Original. Student reported. Your daily dose of Right-minded news and commentary from across the nation
Physicist Promises $10K to Anyone Who Disproves Man-Made Global Warming

A longtime physics professor promises to pay $10,000 of his own money to anyone who can disprove man-made global climate change.

Dr. Christopher Keating posted “The $10,000 Global Warming Skeptic Challenge!” on his blog earlier this month, and confirmed in an email to The College Fix on Friday that the contest is 100 percent legit.

Keating, an ardent believer in man-made global warming, said he’s not worried that he’ll be out ten grand, because he doesn’t believe anyone can disprove humans are not the cause of global warming.

“Deniers actively claim that science is on their side and there is no proof of man-made climate change,” he told The College Fix in his email. But he called the science proving his beliefs “overwhelming.”

“You would think that if it was really as easy as the deniers claim that someone, somewhere would do it,” he said, adding there’s nothing so far because “it can’t be done.”

Keating, a physicist who has taught at the University of South Dakota and the U.S. Naval Academy, is no fan of people who do not believe climate change is caused by humans. He compares them to tobacco executives of the past who denied a link between lung cancer and smoking.

As for his contest, no entry fee is required, and entrants must be 18 or older to enter. In terms of disproving man-made global warming, he said he’ll take just about any scrap of evidence someone wants to provide.

“They are even free to find proof on the Internet and cut and paste it,” he said, adding “you don’t have to be a scientist and you don’t have to submit an original proof.”

Dr. Keating said he would be “surprised” if anyone could produce a scientifically sound argument disproving man-made climate change.

And is he seriously willing to give away $10,000?

“Absolutely!” he stated. “This is not a bluff.”

Each entry will be posted online on his blog along with his comments, and he said he would only succeed in ruining his own credibility and that of climate scientists everywhere if he did not follow through.

“If I am a fraud, then I will be held up as an example of how climate scientists everywhere are frauds,” he said. “So, I am stuck with having to be honest about it.”

According to the blog post, he will be the final judge of all entries and will explain why each entry fails to disprove man-made global climate change.

Comments on his blog so far are cynical about the contest.

“You can’t prove a negative,” stated one.

Another, more lengthy post, called out the educator’s contest as disingenuous, saying “you have strong opinions on the subject and a direct financial vested interest in not awarding the $10,000, wherefore you are the judge in your own cause.”

“Find a retired and manifestly independent judge to assess the evidence independently and you might get some takers. Otherwise, your offer is nothing more than a childishly theatrical but pointlessly pusillanimous stunt.”

To which Keating replied: “If I am not a fair judge, it will be there for all to see.”

But Keating has called so-called climate change “deniers” dishonest, saying in his email they “lie and deceive in order to further their cause” and work to “fool the public into not believing the scientists.”

In his announcement of the contest, he referenced a Drexel University study which claimed that people and corporations that do not believe in man-made global warming donated an average of about $70 million per year – $560 million over eight years – in efforts to debunk the claims, and that much of that money could be traced back to the fossil fuel industry.

“This is serious money and you don’t spend that kind of money unless you really want something,” he said in his email to The College Fix.

He said efforts to clean up greenhouse gas emissions would hurt the fossil fuel industry and is “counter to the beliefs of the very conservative people that believe we should be allowed to operate free of any government oversight.”

As a result they have delayed “any attempts to address the problem of climate change.”

He took to bashing the wealthy in his email, saying the very rich will “keep going the same way they have been” while “the rest of us keep paying them, even when it is against our best interests.”

He has also written a book on the matter: “Undeniable: Dialogues on Global Warming.” This, according to Dr. Keating, is his way to educate people “who aren’t sure what to believe and want to learn more about global warming.”

College Fix contributor Andrew Desiderio is a student at The George Washington University.

Like The College Fix on Facebook / Follow us on Twitter

IMAGE: TruthOut/Flickr

About the Author

Add to the Discussion

  • ThisNameInUse

    This is fairly unprofessional wording Andrew, if you’re an aspiring journalist. This phrasing tacitly endorses an objectively false denialist talking point:

    “Keating, AN ARDENT BELIEVER in man-made global warming…”

    Would you have similarly written:

    “Dr. X, M.D., an ardent believer that the HIV virus causes AIDS…”

    “Geologist Joe Schmoe, PhD, an ardent believer in the tectonic plate explanation for how continents move…”

    “Astronomer John Doe, an ardent believer that the Earth revolves around the sun every 365.23 days…”

    “Neuroscientist Jane Lee, an ardent believer in neurogenesis in the adult human hippocampus…”

    And so on? One hopes not.

    The phrase “ardent believer” applies to a religious fanatic or a hobbyist dilettante, who is acting on some combination of bias, agenda, emotions and not much knowledge. The climate science consensus, the medical consensus that smoking causes lung cancer, and the other examples above are the studied conclusions of the collective science based on many (tens of thousands in the case of climate – fewer if you’re talking about the length of the solar year) peer reviewed studies over many decades. While the denialists who are trying desperately to stall action on this (for their varied reasons, financial, ideological or purely sociopathic) ardently favor this wording for obvious reasons, your employing it does not speak well for your readiness to enter journalism.

    It’s not just Keating who considers the science overwhelming – it is every major scientific organization in the world.

    Good luck as you refine your writing to a professional level.

    • lavida818

      In your criticism of the author, you perfectly epitomize the elitist authoritarian class by seeking to control the expression and discussion of ideas that are contrary to your own. Stop telling other people what to do and how to do it. We are fed up with the likes of you who politicize science for your own ends. Invariably, when your ideological dogma is challenged, you will always appeal to authority as the means of spreading your deceitful end-of-the-world alarmist propaganda.

      • John Samuel

        Yeah, let the stupid people have a turn.

        • Dave Wheeler

          So, it’s your turn then.

    • William Burke

      Jesus H. Christ. Get over yourself.

    • jumper297

      Actually… since man-made global warming as a theory is very much in play and has not been proven through empirical observation (quite the opposite, actually) the wording about “belief” is not only accurate but appropriate.

      Science isn’t a “consensus” (you know the 97% thing has been shown to be a falsehood anyway, right?) and your characterization of the other side of a scientific discussion (including the absurd pejorative “denier”) shows how little you actually understand the process that is science.

      Your second to last line is demonstrably false to the point of being an outright lie.

      Good luck as you continue your hobby as an internet troll.

      • John Samuel

        “Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small.

        Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts.

        This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities.”

        http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php

        And note that the above National Academies paper is available for free download after a free registration. No purchase necessary. And the quote is from pages 44 & 45.

        • Dave Wheeler

          “Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts.”

          Which conclusions and theories are that? AGW?

          I’m still waiting for all those catastrophic climate warming predictions…err, climate dysfunction predictions to happen since the 70s, 80s, and 90s!!

          • John Samuel

            Which ones are those? Care to cite any? Or is bluster your only forte?

          • Pete Austin
          • John Samuel

            Frontpagemag is not a reputable source. Denier fail. I don’t read the National Inquirer either. Is it mandatory reading at Wingnut U?

            Gore overstated Maslowski. True. Maslowski stands a reasonable chance of being proven correct. We have lost 75% by volume since 1979 as measured at September minimum. But, personally, I’ll stick with the overly conservative IPCC’s estimate of the latter half of the century. The lesson? Listen to mainstream science.

            Yup, there was a typo in AR4. And the IPPC did not do a great job in handling it.

            I see by “literally thousands” you have maybe two – one from a politician and a typeo. Your sense of accuracy may need adjusting.

            In the meantime:

            April and May were the two warmest months.
            2010 was the warmest year.
            Last decade was the warmest decade.
            The oceans warm, rise and acidify.
            Species are shifting polewards and upwards.

            Global Climate Models have successfully predicted:

            That the globe would warm, and about how fast, and about how much.

            That the troposphere would warm and the stratosphere would cool.

            That nighttime temperatures would increase more than daytime temperatures.

            That winter temperatures would increase more than summer temperatures.

            Polar amplification (greater temperature increase as you move toward the poles).

            That the Arctic would warm faster than the Antarctic.

            The magnitude (0.3 K) and duration (two years) of the cooling from the Mt. Pinatubo eruption.

            They made a retrodiction for Last Glacial Maximum sea surface temperatures which was inconsistent with the paleo evidence, and better paleo evidence showed the models were right.

            They predicted a trend significantly different and differently signed from UAH satellite temperatures, and then a bug was found in the satellite data.

            The amount of water vapor feedback due to ENSO.

            The response of southern ocean winds to the ozone hole.

            The expansion of the Hadley cells.

            The poleward movement of storm tracks.

            The rising of the tropopause and the effective radiating altitude.

            The clear sky super greenhouse effect from increased water vapor in the tropics.

            The near constancy of relative humidity on global average.

            That coastal upwelling of ocean water would increase.

          • DriveByPost

            You criticize Pete Austin for not using a “reputable source”, yet provide none of your own.

          • John Samuel

            You’ve obviously not kept up with this thread.

            But here’s the Arctic sea loss in the satellite era. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OBCXWAHo5I

  • Xopher Halftongue

    This is a silly challenge because nothing can disprove man-made climate change catastrophe!

    In fact, anything and everything proves mankind’s evil global warming catastrophe… Even when they contradict each other.

    • John Samuel

      Nonsense.

      A few decades of diminishing surface temperatures, sea levels falling, global ice reforming would disprove it. None of those things are happening though.

      Perhaps the problem is yours. Nothing will convince you.

      • Guest

        that still wouldn’t disprove it because it’s about proving whether it’s man made or not.

        • John Samuel

          The hypothesis has withstood two centuries. That’s why it’s now “accepted fact”.

          You can prove something is wrong in science, but you cannot *prove* it is right. All you can do is show it’s very probably right – like the counter-intuitive quantum mechanics driving your computer chip.

          • Dave Wheeler

            So a 200 year old hypothesis turn into facts automatically? Amazing!!

            “You can prove something is wrong in science, but you cannot *prove* it is right. All you can do is show it’s very probably right.”

            You cannot prove any science is right? Only probably. Wow!! So, AGW isn’t probably right either. Great science logic you got there sheepie!!

          • John Samuel

            Are you going to win the $10K with your facts? Go for it!

            Another dullard.

    • John Samuel

      Is the surface cooling? No.
      Are the oceans cooling? No.
      Is global ice reforming? No.

      Derp on.

  • Real Vegas

    I can prove that some scientists are manipulating key data. Also, shouldn’t the Maldives be under water already?

    • dxing

      No you need to prove warming is not manmade! Don’t be fn lazy

      • lavida818

        @dxing: “No you need to prove warming is not manmade!”

        The Earth has been warming continually for the last 18,000 years since the end of the last ice age, and before human activity could have possibly affected the climate!

        • John Samuel

          The earth was cooling until the industrial revolution.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record

        • William Burke

          Better still: he can’t explain why it is happening on every planet in the solar system. Cars on Jupiter? Don’t think so.

          Let me see. What comes up in the morning and sets in the evening that just might be the prime driver of climate change on all the planets?

          Hmmmm…..

          • John Samuel

            Yet the sun’s radiance has been decreasing whilst the globe is warming.

            It’s not the sun.

      • Real Vegas

        Can you Google “real science” ? That should keep you busy for a while.
        I’ll even give you the link, Stevengoddard.Wordpress.com

        • John Samuel
          • Real Vegas

            Stevengoddard.Wordpress.com

          • John Samuel

            You believe any anonymous person on the interweb.

            Guess I’m the sceptical one here.

          • Dave Wheeler

            It appears you do the same. LOL!!! Skepticalscience. LOL!!!

            And, you believe government sources without question. LOL!! WHO and IPCC. LOL!!!

            What a troll and good sheepie you are. Keep up that trolling!!

          • John Samuel

            Peer-reviewed science is a bit hard for deniers.

          • Real Vegas

            So your answer is to attack the messenger? How about taking on the data?

          • John Samuel

            I look forward to reading your *reputable* citations for your assertions.

            Using the equivalent of the National Inquirer to attack scientists is sheer derp.

            I guess I’m the sceptical one here.

        • John Samuel

          Watts has disowned Goddard’s analysis. The crazies have turned on each other.

          Popcorn? Salted or sweet?

    • John Samuel

      I look forward to reading your reputable citation for your assertion.

      No JAQing allowed.

  • physicsnut

    so … that is supposed to show that being an alarmist is right ?
    How about being quantitative – like, how much is due to humans, versus how much is due to non-human factors, like the orbit, solar variation, volcanos – including volcanic activity under antarctic. And how about a critique of the computer models. Also, considering that all this plays out over decades – how big a deal is it if we use oil for 50 years.

    • John Samuel

      Off you go. It should be easy for you to make $10K. Let us know how you get on. You’ll get a Nobel too.

  • mikehaseler

    What an utterly stupid and ignorant man – something like 98% of all skeptics think humans do cause climate change.

    What next? Is he going to put up a prize for someone to disprove the moon is made of cheese?

    What almost all skeptics agree is that humans aren’t causing catastrophic change.

    • dxing

      That’s weird 98% skeptics think Humans cause warming? Then why are they skeptics? And how can they gauge whether the warming is not going to be catastrophic? Do they have some hidden secret power?

      • mikehaseler

        Skeptics base their views on the evidence & real science (i.e based on the evidence and not just eco-politics dressed up as science)

        And because skeptics are overwhelming highly educated and very experienced it would just be daft to ignore the fact that CO2 warming is based on science. But that scientific warming would produce about 1C warming for a doubling of CO2 which ALMOST EVERYONE WHO KNOWS ANYTHING THINKS WILL BE BENEFICIAL.

        What skeptics think is utter nuts is the ridiculous idea that academics who have never got a climate forecast right in the past have any hope of getting one right in the near future (beyond the direct 1C warming from CO2).

        And what we know is nothing but religious insanity is the idea we are all heading to a catastrophe any time soon. (At least one caused by human CO2 – natural climate variation is another matter)

        • Science Rules

          Your argument:
          1. 98% of skeptics agree that human are causing climate change.
          2. Skeptics agree that CO2 is the main causitive agent.
          3. The key issue from your perspective is that this change is not going to cause catastrophic change, because as you ye;;:
          4. That scientific warming would produce about 1C warming for a
          doubling of CO2 which ALMOST EVERYONE WHO KNOWS ANYTHING THINKS WILL BE
          BENEFICIAL.
          .
          .
          Well, well, well, according to you, the skeptics have come quite a far ways down the reality path. I really wish you could be correct, but science and nature don’t give a darn about my wishes, the deniers’ denial or your skeptical dellusions.

          Meanwhile, the water keeps rising along our coasts. http://www.dailyclimate.org/tdc-newsroom/2012/08/norfolk-sea-level-rise

          See you back here in 5 years. I will be interesting to see if you’re still yelling.

          • physicsnut

            the water has been rising at the same rate for the past 80 years around NYC.

          • John Samuel

            Globally, the average rise was 1.9mm per year a century ago and 3.2mm per year now.

          • mikehaseler

            We Skeptics haven’t changed our views. We’ve always been pushing for the science. We’ve always said CO2 had warming effects, we’ve always accepted that some warming occurred.

            Just read this: http://scef.org.uk/index.php/introduction/31-misc/96-the-sceptic-view

          • Andrew Ross Gordon

            I read your skeptic site. It comes across as a series of viewpoints not interested in the evidence that has pretty conclusively refuted them, e.g. urban heat islands distorting temperature measurements. There have been studies (by actual skeptics even funded by petrol energy companies!) that have debunked that notion. If you “skeptics” haven’t been reading the scientific literature journals and seeking contemporary counterpoints to your claims, pardon me for not taking you all very seriously. I’d be embarrassed to publish my views on a topic without having first read as much as I could find that concerns it.

          • mikehaseler

            “It comes across as a series of viewpoints” – It’s called “the sceptic view”.

            There have been studies (by actual skeptics even funded by petrol energy companies!) that have debunked that notion.

            Are you saying that urban centres are not warmer than the surrounding countryside?

            Are you denying that transpiration from plants doesn’t cause cooling?

          • John Samuel

            There is now just the one “climate sceptic” view? A consensus has emerged? :-))

          • mikehaseler

            We are way ahead of you:

            “Sceptics value diversity of views and there are many strands. As one contributor said:

            Climate scepticism isn’t necessarily about what we agree upon, it’s based upon how many questions go unanswered. More, it’s about how many lies that have been told, whether directly or by omission. The greatest liberator of mankind so far – fossil fuel – has been tried, found guilty and condemned without ever being allowed to publicly mount a defence. (TinyCO2 )”

          • John Samuel

            Lies? Without reputable evidence?

            Thank you for clarifying who the liar is. Mike.

            You are so far behind you are back in the Dark Ages.

          • mikehaseler

            What during the medieval warm period?

            When they grew grapes in the North of England, Greenland was “green”, etc.

          • John Samuel

            “There were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age, ”

            http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n5/abs/ngeo1797.html

            Try again. This time bring evidence.

            And no JAQing. That’s for juveniles.

          • mikehaseler

            Oh please – I studied archaeology and the medieval warm period is accepted terminology for the warmer period during the medieval period.

          • John Samuel

            I look forward to reading your reputable citation in support of your assertion.

            I have one. You don’t.

          • Dave Wheeler

            “I look forward to reading your reputable citation in support of your assertion.”

            Like all your sources are reputable. LOL!!!

          • Andrew Ross Gordon

            I’ll hazard to guess that you studied archaeology with Indiana Jones.

          • mikehaseler

            There’s a pun there with phil Jones.

            … I suppose it goes “at least I didn’t study with Phil Jones”.

            However, except for knowing phil jones can’t use excel and his climate statistics are (were) very ropey – I don’t know what his teaching is like – so that might be unfair on indiana!

          • Dave Wheeler

            Good responses there mike. You definitely know what you are talking about unlike these AGW fanatics.

            It is a shame that the Earth’s climate has been politicized and all future discoveries of how our world works will be cast in doubt due to people like this AGW bunch.

          • Angus2100

            The Medieval Warming Period only describes localised warming.

          • mikehaseler

            How long does it take a century long warm spell to spread around the whole earth?

            Show me the temperature record showing it wasn’t global and I might believe you.

          • John Samuel

            Read the PAGES 2K article I cited. It replicates other studies. The temperature record is there.

            But, hold on, that was one of the most important papers of 2013. You mean you, a “climate sceptic” haven’t read it?

            Wondrous. But not unexpected. :-))

          • mikehaseler

            Unfortunately, as a skeptic I’m not in the pay of BIG (Russian) Oil, and so I have other things to do. However, there are over 30 articles on climate that come out each and every day and I try to read as many as I am able and interest me (irrespective of their view on climate).

          • John Samuel

            I’m sure you’re in no-one’s pay. What value do you offer?

            http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/

          • mikehaseler

            When I forecast you lot are shite at forecasting the climate – I get that forecast right!

          • John Samuel

            Still no evidence, Mike? How sad.

          • mikehaseler

            In real science, it is up to those making the claim to provide the evidence.

            It is not up to those saying you are a load of charlatans.

            Show me your evidence you predicted the last 17years without warming!

          • Angus2100
          • Dave Wheeler

            Like that’s legit! LOL!!!

            Reminds me of hockey for some reason.

          • Angus2100

            Facts are surprising, aren’t they?

          • John Samuel

            Still won’t read that PAGES SK citation? Too many big words?

            http://www.skepticalscience.com/the-two-epochs-of-marcott.html

          • mikehaseler

            As far as I’m concerned, if someone knows what they are talking about they will say it … if they don’t they post a link.

          • John Samuel

            The grown-up version is played differently.

            Produce evidence. Reputable evidence.

          • mikehaseler

            Do you disagree about the reliability of your side’s the temperature records that shows no warming for 17 years?

            Oh sorry I forgot — you deny there’s been any pause in warming, you deny the fact you can’t predict the climate, you deny that your side looks like a load of clowns to anyone with an ounce of sense.

          • John Samuel

            No denier JAQing off.

            If you have a point then make it and provide reputable evidence.

          • mikehaseler

            I need no other reputation than that of science itself.

            Science says you make a prediction and when it is wrong you admit it was invalid.

            Science says you are just a bogus charlatan who will not admit they have been shown to be incapable of predicting the climate.

          • John Samuel

            Ah. So people demonstrate they know something by *not* citing sources.

            Thank you for making your plaid sky reasoning process so plain.

          • mikehaseler

            Google “global warming pause”

            And whilst about it I also suggest googling “scientific method”

            You have a hypothesis – if that hypothesis does not predict what happens then it is invalid.

            Your global warming voodoo models did not predict the pause — QED they are invalid.

            That’s how real science works!

          • John Samuel
          • Dave Wheeler

            Yes, you are the liar as well as a troll. Keep up the good work there AGW sheepie!

          • Andrew Ross Gordon

            They are, but it has no statistically significant effect on *global average* temperatures. Cities take up a very small amount of surface area compared to every continent. The heat island effect is primarily due to the localized density of black, asphalt surfaces in urban centers. Climate models do not yet have the resolution to represent the detail of a city. The computing power necessary to do that would probably run the simulation many times slower than real time — not very practical. It’s not practical, and not necessary. If you know the maximum variation of a hotspot from its surrounding region, and you know the geological geometry of the hotspot, you can get very good approximations of city effects if need be (spoiler alert: they’re negligible compared to the effects of oceans, continents, and major mountain ranges). Weather models do a decent job of that, and necessarily run for much, much, much, shorter timescales. They have a finer resolution for a small area.

          • mikehaseler

            The biggest effect is seen when changing from wilderness to farming. The effect becomes increasingly larger the more the area is “urbanised”.

            I assume most of the effect is due to a reduction in transpiration from plants – which account for about 50% of surface cooling globally.

            So there is a scale of effects from the maximal transpiration (and therefore cooling) of wilderness forest through farm land (which is often at sub-optimal levels of plant cover) through to urban concrete jungles.

            The urban heat island is just the extreme of an effect which will have changed all temperature records.

            HOWEVER — at what point is a “local” effect like this occurring everywhere not “global”? So, a lot of what we call “global warming” will be due to ‘”urbanisation”‘ – in the sense that “urban” is the extreme in the scale of change which most will be hanging from wilderness to farmland.

          • Dave Wheeler

            “See you back here in 5 years. I will be interesting to see if you’re still yelling.”

            I came back in 30, 20, and 10 years to see if your AGW predictions have come true, and looksie here, they have not. See you again in 5 to say your ilk are still full if crap.

            You should change your name to Pseudo-Science Rules. It fits you better!

        • Andrew Ross Gordon

          The computer models that they have developed have been successful in predicting the warming trend that occurred over the past 150 years. There is presently a 15-year global-average-temperature pause (though still at a record high level) that is being investigated. There are compelling theories as to why that is the case. For example, much more of the carbon was in fact pumped into the oceans reservoir (very, very bad for the oceans btw). The oceans have been warming and acidifying continuously, even if the global average temperature has stopped rising for the moment. The arctic is warming at a rate twice that of the rest of the planet, causing more and more fresh water to melt off from Greenland’s ice sheet. Larger, and larger swaths of Antarctica’s continental ice shelf are disintegrating. The long term effect of these processes is shifting gravitational tides, and catastrophic rises in sea levels at the middle and equatorial latitudes. Then there are the problems of drought and flooding — presently at extreme levels for nearly unprecedented periods, and the resulting unrest that comes from displaced and hungry populations. There is no theory that has successfully attributed rising CO2 ppm to natural variation. It is absolutely driven by human carbon consumption. We also know that CO2 functions as a greenhouse gas. Methane is even more efficient, and we’re venting it in huge quantities via hydraulic fracturing. Not to mention the melting of the Russian Tundra. There are thousands and thousands of natural science studies (including biology) across multiple fields that have to acknowledge and grapple with the effects of climate change. So saying that we should embrace the potential benefits of higher amounts of CO2 is missing critical aspects of a much, much bigger picture of dramatic environmental realignment.

          • mikehaseler

            Don’t lie.

            Did any computer model predicting surface temperature predict the 17years without warming.

            The answer is unequivocally no.

            Anyone can predict the past – so please don’t insult me with your nonsense about “predicting”.

