very, very weak, very, very notional, and simply not logical.”

    Well, sure: headlines often bear no logical semblence to the story. The famous ‘Headless Body In Topless Bar’ headline, for example, was about a partial decapitation in a diner.

    If Dr. Rossiter was teaching a course on critical journalism, he’d be on solid ground. But he’s claiming to be a pretty decent statistician and data analyst.. and frankly, he’s said nothing very convincing on that account.

    “You couldn’t have this many terrible effects from a half a degree rise in global temperature. It’s probable that there are some, but it gets a little boring because it’s always weak data, because that is the nature of a tremendously complex system.”

    See, what a teaching opportunity is lost here.

    Tipping points might be a matter of less than a half degree rise in average global temperature: in a complex system, that’s practically guaranteed to happen at least sometimes, as a general principle of what makes complex systems complex.

    And the data isn’t always weak, either. It’s often weak, but there are cases where the data is very strong: TOA, start and end of growing season, CO2 level, and dozens of other types of data are quite solid.

    “I have had students who are very strongly pro-the global warming movement in my classes, of course, because most young people have heard this already, and when I have them actually do the study, and take apart an IPCC [International Panel on Climate Change] claim, sometimes they break into tears, and they say ‘I can’t believe this is the only class I’ve ever been in in which anyone has ever told me there is even an issue.’”

    Uh, yeah. They’d have loved the classes taught about how the link between tobacco and cancer was overblown, in their parents’ generation. Yes, there really were such classes.

    “I always enjoy that but, I would enjoy it the other way, too,” he said. “I always really push them to evaluate, dig down and learn the arguments of the other side- that is part of education.”

    Joe Camel liked it back then, too.

    “I found at the Institute for Policy Studies no willingness to sit down and talk through the areas in which our analyses diverged,” he said. “For years, I would ask their climate staff, who were not particularly scientific or statistical, they are social activists, to come to my classes and debate me, to talk it out with me in front of the IPS board.”

    See, now some people wouldn’t think this was anti-social.

    “I think they believe … that you give legitimacy to the ‘denialists’ if you debate them, I think that’s a terrible idea. … At IPS, like many other places, people don’t want to debate it because they have this funny statement that, and Mr. Obama repeats it every time he opens his mouth, ‘the debate is over.’ I have never heard a more remarkable statement in my life about anything.”

    At the end of every college debate, when the referees call time, and the judges post their scores, the debate is over.

    The scorecards on AGW and GHE have been up for a lot of years. The audience has filed out. The microphones are off. The stage lights have gone out. The doors have been closed. It’s a dead parrot.

  • ClimateLearner

    The political motivations of the people who contrived and guided the IPCC seem to have utterly overwhelmed them, but even then the IPCC has made only plodding and unconvincing ‘progress’ in the wished-for catastrophism. The summary reports have tried to obscure this with rhetoric and weasel words, but the reality is that the evidence for manmade climate catastrophe is extremely weak and not at all convincing. The IPCC may well become, at best, an example of manipulation and specious argument on a global scale. At best, this may serve to protect us from, or at least delay, further politically-motivated scaremongering around climate.

    • Bart

      “The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was created in 1988. It was set up by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) to prepare, based on available scientific information, assessments on all aspects of climate change and its impacts, with a view of formulating realistic response strategies.”


      Which of these words would you call ‘rhetoric’: ‘created’, ‘set’, ‘available’, ‘information’, ‘impacts’, ‘realistic’?

      Where’s the weasel wording?

      The WMO people who contrived the IPCC in 1988 are surely all by now dead or long since retired; the WMO has a 140 year history (starting as the IMO), predating the United Nations, with technical and scientific representatives from almost 200 countries. UNEP might be less pedigreed, but by and large, after a third of a century claiming some puppetry of the IPCC by its originators is absurd on its face.

      Less conspiracy theory, more study, if you want to learn.

  • Mervyn

    The mistake the good professor made was that he refused to accept a ‘theory’ concocted with cherry-picked data that appeared to support the theory (other data being dismissed), which was then put on a pedestal as indisputable gold-standard settled science, based on the new science of the day – climate models!!!

    The professor also forgot that it was not permissible to question or challenge the theory with valid scientific evidence and real world observational data.

    • Bart

      What an intriguing theory you propose of what Dr. Rossiter’s mistake (only one?!) was..

      This theory of yours, what evidence do you provide that you yourself are not concocting a whole cloth out of nothing more than outraged prejudices and notorious lies cherry-picked to construct the narrative that most serves your own petty interests?

      Here’s how Newton recommended coming up with a theory: you start with all the observations and everything you know about the observations, you cut down your assumptions to the simplest possible list (but no simpler), you reduce the exceptional treatment you allow to the minimum, and for all like kinds universally attribute like explanations; the rules of inference applied to that set of conditions will create the propositions we must regard as accurate or very nearly true until such time as new observations require we amend our conclusions.

      What you’ve done sounds more like you assumed the worst and followed the lead set out by a well-greased smear campaign.

  • Despiser_of_Libs

    Green politics seem to be a way of making crazily extreme totalitarians feel wholesome.

  • leisureprophet

    Is it getting hot in here?