          • Andrew Ross Gordon

            Look at you, not reading anything, just reacting… You can build a model that applies scientific principles with a known set of initial conditions, such as the interaction of massive particles. If the model, after being fed those initial conditions, diverges after more than a century of showing good, statistically significant agreement, that doesn’t necessarily invalidate everything the model has done — it just means that there is more that needs to be understood about the system being simulated and its various feedback mechanisms. The effect of the oceans and high clouds are being adjusted in response to new research demonstrating their significance. Just because a model is not generally true, that doesn’t mean you can’t use it for a given interval. Newtonian dynamics is not generally true, but it works just as well as more general theories when applied to the parameter intervals (mass greater than a hydrogen atom, less than say, the moon; velocity less than that of light) that it was first constructed to model. No one denies that the global-average-surface warming has paused, but the oceans are still warming and they haven’t stopped. The arctic is warming at twice the rate of the middle latitudes, and it hasn’t stopped. 17 years (again, at a record high temperature) doesn’t completely invalidate the success or methodology of the models up to that point. It just needs modification. Also, the models are designed to “build” the observed past climate(s) independently. They don’t just smear a line through past observations and call it a day. From your responses, it is evident that you really don’t know anything about the science and how it is performed. I recommend that you read and educate yourself a little more before clinging to inane claims that have been addressed and disproven over, and over, and over again.

          • mikehaseler

            I’m not taking any lectures.

            Science is simple – you create a hypothesis (or model) and you see whether it predicts the real world.

            No climate “scientist” produced a model that predicted the pause. The global temperature is now well outside the predicted range.

            I REPEAT THE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE IS NOW WELL OUTSIDE PREDICTED RANGE OF WARMING.

            You lot decided what to measure (average surface temperature), you told us the range that average surface temperature would change – all I am doing is pointing out that because you were stupid enough to think you could predict the climate …. that when it doesn’t want as you said it would you have no credibility left.

            And to make it even worse, you still do not admit the simple fact that your predictions failed not once, but on every single model.

            The “scientists” (and they clearly are not scientists) have been proven to be a bunch of frauds.

            In contrast skeptics said the models wouldn’t work. We were proven right.

            So why on earth should anyone listen to you and not us?

          • Angus2100

            Anyone, with a background in science, would appreciate that _no_ model of any high complex system, can offer full certainty about future events.

            Also, could the models have predicted that there would’ve been numerous volcanic eruptions? Could the models have predicted El-Nino/La-Nina years in advance? Could models have predicted the severe economic downturn that resulted in lowered emissions? Could the models have predicted a move by certain countries to have a greater reliance on natural gas?

          • mikehaseler

            “Also, could the models have predicted that there would’ve been numerous
            volcanic eruptions? Could the models have predicted El-Nino/La-Nina
            years in advance?”

            It’s called “natural variation” – and yes, the models should have included natural variation.

            Instead you claimed that all past change must be “manmade” – and then when your models failed (as they were bound to) – you try excuse your failure to predict climate because you didn’t include natural variation … by saying “there was too much natural variation”.

          • Angus2100

            How can models include effects from future volcanic eruptions, when the best science to date, is not able to predict such events?

            It’s obvious to everyone that natural variability is always present. And they have been included in understanding the warming of the planet that we’re now seeing. see this IPCC forcing graph – http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/fig/figure2-21-l.png

            > Instead you claimed that all past change must be “manmade”

            Where did I claim that??

          • mikehaseler

            Natural variation is effectively and usefully included in millions of models in a whole variety of areas and signal analysis and electronics are some that immediately spring to mind.

            In contrast, none of the climate models I found include any form of natural variation within the model.

            Your statement that “the best science to date, is not able to predict such events?” … if applied to electronics would mean you would insist we model each and every electron going through a circuit.

            No one who works in the real world thinks that way – only ivory tower academics would try to model each and every random event that as an ensemble is what we call natural variation.

          • Angus2100

            Of course, climate models include natural variability. see http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/tssts-6-4-2.html

            The best science can do is include an approximate levels of volcanic aerosol particulates, which would be based on recent yearly/decadal averages. But, how on Earth could they predict an increase in eruptions??

            And, where did I claim that all past climate change was ‘man-made’?

          • mikehaseler

            According to the most authoritative source I have available “Predictability of Weather and Climate” (Prof Tim Chalmer) and another that I can’t currently remember, natural variation is NOT INCLUDED in climate models.

            instead, there is a perturbation to initial conditions which is a very very different thing.

          • Angus2100

            Citation?

          • John Samuel

            Your source knows AGW is happening. And you don’t. Wondrous.

          • mikehaseler

            I have repeated numerous times that the warming effect of a doubling of CO2 is expected to be about 1C.

            The fact that the scientific predicted warming of about 0.1C/decade is not happening shows that natural variation of at least -0.1C is cancelling that warming out.

            Natural variation your lot deny exists!

          • John Samuel

            Repetition does not improve your argument.

            There’ve been prior slowdowns in the surface record. It’s also been faster in the past.

            You continue to exhibit a lack of evidence. Ahem, Emperor Denier Haseler, as you parade in your shiny new clothes I should point out that they are rather transparent.

          • mikehaseler

            Then if you knew there were slowdowns, it was up to you to put them in your prediction.

            The fact you now admit you did not include them does not in anyway make your prediction right – it just confirms the view of skeptics that you haven’t a clue what you are doing and so re-enforces my assertion that you were a bunch of charlatans who said they could predict the climate and could not.

          • John Samuel

            Your unicorn is ready to be ridden sir.

            You guys aren’t sceptical. Just deniers.

            I’m sure you’ve seen going down the up escalator before. See it again. http://skepticalscience.com/still-going-down-the-up-escalator.html

          • mikehaseler

            Why not try engaging in a sensible conversation rather than talking nonsense.

          • Dave Wheeler

            Skepticalscience is such a trustworthy and non-bias source of information! /sarcasm

          • Andrew Ross Gordon

            You say “include natural variability.” I don’t think it means what you think it means. Climate models are predicated on equations and models representing the laws of nature. All of these equations have been tested and never found to be wrong within their appropriate constraints. Nature won’t violate them without good cause (that cause typically being a mistaken assumption). This includes energy balance (e.g. the infallible thermodynamics laws!), albedo, sunlight intensity, air particulates including sea salt, carbon cycles, gravity, marine biological processes like phytoplankton blooms, fluid dynamics……etc. You won’t get truly crazy variation because climate is not, itself, chaotic. Weather is, but climate is much more tame almost by definition. Climate works with statistical claims, not exact predictions of a future state. As such, it is much more well-behaved and rigorously analytical in its approach. Natural variation being “applied” to climate — other than its initial conditions — would be an arbitrary bit of nonsense. It sounds like you’re saying we should just toss some dice every few time steps, and interrupt the program to reset the conditions. Would that be whacky and variable enough for you? Variability is built into the principles; it doesn’t need to be artificially injected.

          • mikehaseler

            Andrew, this is going to be my last comment.

            First, natural variability means unpredictable or random fluctuations. These can be one-off events like a volcano or they can be “ensemble” events like electron noise. In effect natural variability is any change you would see without the specific causation (which in this case would be CO2 + other warming gases).

            You are then citing the “it’s a closed system – nothing comes from outside”. This is just rubbish. A resistor is a closed system, it cannot gain or lose energy, yet it experiences natural variability.

            The proof of natural variability is the changes we see in the historic temperature record. The best example we have of this is the Central England Temperature record. Taken before the 20th century (as in before substantial CO2), this shows the typical regional variation of temperature as subject to natural variability.

            What you are trying to argue (and as you should I hope see cannot) is that there is no natural variability and that CET is rock steady. Clearly it is not – there is natural variabilty.

            What you then argue is “we can model all this change because it’s physics” (sorry it’s late here).

            What I’m saying is that this is entirely the wrong approach and is the fundamental reason why the climate models do not work. The proper procedure is to model the natural variability as a random signal … then if AND ONLY IF you can demonstrate some of it is predictable (and not just curve fitting … but actually predict future events), then you can have a half-half whereby part of the natural variability is modelled explicitly and part is a “ensemble of variability”.

            However, I think the reason you don’t do it the proper way, is that when you assume everything is natural variation until you can prove otherwise … you find that natural variation is by far the biggest component of the climate model.

            However, what is absolutely appalling is this approach whereby there is no randomness in the models except in the initial conditions.

            I was going to write this up as a paper – but then I realised no one would read it – and as I don’t get paid I couldn’t see why I should waste my time on such a pointless exercise.

            And now I must to bed.

          • Andrew Ross Gordon

            Tide goes in, tide goes out; you can’t explain that!

          • mikehaseler

            Natural variation usually refers to random or semi-random signals. The tide is hardly “random”.

          • Dave Wheeler

            The moon and its gravity?? The science isn’t settled on tides now? Are you a tide denier?

          • Andrew

            That was a reference to a well-known debate between Bill O’Reilly and David Silverman. O’Reilly’s quote became a meme: http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/bill-oreilly-you-cant-explain-that

          • Andrew Ross Gordon

            Interestingly, the models don’t need separate El Nino equations. The initial parameters and conditions generate the El Ninos just like we saw in the past. It’s even more impressive when you consider that El Ninos are difficult to predict in the short-term and are still not fully understood. And yes, the models incorporate eruption events.

          • Andrew Ross Gordon

            Why should they listen to *you*? All you lot are doing is finding small inconsistencies (which scientists are absolutely aware of and are actively taking into consideration) and laughing at the entire body of knowledge as if you have any clue what you’re talking about (you don’t, and it’s painfully obvious). Guide me to your superior theory and its applied results, oh Skeptic. Computer Models with the right assumptions and basic parameters have independently reconstructed climate paradigms that agree with our data. The models are *so* good, in fact, that even past El Nino events emerge independently from those parameters — and fit past observation. This, despite the fact that El Nino events are unpredictable and analytically difficult to model in themselves. Doesn’t that indicate to you that we *might*, just *might*, know something about what we’re doing? The models are not perfect, but they are *really* good and only getting better. Do some homework; you’ll be amazed if you so allow yourself.

          • mikehaseler

            “laughing at the entire body of knowledge”

            All that knowledge is encapsulated in the climate models.

            All that knowledge was portrayed as “settled science” predicting “unequivocal” warming.

            All that knowledge was unable to predict the lack of warming for the last 17 years.

            All that knowledge – and it took almost 17 years for you to admit that there was a pause!

            All that knowledge – and you end up looking like a bunch of gormless twits.

            That’s why we laugh.

          • Angus2100

            > lack of warming for the last 17 years.

            Where’s your evidence?

          • Andrew Ross Gordon

            To be fair, there has been no *net* increase in global warming over that time, diverging from prediction. We are plateaued at record highs for the moment.

          • mikehaseler

            Go look at the temperature data and do a linear regression over the last 17 years

            (Google linear regression – you’ll get plenty of hits)

          • John Samuel

            Linear regression over a statistically significant period proves you’re wrong.

            Try again.

            Why is the ocean rising?

          • mikehaseler

            What is the linear regression over the last 17 years?

            No significant warming.

            What did you lot say would happen “it would warm” UNEQUIVOCALLY.

            You lot and the data …

            Has corporal Jones said in Dad’s Army “they don’t like it up em!”

            There’s nothing you lot of hypocrites hate more than having your noses rubbed in the data that shows you were lying when you said you could predict the climate.

          • John Samuel

            #denierblusterfail

            I see statistical significance is yet another concept you need to read up on.

          • Guest

            Citations please.

          • John Samuel

            2010 was the warmest year. 2014-2010 = 4 years.

            You would appear to be arithmetically challenged.

            Is that why you laugh? It certainly has me laughing. :-))

          • mikehaseler

            It has not warmed for 17 years. The fact some years are warmer and some cooler is irrelevant.

          • John Samuel

            I love the contradiction between your first and second sentences.

            And May was the warmest month.

          • Andrew Ross Gordon

            The knowledge is not encapsulated in models, guess again. It’s in the geological record, and actual temperature measurements. We call that “raw data.” The models are used to make statistical claims, not claims of state.

            Raw data is settled science. You don’t need a model to show what can easily be represented by a graph and some sweating. The earth has warmed and there is no indication that it would not continue to do so, given what we know about the forcing mechanisms. Regional — and oceanic — warming has still been happening unequivocally. See the arctic for a dramatic example just in the last 30 years. Note, also, the increasing amplitude of the polar jet and associated stagnant weather regimes that have resulted in persistent drought and flooding conditions. The models will catch up, there is intense research into improving them further.

            17 years might as well be the blink of an eye for climate. How are we supposed to validate a *statistical* claim when the requisite time hasn’t passed to complete the data set? That’s an especially ignorant criticism.

            I disagree. You’re the ones with no ideas and no theory but “natural variation,” also known as sticking out your tongues and shrugging. It’s easier to try and tear down others’ work than it is to do some work yourself, I guess. That’s why I laugh. You parrot the same, debunked information and don’t stay current with the latest research. You’re no different than those that keep asking “where’s the missing link, hurr hurr,” whenever there’s a story concerning evolution. I’m done spoonfeeding you information that any skeptic worth his salt would already have learned on his own. You give true skepticism a bad name, and I’m embarrassed for you.

          • mikehaseler

            That’s an interesting argument “the models didn’t work because there was a lot we knew which we didn’t include”.

            The models will catch up, … yes at about the same rate as numerical weather models, which would mean in around 10,000 years time we might just be able to predict the climate 1 year in advance.

            This whole scare started over a 30year rise in temperature from 1970s – 2000. (The same scale and length as from 1910-1940 so not unprecedented).

            We have now had no warming and a failure to predict the climate for a period 57% as long.

            This is now so long that whatever happens you lot will be left unable to explain the change.
            1. Cooling – you’re f*cked
            2. No net change – you’re f*cked
            3. Warming – unable to explain why it starts warming and so f*cked.

            Your only hope of regaining any credibility is for you all to come to some consensus about the date warming will resume and then hope that mother nature likes a joke and warms for you.

            But there is no way you are going to predict when warming will resume, because you all know you haven’t a clue why it stopped warming and so you haven’t a clue when it might (if it does) start warming again.

          • Dave Wheeler

            I love your responses. You know your AGW history very well!

          • mikehaseler

            Thanks. I originally decided to “do a bit of campaigning” on global warming just to push things in the right direction (about six years ago). That was a very bad idea – I’m now an expert in a field where there is no pay, no promotion and no prospects.

            You’ve got to have a sense of humour!

          • John Samuel

            I look forward to reading your reputable citation in support of your ASSERTIONS. Whoops, my caps lock key got stuck. I nearly appeared DEMENTED.

          • mikehaseler

            Oh no, there’s no “nearly” about it.

          • John Samuel

            Yes, those who use caps lock without irony are clearly demented. You’ve made your case.

          • Angus2100

            @mikehaseler:disqus Your position is untenable. If you believe otherwise, then the $10,000 is yours for the taking.

          • mikehaseler

            The $10,000 is to disprove something most skeptics agree with.

            The person put up the money is either an ignorant twit or a rather pathetic self-publicist.

            I once challenged a warmist to prove the world was currently warming – on the basis the loser would go for a dip in the North sea on newsyear’s day.

            They declined the bet!

          • Dave Wheeler

            “The computer models that they have developed have been successful in
            predicting the warming trend that occurred over the past 150 years.”

            Really. Source?

            Btw, did they predict the warming trend after it occurred? I don’t recall computers doing any weather related work 150 years ago. Also, how accurate have these computer models been doing for the last 20 years? Source please.

          • Andrew

            This website:

            http://www.skepticalscience.com/how-do-climate-models-work.html

            is a decent primer on how the climate models work; sources included.

        • Angus2100

          ‘Real science’, huh?

          We’re already seeing 0.8 deg C warming after a 42% in CO2 atmospheric concentration since pre-industriial times; that in itself refutes your 1 deg C ECS claim.

          • mikehaseler

            Your Russian handlers must be very depressed at your performance.

            First the 1 degree “claim” is from the IPCC.

            Second, we’ve only had accurate measurements of CO2 from 1958. There hasn’t been anything like 0.8C rise since then. If I remember correctly there was cooling till 1970 since when there has been a 0.48C rise to 2000 followed by no overall trend.

          • John Samuel

            I look forward to reading your reputable citations for your assertions.

          • Angus2100

            Nope. That IPCC states 3 deg C ECS.

            You need to restate as: ‘more recent measurements have been more accurate’; this is common to all domains of science. The measurements of CO2, going back to pre-industrial times, are both meaningful and useful.

            Natural variability is always present. The longer the period over which temperature is averaged, the greater the dominant warming signal becomes clear; this results from the reduction of ‘noise’ of natural variability.

            0.12 deg C/decade is meaningful. Additionally, there are many indicators of warming that should not be discounted- glacial retreat, warming of oceans, rising sea level, increasing height of the tropopause, increasing atmospheric water vapour conc. etc.

          • mikehaseler

            The IPCC give the greenhouse warming effect of CO2 as 1C. (actually there’s various figures between 0.8 and 1.2C)

            The figure you are quoting is not the greenhouse effect of CO2. It is instead largely a made up figure based on supposed positive feedback effects (none of which have been scientifically proven).

            The 1C warming is science.
            Your figure is just the garbage out from garbage models.

          • Angus2100

            I was speaking of ECS – http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/tssts-6-4-2.html

            Do want to insist on ignoring: many indicators of warming- glacial retreat, warming of oceans, rising sea level, snow cover retreat, increasing height of the tropopause, increasing atmospheric water vapour conc. etc.

          • mikehaseler

            ECS is bogus voodoo non-science based on unsubstantiated and often illogical positive feedbacks.

            The global warming effect of CO2 is proven science.

            This single most important figure which this whole debate is supposed to be about — was only mentioned as a footnote in AR4 and as far as I could see was not mentioned at all in AR5.

            So the figure for the global warming effect of CO2 is actively hidden – because your side don’t want the public or politicians to know the real science.

            And you wonder why we are skeptics.

          • Andrew Ross Gordon

            The politicians on both sides don’t know what they are talking about, and neither do you.

            Sincerely, Scientists.

          • mikehaseler

            Who got the fact that you could not predict the climate right?

            Sincerely a skeptic scientist someone who still believes in real science where you test a hypothesis like “global warming” against real data (not someone who only gets to be called a scientist because they have stuff buddy reviewed)

          • Angus2100

            You are skeptical because you find it comforting and convenient.

          • mikehaseler

            I am a skeptic because I had good teachers who taught me the proper way to do science – the skeptic way!

            And how can working unpaid with idiots like you constantly insulting me be called “convenient” or “comforting”.

            Skeptics are skeptics because that is what they were taught to be by good teachers and a lifetime of experience.

            Who taught you to be an idiot?

          • Dave Wheeler

            You parrot AGW talking points because you find it comforting and convenient for a useful sheepie like yourself.

            You are probably another Millennial who thinks he is way more intelligent than he really is! LOL!!

            Looks like mike successfully refuted all your AGW talking points and you are still acting like AGW is true. Only a religious zealot would continue believing in fairy tales once they have been proven wrong. Hey, it looks like you are a worshiper at the altar of AGW and the fairy tale it spins on its believers!

          • Angus2100

            Nope. It’s actually quite a burden to accept the scientific evidence that shows that the Earth is warming. I would prefer to just say ‘deny’, and carry on with my life. It takes courage and a strong sense of responsibility, to stand up and do what’s right; unlike the denialists who claim that the Earth is flat and the moon is made out of cheese.

            And climate science doesn’t care about your beliefs, opinions or political debate, or anyone else’s for that matter. Global warming is true, whether you believe it or not.

            Since you lack scientific knowledge, how are you able to determine whether any claim is valid or not?

            And Mike, well he’s just like James Delingpole and Christopher Monckton. He wasn’t able to provide _any_ research that supported his views, lol

    • Andrew Ross Gordon

      First, I was not aware that there was a Skeptics club. I’ll have to look into that. Second, you didn’t read the article. If you had, then you would have realized that the man offering the reward is a scientist who absolutely supports the AGW hypothesis. Ergo, he doesn’t expect that he’ll have to pay it.

    • John Samuel

      There’s nought less skeptical than a “climate skeptic”.

      “Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small. Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts.
      This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities.”

      http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php

      And note that the above National Academies paper is available for free download after a free registration. No purchase necessary. And the quote is from pages 44 & 45.

      • mikehaseler

        There are skeptic scientists like those at cern and then there are bogus “consensus scientists” who think science is “proven” by buddy review.

        Cern — when they find a discrepancy they publish the fact that the “settled fact” of the speed of light may be false.

        They then check the facts and much to their credit, finally work out where there was a problem.

        Climate “science” — they get shown to have fabricated data here there and everywhere. They call models that are proven to be unable to predict the the climate “settled science” and they basically make anyone who is a real scientists cringe at their fraudulent behaviour.

        There’s science like CERN and then there’s those who give everyone else a bad name.

        • John Samuel

          There’s nought less skeptical than a “climate skeptic”.

          Next time bring evidence. Your assertions of fabrication are baseless and spineless.

          Here’s a fabricated climate science reference for you to digest. http://www.pattern-recognition-in-physics.net/

          • mikehaseler

            Just read the telegraph:
            The scandal of fiddled global warming data

            The US has actually been cooling since the Thirties, the hottest decade on
            record

            http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/10916086/The-scandal-of-fiddled-global-warming-data.html#comment-1448621832

            Then there’s the fraudulent “hockey stick”, there’s the “hide the decline”.

          • John Samuel

            You lost climatenongate nine times. You are a nine time loser.

            The Telegraph – on science? You must be kidding. If not, you are not serious?

            Christopher Booker? The defender of asbestos, the slanderer of Pachauri?

            I was thinking of Nature or Science or the GRL. More the fool me, eh?

            There’s nought less skeptical than a “climate skeptic”.

          • mikehaseler

            If your lies could make the world get warmer – then I’d worry.

          • John Samuel

            I do look forward to reading your *reputable* citations for your assertions.

            It is very clear who the liar is here, Mike. Crystal.

          • John Samuel

            Watts has disowned Goddard’s analysis. The crazies have turned on each other.

            Popcorn? Salted or sweet?

          • mikehaseler

            That’s why Skeptics are better scientists – because we don’t all agree.

            If this were the alarmists – there would be only one permitted viewpoint and anyone stepping out of line would never get paid another Ruble from Russian Oil.

          • John Samuel

            Watts says his analysis is wrong. Goddard has form here, that’s why Watts banned him.

            Scientists are professional sceptics.

            Climate sceptics are not sceptical.

          • mikehaseler

            Real scientists are professional skeptics – because they do argue with each other and value diversity of views.

            Climate “scientists” are just professional charlatans who don’t dare admit they have no idea what they are doing.

          • John Samuel

            You’ve obviously not attended any meeting of climate scientists.

            There is nought less sceptical than a “climate sceptic”.

          • mikehaseler

            I have been to a meeting a climate academics.

            You won’t have been to a meeting of skeptics – because organising skeptics is like herding cats and as the “chairman” of the Scottish Climate & Energy Forum I know first hand that you’ve never seen a group more skeptical than skeptics.

          • John Samuel

            I’ve certainly never been to one of your meetings, no.

            Yet you swallow Booker and the the Russian influence unquestioningly. Not very sceptical.

    • Angus2100

      What accounts for the irrefutable warming that we’re now seeing?
      You can’t simply make an appeal to nature, and say that warming is due to natural causes, without showing evidence of what that could be.

      Deniers and skeptics don’t have _any_ explanation for the rising sea levels, increasing atmospheric water vapour concentration, glacial retreat, increasing ocean temperatures, increasing extreme precipitation events, increasing droughts, increasing wildfires, melting of the Arctic, retreating snow cover etc.

      Provide a coherent, evidence-based explanation and you will win, not only $10,000, but also a Nobel prize and untold global fame; probably becoming the most important person of modern times. (I suppose it’s far easier for deniers to hide behind claims of conspiracy theories).

      • mikehaseler

        That’s a stupid comment when you know I know that there’s been no warming in the surface temperature measurement in around 17 years.

        There is no warming this millennium – so what a totally daft question!

        A better question is this: “which foreign oil compnay is paying you to say black is white?”

        • John Samuel

          Really, no warming? How was 2010 the warmest year on the surface? How was this May the warmest on record?

          Why are the oceans rising, warming and acidifying? Why are we losing a trillion tons of ice per year?

          • mikehaseler

            As the actress said to the global warming zealot — “it looked so promising but now it’s just a wrinkled thing”.

            Even the dimmest twit know that things that go up, go down.
            Even the dimmest twit knows that after climbing a hill, that just because you were climbing up – it doesn’t mean the way off the hill is up.
            But apparently not you.

          • John Samuel

            The warming trend is clear.

            Your attempt at bluster as a defence is noted.

            I notice you attempting to describe a cycle. I’m interested in that. What name does it have? What is its periodicity? Are we going up or down? In which reputable journal may I read more about it?

          • mikehaseler

            Oh no, not another denier of the pause!!

            Do you believe in alien abductions as well?

          • John Samuel

            Your conspiracy theory is busted.

            Your avatar is disturbingly alien in appearance. You may yet convince me aliens exist. Do you do kidnappings?

            What? You have nothing to support your assertion of a magic cycle? Blow me down with a feather. :-))

          • mikehaseler

            You’re the one who believes in the conspiracy of us skeptics being funded by “BIG OIL”.

            Now it turns out that the NATO secretary general knows your side are funded by Russian oil!!

            ironic or what?

            Or are you going to accuse him of being a conspiracy theorist?

          • John Samuel

            I notice you shift topics every time you lose. Interesting.

            My side? All those scientists? Maybe your avatar is distressingly true to life after all.

            The assertion is that anti-frackers are Russian backed. That may be so – but there is a distinct lack of evidence from him. It sounds a bit “they have WMDs”. Excuse me for being sceptical of his claim, not that you’d recognise such. More evidence, one way or the other, is required.

            Odd how you accept one assertion from NATO and deny a generation of data from the IPCC. I wouldn’t call that sceptical thinking.

            In the meantime, the topic has nought to do with fracking, You said there were magic cycles. I notice your continued lack of evidence for your assertions. The reader may draw the obvious conclusion.

          • mikehaseler

            You have a point about only one source for the NATO accusation. However, given the number of times I’ve heard your side accusing us of being “oil funded” when all along I know the oil companies are all involved in wind developments … I know your side have no evidence at all to support your bogus accusations (as I know like most skeptics I’ve not had any money)

            So, if your side lie about us — one credible source is far far more than your side had for your vindictive lies.

            And the anti-frackers have form as this video shows:

          • John Samuel

            Gosh, you do derp.

            I have reputable evidence. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/

            Fossil fuel companies aren’t stupid. They won’t ignore renewables. But guess where the overwhelming revenue is?

            http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/Dealing-in-Doubt—the-Climate-Denial-Machine-vs-Climate-Science/

          • mikehaseler

            It’s either evidence or it “reputation”.

            But in the quote you give it is neither.

            That article is a tissue of lies that libels the ordinary scientists and engineers who are skeptics for no other reason than they have looked at the evidence and found it does not support the non-science they read.

            The reality as published by the arch warmist Gleick when he criminally obtained information from the Heartland Institute is that there is next to no funding and none of it from fossil fuel.

          • John Samuel

            A peer-reviewed academic paper, cited by Scientic American, easily trumps a youtube video.

            I notice your moral stance. Gleick at least apologised. I note Watts hasn’t for aiding and abetting in the theft of emails.

            I look forward to reading *any* *reputable* evidence for your assertions. You are struggling – to little effect.

            There really is nought less sceptical than a “climate sceptic”.

          • mikehaseler

            The only peer review that paper needed was a jury of my peers to sue the socks of the twat who vindictively libelled people.

            As for the buddy review – they should be ashamed they had any part in attacking people in that way.

          • John Samuel

            Poor Mike. His youtube failure doesn’t stack up and he gets pissy.

            Now here’s pal review, http://www.pattern-recognition-in-physics.net/. Or anything in PSI. Or any contrarian blog.

            Reputable evidence. There’s nought less sceptical than a “climate sceptic”.

          • mikehaseler

            That’s a pretty daft comment when speaking to the person with the survey of 5000 sceptics – which amply shows we are sceptics.

            Now if I were only funded by Russian Oil like your side and could afford the time to complete the analysis — and if there were any chance I could get a paper through your buddy review which will never publish anything by skeptics … I’d show you the evidence.

          • John Samuel

            In which reputable journal may I read more of your survey? :-0

            I see conspiracy ideation is one of your strengths, with a side order of recursive fury.

            Deniers are the ones who pal review. Willie Soon got caught. Tallbloke got caught.

            I have evidence. You have wind.

            Where are the deniers’ papers? Is your only explanation some vast conspiracy theory? It seems you’re the one who believes in alien abduction.

            Oh, and where’s my money? My Russian friends – you are a real conspiracy theorist aren’t you? How funny. And 2014-2010=17. Denier logic too.

          • mikehaseler

            Show me the journal that published an article predicting the pause, and that’s the one with my survey in it.

            See the one thing you keep forgetting is that mother nature is on our side. You can huff and puff and get editors of journals dismissed for daring to print stuff saying you can’t predict the climate …. but mother nature controls that climate and you can’t get her fired!

          • John Samuel

            What pause?

            You’re the one with the lack of reputable citations.

          • mikehaseler

            Then if you have so many citations, show me all your citations predicting the global warming pause.

            You don’t have any citations to back up your claim you can predict the climate.

          • John Samuel

            You don’t understand the concept of an ensemble?

            Hey ho.

            Did you know May was the warmest month?

          • mikehaseler

            No, I stopped looking closely at the temperature data after Climategate when we found out that they were being compiled by people who set out to deceive and couldn’t even use an Excel spreadsheet.

            And my confidence in that data has just got worse the more I’ve seen how much of it is fabricated.

          • Dave Wheeler

            I have been reading all your responses to John & Angus and I have found them to be very insightful in explaining this AGW scam.

            I knew in my gut during the 90s that this AGW scare was a scam and now 20 years later I found out that I was right.

          • mikehaseler

            It’s more complicated than that. In any subject there will be hot-heads and those who indulge in bad practice. What happened is that we had a sharp and unexplained rise in temperature from 1970-2000. This was long enough and sustained enough, that the “hot-heads” gained credibility, took over the subject and then started engaging in a ruthless campaign to push their views about climate at everyone.

            For some reason which I find difficult to explain (perhaps the internet?), no one in the establishment noticed that climatology was no longer credible as a subject and was engaged in deceit and propaganda.

            And again, for reasons I cannot fathom, when we finally saw the way this subject operated from inside with the release of the Climategate emails, the science establishment, far from taking action to remedy the situation, instead made it far worse by endorsing the appalling standards, blatant propaganda and in some cases outright lies endemic in the subject.

            Fortunately, rather than modest rise we might expect from rising CO2, we’ve now seen 15+ years without warming and this is now long enough that anyone with a decent science degree has to admit that there are problems.

            The problem now is that so many people, from politicians to heads of science associations to media journalists, have made themselves look complete idiots by backing downright appalling standards in “climatology”, that none of them seem willing to admit that there are huge problems and take the necessary action to remedy the situation.

            Indeed, the biggest problem now is that many of the key people have their “backs to the wall”. They are in so far in the scandal, that they cannot admit their mistake, but slowly and surely the temperature data is showing that they are wrong.

            I’ve been saying for years that we must be near the end, but I really do feel that at any moment a few key people will realise that whether or not they like it, they are going to have to come clean. And they will realise that it is better admitting they are wrong in a controlled way, rather than waiting and letting the scandal develop more and more until I think it will be inevitable that many of those involved will end up going to prison.

          • John Samuel

            The world warms. And Mike fantasises.

          • mikehaseler

            15+ years without warming.

            You’ll feel much better when you finally admit it.

          • John Samuel

            2014-2010<18
            You'll feel much better with some arithmetic.

            And last decade was the warmest.
            And April and May were back-to-back warmest months.
            And the oceans warm, rise and acidify.
            And global ice levels are falling one trillion tons per year.
            And species are shifting polewards and upwards.
            And more energy is entering the top of the atmosphere then leaving.

            Hallucinations oft feel better than reality.

          • mikehaseler

            Yes we skeptics agree it’s warmed since the little ice age.

            And in case you don’t know, the end of an ice age usually see ICE MELTING.

            Now tell me why you predicted warming since when there’s been none.

          • John Samuel

            Sceptics can agree anything they like.

            The temperature record shows cooling leading to the industrial revolution.

            Tell me why you deny 2010 was the warmest year.

          • mikehaseler

            I’ve not checked whether 2010 was the warmest year so I might be telling you a lie if I said it was.

          • John Samuel

            That’d be quite unsceptical – claiming there was a pause without checking the data.

            I am not surprised.

          • mikehaseler

            There was no warming in 2007 (since the AR4 prediction of warming). I’ve defined the pause as “any trend in surface temperature closer to no warming than to the the lower boundary of AR4 prediction (1.4C per 100 years ish).

            Even a cursory glance shows that there has been no where near enough warming to come out of the “pause” since 2007.

            (Actually I’ll post this on my blog, so that we are a nice simple definition of the pause, so in the remote possibility that we leave the “pause” you have the definition to hand)

          • John Samuel

            Guffaw!

            You have defined “the pause”? Giggle surfeit.

            Look up how much data you need for statistical significance whilst you’re at it.

            2010 was the warmest year.
            And last decade was the warmest.
            And April and May were back-to-back warmest months.
            And the oceans warm, rise and acidify.
            And global ice levels are falling one trillion tons per year.
            And species are shifting polewards and upwards.
            And more energy is entering the top of the atmosphere then leaving.

          • mikehaseler

            There is no such thing as statistical significance in the sense you are using it for 1/f noise.

            This just shows how little you know.

          • John Samuel

            That’s the single most stupid comment you’ve made – and there’s competition from you.

            How many data points do you need? Hint – it’s about 30. That’s one of the reasons the WMO define climate at 30 years.

            Prat.

          • mikehaseler

            you don’t even know what 1/f noise is let alone how to work out statistical significant change in such a system.

          • John Samuel

            Stop wriggling. This is standard statistics.

          • mikehaseler

            like almost all climate academics you have no idea whatsoever of real world statistics.

            In one year there are 365 data points. For temperature measured hourly, that’s 8760 data points. That is far more than is needed to be statistically valid (in the micky mouse sense you use it for white noise stats).

            The only reason we don’t use a single year’s data to represent the climate is because of the strong yearly cycle.

            So, ten years is as good a choice as any.

            The only people who use 30 are those trying to hide the lack of warming in the last 15+ years.

            Let me make a prediction: around 2029 you’ll be telling us that we have to wait 50 years (or at least until you lost of charlatans retire on your unearned pensions)

          • John Samuel

            Temperature up or down?

            I see statistics isn’t your forte either.

          • mikehaseler

            What I can’t get it into your thick skull is that statistical significance is a totally meaningless concept when it comes to the climate.

            In order to know what is statistically significant, you must have a model for the normal random processes within that system.

            Without a model for those random processes you can’t define statistical significance.

            You are putting the cart before the horse. You must first understand how the climate works in terms of natural variation, to know whether there has been a meaningful “abnormal” change from that state a normal variation.

            In Mickey Mouse terms you might understand: You cannot know what is “abnormal” until you know what is “normal”.

            What you are doing is trying to apply statistics from white noise to a system which is patently not white noise and has strong long-term variation.

            Once you have enough samples to take account of measurement variations and similar very short term noise, (which a year’s data is more than ample) THERE IS NO MEANINGFUL WAY to describe “statistical significance”.

          • John Samuel

            Ah, the loon call of the climate sceptic, “statistical significance is a totally meaningless concept when it comes to the climate”.

            It’s numbers, Mike.

          • mikehaseler

            Trying to teach you about the real world which is dominated by 1/f noise of which you have no idea what it means is like trying to teach a chimpanzee to play monopoly.

            You don’t have any clue what I’m talking about.

          • John Samuel

            Yawn. Why not try classic statistics before heading into pink noise territory?

            Your real world has a plaid sky.

          • mikehaseler

            Good, now you’ve actually had a look, might I suggest you read this:

            http://www.phi.kit.edu/noise/abbildungen/Noise-03_Non-Thermal_Noise_1_over_f_Noise.pdf

            Particularly the section: “Statistical Properties of 1/f Noise”

            However, please note, when talking of “statistics” it is worth knowing that there is no commonly accepted model for how 1/f type noise is generated and as such there are areas where there is no defined methods for statistical analysis.

          • John Samuel

            You’re trying to sprint when you can’t even crawl.

            Do the classic stuff first.

            Then, when you’re up for some mathurbation, try the newer stuff.

            At least you’ve started thinking beyond linear regression. Phew.

          • mikehaseler

            The reason you can’t model the climate is because you can’t see past the “classic stuff”.

          • John Samuel

            Go on, do both. Do the classic. The do the sexy. No one is stopping you.

            The reason you won’t is because your idiocy will be exposed.

            Claim your 10K.

            Your 20K is safe. There is no proof of AGW – in the same way there is no proof of gravity.

          • mikehaseler

            It’s the wrong way to approach the analysis. So it would be stupid to do what you are suggesting.

            if you are going to do it do it properly. If you aren’t going to do it properly – get a job in academia where such attitudes seem to be actively encouraged.

          • John Samuel

            You have time. Do both. It shouldn’t take you more than a few hours.

          • mikehaseler

            As I remember you were fixated about using 30 years.

            I didn’t say I couldn’t use ordinary stats, I said that what you were saying about requiring 30 years of data was not appropriate for a system with 1/f noise.

            The simple fact is that there is no magic figure over which climate trends should be taken. I would argue that in some cases it would be well over a century, and in others less than a year’s data could be valid.

            Because of the 1/f noise, you simply cannot remove the 1/f noise by taking longer periods so all trends over any period should be treated as suspect because they suffer from the effects of natural variation.

            Including a trend from 1850-2014 !!!

          • John Samuel

            I’m fixated on using words as they are defined.

            You?

          • mikehaseler

            I’ve got dozens of dictionaries Anglo Saxon, The Eymology of Latin words, the Etymology dictionary, Hebrew, Greek, Danish, Gaelic, etc.

            There is no such thing as how “they are defined”.

            I would not e.g. call you “awful” – as the literal mean of that is “full of awe” – and that is certainly not applicable to you.

          • John Samuel
          • mikehaseler

            Is that what you were talking about.

            you ought to read you own links:

            “the statistical description in terms of the mean and variability of
            relevant quantities over a period of time ranging from months to
            thousands or millions of years”

            In other words – as I said, you can use any appropriate period.

          • John Samuel

            I love your selective deafness.

            “The classical period is 30 years, as defined by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO).”

            “The standard averaging period is 30 years,”

            You can define it in minutes for all anyone cares. But the standard is 30 years.

            As your purpose is to misinform you probably will too.

          • mikehaseler

            They are talking about the “classic” view of climate as in a “klima”, the type of weather expected at a particular latitude.

            There is no concept of climate change in the classic concept of the Klima.

            The alternative definition is what is suitable for comparing trends and other changes as that is: “”the statistical description in terms of the mean and variability of relevant quantities over a period of time ranging from months to thousands or millions of years”

            However, if you want to keep using 30 years, then as you don’t do much real work I guess no one will mind.

          • John Samuel

            I don’t do any real work! Let’s be very clear.

            Neither do you.

          • mikehaseler

            Hang on! Do you want to post that one again, as you are supposed to argue that I’m a full time employee for BIG OIL.

            Somehow I think this conversation is coming to an end. So if it is – it’s been an enjoyable banter.

          • John Samuel

            I’ve never accused anyone of paying for your services. Slander!

            The surface warms.
            The oceans warm, rise and acidify.
            The globe loses one trillion tons of ice a year.
            Species shift polewards and upwards.

            But 2014-2010=17 years of pause. So we’re ok.

          • mikehaseler

            It’s in the your denialist handbook.

            On page 8 under “what to do when you lose the argument”.

          • John Samuel

            Glad to hear you have conceded.

            Here’s a pause. http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/

          • mikehaseler

            The process of science is simple. They chose their metric, they then predict the future behaviour of that metric, and then we wait to see. If the metric behaves as predicted the model/hypothesis is “not invalidated”, if it fails to behave as predicted the model/hypothesis is invalid.

            If your site hadn’t been denying the pause for the last … let’s be generous 7 years, then you would have already come up with a new prediction and we would now be discussion whether or not that new prediction was working.

            This is rather what I meant by “you lost climategate”. If they had admitted their models were not working and moved on instead of digging their heals in and looking stupid, then the whole subject would have moved on and the subject might well look credible.

            Now instead of dealing with relatively minor issues at Climategate, the subject also has to explain why despite Climategate it persisted with clearly false models for another 5 years.

          • John Samuel

            Did you spot the pause in sea rise?

            There is no pause.

            The models work well.

            2014-2010=17.

            Overwhelming evidence of AGW. And we won’t enjoy the ride.

            Good news? http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/uk-switches-on-to-green-power-9566508.html

          • mikehaseler

            John, I used to work in a factory where day in day out people were trying “prove” things with graphs. One side would say one thing and another would say another and they both had far more believable graphs than NOAA. I wasn’t fooled then and I’m not fooled now.

            One of the best indicators that a group is trustworthy is that they pro-actively publicise errors.

            One of the best indicators that a group is not trustworthy is a trickle of small errors that even when obvious are never admitted.

          • John Samuel

            I look forward to reading your list of errors. I’ll order in new ink just for you.

            You seem to have been fooled by everything. I can only assume your factory went bust.

          • mikehaseler

            I told them they couldn’t make money in one business. They shut that business (and that was the one I was in), I believe that once having got rid of the low-margin business, they kept going for many years

            BUT UNFORTUNATELY RISING ENERGY PRICES DUE TO EU CARBON TAXES FORCED THEM TO SHUT DOWN.

          • John Samuel

            We can’t afford to subsidise polluters. Welcome to the real world. You were on a level playing field.

            So, on the one hand, we have a denialist who says the surface temperatures have been fiddled with and can’t be trusted. Yet the fidllding was so poorly fiddle done that, by such luxuries ignoring statistical significance, his eyecrometer can spot a pause.

            And on the other he just ignores NOAA data because he can’t find an error log.

            Maybe I should start a real skeptics organization.

          • mikehaseler

            In the real world CO2 is a plant food.

            Are the pause deniers now also saying the surface data are fiddled – that’s a new one.

            NOAA data
            (you should have told me they were the source of this “may the hottest month everthe hottest May ever … oh dear apparently they forgot to hide the data that it was hotter in the 1930s.That’s the problem with the internet – there’s no place to hide your old data showing how you fiddled the data:- http://scottishsceptic.wordpress.com/2014/06/26/no-you-cant-just-change-the-data/

          • John Samuel

            CO2 is plant food. No question. Unfortunately it will also drive warmer weather with more droughts and more floods. Scientists have found crop yields will fall and nutritional content will be diminished.

            I was just citing you as to manipulated figures. Have you retracted? “The only evidence I need is your own surface temperature records (even though they contain masses of fabricated data).”

            Didn’t you read the NOAA FAQ – that demolishes the fake Goddard? Haven’t you seen Watts demolish Goddard. Haven’t you seen Politifact give it “Pants on Fired”? No, of course you haven’t. Only a sceptic would have – and you’re not one.

            Maybe I should start a real skeptics organization.

          • mikehaseler

            23000 winter deaths in the UK each year. More people die in the winter months than the summer in India (according to an alarmist presenter at the Royal Society)

            One quarter of Scotland’s population died in the colder wetter decade of the 1690s.

            Colder weather is the killer not hot.

            How many people live at the South pole?
            How many people live at the equator?

            Globally, heat is not the problem but cold. Humanity is pinned to the part of the planet that is warm enough, not the bit that is cool enough.

            More floods – no credible evidence for that occurring.

            Crop yields are increasing. They increase up to 1000ppm of CO2

            Fabricated data — there have been perhaps a dozen or more well documented cases of temperature data fabrication.

            When I was following temperature data around 2007-2009 I constantly saw a pattern strongly suggestive of manipulating the data (always toward warming).

            In the climategate emails we saw a culture in climate academics that would strongly encourage data manipulation.

            The pattern of behaviour and reported evidence is very strongly suggestive of wholesale fabrication.

            The lack of any action during Climategate shows no effective supervisory control which would reduce this fabrication.

            Therefore I AM ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN THERE HAS BEEN A SIGNIFICANT LEVEL OF DATA FABRICATION.

          • John Samuel

            Every time you lose, and you lose a lot, you just change topics. You’re one mean meme machine.

            You use caps when you know you have no evidence. It’s quite charming in an oafish fashion.

            More people die in the winter than the summer. True. Warming may not decrease the number of winter deaths – because temperature isn’t the driver. However heat waves are the driver in summer. That said, there is great uncertainty as coherent data is hard to come by. http://www.wunderground.com/climate/heatmortality.asp and http://www.livescience.com/42568-cold-winter-weather-related-deaths.html

            At this point the effect of global warming on mortality is uncertain.

            The science says crop yields will fall. In a controlled environment, like a greenhouse, yields rise. The climate is not a controlled environment. And certainly not whilst we chuck CO2 into it.

            More floods – read AR5.

            You are a fabricator and liar. Put up your evidence or shut up. Your conviction has as much value as your science. Little to none. The lack of action during Climatenongate shows you were fabricating then. You fabricate now. Stop fabricating. Your conspiracy ideation is showing.

          • mikehaseler

            700 extra people die for each 1C cooler the winter in Scotland.

            In the worst summer on record in 2003, 2300 extra people died in the UK. I think the whole of Europe saw only around 23,000 deaths.

            Each one is a tragedy but the facts clearly show that the annual winter death toll far exists by an order of magnitude the once every couple of decades heat wave.

            Stern quotes research giving a benefit for global warming up to 2C.

            We successfully grow crops right to the equator. There is no evidence that even the hottest zone on the earth prevents us growing crops – so long as we use crops adapted for those zones (unlike the researchers who do many of these tests).

            In contrast, there are clear northerly limits to successful farming showing that cold is the limiting factor for farming.

            COLDER WORLD = far less productive farm land

            WARMER WORLD = more productive farmland.

            More floods – no evidence of this in Trenberth report.

            “You are a fabricator and liar. etc.”

            you tried all that before and it wasn’t successful.

            “Your conviction has as much value as your science. ”
            THANKS – best compliment so far – although I would say the science is more important to me

          • John Samuel

            I hate to be the first to break it to you, Mike. Scotland is a small, comparatively unimportant part of the world. But thanks for sharing your statistics.

            Yup. The IPCC is pretty clear. Up to 2C may be net positive – with the winners being the rich and the losers being the poor. After 2C the net is negative – and gets worse. We’re tracking to the RCP 8.5 scenario. We’ll blow through 2C. And there is no ceiling.

            The IPCC is clear. Overall crop production will fall.

            If you have no evidence that the records have been fabricated then your continued assertions are themselves a fabrication. That’s neither successful nor unsuccessful. It is fact. Stop making evidence free accusations. Or you’re just a liar. Fact.

            Your conviction has as much value as your science. Little to none.

          • mikehaseler

            The science gives us 1C of warming for doubling CO2. If you look at the evidence for feedbacks, this figure GOES DOWN

            http://scottishsceptic.wordpress.com/2014/06/25/my-best-estimate-less-than-1c-warming-if-co2-level-is-doubled/

            My assertions that the records have been “upjusted” is my best judgement on the balance of evidence. I wouldn’t be surprised if half the allegations of “upjustment” prove false, but that still leaves a considerable number of instances where there is very strong evidence for manipulating the data. I’ve never seen or come across and instance where the trend has been “downjusted”.

            (I suppose I could compile a list)

          • John Samuel

            Sorry, your nonsense of feedbacks is unsubstantiated.

            Good luck with your Scottish Conspiracy Theorists Association.

          • mikehaseler

            Your effort was not entirely wasted. I suspect somewhere in our conversation we touched on a key element that completes my theory explaining the ice-age cycle.

            I now have to finish my current work so I can write it up. So, I will not be responding.

            Thanks for your contribution – and I hope society is always tolerant enough to have a place for people like you.

          • John Samuel

            I look forward to reading your revised theory of ice ages.

            I will pay for your flight and accommodation to pick up your Nobel.

            Yes, I hope for a more tolerant society too – but ignorance needs to be exposed.

          • mikehaseler

            I won’t hold you to that.

          • John Samuel

            Please do! I’m good for it.

            I’m also confident my money is very, very safe.

          • mikehaseler

            That is why it would be unfair to hold you to it.

            I haven’t spent six years talking and looking at climate without learning something.

            It’s worth me spending about a month getting it to a state where it can be published. But first I must finish something entirely unrelated to climate.

          • John Samuel

            I’ve not spent a decade dealing with “climate sceptics” without learning something.

            I’m good for it.

            I’m also confident my money is very, very safe.

          • mikehaseler

            “Hallucinations oft feel better than reality.”

            I can’t help you there, you need to see a doctor about that.

          • John Samuel

            I’ve told him, “I have a denier friend” and he told me “there’s no hope, just sedate”.

          • mikehaseler

            I believe that’s Schizophrenia.

          • John Samuel

            Ah. I see your problem. You were using the wrong bodily organ.

            Try your brain.

            Your gut is too directly connected to your butt.

            You’re the scammer.

          • John Samuel

            He’s back! The unsceptical climate sceptic.

            You lost climatenongate nine times. Loser.

          • mikehaseler

            You lost Climategate!!

            It was your chance to change your ways, stop your endless lies and corruption and start down the pathway that would restore your credibility.

            All we skeptics did was to give you that opportunity and you threw away.

            You’ve had your chance, and now because you chose not to reform voluntarily, the public’s retribution will be all the much worse on you.

          • John Samuel

            The only liars were the thieves. Why aren’t Watts and Delingpole in gaol? :-))

            Nine time loser. Plus CG2. Plus CG3. That’s an 11 time loser.

            As the reality continues to bite deniers will be shamed into hiding.

          • mikehaseler

            I’m starting to get fan mail.

          • John Samuel

            Not knickers, I hope.

          • mikehaseler

            I hope not, the average age of skeptics is 60.

          • John Samuel

            Gosh, I’m older than the average sceptic? I shall send you some of my knickers.

          • mikehaseler

            Every contribution helps.

        • Angus2100

          It’s not called weather change. It’s called climate change for a reason. Climate is the averaged conditions over a 30 year period. We expect there to be variations over shorter time scales that are largely attributable to natural variabilities.

          And how can you say there’s been no warming this millennium, when the last decade was undeniably the hottest decade on record?

          You also speak only of surface temperature, but conveniently ignore that 93% of warming occurs in the oceans.

          • mikehaseler

            Please, natural variability occurs over all time periods and increases substantially with longer periods.

            Your 30 year period is entirely arbitrary. Climate has effects over all time periods and the difference between climate and weather is entirely arbitrary as is the 30 year period (which used to be 10 years until that proved “inconvenient”

            As for it not warming this millennium. The millennium started in 2001 – there has been no significant warming since 2001. Is that too difficult for you to understand?

          • John Samuel

            No, the 30 years is not completely arbitrary. It’s long enough to eliminate most variability from an analysis. It’s also about when statistical significance arises.

            http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/wcp/ccl/faqs.html

            Last decade, the first one in this millennium, was the warmest on record for surface temperature.

            It is very clear who is having difficulty with understanding, Mike. Crystal.

            Have another analysis, http://tamino.wordpress.com/2014/01/30/global-temperature-the-post-1998-surprise/

          • mikehaseler

            Statistical significance depends upon the underlying noise model. I won’t even try to explain that – but what it means is that the 30 years is completely arbitrary.

            In the 1970s we were told we were heading to global cooling. Then it warmed for three decades – and magically all the same sort of bogus academics start talking about “global warming”.

            Then it doesn’t warm for nearly two decades — so where’s the “no climate change scare??”

            Let’s examine their record.

            1970s – said it would cool – 1980s it warmed — WRONG
            1980s – said it would warm – 1990 it warmed — RIGHT
            1990s – said it would “definitely warm” – 2000 no warming — WRONG
            2000s said it would “definitely warm” – since 2010 no warming — WRONG

            So, what is the track record of this voodoo “science”.

            RIGHT – one decadal forecast
            Wrong – four forecasts.

            I don’t need to take any kind of a lecture from academics who get 4 out of 5 forecasts wrong!

          • John Samuel

            I notice you didn’t produce a single piece of evidence for your CAPS lock dementia. Not an iota. Seems to be your style. So it’s all derp.

            There was no consensus for global cooling in the 70s. If you have a reputable citation that says so, produce it. I have a few that say you’re wrong.

            But I’ll wait for your reputable evidence for all your statements. I can wait. I’ll have to.

          • mikehaseler

            Now you are showing you’re also a “global cooling” denier.

            Go read Broecker’s “Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?”

            The whole paper is trying to explain why the consensus science of the camp century cycle cooling had not occurred.

          • John Samuel

            Broecker’s 1975 paper isn’t as accurate as Hansen’s 1988. 🙂

            In the meantime, your 1970s claim is a demonstrable, let’s call it mistruth, http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

            But you’ll still be claiming the same nonsense elsewhere, won’t you?

          • mikehaseler

            Don’t talk crap. I was there at the time and I watched the program on the BBC that said we would have global cooling.

            That was what the public were being told and you are being completely dishonest to suggest otherwise.

          • John Samuel
          • mikehaseler

            Are you saying the BBC did not broadcast the program telling us all we were heading for global cooling. Are you also saying that the scientists did not tell government we were heading for global cooling.

            And if they didn’t represent the consensus of “science” who was being dishonest?

            Was it those telling the public and government we were heading toward global cooling or is it me for pointing this fact out?

          • John Samuel

            You are being dishonest. That’s very clear.

            Ignoring reputable evidence is an early sign of reduced faculties.

            Where is your reputable evidence? You are being called on this.

          • Angus2100

            1970s – only 7 papers predicted cooling, where 42 papers predicted warming.

            1998 was the 3rd hottest year on record, and occurred during a very strong El-Nino. This year there’s more than 80% certainty that it too will be a very strong El-Nino year. Keep a note of those weather reports.

          • mikehaseler

            Show me anything given to any government or any newspaper that says “it will warm” in the 1970s.
            Then show me anything from all the main conspirators (like Hansen) showing they said it would warm in the 1970s.

          • Angus2100

            Why would anyone try and use a newspaper article to support any scientific claim? Here’s a list of the papers showing cooling and warming – http://i.imgur.com/fc493NG.png

            And here’s the research article that shows the myth of ‘1970s cooling consensus’ – http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf

          • mikehaseler

            What did the “scientists” tell governments?

            They told them that they were predicting global cooling.

            And who was leading them? Hansen! The same Hansen who then told us “global warming is unequivocal” – just in time to see the pause.

          • Angus2100

            Nope. The _media_ reported that there was going to be global warming. The consensual position in science is based on the preponderance of evidence; which was that it would warm.

            See the ‘Myth of Global Cooling Consensus’ – http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf

          • mikehaseler

            I watched the program on the BBC telling us we were heading for global cooling. The first paper mentioning “global warming” was a paper trying to explain the lack of global cooling. Hansen was telling government we were heading for global warming. Time magazine had a whole article on global cooling.

            There may have been a few people sitting in their ivory towers in academia talking behind closed doors about warming, but please don’t insult everyone’s intelligence by suggesting that we in the real world outside were not being told we were heading for global cooling in the 1970s.

          • Angus2100

            It’s utterly irrelevant what media outlets say about science; however, it’s clear that you do rely on them.

            Here’s the list of papers. But, what’s the point of talking to you, if you want to ignore the science? http://i.imgur.com/fc493NG.png

            I’ve already cited the research showing that the scientific consensus supported warming.

          • John Samuel

            Did they? Have you got a reputable citation to support your assertion?

            Who am I kidding? Of course you don’t. :-))

          • mikehaseler

            John — please go and earn all that Russian Oil money your side get and go and look up the citation yourself!

          • John Samuel

            I play the grown-up version where he who makes the assertion provides the evidence.

            Go play in denier kindergarten if you must.

          • mikehaseler

            Who’s the denier? Who spent decades denying the pause, who will not provide any evidence they predicted the pause in surface temperature which most of your lot still deny?

          • John Samuel

            You’re the denier.

            There, see, I’ve cleared that up for you.

            http://tamino.wordpress.com/2014/01/30/global-temperature-the-post-1998-surprise/

          • mikehaseler

            Show me where in that article it gives any evidence that your side predicted the lack of warming in any of the surface temperature measurements.

            IT DOESN’T — And that’s shouting because you clearly are not listening!

          • Angus2100

            Another way to explain it, is that deniers say what they say, because it’s comforting and convenient.

          • mikehaseler

            I prefer not to talk of “deniers” just those who haven’t yet seen the pause.

          • mikehaseler

            I asked you to show me what the public were being told that we were heading to global warming.

            If you could find an academic paper examining this from the time – you would have posted it. If you could find some newspaper or government publication showing that the public were being told about global warming you would have posted it.

            But no!

            Therefore, whilst I can cite plenty of evidence that the public were being told we were heading for global cooling, you seem to be quite incapable of showing any evidence to the contrary.

            QED – the public were being told by the scientists we were heading for global cooling.

          • Angus2100

            Can you understand that it was the media was reporting cooling? Do you get it that media outlets do not necessarily represent the views of science?

          • mikehaseler

            Show me a single “scientist” who wrote a letter to any of those papers publicising global cooling telling them this wasn’t the “consensus”. Show me any disciplinary or other action taken against these people for bringing climate “science” into disrepute.

            It is a simple and undeniable fact that the public and government were told we were heading for global cooling. This was rightly or wrongly portrayed as the consensus of this “science”.

            If that was wrong – then it was up to those at the time to take action not you 40 years later with the benefit of hindsight to try to excuse their inaction.

          • Angus2100

            You are again taking a political approach to science. Science doesn’t care about beliefs, opinions or political ideologies. A key tenet of science is to avoid promoting objectives; in cases where science has shown that there is a high risk of harm to people or ecosystems, then scientists may feel compelled to make public statements regarding that evidence.

            If media wants to state that there is no causal link between smoking and cancer, or that nuclear powerplants carry a greater risk to humans than coal-fired powerplants, then they are free to do so. Unlike science, journalists have limited accountability; their claims don’t need to be peer-reviewed, nor sustantiated with evidence.

            So it’s invalid to make claims about the validity of science based on statements made by the media.

          • mikehaseler

            In real science you put forward a hypothesis.

            But in climate “science” you say “global warming is undeniable or settled science”.

            In real science you test your hypothesis against the data.
            In climate “science” you deny the data if as it does, it doesn’t fit your “undeniable science”.

            In real science – if the data does not fit the data (as in the CERN finding that the speed of light may have been broken) – you publish this fact and admit that the hypothesis or theory looks invalid.

            In climate “science” you hide the decline, you deny the pause, you claim your “undeniable science” that it is currently warming, is right in clear contradiction to the data.

            AND YOU NEVER EVER ADMIT YOU ARE WRONG.

            Therefore Climate “science” is not science.

          • Angus2100

            Do you know that last May was the hottest on record? Do you know that 2014 is on course to be the hottest year on record? Do you know that the rate of sea kevel rise is increasing? Do you know what can cause sea level rise? Do you know that the oceans are warming? Do you know that 0.12 deg C/decade is not zero? Do you know that satellites are measuring less radiation leaving the upper atmosphere, etc..

            You see there are many lines of evidence, from many domains of science, that all show that the Earth is warming. I know you would like to ignore that fact.

          • mikehaseler

            Have you heard of something called “the little ice age” – and did you know that we spent the 20th century recovering from the colder period in the 1800s.

            Now tell me why we might get a record hot month now and a record cold month in the 1800s?

            If that’s goes above your head – let me explain that the reason we get most sea flooding at high tide is because the water is already high due to the tide and it only takes a bit of extra natural variability to top it over the edge.

            That is why we expect to get not only the warmest month, but the warmest year and the warmest decade at the end of the century of recovery from the little ice age.

            Now tell me one of these months was the coldest on record (like it was here in the UK not long ago) — and that would be impressive.

          • Angus2100

            The rate of global temperature increase is unprecedented in human history. The rate is neither natural nor insignificant. see http://i.imgur.com/RmohwIn.png

            > Little Ice age

            The main driver of the warming from the Little Ice Age to 1940 was the warming sun with a small contribution from volcanic activity. However, solar activity leveled off after 1940 and the net influence from sun and volcano since 1940 has been slight cooling.

            > Sea level

            I’m was not speaking of flooding, I was speaking of global sea level. Global average sea level rise has increased to 3.2mm/yr. This increase can only be attributed to water run-off from glacial and snow cover melt, as well as the thermal expansion of water; (both indicators of increasing global temperature ).

            > Medieval Warming

            That was localised. Research has shown that the current global temperature is well beyond the temperature during the medieval warming period. Also, did you know that during that time, temperatures elsewhere on the Earth were a lot cooler than they are now.
            Do you know what caused the MWP? Increased solar activity; reduce volcanic activity and changes in ocean circulation patterns.

          • mikehaseler

            How can no warming in 17 years be “unprecedented”?

            The warming from 1970-2000 which is supposedly due to rising CO2 … is precisely the same from 1910-1940 before CO2 was measured rising. And we know that England had a much bigger rise around 1690

            SO IN NO WAY AT ALL IS THE CURRENT RISE UNPRECEDENTED.

            “The main driver of the warming from the Little Ice Age to 1940 was … ”

            Don’t talk non-science. If you knew enough to know what caused the change since the little ice-age, you would have predicted the pause in warming in the last 17 years.

            SEA LEVEL – go look at the raw data showing a drop and tell me what kind of fraud changes it to a rising sea level.

            But fundamentally, there is just one simple test of whether climate science works – and that is whether it can make a prediction and show that prediction comes true – not once, not twice, not 3x but each and every time.

            Climate “science” has spectacularly failed to predict temperature, tornadoes, most weather phenomenon, the hot spot above the equator, et.c etc. etc. etc. etc.

            There never has been a worse example of such a complete failure of an academic subject to provide anything useful for humanity.

          • Angus2100

            Please don’t ignore the global temperature record http://i.imgur.com/RmohwIn.png
            showing why the current increase is unprecedented.

            The forcing from increasing CO2 concentration, has had an effect on global temperature since man started burning fossil fuels. Initially the effect was slight, but it has progressed to become the dominant effect on global temperature. This doesn’t mean that there won’t be short-term variation; but it does mean that the long-term trend will shows continued warming. (This shouldn’t be a difficult concept).

            > England

            It’s an error to extrapolate a localised observation of warming (England) to global warming.

            > Sea level

            Just like global average surface temperature, there will be year-to-year variation. But the trend is clear – http://i.imgur.com/bjNualb.gif

            > Predictions

            There are many:

            Satellites show that the amount of radiation leaving the upper atmosphere is decreasing. This is consistent with theory.

            The litmus test: This simple animation shows how the IPCC’s predictions align with measurement. And it also shows how skeptics’ predictions significantly deviate from measurement. – http://i.imgur.com/zq1wrrJ.gif

            > Weather phenomena

            Climate science’s focus is on the climate, and it’s long term trends. It does show that there will be more extreme high-temperature events – http://i.imgur.com/zUn6MMe.png
            And high precipitation events. The insurance industry sees this clearly; and premiums are likely to go up as a result. Look at what happened in the UK earlier this year.

            Weather (short term fluctuations) are a lot more difficult to model and predict. We know this since the meteorological service is usually unable to make reasonable predictions beyond a week or so.

          • mikehaseler

            Global temperature: 10:1 you are linking to yet another hockey stick. If not I apologise.

            I’ve just been reading up on coal extraction in the 14th century. It certainly happened long before. Are you now claiming that’s the cause of the Roman and medieval warming period?

            England – the best proxy we have for global temperature is the Central England Temperature. It would be better to have global figures, but until you invent a time machine we don’t have that luxury.

            Predictions: You can’t predict temperature, and when I looked at the Trenberth propaganda document summarising all the “trends” – which if any document was going to give all the “worrying trends” that was, I found that there was only one climatic trend that showed any significant trend (which wasn’t temperature) – that was the most intense rain in the most intense rain storms.

            To be frank, I am sick and tired of listening to all the anti-science lies your side push onto the internet.

            I just hope you can live with yourself when you finally realise how stupid you’ve been to go along with it.

          • Angus2100

            Ice cores and tree growth rings are two proxies that are used to determine historical global temperature.

            > Glaciers

            This clearly shows the glacial changes since the end of the Little Ice Age – http://i.imgur.com/87GumX5.png
            And this shows the changes in glacial length by country and continent – http://i.imgur.com/Uaz3JGb.jpg

            > Local effects

            Do you know that the Thames Barrier will need to be upgraded to handle the increasing frequency and severity of tidal surges due to extreme weather events?
            see – Thames Barrier closures http://i.imgur.com/q7TPvXP.png

            > Skeptics

            Very few skeptics have a view of the climate that is consistent amongst themselves. Each skeptic I speak to, usually has a different idea on how the climate works.

            Those who accept scientific evidence showing that the Earth is warming, are largely consistent.

            > Skepticism

            Have you watched the film ‘Chasing Ice’?

            > Denial

            Do you realise that by undermining the credibility of science, you decrease the likelihood that governments will be able to implement necessary policy that’s required to reduce the risks being faced by people and ecosystems?

            Do you have any children? If not, do you have any nephews or nieces?

          • mikehaseler

            Angus, I have been a skeptic for almost a decade and during that time I have yet to find one climate “scientist” who will ever admit they are wrong on even the trivial thing.

            It is fundamental to science that you admit when you are wrong. That is because the key part of science is testing hypothesis and then determining from the data whether they are valid or invalid.

            Because you lot won’t ever admit you are wrong In climate “science” there no “invalid” – you will never ever ever admit that anything you ever do is “invalid”.

            Therefore I can confidentially assert that nothing you do is real science.

            If you have got anything right – it is by pure fluke and not by any scientific rigour.

            And the more you try to convince me that we are all heading toward doomsday global warming … the less credibility you have.

            Skeptics are skeptics because we critically analyse the data and come to a view based on that data. We rightly bring different experience and different learning and it is therefore to be expected we will have different interpretations of that data.

            That is how good science works – you get a free open discussion of the data and then you test hypothesis against new data.

            But in your “science” you close down debate, you insist everyone swings from the same hockeystick, and you only ever look at data if you can bend it to suit your views.

            THAT’S NOT SCIENCE – and sooner or later you will be exposed from the frauds and charlatans you are.

          • Angus2100

            > we critically analyse the data and come to a view based on that data

            How do you’ critically analyse the data’? Do you have an intimate understanding of the physics, chemistry and maths on which climate science is founded?
            Or, do you instead rely on someone to interpret the science for you? ie, would you describe yourself as an interpreter of interpretations?

            Any claim that is based on a formalised hypothesis, that’s evidence based, and has been peer reviewed by an establish journal in the relevant field, is worthy of consideration.
            You need to provide references to such evidence as opposed to links to news articles and blogs.

            The only context under which the skeptics’ view could be considered plausible is if thousands of scientists in many domains of science and across dozens of countries, were complicit in the largest conspiracy in world history.

            This plot idea describes it succinctly: ‘97% of the world’s scientists contrive an environmental crisis, but are exposed by a plucky band of billionaires and oil companies.’

          • mikehaseler

            “How do you’ critically analyse the data’?

            Like most skeptics I did a science degree to learn how to do that.

            Yes I’ve got an intimate understanding of the physics chemistry, maths, philosophy, economics, temperature measurement and historical analysis on which climate science is founded.

            Peer review has no credibility in climate “science”. As such the only review with any credibility is review by the data: does the theory match the data.

            “The only context under which the skeptics’ view could be considered
            plausible is if thousands of scientists in many domains of science and
            across dozens of countries, were complicit in the largest conspiracy in
            world history.”

            … do you have any qualifications in the philosophy of science or organisational theory which enables you to say that?

            I did philosophy as part of my degree course and I did an MBA which covers organisational theory.

            I AM QUALIFIED IN THIS AREA – I DOUBT YOU ARE.

          • Angus2100

            Then, can you explain why the Earth currently has an average global temperature of +15 deg C, when in the absence of an atmosphere it would be -18 deg C ?

          • mikehaseler

            Yes I can – and no, I’m not here to teach you climate physics.

            It’s not a relevant question, it is boringly trivial and unlike you I know there is also another explanation based on adiabatic heating due to pressure. However, I’ve never liked thermodynamics so I’ve thankfully not got tied up in that particularly dispute.

          • Angus2100

            Well, I was asking that, as you haven’t been able to demonstrate knowledge of the subject you are criticising. I’m not looking for a detailed explanation. If you’d prefer, could you explain why Venus has a surface temperature that’s hot enough to melt lead?

          • mikehaseler

            Nor have you.

            Nor do I frankly care what your background education is so long as you make a coherent argument based on the evidence.

            That’s the skeptic way – you are judged on the quality of your argument and the supporting evidence and not the number of papers you get buddy reviewed.

            And yes I could explain why Venus is hot enough to melt lead. If you will state for me the necessary criteria for stability in a climate feedback system.

          • John Samuel

            Venus.

            You’re wrong.

          • Angus2100

            Almost every link I’ve added has been a link to an image. It only takes a couple of seconds to look at each one.

          • mikehaseler

            When a group of people get caught being dishonest – one can be certain that it is just the tip of the iceberg.

            I have repeatedly asked for an honest appraisal from your side of your ability to predict the pause. Even though it is completely obvious that you didn’t none of you will admit it.

            It is a fundamental requirement for any science that you admit when hypothesis fail. Because only when you are honest enough to admit one hypothesis has failed will you be able to discuss those failings and work toward overcoming them.

            instead rather than climate researchers admitting their failings, every time there is a problem is comes from skeptics outside checking up.

            In other words, the only people ensuring you don’t lie blatantly all the time is the fact that skeptics have given up their own time and effort to check up.

            THAT IS WHAT PEER REVIEW IS SUPPOSED TO DO.

            The whole of climate “science” is a complete utter load of crap which would be far far worse if it weren’t for all the skeptics constantly checking up on you.

            Personally I’d fire the lot of you.

          • Angus2100

            > Claimed dishonesty

            If you’re referring to Michael Mann – he’s been cleared of all professional misconduct and his findings have been supported by other research. Also, the evidence his research shows, is only one part of many lines of scientific evidence.

            Also, the science showing that global warming is occurring, and that it’s a result of GHG emissions, stands independent of modelling.

            And, by using ‘hindcasting’, models are able to successfully reproduce temperatures since 1900 globally. However, due to the highly complex nature of the climate, models will only ever be approximations of the climate.

            > Understanding climate modelling

            This TED talk, describes what’s involved in modelling. If you want to understand the state of current modelling, I would highly recommend that you watch this – http://www.ted.com/talks/gavin_schmidt_the_emergent_patterns_of_climate_change

            If your claim that climate science is ‘complete and utter crap’, then it should be very easy to produce scientific evidence showing the contrary.

          • mikehaseler

            “Michael Mann – he’s been cleared of all professional misconduct”

            That says it all. His Hockey stick is bogus. I’ve check it myself and you get a hockey stick with random data.

            Anyone could have made a mistake like Mann in his work. What really makes it criminal is that the mistake was not admitted when it was pointed out and then to compound the sin, these pathetic inquiries failed to reprimand him.

            The initial error was small – the final conspiracy to lie to the public about the hockey stick is to mind mind criminal.

            And you wonder why no who understands science and has looked at this area believes a word you lot tell us.

          • Angus2100

            > His Hockey stick is bogus.

            Are you able to substantiate that claim?

            > I’ve check it myself and you get a hockey stick with random data.

            Can you clarify that?

          • mikehaseler

            Yes – it’s in the phase: ” I’ve check it myself and you get a hockey stick with random data.”

            Can you clarify that?

            Assuming you are serious, the issue is that the method Mann used to process the data had bug which meant that he effectively orientated all the data so that it would be most like a hockey stick.

            The easiest way to visualise this, would be to take random twigs and turn each one so as to align any “bend” to fit in with the assumed hockey stick. Because you are turning them and even inverting the signal so that a stick that bent downward, now bends upward, almost any random data will end up producing a hockey-stick shaped curve.

            This error was pointed out by Steve McIntyre. His work was authenticated by an independent professor of statistics. I’ve checked it and agree with it. I am very confident that Steve McIntyre is correct and that red noise would produce the Hockey Stick as Steve says.

            The Hockey stick is bogus because it is largely due to the bug introduced by Mann.

          • Angus2100

            You claim there is a ‘bug’ that invalidates Mann’s research, yet new research supports Mann’s findings – “the Marcott et al. reconstruction is powerful evidence that the warming we’ve witnessed in the last 100 years is unlike anything that happened in the previous 11,300 years.”
            http://content.csbs.utah.edu/~mli/Economics%207004/Marcott_Global%20Temperature%20Reconstructed.pdf

            Criticisms in blogs and popular media will never change the course of science. Whomever wants to make claims against established science needs to have their claims verified by the scientific process.
            Unless, if you believe that arbitrary criticisms should exempt from formal scrutiny?

          • mikehaseler

            I said the hockey stick was bogus because he had a bug in his method of calculating the hockeystick which would produce hockeysticks with random data.

            “Marcott is a shell”

            Great – you think a subject that doesn’t admit a bug on the iconic hockey stick graph and then has — what did you say — nine enquiries and none of them admitted this bug.

            A corrupt fraudulent dishonest subject that can’t even admit a simple bug produces another paper … and what does that prove?

            What value can I put on peer review by a group of corrupt fraudulent dishonest people who won’t even admit simple mistakes like that of Mann. Who won’t reprehend those responsible for “hiding the decline”.

            Until they put their house in order and reprehend those like Mann whose work is not up to standard, I HAVE TO ASSUME THE WHOLE SUBJECT IS NOT UP TO STANDARD.

          • John Samuel

            It’s a rehash of the much derided M&M nonsense – where it turns out their method generated the artefacts.

          • John Samuel

            The hockey stick keeps being replicated. Mann keeps being vindicated and lauded.

            How many millions will Steyn lose?

            You’ve been caught lying again Mike.

            “Having been investigated by almost one dozen bodies due to accusations of fraud, and none of those investigations having found Plaintiff’s [Mann’s] work to be fraudulent, it must be concluded that the accusations are provably false. Reference to Plaintiff, as a fraud is a misstatement of fact.”

            — DC Superior Court ruling Mann’s defamation suit against National Review and CEI, July 2013

          • mikehaseler

            Mann’s methodology is false I feel sorry that he didn’t have any friends to stop him destroying his career going to court.

            You cite Mann’s submission about himself – is that what you call “peer review?”

            As I recall there were dozens of provable falsehoods in Mann’s ridiculous submission to the court.

            it was an insult to the court.

          • John Samuel

            I notice your continued lack of reputable citations. Your assertions look particularly weak in view of the evidence and the court’s findings.

            Mann’s been made a Distinguished Professor, and a Fellow of the AGU and a Fellow of Ametsoc. The nutters have made the hockey stick one of the most trusted graphs in science. It keeps being replicated independently.

            You are just demonstrating you are not a sceptic. There is no amount of countervailing evidence that you will accept.

            Mind you, I never thought otherwise. So I’ll just continue to make fun of you.

          • mikehaseler

            I notice your total lack of any evidence and logical argument.

            The difference is that you are paid to do that job. I’m not.

            As I understand the various other “hockeysticks” – they all use pretty much the same tree-ring data.

            And even if they use another approach, they all suffer from the same basic problem of calibrating proxy data current measurements.

            In other words, because we don’t know how much the temperature varied in the past – we simply don’t know how to scale proxy measurements – and therefore when you’ve got a subject that wants to “get rid of the medieval warm period” – I have no doubt they have falsely devalued past climate change so as to create a a hockey stick.

            And there are simple tests to verify whether the calibration has been done correctly – and the fact I’ve never seen any attempt to do this is even more evidence to my mind that they are intending to create a hockey stick.

            THAT’S WHAT HAPPENS WHEN NO ONE IN CLIMATE EVER GET’S REPREHENDED FOR NOT JUST POOR QUALITY WORK, BUT INTENTIONAL CHANGES INTENDED TO DECEIVE.

            WHEN THERE IS NO STANDARDS, EVERYTHING IS SUSPECT.

          • John Samuel

            I provide evidence. You write in caps.

            You have been shown to be factually incorrect.

            Sceptic? Nope.

          • mikehaseler

            You are all hot air – and rather foul smelling hot air at that.

            If you can provide the evidence humans have caused warming in the last 15 years, then you are welcome to submit it to me on my blog for the $10,000 prize.

          • John Samuel

            Proof is for mathematics and whiskey.

            Science is about disproof.

            Your $20K is safe due to your ignorance.

            You won’t find proofs for gravity, evolution, tectonic plates or quantum theory. Just overwhelming evidence.

            Huber and Knutti (2011) quantified that human attribution as being 74% and 122% due to humans (with a best estimate of around 100% human attribution). In other words, natural variability is not responsible for the observed warming trend.

            http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n1/abs/ngeo1327.html

            Since then, Gillett et al (2012) also examined the human attribution of the warming trend observed. They found that humans are responsible for 102% of observed warming from 1851 to 2010 and 113% of the observed warming from 1951 to 2000 and 1961 to 2010 (averaged together).

            http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2012/2011GL050226.shtml

          • mikehaseler

            The $10k is safe because you lot are a bunch of charlatans who said they could predict the global temperature, said warming was unequivocal, insulted and abused anyone who dared to suggest your models were wrong.

            AND THEN HAD YOUR BOGUS PREDICTIONS SHOWN TO BE HOCUS POCUS NON-SCIENCE BY THE PAUSE.

            “You won’t find proofs …”

            If you say you can predict the climate – not “maybe” not “probably” but “unequivocally” and you provably cannot as shown by the pause, that is all the proof the public need to know you are just cowboys, no better than cowboy builders, quack doctors, astrologists and all the con men of society.

          • John Samuel

            What pause? 2010 was the warmest year. April and May have been back to back warmest months.

            I look forward to your proof of gravity.

            There’s nought less sceptical than a “climate sceptic”.

          • mikehaseler

            So you are a denier of the pause – thought so.

          • John Samuel

            2014-2010=18 years according to the Great Sceptic.

            Found that proof of gravity yet?

          • mikehaseler

            You know its currently not warming, so it’s just a matter of time before the government scrap all this daft renewable stuff and the companies that have invested millions start looking for someone to recompense their money.

            That will then trigger the police investigations, that will in turn trigger criminal investigations and like the newspapers in the UK who thought they could break the law with impunity and could never have imagined they would find themselves in court …

            … your day will come.

            And I hope you don’t change, because your smarmy self-righteous arrogance will go down swell with the jury.

          • John Samuel

            Dear Mr Haseler,

            Your entry into this year’s Scottish National Shark Jumping competition has been accepted. Our panel was relieved to not see yet another unicorn, Nessie or perpetual motion machine. Your lack of reliance upon real world phenomena was an artistic revelation.

            As an aside our honorary English judge, Sir David Icke, was impressed by your resemblance to our reptilian overlords. I’m sure this will aid your bid in the final judging.

            Please do stay on after the ceremony for our traditional meal of Fruit Loops.

            Yours.
            Henry Winkeler.

          • mikehaseler

            I’ve seen better attempts.

            You need to focus on one theme rather than just jumping all over the place like a locust in a frying pan.

          • John Samuel

            Where will you go when civilised society casts you out for having wilfully mislead?

          • mikehaseler

            You must be referring to the period before I finally checked the facts on global warming – I think I’ve been forgiven for that naivety long ago.

            Just for info, I really do appreciate your comments. They have stimulated me to sort out my own blog (http://scottishsceptic.wordpress.com).

            As I was doing that, I was reading through some of the old articles, and I had forgotten how depressing, even despairing it used to be.

            Things have really turned out way!

          • John Samuel

            Really? Your fantasies increase? Turn up the meds.

          • mikehaseler

            You are quite obsessed with fantasying and medication.

            Do you have personal experience?

          • John Samuel

            Yes.

            I’ve treated many a denier.

          • mikehaseler

            I believe glasses are more appropriate.

            I think it’s just bad eyesight that means you can’t see the pause.

          • John Samuel

            You should try them. You think there is one. Try squinting.

            Still can’t quite get your head around 2010 being the warmest? And it wasn’t even an El Nino. Christy thinks 2014 may become the new hottest.

          • mikehaseler

            You do realise that in a survey done by none other that denier high priest Lewandowsky, that his own results show that when skeptics are presented with data they interpreted the same irrespective of what they are told it is, whereas when global warming believers are told it is global warming, they vastly inflate their view of the trend of the data compared to when told the graph shows a stock market.

            So, you see, the evidence is that those who believe in global warming are highly gullible.

            In other words, global warming believers put on metaphorical warm tinted glasses when they are told a graph shows global warming.

          • John Samuel

            Ah, you can even misinterpret Lewandowsky. There is no end to your talents.

            Will you post in recursive fury?

          • mikehaseler

            Based on Lewandowsky’s own data, the change in trend between skeptics told the same graph was stock market and “global temperature” is about 3.0 to 3.7.

            In contrast, the complete group (which was mostly believers) change the predicted trend from 3.66 when told it was a stock market graph to 5.51 when told it was global warming.

            Therefore, according to Lewandowsk’s own research, skeptics are largely immune to suggestion and retain the same interpretation of a graph irrespective of what they are told it is.

            Whereas those who believe in global warming are the type of people who see the graph as having almost twice the trend when told it is global warming.

            This fits in with my own survey of skeptics.

            This is what the data shows. I agree this is not what Lewandowsky reported – but then he has had to retract his papers because of his unethical attacks on skeptics so his view is hardly credible when the data says otherwise.

          • John Samuel

            Your continued misunderstanding is wondrous. The sceptics merely showed they weren’t sceptical, just conspiracy theorists.

            As for the retraction, his paper was completely ethical, his publisher ran scared of lawsuits from deniers. But his university still hosts it.

            Study retraction[edit]

            A study Lewandowsky published on 28 March 2013, in the journal Frontiers in Psychology, described the reaction of climate change deniers to the study he published the year before in Psychological Science. The study found that of the hypotheses generated by climate change deniers in response to his 2012 study, “many…exhibited conspiratorial content and counterfactual thinking.”[14] The journal received immediate complaints, and took the paper down while it carried out an investigation.[15] The paper was retracted with a notice published on March 2014, which stated:[16]

            In the light of a small number of complaints received following publication of the original research article cited above, Frontiers carried out a detailed investigation of the academic, ethical, and legal aspects of the work. This investigation did not identify any issues with the academic and ethical aspects of the study. It did, however, determine that the legal context is insufficiently clear and therefore Frontiers wishes to retract the published article. The authors understand this decision, while they stand by their article and regret the limitations on academic freedom which can be caused by legal factors.[16]

            Ars Technica reported that its questions were referred by the publishers to their lawyer, who told Ars that “Frontiers is concerned about solid science, and it’s obviously a regret when you have to retract an article that is scientifically and ethically sound.” Freedom of Information requests made by DeSmogBlog had obtained copies of the complaints, which included allegations of misconduct: some used legal terms such as “defamatory”. Staff of theAustralian Psychological Society had written to Lewandowsky expressing concern “that some scientific journals feel sufficiently threatened by potential liability fears to not publish articles with ‘inconvenient information’ about climate change.”[17] Elaine McKewon, one of the peer-reviewers of the Lewandowsky study, said she was “profoundly disappointed” by its retraction, and also said that “Shortly after publication, Frontiers received complaints from climate deniers who claimed they had been libeled in the paper and threatened to sue the journal unless the paper was retracted.” McKewon is a research associate at the Australian Centre for Independent Journalism, University of Technology, Sydney.[15] The Sydney Morning Herald reported that academics had described the retraction as having “a chilling effect on research”. The University of Western Australia had now published the paper online after doing its own risk analysis: their lawyer Kim Heitman said there was no reason to take it down. Elaine McKewon was quoted as saying that the journal had “caved in at the first pushback from the climate change denial community”.[18]

            After media reports about this retraction, the journal’s Editorial Director Costanza Zucca and Executive Editor Fred Fenter made a joint statement on the journal’s blog that “Frontiers did not ‘cave in to threats’; in fact, Frontiers received no threats.” The statement said the main reason for retraction was insufficient protection for the rights of the studied subjects.[19] Ars Technica reported that this statement appeared to differ from the retraction notice, and according to one of the authors of the paper an anonymised version had been produced to meet the privacy concerns. Lewandowsky said that there had been a legally binding agreement on the original notice, and what he took “exception to is their latest statement, which is incompatible with the signed agreement and complete news to us”.[20] The paper is available at the web page of the University of Western Australia.[21]

          • mikehaseler

            Ethical by your standards but by the standards of decent civilised people it was a total disgrace.

            “described the reaction of climate change deniers”

            Our survey shows that almost no skeptics “deny” climate change.

            Yet again you can only be referring to those who deny the climate changes naturally all the time.

            Indeed, the whole IPCC argument is a denial of climate change – and therefore “something else must have done it”.

            hocus pocus non-science.

          • John Samuel

            Deniers are liars.

            You’re ok with stealing emails. But you don’t like statements on public blogs appearing in papers.

            Please write up your survey and submit it to a reputable journal.

            Hocus pocus non-science deniers.

            And 2010 was the warmest year…

          • mikehaseler

            The emails & data were required to be released under FOI law. The University broke the FOI law (as the information commissioner determined).

            I’m not sure what you call the unauthorised released of illegally withheld emails which showed a criminal conspiracy to dishonesty portray the climate.

            Gleich on the other hand, stole emails from an organisation which was not subject to FOI and which showed ABSOLUTELY NOTHING UNTOWARD – not even any fossil fuel funding.

            As for the survey, I’ve asked for funding to complete the analysis. I’ve been denied that funding.

            What is more the only reputable “journals” these days are online bloggers as we have our work peer reviewed by the public not by a bunch of biased academics fraudulently colluding to fabricate data in order to promote hysteria to get themselves grants.

          • John Samuel

            You liars lost.

            Heartland was shown as a propaganda organisation.

            Online bloggers are scientific graffiti.

            The hysterical language is from deniers.

          • mikehaseler

            I was pleasantly surprised by what was released by Gleich.

            It showed a rather small lobby organisation with 1 or 2 people working on climate without any carboniferous funding.

            IN CONTRAST, The British Wind Energy Lobbyists have some 30 people in their lobby arm (worldwide there will be hundreds).

            Groups like WWF (who supplied considerable amounts of the 30% or so of the IPPC citations which are not peer reviewed) got some 50 million Euros.

            The WWF (who invented the Himalayan glaciergate fiasco) clearly have a self interest in pushing climate porn.

            The list of green lobbyists pushing climate is almost endless (some funded by Russian Oil or just taking any money to destroy the US economy)

            http://scottishsceptic.wordpress.com/2014/06/25/eu-green-group-funding/

            And you think “revealing” how little lobbying is being done in support of real skeptic science was not a huge shot in the foot by you alarmists?

          • John Samuel

            I’m pleased you managed to fool yourself. You somehow missed the GWPF, a secretly funded nonsense charity run by a mediocre ex-Chancellor.

            If physics therefore poverty? You’ve jumped that shark again.

            No economy will be destroyed by acknowledging two century old physics.

            But I see you’re still conspiracy theorising. I wish you were more sceptical.

          • mikehaseler

            OK, YOU NAME EVERY SINGLE LOBBYIST PUSHING GLOBAL WARMING.

            Now I will name all I know pushing for real skeptic science:

            As far as I can see Benny Peiser is the only one at the GWPF working on climate. Marc Morano also has a guy. The Guy at Heartland … the names, something like Bart, and I believe his wife helps.

            Watts works full time – I assume he gets enough from advertising & his weather business as he gets massive readership.

            Montford seems to do it in his spare time.

            Monckton has huge personal wealth but has got occasional funding for the odd lecture tour (although I believe most have to be self-funded by ticket sales).

            There’s a few others – some are academics like Roy Spencer but the vast majority seem to be retired.

            At a very optimistic estimate, the total money funding skeptics is probably less than $1million.

            In contrast, just the British wind lobby group has a higher PR budget. Just in Europe green groups get some 100million Euros from the EU.

            I seem to recall the Russian funding was more than all skeptics get.

          • John Samuel

            No mention of Nigel on Radio 4. No mention of Tol? Your GWPF memory seems faulty.

            You seem to forget the dark money funding the echo chamber. You seem to forget the size of fossil fuel PR budgets. You seem to forget how Gina bought the Aussie election.

            All much larger sums than any green money.

            “I seem to recall” is denier speak for “I’m making this up”.

          • mikehaseler

            Nigel Lawson doesn’t work full time on the climate.

            Tol – I assume he’s employed at a university, but he’s only come to prominence recently. If you are suggesting he’s linked to the GWPF, then this is new.

            Carboniferous fuels benefit from rising energy prices.

            All the big oil companies profit from bird mincers. And I believe they give £500million research to universities who then push global warming.

            I wrote to them all asking for a donation for SCEF – not one replied. Never heard of anyone getting money.

            I’ve never heard of Gina.

            “All much larger sums than any green money.”

            if there’s so much money, why have I had to work for 6 years for free with a few hundred pound contributions from members as the total budget?

            If there had been any money whatsoever I would have found it by now.

            In contrast, I could get 100s of jobs if I had no integrity and went and worked to push global warming in some university, government department, local authority, all the massively funded green NGOs the EU, etc. etc. etc. etc.

          • John Samuel

            Do keep up. Tol’s been there years and is al over the news.

            You really believe oil companies push wind farms? They sacrifice over 99% of their revenue. Have you ever been in business?

            You’ve never heard of Gina Reinhart?

            You didn’t know 2010 was the warmest year?

            I notice you accuse everyone else of lack of integrity. You are a complete liar. Not a sceptic, just a liar.

          • mikehaseler

            When I was in the wind industry the largest group of companies involved were oil companies like Shell and BP.

            When I went to check, all the “big five” had wind divisions.

            Why would they care whether they make their money from oil or bird mincers?

            Gina Reinhart – not a name I recognise.

            2010 “warmest year” – I stopped taking the temperature records seriously when I saw what was happening in climate gate and how the figures of temperature are changed quite blatantly to fabricate more warming than there was:

            http://scottishsceptic.wordpress.com/2014/06/26/no-you-cant-just-change-the-data/

          • John Samuel

            Their wind divisions are tiny.

            More birds are killed by cats and buildings.

            Your lack of industry on finding out who Gina is is noted. Great scepticism.

            If you stopped taking temperature records seriously then why do you claim there is a pause? :-)) Too, too silly.

            Your continued unsubstantiated accusations of fabrication confirm you as a conspiracy theorist?

          • mikehaseler

            Oil coys – They get money from wind. They get money from rising energy prices. They don’t have any interest in supporting us skeptics.

            Around 2002 I knew the head of the Scottish Renewables and asked him about research showing that – I think it was one large bird killed per month (year?) by a windmill. He told me it was completely rubbish and no birds were killed.

            I now call them “bird mincers” in honour of his lie.

            There’s a pause in your temperature records. The fact there is a pause when you are constantly “upjusting” the temperature shows that your predictions of “unequivocal” warming are more than disproved.

            The “pause” is important because it shows the climate models have no predictive power.

            it also annoys the hell out of all you deniers!

            “conspiracy theorist” – who’s idea is it that we’re all funded by the oil companies which you now admit are into renewable energy.

            The only evidence I know of oil funding is to wind lobbyists and Russian oil money going to “green groups”.

            (you will no doubt cite some defunct organisation from around 2005 by the American coal assoc? – That’s before my time as a skeptic so I can’t really comment – except to say if they are still active – the coal association should ask for its money back.

          • John Samuel

            First you don’t believe in temperature records then you do.

            2010 was the warmest year. April and May were the warmest months.

            Your pause is vapour – and it has just evaporated.

          • mikehaseler

            Denying the pause doesn’t make it go away – it just makes you look like an idiot.

          • John Samuel

            First you don’t believe in temperature records then you do.

            2010 was the warmest year. April and May were the warmest months.

            Your pause is vapour – and it has just evaporated.

            You are an idiot. 2014-2010-pause. D’oh. Have a doughnut.

          • John Samuel

            You’re missing out Mike. Give Lomborg a call. Lots of denier dosh to be had. http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/06/25/millions-behind-bjorn-lomborg-copenhagen-consensus-center

          • mikehaseler

            I keep telling you that if I were to deny the pause in global warming or deny the scientific method, then there’s shed loads of dosh for those charlatans.

            But if you are honest, go where the evidence leads — you get no money and stupid morons calling me “denier”.

          • John Samuel

            Mike, you’re just a liar seeking attention. Give it up.

            Just because you can’t produce a decent scientific paper doesn’t mean life has to end. Become an accountant.

            Go work for Lomborg.

            The money is in denial. Only a truly incompetent denier isn’t profiting.

          • mikehaseler

            Do you want me to send you my tax returns for the last 6 sixs showing ZERO income!

          • John Samuel

            No, I believe you have zero income. I’m sure that accurately reflects the value you bring.

            “Only a truly incompetent denier isn’t profiting.”

          • mikehaseler

            If you think I’m so worthless, why are you spending so much time responding to these posts?

          • John Samuel

            It’s more satisfying than tearing the wings off flies.

          • mikehaseler

            Never tried it. Is that your hobby?

          • John Samuel

            Naah. Winding up anti-science derpy deniers is my hobby.

            Now you’ve made me all sad. You couldn’t tell.

          • mikehaseler

            You are the last of a dying breed.

          • John Samuel

            You wish. :-))

          • mikehaseler

            This is how it used to be any time I went to a forum. I’d forgotten there used to be people like you.

            There are just so few of you left, so could I ask how do I find you again?

          • John Samuel

            The deniers tend to be unemployed. They have more time.

            For me winding you up is just a hobby. Anti-science is loathsome. Mockery follows.

            Scientists are busy doing science. They don’t care about silly bloggers. And that’s all most deniers are.

          • mikehaseler

            I wish you would stop referring to deniers. As I said I prefer to say “they haven’t yet seen the pause”.

            “For me winding you up is just a hobby. Anti-science is loathsome. Mockery follows.”

            Then please could you get on with it, I’m really interested to see your technique.

          • John Samuel

            But you’re not a sceptic. You don’t read widely around your subject. You don’t canvass information. What am I left with? Denialist? Crank?

          • mikehaseler

            You might be right about the skeptic – because the true skeptic is skeptical of whether they are a skeptic.

            If you don’t like “skeptic” then all I can do is tell you that the distinguishing feature of a skeptic is that we agree that despite misgivings on the temperature record, there is likely to have been warming in the 20th century, that CO2 is a greenhouse warming gas, but …

            … we do not support the view that there will be catastrophic global warming.

            That however isn’t the real distinguishing feature of skeptics but if I told you that, you would really be able to get under their skin in a few seconds.

          • John Samuel

            Scepticism is an attitude, not a position.

          • mikehaseler

            You are inviting me to comment on skeptics and unfortunately I shall be tactful and decline.

          • mikehaseler
          • John Samuel

            That’s the only skill sceptics have. Data jiggling and torture.

          • Dave Wheeler

            Whee!! Another hockey-stick graph!! It must be true!!!

          • Angus2100

            Whatever you may think, science is not a liberal conspiracy.

          • Dave Wheeler

            “Therefore Climate “science” is not science.”

            Exactly. It’s pseudo-science at best. Religious zealotry at worse.

          • mikehaseler

            A few of the older people called it “climatology” – in likeness to “geology” and similar border-line science.

            But that wasn’t good enough for those who needed the kudos of being a “science”.

            This I think is the only reason it get’s called a “science”.

            I can understand that those in the subject would like the Kudos of being a science. What I think is utterly shameful is way the “science” associations endorsed this nonsensical idea that the subject is a science.

            In my view, it was done for entirely political reasons and the result is that the reputation of all science has been irreparably damaged as a result.

          • Angus2100

            You have been conveniently selective, by choosing a shorter period to claim there is no warming trend, when a broader view shows that the warming trend is undeniable. (http://i.imgur.com/lFY3pCc.gif)

            So you’re claiming that the period, by which climate is defined, is meaningless? And that there’s essential no differentiation between weather and climate?

            2010 was the hottest year on record.
            2005 was the second hottest year on record.
            Yes, there has been 0.12 deg C/decade surface temperature warming.

            Do you insist on ignoring: 93% warming occurs in the oceans. Increasing atmospheric water vapour concentration. Increasing extreme precipitation events. Increasing sea level rise. etc…

          • mikehaseler

            The first time I found a range for the global temperature forecast was in AR4 in 2001.

            There’s been no warming since.

            However, I was recently told I’d missed a previous forecast — which has also proven to be false.

            Not a single IPCC report ever predicted the pause in temperature – so none of their forecasts were right.

            2001 is just a convenient date as it was both the start of the new millennium and the IPCC report.

            So why on earth is that cherry picking?

            …. I know!!!! Because you don’t like the result.

          • Angus2100

            Why do you claim that 0.12 deg C/decade is equal to zero?
            Why do you discount all indicators of warming?

            Anyone, with a background in science, would appreciate that _no_ model of any high complex system, can offer full certainty about future events.

            Also, could the models have predicted that there would’ve been numerous volcanic eruptions? Could the models have predicted El-Nino/La-Nina years in advance? Could models have predicted the severe economic downturn that resulted in lowered emissions? Could the models have predicted a move by certain countries to have a greater reliance on natural gas?

          • mikehaseler

            The arctic ice has melted – the antarctic ice has grown.
            The Himalayan glaciers melted (but then they returned to normal).

            There was a study in the UK showing that something like 20% of insect species studied had seen a decline in range as the southern limit went north … but something like 60 or 80% had seen an INCREASE in range as their northern limit moved north.

            We’ve also seen a reduction in hurricanes (or is that Tornadoes) – which no one seems to mention!

            So, actually, the biggest change is this drop in hurricane levels but otherwise, we’ve seen remarkably little change since the little ice-age!

            But as for rising CO2 – there do seem to be noticeable changes: There is good evidence inceasing CO2 is having an effect – as worldwide plant growth increase (I think by 10%). We’ve also seen a reduction in deserts – which is a predictable impact of rising CO2.

          • John Samuel

            The earth is losing a trillion tons of ice per year:

            – 159 Gt Antarctic land ice, McMillan el al, GRL (2014)
            + 26 Gt Antarctic sea ice, Holland et al, J Climate (2014)
            – 300 Gt Arctic sea ice, PIOMAS
            – 378 Gt Greenland, Enderlin et al, GRL (2014)
            – 278 Gt other land based glaciers, Gardner et al. Science (2013)

            – 1,070 Gt, total

            I notice Mike continues to struggle to provide references.

          • mikehaseler

            The earth has warmed since the little ice age. I think something like 95% of all skeptics agree to that statement.

            So what is your point?

            Are you saying the statement: “The arctic ice has melted – the antarctic ice has grown” is wrong?

            If you are so keen on statistics – can you tell me whether it’s hurricanes or tornadoes that have decreased?

          • John Samuel

            Try reading instead of frothing. 3% growth. 97% shrinkage. How did you pass an MBA? “Well, boss, globally we may be losing $1000 per year, but the good news is that the Antarctic is making £26”.

            No JAQing. If you have a point make it with reputable evidence or accept that you are talking nonsense and that the grown-ups are laughing at you.

            #freethetol300

          • mikehaseler

            When I first started debating climate I used to follow these links – then I realised that none of them supported what the person said and I stopped.

            Likewise, I read Skeptical science a couple of times and found it to be neither skeptical nor science.

            Now you’ve spent the evening posting non-science and you want me to spend my time debunking what is undoubtedly rubbish?

          • John Samuel

            I see. So there is no evidence that would convince you.

            That’s called religion.

            There is obviously no reasoning you out of a position you did not reason yourself into.

          • mikehaseler

            If you have the evidence that you predicted the last 17 years without warming …. post it.

            Those who have the evidence post it — those like you who have none — try to pretend they have it by posting a link.

          • John Samuel

            The evidence on the surface is unequivocal. The oceans and ice confirm it.

            You have less than nothing.

          • mikehaseler

            No one disputes that the world saw warming after the little ice-age

            The only issue that matters is whether you have any ability to predict the climate.

            And the answer is no, because I know for a fact none of the testable IPCC predictions on “warming” have proven correct as the current temperature is now outside any range they gave.

            Science is simple – you make predictions and then compare them with the data.

            That data shows you can’t predict the climate.

          • Angus2100

            Did you see the recent news about the collapse of the west Antarctic ice sheet?

            Antarctic sea ice extent has increased, whilst overall ice mass is decreasing.

            Where’s the evidence of Himalayan glaciers returning to normal? 98% of the world’s glaciers are in retreat.

            The is low correlation of tornado frequency to climate change.
            However, there is correlation of increasing hurricane strength to climate change.
            The worst hurricane to ever recorded to have hit land, occurred last year.
            Skeptics claimed that a hurricane like Sandy could never occur in New York.

            Do you know that satellites are measuring a decreasing amount of radiation leaving the upper atmosphere. This is a direct result of the thickening blanket of CO2.

            What about the indicators of warming that you’re so carefully avoiding? increasing sea level rise, increased atmospheric water vapour concentration, increasing ocean temperature, etc…

          • mikehaseler

            Did you see the recent news about the collapse of the west Antarctic ice sheet?

            No I saw some headlines talking nonsense about a “collapse”.

            “Where’s the evidence of Himalayan glaciers returning to normal?” — I said “then they returned to normal” … I have no idea what their current status is.

            “The is low correlation of tornado frequency to climate change.” …. are you saying tornadoes have decreased? If so, why not just be honest and say that?

            The worst hurricane to ever recorded to have hit land, occurred last year. … “worst?”

            If I remember correctly it was debatable whether it was actually a tropical storm. That’s not to say that storms can cause damage.

            “Do you know that satellites are measuring a decreasing amount of
            radiation leaving the upper atmosphere. This is a direct result of the
            thickening blanket of CO2.”

            Have you ever noticed those fluffy things in the air we technical people call “clouds” – have you ever noticed that on a cloudy night, it is warmer than a clear night? Have you ever noticed the way none of the alarmists ever talk about clouds? Have you noticed the way that none of the climate models model clouds properly?

            Have you noticed how ages ago I said that CO2 is a warming gas … but unfortunately your script doesn’t have a option for “when the sceptic agrees CO2 is a warming gas “… so you just try to make the same stupid points that you always make and it looks quite pathetic.

          • John Samuel

            You don’t remember correctly. That’s why we ask you for reputable evidence. And you have none.

          • mikehaseler

            John, I watched the program. So did my friends at school. We then sat down the next day and discussed what would happen when it got cooler. I can remember being surprised that they had also watched it.

            I can also remember it coming up a few other times (perhaps when it snowed – we commented “is this the start of that cooling”)

            There is ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER that the message from that BBC program was that we were heading toward global cooling.

            Please stop embarrassing yourself by lying about it.

          • John Samuel

            You seem bereft of evidence. I have lots.

            You bring media reports. I bring science.

            You bring memories. I bring citations.

            It would appear I’m the sceptical one. Delicious.

          • mikehaseler

            OK smart arse – show me the evidence that the surface temperature that your lot said would warm “unequivocally” has warmed.

            Cue another “throwing the rattle out the pram comment”

            Just admit it – you didn’t predict the pause and you can’t predict the climate.

          • John Samuel

            I notice you continue to make assertions without evidence.

            When challenged you JAQoff. Pity.

          • mikehaseler

            Your side’s record.

            1970s predicted global cooling – 1980s warmed WRONG!
            1980s predicted warming – 1990 warmed RIGHT
            1990 predicted “unequivocal” warming – no warming – WRONG
            2000 predicted “unequivocal” warming – since 2010 no warming WRONG.

            Three wrongs and one right. You could have done better flipping a coin.

            Our sides:
            Predicted the climate models were a load of shite and all the academics were talking out their backside.

            RIGHT!

            100% success.

          • John Samuel

            Where are your references?

            Did your unicorn eat them?

          • mikehaseler

            You are claiming you can predict the climate. It is therefore up to you to supply the evidence showing you can predict the climate.

            Now show me you predicted the last 17 years without warming!!

            But you can’t!

          • Dave Wheeler

            And, you have reputable science? LOL!!! If you did, there would be no debate!!

          • John Samuel

            Relativity was denied for a score of years.
            Tobacco causing cancer is still denied by many.

            I notice a shortage of facts about you.

          • Angus2100

            You’re being disingenuous.

            I reckon, the only reason why you’re trying to support a scientifically unsupportable position, is that you don’t want climate change policy to be implemented.

          • mikehaseler

            I was selected to stand for the green party in 2003. I recently helped run a campaign to say our local nature reserve from housing development.

            I don’t need people like you who have probably never done anything for the environment trying to suggest I’m only a skeptic because I don’t like the environment.

            I am a skeptic because I had good teachers who taught me proper science. I am a skeptic because climate academics have failed those standards and lied to people about the climate. I am a skeptic because the old and poor pay with their lives in Scotland because the higher fuel prices you want people to pay means they can’t afford to heat their homes.

            I could just as easily say “you’re only a believer because you want the old and poor in Scotland to suffer”.

          • Angus2100

            Your dismissing scientific evidence is not ‘proper science’.

            But seeing as you make the claim that you understand science, can you explain:
            – In the absence of an atmosphere the Earth would be at a global average of -18 deg C. However, the current average is +15 deg C. Why is that?
            – What is Rayleigh scattering?
            – Why is the surface of Venus hot enough to melt lead?
            – Why does Mars have an average surface temperature of -50 deg C?
            – What is blackbody radiation?
            – What is the absorption spectrum of carbon dioxide?

          • mikehaseler

            The only issue that matters is whether or not you can predict the climate as you claim. The answer is no.

            You are now acting like a car salesman who when challenged to start the car — starts talking about the shiny bumper.

            Forget the trim. Show me you can predict the climate.

          • Angus2100

            The science has clearly shown, through multiple lines of evidence, that the Earth continues to warm. Short term variability neither supports nor refutes the fact that the Earth continues to warm.

            You are approaching climate science as a politician, not as a scientist. You make broad, sweeping claims about the validity of climate science, yet you don’t appear to demonstrate understanding of the basic principles of the science.

          • mikehaseler

            As I’ve said numerous times – we expect to see about 1C warming for a doubling of CO2.

            Even Stern admits that level of CO2 fertilisation and warming would likely be beneficial. We are already seeing the benefits in higher crop yields and e.g. insects in the UK INCREASING their range northward.

            What we skeptics dispute, is not the science of CO2 warming, but the pathetic idea that we will get up to 6X this warming for unproven unscientific and downright fraudulent ideas of “positive feedbacks”.

            Those positive feedbacks – and the people who push this religious nuttery have been shown to be false by the lack of any warming in the surface temperature record for 17 years.

            Skeptics have been shown to be rightly skeptical of these climate models, the temperature predictions and the religious nutters who said we were heading for doomsday.

  • Mike

    The third sentence contains a double negative that is disturbing….”disprove humans are not the cause…” Please apply the college fix.

  • Jack

    why doesn’t someone offer $20k for proof that it is man-made?

  • Paul Siraisi

    Maybe we should have a contest to disprove the tooth fairy, too.
    @thisnameinuse:disqus Stop trying to control speech.

    • Angus2100

      You’re being juvenile.

      • William Burke

        And arrogant, which is far worse than juvenile in a grown man.

      • Dave Wheeler

        Believing in fairy tales is juvenile. Oh wait, AGW is a fairy tale, so you must be acting like a juvenile!! LOL!!!

        • Angus2100

          Do you have the courage to show some responsibility towards younger and future generations? Do you have the guts?

  • AntiIgnorant

    This is hilarious. The burden of proof is on those making the claim… not denying it. This is the exact same nonsense I see in religious debates… the religious people tend to cop out and say “prove there isn’t a god”.

    Just lazy nonsense. If you claim something, you prove it. You do not take the pathetic approach of telling others to disprove your claim. Just pathetic.

    • John Samuel

      AGW is accepted fact and has been for a couple of decades.

      • physicsnut

        accepted by Al Gore and Mann and that bunch. They say 97 percent – which is totally debunked.

        • wjfox

          You’re a fucking idiot.

        • John Samuel

          97% by multiple studies – no just one – multiple over the last decade.

          99.98% by last year’s papers.

          All the world’s scientific organisations.

          “Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small.

          Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts.

          This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities.”

          http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php

          And note that the above National Academies paper is available for free download after a free registration. No purchase necessary. And the quote is from pages 44 & 45.

      • William Burke

        And it cannot be found in temperature records in the last (almost) 20 years. Do try and do some catching up.

        • John Samuel

          Yet 2010 was the warmest year. That’s not 20 years.

          Your numath has failed. Home schooled?

          • William Burke

            What flavor is your Kool-Ade? Keep on believing the Lie Stream Media. Your pocket is ripe for the picking.

          • John Samuel

            You can’t even spell Kool-Aid properly.

            I guess you like wingnut media.

            Your pocket has been picked.

          • William Burke

            Get back to me if you ever have anything original to say, Hocakes.

          • John Samuel

            Your conspiracy theory is a bust.

            The AAAS knows. http://whatweknow.aaas.org/

          • Dave Wheeler

            He called you Hocakes! LOL!! You are definitely an AGW hocakes!!

      • Dave Wheeler

        Keep that altar of AGW going! You are doing a good job there acolyte!

    • Angus2100

      The science is settled and the evidence is there for all to see. If you choose to ignore that evidence, then that shows you are willfully ignorant.

  • AntiIgnorant

    If I make a claim that the government is run by lizard people and you disagree, wouldn’t it make more sense for me to prove my claim rather than have you disprove my claim??? Oh, wait… that might take actual effort and put the burden of proof on myself… now I see why I wouldn’t want to take that approach…. lazy brilliance.

    • Angus2100

      Deniers, such are yourself, have no plausible explanation for the warming that we’re now seeing. Deniers will claim that it’s due to natural variability, even though climate science has already accounted for natural variability.

      • AntiIgnorant

        There is the name calling “denier” speech we all love so much. Could it be that I was merely commenting on the absurdity if this man’s approach to debate? You do not know my position as I have never stated it… But continue believing you know everything and make assumptions.

      • Dave Wheeler

        So you are a zealous AGW fanatic that worships on the altar of Global Warming. Gotcha buddy!

        Btw, who did you sacrifice on the altar this week?

        • Angus2100

          Do you reckon you know what you are talking about when all you can spout is rhetoric, that’s devoid of any scientific fact?

          And, did you feel comfortable this week, hiding behind your facade of denial?

  • Kevin Lafayette

    He’s right. It’s pointless to ever try to change someone’s religious beliefs. He will simply dicard any facts or evidence that would force him to alter his world view. #Environmentology is the most dangerous and murderous cult in the world today.

    • John Samuel

      Your conspiracy theory is showing.

  • Brambles

    You say he’s offering $10K to anyone who can disprove that humans are not the cause of global warming. Isn’t this completely bass-ackwards?

    • John Samuel

      Science is about disproof, not proof. Make a hypothesis, attempt to break it. Off you go.

      “Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small.

      Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts.

      This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities.”

      http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php

      And note that the above National Academies paper is available for free download after a free registration. No purchase necessary. And the quote is from pages 44 & 45.

  • Kevin Lafayette

    I mean seriously. There are probably still people who believe male pattern baldness passed on the mother’s side, or that DDT causes problems for birds. Carson was a pathological liar; you need a low calcium diet to thin eggshells. DDT is irrelevant. Likewise, that scientist who made the claim about male pattern baldness simply discarded all contrary evidence. Cooking the books is the only way to get man made global warming.

    • John Samuel

      Such a vast conspiracy even the facts collude?

  • irandom419

    I’d rather see him bet on some global warming disaster based on computer models within his own lifetime.

    • John Samuel

      AGW doesn’t need computer models. Just look at palaeoclimatology. You come to the same conclusion.

      Interesting, same conclusion from different approaches. It might be science.

      • irandom419

        As a former pro-AGW type since my teens, I just want him to bet on something pro-AGW within his lifetime, pretty much anything measurable. I don’t think many can afford to take him up on his offer since a lot of grants coming out the government seem to have a global warming angle and Al Gore liked to hit scientists where it counts by grilling them in front of grant makers. I just picked computer models since I find them amusing. Years ago, the Yucca mountain model was evil, but nowadays the atmospheric mixing model is good, even though the divergence is growing. I had harsher terms to describe it, but someone summed it up as the comparing of high frequency modern data versus low frequency paleo data is questionable. I like the ancient stomata data, I don’t like ice cores and the minimalistic gas diffusion assumption even though there appears to be no taper near freezing. I’m not saying we aren’t contributing, I don’t think it will be catastrophic since we will get to that level anyways, just a little sooner. I am not a scientist, just an electrical engineering drop out who questions the motives of the scientific elite that Truman warned about.

        • John Samuel

          Are you sure you didn’t mean the military-industrial complex Eisenhower warned about?

  • derekcolman

    It’s basically the same as offering $10,000 to any atheist who can prove God doesn’t exist. In fact, a few years back, someone offered £10,000 to anyone who could prove that man made global warming does exist. No one claimed that prize either. I don’t even know who this is aimed at, because pretty much all sceptical scientists believe that human emissions of CO2 cause some warming of the planet. What they actually dispute is the climate sensitivity to CO2 forcing, and rightly so. It is now well established that the climate models used by the IPCC were drastically wrong, and warming has fallen far short of the projections. The evidence bluntly shows that the sceptics were right all along, that man made global warming does exist, but is insignificant.

    • John Samuel

      The models have proven remarkably good.

      Off you go, Derek, the ten grand and the Nobel are yours.

      As per Eli Rabett, “Increasing CO2 in the atmosphere at current rates will increasingly cause bad things to happen. Over the next one to two hundred years this will lead to VERY BAD things happening.”

      • derekcolman

        You must be stalking me, having followed me from the Independent. I don’t argue against the warmist cult for money, but out of concern for my fellow citizens who are now, and will increasingly in the future, suffer real harm created by the green movement. That means the pensioners dying from cold in the UK, the Africans who can’t get electricity to improve their lives and life expectancy, and the people starving in third world countries, all the results of the influence of this evil warmist cult. BTW, Bugs Bunny says Roger Rabbit is wrong, so there.

        • John Samuel

          You may not have noticed, but I’ve been posting here longer than you have.

          That means you’re stalking me.

          Pensioners wouldn’t die if we’d insulate our homes and invest in energy.

          Your crocodile tears do not convince anyone. People are already dying from climate change. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs266/en/

          I have reputable evidence. You have derp – and a time machine.

          • derekcolman

            That’s what I meant by you lack of understanding of science. Your evidence is a propaganda leaflet which does not cite a single scientific paper. Perhaps if you read up on excess deaths caused by heat and by cold, you would realise how misleading that document is. Its claims about extreme weather deaths don’t hold water either. Right back in history millions of people died from floods and droughts, even whole civilisations. To claim it’s some kind of new phenomenon is disingenuous. Furthermore there is no established link between extreme weather events and global warming. Presumably it is a document written by Greenpeace for the WHO. As it’s the first time I have visited this site, I was not aware of your prior presence. I am nominating you for the Guinness Book of Records as the worlds most prolific troll.

          • John Samuel

            I cite the WHO.

            And you cite nothing.

            Truly stupid.

          • derekcolman

            You have Google as well as me. Why do you expect me to do all the work to refute that document, which will probably take all day, while you sit and mock? I’ll give you a starter. A study shows that while deaths from excess cold are in addition to the normal death rate, deaths from excess heat are tend to subtract from the normal death rate after a heat wave is over, or in other words they are the deaths of people who were going to die anyway within the next period of time. Now go Google to your heart’s content. PS, here’s another. Read about the Irish potato famine.

          • John Samuel

            You could Google AAAS and What We Know.

            http://whatweknow.aaas.org/

          • derekcolman

            I did as asked and was immediately confronted with another piece of warmist propaganda in video form. A man riding a bicycle on a mountain track, while a voice over tells me about a dire future is about as convincing as a Fosters ad. However, being a patient man, I ploughed on to read a spiel worthy of a snake oil salesman. This told me that the climate is changing and that 97% of scientists agree it is changing. Practically no one disputes that, because climate is always changing. Then it went on to the snake oil bit, to imply that the same 97% agree that humans are causing it, and it will be catastrophic. that is untrue and they know it. The actual percentage of the first part is no more than about 54% estimated. The last part is unknown, but using the evidence used for the Cook et al paper, it’s about 0.3%.

          • John Samuel

            Multiple papers, including Cook, all find 97%. Even Tol’s error strewn re-analysis of Cook finds over 90%.

            And it’s 99.98% of recent papers.

            #FreetheTol300.

          • derekcolman

            We can argue the existence of, and the size of a consensus all day long, but it is irrelevant. Consensus is scientific proof of nothing. Several times in the past a scientific consensus has been proven wrong. It took 50 years for the scientific community to accept tectonic plate movement. It is also not true that there is no debate over climate science. The debate is about the sensitivity of the climate to CO2 warming.

          • John Samuel

            Your faith that AGW will be found wrong is touching.

            It’s an older science than plate tectonics, relativity or quantum theory.

            I note your shift from “it’s not CO2” to “it is, but the sensitivity is low”.That’s wrong too.

          • derekcolman

            That’s not a shift. It’s not CO2 that is driving global temperature, it’s the Sun. CO2 is a bit player of no consequence. Mainstream climate science has forsaken the scientific principle whereby when the data does not support a theory, the theory is wrong. In this case, the theory is that increasing atmospheric CO2 increases the GMT. The data from the last 17 years shows CO2 increasing by 8% (13% rise in man made CO2), but no corresponding rise in GMT. The data does not support the theory. Ergo the theory is wrong. The fact that CO2 can be demonstrated to absorb heat must mean that the effect in the atmosphere is so small because CO2 is a trace gas.

          • John Samuel

            Your self-contradictions are quite wondrous.

            Why don’t you try and win $10K. :-))

            Loser.

          • Dave Wheeler

            I’ll wager $10k for you to prove man-made global warming on the levels your religious zealots claim it to be. This challenge is on the same levels as saying if God exists or not. However, I bet in 10 years we’ll know you and your religious ilk that worship on the later of AGW will be wrong as always. So far none of those doomsday predictions you guys since the 70s, 80s, and 90s, haven’t come true yet and some of them as past due!

            LOL!!! And, you call other people losers. LOL!! I think the joke is on you there sheepie!!

          • John Samuel

            April and May were joint warmest months.

            The oceans rise, warm and acidify. Global ice levels recede. Species shift polewards and upwards.

            Do deniers still say “sheeple”? Bless.

          • erickcartman

            “Global” ice coverage is at record levels. People like John Samuel only refer to the northern hemisphere. The southern hemisphere has been gaining ice faster than the north is losing. Another inconvenient truth for the Anthropgenic worshipers.
            http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/antarctic.sea.ice.interactive.html

          • John Samuel

            Try again.

            The earth is losing a trillion tons of ice per year:

            – 159 Gt Antarctic land ice, McMillan el al, GRL (2014)

            + 26 Gt Antarctic sea ice, Holland et al, J Climate (2014)

            – 300 Gt Arctic sea ice, PIOMAS

            – 378 Gt Greenland, Enderlin et al, GRL (2014)

            – 278 Gt other land based glaciers, Gardner et al. Science (2013)

            – 1,070 Gt, total

            Total denier fail. Feel the burn.

          • jumper297

            Whoa!! and the stupid just keeps on rolling….

          • John Samuel

            Then stop commenting, jumper297.

          • Dave Wheeler

            “Whoa!! and the stupid just keeps on rolling….”

            And, he keeps on rolling!! Good sheepie you are!!

          • John Samuel

            Sheeple? Thank you. I’ve filled my Denier Jargon Bingo card.

          • Greg Barton

            Science mag is no longer about science but for funding for leftwing wet dreams and rainbow unicorns.

          • John Samuel

            Ah, I see the fevered imagination of a wingnut.

            No evidence, of course.

            Have you heard of Lewandowsky and conspiracy ideation. You could be on one his posters.

          • Dave Wheeler

            You cited WHO. LOL!!!! That likes saying the IPCC doesn’t lie or fudge things too. LOL!!!

            Yes, you are truly stupid.

          • John Samuel

            I’ll bet you have reputable evidence for your assertion? No?

            The IPCC softens the message. The scientists write it. The politicians can delete.

          • jumper297

            People are dying from “climate change” is the dumbest thing I’ve read yet. (Well, second dumbest if you count “I have reputable evidence”) You know that NOAA has pretty much had to admit they’ve been falsifying temp data, right?

          • John Samuel

            You will need to learn to keep up. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs266/en/

            You do know that Watts has disowned Goddard’s faulty analysis of NOAA’s data, right?

          • Dave Wheeler

            You believe in WHO?? LOL!!! No wonder you believe what you do. I bet you believe everything the government tells you! Good little sheepie you are!!

          • John Samuel

            You have a better source?

            Of course not. I was just joking.

      • jumper297

        Your first line is simply not true… the models are so bad they don’t even have a 15% success rate of HINDSIGHT prediction when the known data is plugged in to the variables.

        Also, how is “very bad things” a quantifiable scientific term?

        • John Samuel

          The models have done very well, thank you.

          As to the “bad things”, there are lots of papers on the like of disease spread, crop yields, sea level rise. Do read up.

          • Undecider

            Yes, the science is settled. Now burn the non-believers at the stake.

          • John Samuel

            Naah, that generates too much CO2.

            Compost them and plant trees.

          • Dave Wheeler

            Source please.

          • John Samuel
          • Pete Austin

            That link shows crop yields *rising* as a wiggly line, which is pretty good evidence that there’s no real problem. The final value is a record high – literally more than double the value for 1960.

          • John Samuel

            Thanks for the use of your eyecrometer.

            See AR5. Beyond 2C crop yields are down. And nutritional value too.

      • Greg Barton

        Ice core samples showed temps and Co2 levels MANY times higher.

        Now you never hear about this data anymore. Gee.

        • John Samuel

          It’s just in every climate course ever. They’re strong evidence of the effect of CO2.

          Coursera offer some good online ones. You should take one.

    • Kevin Lafayette

      Who is this John Samuel troll? Can’t believe Lysenko is still such a hero to the political left.

      • John Samuel

        Lysenko didn’t hold with the consensus on genetics.

        He’s your hero, not mine.

      • derekcolman

        I think I should apologise for bringing my troll to your forum. I live in England and this guy has trolled me for a long time on English newspaper forums. Little did I suspect that he would follow me here.

        • John Samuel

          Derek – you’re the anti-science troll. I just mock.

          • derekcolman

            You don’t want to argue science because you don’t understand it, so mocking is all you have left.

          • John Samuel

            You don’t provide any science to rebut. So mocking is all I have left.

          • derekcolman

            That’s for a good reason. I have done so in the past in reply to various true believers such as yourself, only to be met by a deathly silence. Obviously they have insufficient scientific knowledge to rebut me. There comes a point when a person tires of repeating the same thing. Why should I continue to repeat the exercise to people whose only arguments are appeal to authority, conspiracy theories, name calling and mockery?

          • John Samuel

            I have screen shotted and printed that response.

            So you have no evidence. Thank you for admitting it.

          • derekcolman

            I don’t like to point it out, but there is no empirical evidence for the theory of man made global warming. It is predicated on computer modelling based on an assumption. Those models have proven to be incorrect. We have come full circle, as you don’t accept the models are wrong, while at the same time the world’s most prominent climate scientists are spending their efforts on trying to determine why their models were wrong.

          • John Samuel

            Do write to John Tyndall and let him know he got it wrong.

            The models have done very well, thank you. Models can always be proved. As Box said, “all models are wrong, some are useful”.

            Palaeoclimatology also validates AGW.

            I don’t like to point it out but aren’t you using an old copy of the denier meme handbook? http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm

          • derekcolman

            This is what the Wikipedia article says of Tyndall. He concluded that water vapour is the strongest absorber of radiant heat in the atmosphere and is the principal gas controlling air temperature. Absorption by the other
            gases is not negligible but relatively small. I can’t disagree with that. However he was studying absorption by individual, gases, rather than their aggregated effect on the atmosphere. CO2 comprises only four out of every ten thousand gas molecules in the atmosphere, and absorbs infra red around the 14 micrometre wavelength. As Tyndall determined, that means it is a relatively small absorber of CO2 compared to water vapour. It therefore has a heating effect on the atmosphere which is very small, and certainly not enough to cause any problems so long as CO2 remains a trace gas. Even if it increased by 2,500 times over the current level, it would still be a trace gas

          • John Samuel

            A trace gas with non-trivial side-effects.

            Like AGW.

            Like photo-synthesis.

            Trace does not mean unimportant.

          • derekcolman

            That’s not a good analogy. Plants greened the Earth at a time of high levels of CO2. Since then they have evolved over time to survive in today’s CO2 starved atmosphere. However both CO2 and infra red remain the same as they were at the beginning of time.

          • John Samuel

            It beats your “but CO2 is a trace” is a meme into a cocked hat.

            There was 280ppm of CO2 just before the industrial revolution. There’s 400 now.

            Your conspiracy theory is a bust. Scientists aren’t stupid. Scientists don’t lie.

          • derekcolman

            Dictionary definition – trace – an extremely small amount of some chemical component.
            400 parts per million means 4 out of every 10,000. In my book that’s an extremely small amount.

          • John Samuel

            Trace chemicals can have serious effects.

          • Dave Wheeler

            Skeptical Science, another untrustworthy source like the WHO and IPCC. Now wonder you are a sheepie and loser. LOL!!!

            Btw, I bet you are probably a Millennial and product of the public school system. I suggest you ask for a refund since your education has failed you! LOL!!

          • John Samuel

            Are you home schooled? That would explain a lot.

            I’m happily retired from the private sector.

            But, hey, deniers like inventing stuff.

        • FalconMoose

          LOL!

        • erickcartman

          http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png
          Here is all the proof you need. Southern hemisphere sea ice is increasing off the charts. Fools, like John Samuel, never mention that. The oceans will not rise. This fool probably believed Al Gore’s assertion in 2008 that the Arctic would be ice-free by now. Talk about flat-earthers— denying science. Another ten or fifteen years and the science will truly be set- no anthropgenic global warming. And John Samuel will be no where to be found. .

          • John Samuel

            Try again.

            The earth is losing a trillion tons of ice per year:

            – 159 Gt Antarctic land ice, McMillan el al, GRL (2014)

            + 26 Gt Antarctic sea ice, Holland et al, J Climate (2014)

            – 300 Gt Arctic sea ice, PIOMAS

            – 378 Gt Greenland, Enderlin et al, GRL (2014)

            – 278 Gt other land based glaciers, Gardner et al. Science (2013)

            – 1,070 Gt, total

            Total denier fail. Feel the burn.

          • derekcolman

            John Samuel claims he was on this forum long before me, and did not follow me here. He trolls me with post after post, and in his latest calls me an oil company shill, not for the first time. He seems to think I am paid to spread misinformation because that is what warmist blogs have told him to think. In fact I am retired and have studied this subject for 10 years or more. I am a naturally cynical person who does not accept the pronouncements of figures in authority until I have checked it out. In the course of checking out climate science I found it to be bereft of basic scientific principle. Principle #1, if the data does not support the theory, the theory is wrong.

          • John Samuel

            I never called you a shill! I never claimed anyone would pay you anything! You’re useless. No one would be clueless enough to pay you. Everyone can see that.

            There is an inverse correlation between someone’s scientific credentials and how certain they are as to how science should actually work.

            http://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2014/06/27/how-science-really-works/

          • derekcolman

            Sorry, I apologise. It was your buddy Andrew Street who called me a shill on the Independent. I made the mistake because I was engaged in replying to both of you on the same morning, and his views are so like yours.

          • John Samuel

            Try again.

            The earth is losing a trillion tons of ice per year:

            – 159 Gt Antarctic land ice, McMillan el al, GRL (2014)

            + 26 Gt Antarctic sea ice, Holland et al, J Climate (2014)

            – 300 Gt Arctic sea ice, PIOMAS

            – 378 Gt Greenland, Enderlin et al, GRL (2014)

            – 278 Gt other land based glaciers, Gardner et al. Science (2013)

            – 1,070 Gt, total

            Total denier fail. Feel the burn.

    • Kevin Lafayette

      You are so correct. What the Lysenko crowd fails to grasp, is that without skepticism, there is no science. Without dissent, there is no politics. Popper spelled it out. Anything that is unfalsifiable is not science.

      Another thing about the ignorant panicking crowd. So profoundly ignorant of history. Not a single one of them can tell you what the other warning in Eisenhower’s speech was. It was equally as dangerous as the military industrial complex. A scientific-technological elite. They basically seem to want Environmentology to become the state religion. And of course kill any apostates or nonbelievers. That is what Lysenko accomplished in Stalinist USSR. Clearly what Mann id aiming fore, and Gore.

      • John Samuel

        Lysenko decided the consensus position wasn’t good enough, and hid behind a powerful body.

        He was a genetics sceptic.

        Your analogy is backwards, Trofim.

        • Kevin Lafayette

          You have proven your ignorance. Consensus has nothing to do with science. Consensus means nothing to a true scientist. Consensus is not part of, nor mentioned in. the scientific method. Lemmings have consensus though.

          All that matters to science is the hypothesis, and whether the hypothesis can predict observed reality or not. True science discards hypothesis that fails to predict reality. I guess this is the second time you have shown your ignorance. You also claimed the models are great and highly accurate. Which of course is a straight up falsehood.

          • John Samuel

            A consensus based upon the evidence is very useful as per Doonesbury. http://www.gocomics.com/doonesbury/2014/06/22#.U6fL5vldV8E

            The hypothesis has held for a few decades now. That’s why the National Academies of Science stated it was “accepted fact” a few years ago.

            Palaeoclimatology shows it’s true too. Multiple lines of evidence all verify the accepted fact.

          • jumper297

            Holy crap you’re dumb. Instead of ingesting crap at such a prodigious rate, try and actually educate yourself. This means looking at both sides of an argument instead of spewing nonsensical talking points and quoting comic strips. Admittedly, you’ll have to dig for the other side since people like you have allowed politicians and media outlets (reputable scientists all, I’m sure) to corrupt the process to the point of kicking off a new dark age of science.

            You know that a flat Earth was a consensus too, right?

          • John Samuel

            You know that facts don’t have two sides.

            The earth has been known to be round for a couple of millennia. What you know is wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth

          • Blackened144

            Who denies that some people have know the earth to be round for thousands if years? Youre right, in that there are some people knew the earth was round. However, the fact that some people knew the Earth to be round didnt stop all of the leading “scientists” from declaring the debate to be over after they reached a consensus that the Earth was flat.

          • John Samuel

            You’ll find there were remarkably few scientists and little peer-reviewed literature over the periods you discuss. There is a reason it was called the Dark Ages. You would take us back there.

            The supposed consensus on the flat earth is a denier myth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth

          • DriveByPost

            Wikipedia is not a reputable source.

          • John Samuel

            Oh, it is on this topic. It lists its primary sources too.

            I have a citation you don’t like.

            You have no citations.

            I win.

          • DriveByPost

            Gocomics is not a reputable source.

          • John Samuel

            Oh, it is on this topic. It lists its primary sources too.

            I have a citation you don’t like.

            You have no citations whatsoever.

            I win.

          • Tex Taylor

            You’re not qualified or elected to determine which source is reputable and which is not.

            Declaring victory after having your *rse handed to is not reputable debate, Baghdad Bob.

            What you have won is the most thread comments – six days and running. Why don’t you tell us what your real motive is?

            $$$$$…

          • John Samuel

            My hobby is winding up anti-science deniers.

            Thank you for your concern trolling.

          • Tex Taylor

            Apparently your job, Baghdad Bob, is spending numerous hours peddling propaganda for the Leftist cause. Welcome to Obama’s world.

            And the most basic premise of trolling is posting the same tripe ad infinitum…how about another cut & paste for grins? 🙂

          • John Samuel

            More conspiracy ideation? No need. I was already convinced.

            Here’s a potted history of the science from the American Institute of Physics.
            http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timeline.htm

            It’s two century old physics. At least pretend to keep up.

            I can see why you confuse physics and politics. They both begin with the same letter.

          • Tex Taylor

            Well John Samuel Newton…consider us even.

            I can see why you confuse truth with tripe. They both begin with the same letter.

          • John Samuel

            Did you read the physics link?

            Or have I just shown a card trick to a cat?

          • Tex Taylor

            Why would I read a link from Professor Emeritus of Al Gore University? Any dolt can find about gazillion links to provide ‘subject matter expert’ status. No wonder you’re confused.

            You’ve conflated cutting and pasting with real expertise. I want to know what your own qualifications are besides cutting & pasting link addresses, Newton.

          • John Samuel

            This isn’t a test of me. This is a test of you.

            I’m not here to correct your ignorance, just expose it.

          • Tex Taylor

            Well apparently, you’re not doing a very good job. Because you just threatened to take your ball and go home.

            I didn’t think you had any qualifications other than Gore marionette.

          • John Samuel

            All you need is reputable evidence. Denier fail.

          • Tex Taylor

            How you arrive that your evidence reputable continues to amuse me…opinion based journalism masquerading as science.

            I think I’ve got you pegged. You were the data entry clerk for the Mann hockey stick. Fine work, John Samuel Newton.

            Denier fail is winning the day…and in the end, that is all that is really important.

            That we allow you to wail away in loud voice and gnashing of teeth, and still do the right thing, rendering you consistently meaningless in this universe, your days numbered.

            That’s almost orgasmic.

          • John Samuel

            The AIP isn’t good enough for you?

            You do know the hockey stick has been replicated a score of times now. surely?

          • DriveByPost

            Congratulations on winning a game only you were playing.

            If you really think I need citation for the point I was making, well then here you go:

            http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypocrite

            http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mock

          • John Samuel

            Thank you for your brief concession speech.

    • siberian_husky

      Ummm… showing that the warming over the last century can be explained by natural factors, showing that the stratosphere has warmed… etc

    • Greg Barton

      The East Anglia/IPCC email scandal should have been the final coffin nail.

      Because, it is not, it’s painfully obvious that all of this is not about saving the world. Just another method of controlling the serfs.

      Liberals, you exhale Co2, now go do the right thing? For the children?

      • derekcolman

        Let’s get this straight. Much more was made of the Climategate emails than they actually contain, many having been taken out of context. However, having said that, there are some that can not be misconstrued, involving a small number of scientists from various institutions, but who all work together, and are at the heart of the IPCC. They engaged in a conspiracy to get a journal editor fired for publishing contrary papers, and we know that succeeded. They also engaged in a conspiracy to destroy some of their own data to prevent access to it by scientists outside their circle via FOI requests, but it seems they probably chickened out of that one. However they have since succeeded in frustrating some FOI requests, notably Michael Mann. It is said Virginia University spent in excess of $1 million on expensive lawyers to block an FOI request for his research papers, which is a travesty as his research is funded by the taxpayer and therefore open for FOI. It makes one wonder what they have to hide.

        • John Samuel

          Nine investigations. You lost each and every one. You lost NiWA and Cuccinelli. It’s not a conspiracy. You’re simply wrong.

          You make an interesting string of allegations. I note you have provided no reputable citations.

          That’s called fraud.

          How much will Steyn lose? The reckoning is in the millions.

          • derekcolman

            I did not lose anything as I was not involved in the proceedings. However, nobody gives much credence to an investigation when all the witnesses were the defendents buddies. Cuccinelli should have won as all of Michael Mann’s research was funded with public money and the law states that it is open to FOI requests. He lost only because Virginia University spent over $1 million on clever and expensive lawyers which Guccinelli could not match. In the USA any miscreant who can afford the top lawyers gets acquitted. More to the point, what are they hiding that they thought was worth spending that much money on, money that should have been spent on students? As for the conspiracy, read the emails, it’s all there. They discussed a boycott of the journal, which would have put it out of business, because the editor was publishing sceptical papers they did not like. That editor was fired shortly after.

          • John Samuel

            Cuccinelli should have disclosed all his publicly funded emails first then – to set an example. Why not? What is he hiding?

            I note you have no reputable source for Mann’s $1M legal costs. The university paid $350K for a Cooch’s hunting expedition.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorney_General_of_Virginia's_climate_science_investigation

            Cuccinelli couldn’t match Mann? Are you nuts? Cuccinelli was Virginia’s Attorney General. He was the top man – with lots of Tea Party funds. If your top lawyer loses your top lawyer is a failure.

            Academic freedom means nothing to deniers. Thank goodness courts know better.

            Nine investigations. Nine times you lost. Why are Watts and Delingpole in gaol for handling stolen emails? What are they hiding?

            Are you talking about the pal reviewed Soon and Ballunias paper? Try again. von Storch resigned stating “”The review process had utterly failed; important questions have not been asked … the methodological basis for such a conclusion (that the 20th century is probably not the warmest nor a uniquely extreme climate period of the last millennium) was simply not given.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soon_and_Baliunas_controversy

            You are the culprit playing the victim. You are revolting.

    • Undecider

      When it comes to Dr. Keating, it’s best to follow the motto of:

      “Never argue with an idiot. They will bring you down to their level and beat you with experience!”

      Dr, Keating won’t be able to understand the reality of the situation and you’ll be wasting your time trying to straighten him out. He’ll just cry foul and not pay the money.

  • William Burke

    Q: Name one physics professor who is going to welsh on a $10,000 bet.

    • John Samuel

      Lindzen?

  • mathewsjw

    because loosey goosey Global Warming is NOT Defined therefore can not be proven or disproven.

    Offer this idiot $10,000 2 define Global Warming, it’s impossible

    • John Samuel

      Is the surface cooling? No.
      Are the oceans cooling? No.
      Is global ice reforming? No.

      • mathewsjw

        i totally agree with you, however my point is still the same, whatever anyone presents 2 disprove will cause this environmentalNAZI 2 change definition. why do the idiots now call it “climate change”? because the idiots now claiming global warming is causing the climate 2 change (duh it’s called unpredictable weather)

        • John Samuel

          The IPCC was formed in 1988. What do you think the letters CC stand for?

          • mathewsjw

            Communist Collective, yes i know

  • John Samuel

    Doonesbury nails the unsceptical climate sceptics. http://www.gocomics.com/doonesbury/2014/06/22#.U6fGsPldV8E

  • Kevin Lafayette

    First rule of internet trolls is don’t feed them. John Samuel is clearly a troll so everyone please ignore him. Anyone else notice that common leftist fallacy? Every single lefty I have ever encountered clearly believes that they are one of the left elite, and will be one of the leaders when the lefty caliphate is finally established. But with 6 trillion people all holding the same belief, clearly most of them are deluded. As the old line from the USSR says “we pretend to work, they pretend to pay us”. Those useful idiots will be pretending along with the rest of us.

    • FalconMoose

      OK, no response. I was ready to flame him, tho!

    • John Samuel

      Trolling deniers is easy pickings. They conflate physics and politics.

      Observed Changes in the Climate System

      Each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth’s surface than any preceding decade since 1850.
      In the Northern Hemisphere, 1983–2012 was likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 1400 years (medium
      confidence).

      Ocean warming dominates the increase in energy stored in the climate system, accounting for more than 90% of the energy
      accumulated between 1971 and 2010 (high confidence). It is virtually certain that the upper ocean (0–700 m) warmed from
      1971 to 2010, and it likely warmed between the 1870s and 1971.

      Over the last two decades, the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have been losing mass, glaciers have continued to shrink
      almost worldwide, and Arctic sea ice and Northern Hemisphere spring snow cover have continued to decrease in extent
      (high confidence).

      The rate of sea level rise since the mid-19th century has been larger than the mean rate during the previous two millennia
      (high confidence). Over the period 1901 to 2010, global mean sea level rose by 0.19 [0.17 to 0.21] m.

      The atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide have increased to levels unprecedented in at
      least the last 800,000 years. Carbon dioxide concentrations have increased by 40% since pre-industrial times, primarily
      from fossil fuel emissions and secondarily from net land use change emissions. The ocean has absorbed about 30% of the
      emitted anthropogenic carbon dioxide, causing ocean acidification.

    • Dave Wheeler

      Sorry. I couldn’t help myself. I got carried away.

  • physicsnut
  • Chris Kassel

    “…he doesn’t believe anyone can disprove humans are not the cause of global warming.”

    Shouldn’t that be “he doesn’t believe anyone can PROVE humans are not the cause of global warming…”?

  • Kevin Lafayette

    Let’s go to Karl Popper. http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Falsifiability.html

    First order of business. “Popper concluded that a hypothesis, proposition, or theory is “scientific” only if it is, among other things, falsifiable.” Is the theory testable? Is there a specific experiment or result that will cause the payout? Or is it only falsifiable in theory? An example of that would be saying the temperature on the earth will be 12 million degrees in 5 trillion years. No practical way to test that. Otherwise man made global warming is a metaphysical hypothesis, not a scientific one; like the existence of an afterlife.

    • John Samuel

      Cosmology? Archaeology? Evolution?

      Popper out of context doesn’t yield the answer you want.

  • mikehaseler

    On reflection I realised that it was impossible to disprove something when it hasn’t first been proven.

    So to show what a numpty “prize” this was I’m now offering my own “prize” for someone to prove by the scientific method that we are currently experiencing man-made global warming.

    http://scottishsceptic.wordpress.com/2014/06/24/the-10000-global-warming-challenge/

    • FalconMoose

      You, sir are a thinker. I am willing to pitch-in an award for proof.

      • mikehaseler

        The best reward I could have is for climate researchers to admit the problems they have with assessing global temperature and predicting climate and for them to actively encourage openness honesty and critical evaluation in their subject and to come down hard on any who go beyond what the facts and good science allow.

        Then I might be able to read a paper on the climate and think “that’s interesting” not “that’s a total load of bullshite”.

        That’s all the reward I want.

        • John Samuel

          Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea level

          • mikehaseler

            Don’t be such a prat. By your alarmists own figures it hasn’t warmed in 15+ years. So it is not currently warming and so “warming” is certainly not unequivocal.

            I can only imagine you aren’t talking about current warming but historical change like the little ice-age – or even since the last ice-age?

            If you are referring to warming since the mini ice-age, then something like 98% of skeptics support this, but only 97% of academics do.

            So something like 50% more academics deny the warming than skeptics.

            As for the rest all skeptic scientists will tell you that when an “ice-age” comes to an end — we tend to see ice melting. (It’s kind of obvious and usually intelligent people have no problem understanding this)

          • John Samuel

            Start providing evidence for your assertions.

            How was 2010 the warmest year? Is Haseler arithmetic 2014-2010=15?

            (I was citing the opening paragraph of AR4. Sceptic? Nope. Prat.)

          • mikehaseler

            You prat!

            I never said 2010 was the warmest year or anything like that.

            I said that there hasn’t been significant warming for 15+ years. That’s shorthand for “15,16 or 17 years depending exactly what criteria you use to determine NO WARMING.

            As for me supplying evidence. I’m not the one trying to prove manmade global warming – you are.

            In REAL SCIENCE and not the CHARLATAN academic circles you inhabit, it is up to those who assert something is true have to supply the evidence not those like me asking you to produce the evidence.

            The only evidence I need is your own surface temperature records (even though they contain masses of fabricated data)

            But even using your fabricated data there is no current warming.

            WHEN WILL YOU STOP DENYING THIS FACT?

          • John Samuel

            Why do you deny 2010 was the warmest year?

            Huber and Knutti (2011) quantified that human attribution as being 74% and 122% due to humans (with a best estimate of around 100% human attribution). In other words, natural variability is not responsible for the observed warming trend.

            http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n1/abs/ngeo1327.html

            Since then, Gillett et al (2012) also examined the human attribution of the warming trend observed. They found that humans are responsible for 102% of observed warming from 1851 to 2010 and 113% of the observed warming from 1951 to 2000 and 1961 to 2010 (averaged together).

            http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2012/2011GL050226.shtml

          • Dave Wheeler

            More trustworthy sources from this sheepie!! /sarcasm

          • FalconMoose

            Please look at things other than TIME Mag and the NYT.

          • John Samuel

            I look at Nature, Science, the GRL and others.

            What do *you* look at for science?

          • FalconMoose

            Those are Globalist pubs (i.e.. UN Agenda 21 promoters). Try researching Climate Scientist Roy Spencer’s (Ph.D) work. He is famous. Works for a University not the Globalists.
            The main problem with the carbon-tax promoters is a lack of scientific intercourse. I am an old Microbiologist and know how to conduct moving from a theory to a real-life experience. The Scientific Method is sacred!!!

          • John Samuel

            Roy the Creationist? Just Roy?

            Do continue.

            Agenda 21? Brilliant. Another conspiracy theorist. Do read some Lewandowsky.

          • FalconMoose

            More than Roy, Bro. Didn’t to spend much time on a paid troll.
            GOD bless.

          • John Samuel

            I don’t spend too much time on anti-science anonymous trolls on the interweb. I just correct them. 🙂

            Paid? Another of your conspiracy theories? Excellent. Sir doesn’t need a larger blade on his shovel. Sir needs to stop digging.

        • FalconMoose

          Perhaps you misunderstood my comment. I am in agreement!

          • mikehaseler

            Thanks, it’s a little known fact that the best way to leave a skeptic completely flummoxed is to agree with us.

  • Undecider

    When it comes to this debate, science is not allowed. The AGW crowd will claim the stage and attempt to silence anyone wanting a real debate. Why doesn’t this man offer to pay anyone, if he can prove that global warming (anthropogenic) is indeed real?

    • John Samuel

      Debate away.

      The scientists now debate AGW as they debate gravity, evolution, plate tectonics or quantum theory. The basics are pretty settled, but there’s lots to study.

      Debate away. But don’t try and pretend you’re being scientific.

      “Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small.

      Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts.

      This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities.”

      http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php

      And note that the above National Academies paper is available for free download after a free registration. No purchase necessary. And the quote is from pages 44 & 45.

      • Undecider

        This is like Atheists versus Creationists. Neither will budge. However, all one needs to do is look at the origins of the climate change argument. Who put this on the public stage? After all, the “little people” don’t steer government agendas. That’s why we look to the to discussions of those of the globalists agendas.

        Be scientific? Well now. Who defined what “scientific” is? Who has the authority? Who gets to say who’s being scientific and who is not? From the looks of it, we’ve got a bunch of peacockery going on here. In case you’re not familiar with the term, that’s people acting like a bunch of peacocks. They walk around with these credentials and degrees like a huge display of feathers. But as with peacocks, it’s all show.

        Most ardent AGW believers are unfamiliar with the Club of Rome and its statements. From their book, “The First Global Revolution”:

        – “The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”

        Then we have the chosen crowd’s scientists omitting the data from the Sun. Also they refuse to factor in geo-engineering. Moreover, they don’t want to acknowledge when ice melts on Earth, it melts on other bodies in the solar system. Let’s also discuss how Mars has a 95% CO2 atmospheric content yet is colder than Earth with a 0.0036% CO2 atmospheric content. Gee, if the Earth suddenly and magically had the same atmosphere as Mars, would we be just as cold or warmer? If so, why? And if not, why not?

        The AGW can’t answer these kinds of questions without getting dodgy or running for the doors. They just want to come up with flim-flam numbers and falsified science.

        You tell me? If this physics professors had to dig into the weeds, he’d fail this argument. I wouldn’t waste my time trying to disprove him as he’d just call foul.

        • John Samuel

          It’s just two century old physics. Do keep up.

          The more you write the less you say. Be more concise. Be less overtly political.

          And please provide reputable citations for your assertions.

          Such as why do you think the other planets are warming (hint, 2006 articles are updated).

          It’s not the sun. Scientists are not stupid. There’s lots of material on that. Read some.

          • Dave Wheeler

            They were discussing global warming 200 years ago? Amazing. Who was leading the charge then? Why didn’t it stop all the industrialization that happened last century if AGW was known over 200 years ago?

            You say the Sun has no impact on the Earth? Amazing. I bet you say water vapor has no effect too! LOL!!

            “Scientists are not stupid.”

            Is this another one of your great facts AGW acolyte?? LOL!!!

          • John Samuel

            Fourier. Then Tyndall. Then Arrhenius. Then Callendar with the first reasonable model. And now we’re up to 1939.

            I can tell you’re a “climate sceptic”. You don’t know anything.

          • Tex Taylor

            [The more you write the less you say. Be more concise. Be less overtly political.]

            Ironic. Because I’ve now read you post the same basic retort three times, including page numbers. You must be quite proud of that comment. You’re like a virtual parrot and you’re incredibly concise. It’s the same basic post over and over and over again.

            Here’s your problem. You’ve controlled the narrative now for the better part of 20 years, and the general public still does not believe you. What the general public does believe is that you’re a practitioner of confirmation bias – seeking results to support your foregone conclusion while obtaining funding on the public dole.

            Tell you what. I’ll take you “scientists” a little more seriously in your arguments when you begin to practice what you preach. Get out of the Gulf Stream, sell the car, do without heat and air, flip the circuit box to the off position, and walk everywhere you go. Lead us by example.

            Instead of spamming a thread with the same tripe…

          • John Samuel

            Do be less political.

            Physics will win. Nature bats last. You have lost.

          • Tex Taylor

            Oh. Well you must have missed the inference there. Let me be more straightforward.

            I think all you are is political. I think your supposed science a sham and you are a transparent fraud. And I would wager your devotion to Cult of Global Climate {fill in the blank} is directly tied to you bilking rubes into believing something that benefits you directly.

            How’s that physics work for you, scientist?

          • John Samuel

            You obviously are political.

            And a conspiracy theorist.

          • Tex Taylor

            You obviously are a lemming, unearned in your arrogance, Chicken Little.

            It doesn’t take a conspiracy theorist to recognize some dumb cluck who has spent six days now defending really bad science as benefactor of the purse.

            Some of us are not terribly impressed with your trump card either – the peer review of other equally inane ‘scientists’ sharing your solipsism.

            What you desperately need is a girlfriend.

          • John Samuel

            A girlfriend? At my age? What would my grandchildren say?

            There is no reasoning you out of something you did not reason yourself into.

          • Tex Taylor

            Good Lawd. It’s even worse than I suspected. Not even a young mind filled with mush. Something much more tragic.

            An aged lemming, sometimes Woodstock jihadist, ramming the agenda. There’s nothing more disreputable than a balding, failed, flower child.

            Gramps, do you have any idea the irreparable damage you goosestepping goons have done the reputation of higher education?

            Apparently, junk science won’t be your only legacy of failure.

          • John Samuel

            Gosh, how little you know me. But, then, you don’t need facts, do you? About anything. Just make stuff up. :-))

            Continue.

          • Tex Taylor

            [Just make stuff up. :-))]

            I learned at the feet of aged Leftist Academicians, believing in their own greatness. ;-))

          • John Samuel

            Neither left. Nor academic.

            You’re not very good at this, are you?

          • Tex Taylor

            For somebody not Leftist, you seem to have a fondness for the term ‘winger.’

            Yes We Can!

          • John Samuel

            I have a fondness for the term “wingnut”.

            Yes, you are.

          • Tex Taylor

            Did you aged stooges ever determine if Obama was able to slow the rising tides while you doodled as Professor Emeritus of Platitudes at Al Gore U.?

            Hope & Change!!!!

          • John Samuel

            I can see you’ve now left the field of scientific play.

            I’m no longer interested.

          • Tex Taylor

            I’ll bet you’re not, Gramps. LOL. It only took you about 20 retorts to realize I’m laughing at the ‘superior intellect.’

          • John Samuel

            I know you’re laughing. I am too.

            But thank you for demonstrating you are just a propagandist.

            Superior intellect? That’s a low hurdle. There are smarter rocks than you.

          • Tex Taylor

            You’re not even intelligent enough to understand the frame of reference, much less understand the complexity of this universe, Mr. Intellect.

            I need not be Copernicus to observe a fraud…

          • John Samuel

            I note a shortage of evidence of fraud.

            That would make you the fraud.

          • Tex Taylor

            Well, John Samuel Newton. I require something more than the same tired links you’ve provided for six days, going on seven, to pique my interest.

            Frankly, I find you more the clown on the dunk tank and balls are free.

            If interested, why don’t you tell the world what you’ve done to reduce your own carbon foot print leading the flock to some Leftist Utopia of AGW parrots?

            And after you do that, then you can tell me how you propose to get China and India to comply with your eco fascism demands you wish to impose on others, while you spend countless hours burning electricity to educate the wing nuts?

            Shouldn’t an elder like you be leading by example and giving serious consideration to turning yourself off (finally accomplishing something worthwhile in your miserable existence)?

          • John Samuel

            But, waiter, I didn’t ask the for word salad with extra spittle.

          • Tex Taylor

            For a physicist (cough cough) and expert, you seem to be a little light upon moving off narrative, John Samuel Newton. : )

          • John Samuel

            Still no reputable evidence? Do continue.

          • Tex Taylor

            Rev. John Samuel Gore,

            Have your forgotten the two most basic tenets of science? Rational skepticism and null hypothesis? I think your week long sermon here has demonstrated neither.

            I know! You need another link.

          • John Samuel

            Scientists are professional sceptics.

            AGW has long passed any null hypothesis test.

            200 year old physics.

            Scepticism is an attitude not a position.

          • Tex Taylor

            [AGW has long passed any null hypothesis test.]

            Really? Like your predictive models previously that have proven beyond reproach. (hrmph hrmph) I’m still waiting for the Ice Age verified in 1974/75. A conclusion still waiting…by your ‘peer reviewed sports.’

            Skepticism is requirement, not an attitude. It’s the basis of the formulation of the null hypothesis. That’s why they call it NULL, John Samuel Newton.

            I read this, this morning. Since you seem to be man of bluster without wisdom, words without knowledge, I fully expect it to fall on deaf ears, read with blinders fully attached like any good little foot soldier for the Gore religion.

            It still might provide the only real issue left to address. What are you, John Samuel Newton, going to do while the world gives you the collective bird?

            ——-

            Excerpt:

            President Obama’s recently announced energy and environment policies have been tried in many countries, always with the same result: abject failure. Yet when critics point this out, explaining that “the U.S. economy will lose millions of jobs and billions of dollars in growth,” Obama simply waves their objections away:

            “Let’s face it,” the president answers. “That’s what
            [critics] always say. … Every time… the warnings of the cynics have been wrong.”

            Other leaders, especially those in Europe who are further down the green path than is America, know better.

            The deputy leader of the German Green Party in the Bundestag, Oliver Krischer, summed up the dangers of relying on green power when he said, “a few years ago the renewable sector was the job miracle in Germany; now nothing is left of all of that.”

            Every European economy that followed the green agenda has faltered badly. Consequently, Germany is building coal plants to replace both failed wind power sources and even clean nuclear plants that are a casualty of irrational phobia after the Fukushima nuclear accident. In 2013 alone Germany built six more coal plants. China and India build four new ones every week, rendering Ontario’s coal shutdown, as well as those planned for the U.S., completely irrelevant from a climate perspective no matter what one believes about the science.

          • John Samuel

            I notice your continued lack of evidence to back your assertions.

            “Accepted fact”. National Academies of Science. 2010.

            “Accepted fact”. Just rolls off the tongue.

          • Tex Taylor

            See John Samuel Newton….

            You have failed to address any of my questions. In addition to being a Chatty Cathy on a pull string with the same insipid answers, or in your case links, frankly you seem quite adept at navel gazing too. I hope your wife isn’t as tedious, redundant a bore – conversation at the old folk’s home must be mind numbing.

            My evidence doesn’t require physics, but reality and simple economics, John Samuel Newton.

            I just posted part and parcel that the same quality numb nutz Nobel winners like you that went down your proposed merry path of global warming/cooling/climate change/disruption, taking it as proven science…

            …then experienced the reality of world snapping them back.

            Your pencil, wrinkled neck must be thoroughly whip lashed by now, as I suspect you’ve been snapped many a time.

          • John Samuel

            Your posts are even less informative than this song, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkTb9GP9lVI

            Thank you for playing.

            Physics trumps economics.

          • Tex Taylor

            Playing? No, praying? Praying you meet early demise…Too many useful idiots in the world as it is.

            Good gawd, you’re boring. And dull. And redundant. Here’s a family conversation with the wife at the John Samuel Newton house…

            http://thethoughtexperiment.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/0020gq531.jpg

          • John Samuel

            Nice shoes you’re wearing for just hanging around the house.

          • Tex Taylor

            That’s your wife, dummy.

          • John Samuel

            Your wife must be a dummy. I can see why she took that way out. My sympathies to her dead. But it must be a relief to her.

          • Tex Taylor

            You really are thick, aren’t you? LOL You don’t even understand the simplest of humor. Can you feed and wipe yourself?

            I’m beginning to understand how you’ve arrived
            at your clapping seal conclusions. Come on. Tell me true. You’re an Obama sycophant, aren’t you? I know in 2008, you had to be genuflecting to a failed messiah while he stood in front of Styrofoam columns.

            Smart enough to have raised two physicians. Say, in contrast your idiot Green Peace children and doper anarchists for grandchildren, humming pagan hymns to Mother Gaia while they’re stealing poppa’s cash.

            I’m beginning to get the feeling I’m “discussing” issues was a sad, old man with no life. You’ve been here a week. You got to be stinkin’ by now, Gramps.

            Should I call your nurse for a spitz bath? You got to get some time off. Take a stroll on the walker. Pinch the hospice buns, or something. Live it up while you still got the time!!!

          • John Samuel

            Two short planks have just berated me for having the temerity to compare you to them. I’ve apologised to them.

          • Tex Taylor

            {Grin}. What do you do, Professor Gore? Just hang around your keyboard all day, drooling. Or are you worried if you put the IPad down, one of the beloved grand kids will steal it?

          • John Samuel

            I show my grandkids this. http://www.eschooltoday.com/climate-change/Introduction-to-climate-change-for-children.html

            What do you do all day, on one-handed surfer?

          • Tex Taylor

            Cuffing the carrot, pops. “Talking” to you is like porn. Dementia is hard to define, but you know it when you see it.

            I have to admit, I’m feeling a bit guilty for mocking a lonely loser with nothing better to do. But your malignant narcissism is such an inviting target.

          • John Samuel

            Your early onset dementia is sad to hear about. There are better treatments today. You’ll be thankful when you start.

          • Tex Taylor

            But I am glad you’re teaching the kids about ‘Global Warming.’ I’m teaching mine how to profit at your entire family’s abject stupidity.

            Economics trumps Leftist politic.

          • John Samuel

            Physics trumps economics. My kids learned science.

          • Tex Taylor

            Let’s hope they learned it better than their old man did.

          • John Samuel

            Indeed they did. They showed me better techniques for mocking deniers.

          • Tex Taylor

            Really? Well, as lame as your humor, apparently the bar was pretty low. Ingrates and idiots all.

            What was their proposal when about 400MM Chinamen crank on their new PCB infested air conditioners?

          • John Samuel

            I like your lack of references. It’s easy to discard them.

            Whatever happened to “can do” America?

          • Tex Taylor

            Hmmm…and the mentally deficient doesn’t even understand Global Climate Changing rubes are the definition of “Can’t.”

            What drives the stooges is Leftist fascism.

          • John Samuel

            Leftist fascism? Join two words for a new concept, like fruit and cake.

            Fascinating that all you can see is conspiracy. Actually, I lie, no, it’s dull. Very dull. Suits you too.

          • Tex Taylor

            http://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Fascism-American-Mussolini-Politics/dp/0767917189

            Since a link makes everything law in your fuzzy world…

  • Undecider

    Let’s offer to pay this member of the Church of Climatology $10,000 if he can prove climate change. That being outside of the seasons which the climate changes four times per year. Maybe he can drum some of that manufacture “science” those bitter clingers can’t seem to let go of.

  • Undecider

    Here’s a good resource for those trying to break free from the Church of Climatology:

    http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment

  • hinckleybuzzard

    Any competent scientist knows from Day One that it is logically impossible to prove a negative. This unethical hack is indeed a fraud, and is abusing his credentials to deceive the public. But then, there is a lot more grant money to be made by screaming the alarm than by telling the truth..

  • Marc

    “he doesn’t believe anyone can disprove humans are not the cause of global warming.”

    Wow – we don’t just have a double negative, we have a TRIPLE negative!

    Can you disprove the nonexistence of something?

  • John Samuel

    For all those citing Booker and Goddard and claiming NOAA fiddles the numbers, you should have been more sceptical.

    Watts disavows the study. http://reason.com/blog/2014/06/23/did-nasanoaa-dramatically-alter-us-tempe

    Politifact gives it “Pants on Fire” http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/jun/25/steve-doocy/foxs-doocy-nasa-fudged-data-make-case-global-warmi/

    Hand your plastic sceptics badges into reception on your way out.

  • J. Nev

    PAY ME LIBERAL OOZE MORON!!! GLOBAL WARMING MAY BE CAUSED BY MAN, BUT NOT MANKIND!!!

    All these storms are brought to you by CHEMTRAILS!!!
    Geoengineering Whistleblower ~ Ex-Military ~ Kristen Meghan

    BUSTED Pilot Forgets To Turn Off CHEMTRAILS while landing

    http://worldtruth.tv/busted-pilot-forgets-to-turn-off-chemtrails-while-landing/

    Five Chemtrail Planes Spraying In Formation!!!

    Aerospace Worker: “I Installed Chemtrails Devices”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnCaE_3hImY#t=75

  • Eric

    So much is written about global warming and rising sea level. Take the temperature record for the last 4000 years, and find the coastal cities during the past 8000 years. I predict none are lost, such as Atlantis, or may be found below sea level today. Can you name three major cities found below sea-level today?

    Most lost or underground cities must be excavated from beneath dry soil today.

    I predict much of Venice today is sinking, and tidal periods are responsible for flooding, not rising sea level, but rising high-tidal levels combined with sinking ground level. Neither of these results is caused by man-made aerosols or increased greenhouse gases.

  • Goreloon

    Only $10,000 from this clown??

  • erickcartman

    All you have to do is make a scatter plot of atmospheric CO2 and global average temperature for the past 100 years and run a polynomial curve-fitter to the data. If temperature mirrors CO2 levels then there is your proof of anthropogenic warming. If it does not- then anthropogenic global warming is bogus. It’s not rocket science. There has been no warming for nearly two decades, while CO2 levels continue to rise. That, in itself, is proof.

  • Greg Barton

    England grew wine for Rome.
    Greenland was once GREEN.

    Now, when do I get my $10K?

    • John Samuel

      I look forward to reading your evidence on Greenland. Those ice sheets are a few kilometres thick and have been there for a few hundred thousand years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland

      Denier fail.

      It’s warmer now. http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n5/abs/ngeo1797.html

      Next time bring evidence.

      Go supply your “proof”. We could do with a laugh.

      • Osamas Pajamas

        “Your” “scientific method” requires no proof for an hypothesis, conveniently getting you off the hook for supporting your assertions in any reasonable fashion, while demanding that infidels prove you wrong. That doesn’t sound at all like “scientific method” — but it sure does stink of sophistry. Bang. You’re dead.

        • John Samuel

          There is an inverse correlation between someone’s scientific credentials and how certain they are as to how science should actually work.

          Naomi Oreskes, a notable historian of science, has a very good TED presentation on how science actually works. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxyQNEVOElU

          I cite, with references. You bluster with indignation.

          You may want to order this book too.

          “Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small.

          Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts.

          This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities.”

          http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php

          And note that the above National Academies paper is available for free download after a free registration. No purchase necessary. And the quote is from pages 44 & 45.

  • Khalid Mehnzor

    Sham offer… How do you disprove something that isn’t… #typicallibturdnonsense

    • John Samuel

      That’s how science works. You make a hypothesis and then you test, not to confirm it, but to break it. If you can’t break it then it becomes a theory and then accepted fact.

      “Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small.

      Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts.

      This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities.”

      http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php

      And note that the above National Academies paper is available for free download after a free registration. No purchase necessary. And the quote is from pages 44 & 45.

      • Osamas Pajamas

        So the moon is [mostly] made of green cheese — not the samples taken nor the terrain trod upon by foot and vehicle, mind you. And this is a viable hypothesis, sport — absent your evidence that it is not. And I’m the fooooooookin’ King of Siam.

      • Khalid Mehnzor

        False science… but good to know you’re capable of multitasking as you post here while hugging your tree, #lemmingextinction

        • John Samuel

          “Accepted fact”, just rolls off the tongue.

  • john

    The last Ice Age ended with non-human global warming. Keep your money and read a book.

  • howard beggs

    Everyone knows that one cannot prove a negative. It is up to the person making the claim to prove that it is true. I’ll give this idiot $100,000 if he can prove to me that unicorns DO NOT exist.

    • John Samuel

      Actually that’s how science works. You make a hypothesis and then you test, not to confirm it, but to break it. If you can’t break it then it becomes a theory and then accepted fact.

      “Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small.

      Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts.

      This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities.”

      http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php

      And note that the above National Academies paper is available for free download after a free registration. No purchase necessary. And the quote is from pages 44 & 45.

      • Osamas Pajamas

        So the moon is [mostly] made of green cheese — not the samples taken nor the terrain trod upon by foot and vehicle, mind you. And this is a viable hypothesis, sport — absent your evidence that it is not. And I’m the foooooooooookin’ King of Spain.

  • 4Commencefiring4

    How about Keating first prove that 1) there is statistically significant “global warming”; and 2) that man is the sole cause of it? Data can be cited for pro & con #1, but establishing a solid cause and effect between man’s activities and any warming has not been done.

    If man is the cause (and presumably he means activity post the industrial revolution, because there’s no other theory of man’s involvement), then it should follow that no age prior to the industrial revolution was as warm as now AND that all other factors during the same time could not account for it.

  • Osamas Pajamas

    The adherents of the anthropogenic [man-made] global warming religion remind me of Eric Hoffer’s classic little book, “The True Believer,” still available in paperback, I believe.

    Like other radical, messianic religions, the armed, ecofreak, enviromaniac EPA thugs can count on a nearly endless supply of useful idiots, brainwashed in the schools, colleges, universities, media, and Hollyweird, to hook up with a political agenda which awards them with a fake sense of sophistication while imposing a costly environmentalist statism which hijacks a significant portion of everyone’s income, in the name of faulty computer models assayed and reported by sinecured, tenured, and otherwise-rewarded profiteers operating against the majority of mankind, with a scam in one hand, and a government gun in the other hand. I advocate a revolution against their dictatorship, and their destruction.

    The concern for clean air and clean water clearly is legitimate, however. Have we forgotten those issues — or set them aside in favor of the ranting of a lunatic doomsday cult with scientific pretensions?

  • Osamas Pajamas

    Scientific validity is not decided by taking a poll of scientists, there’s no evidence whatever that anything like a majority of the practitioners of scientific method agree with the anthropogenic [“man-made”] global warming religion, no evidence that the adherents of that religion employ scientific method — and no evidence that human action has “ever” increased planetary temperature — not even “once,” not even for “one second.” In short, if you’re a believer in “man-made” global warming, get your head out of your axx and that ring out of your nose.

  • Osamas Pajamas

    Anthropogenic [“man-made” ] “global warming” / “climate change” are profitable hoaxes sold by snake-oil arteestes who are sucking billions of dollars out of American taxpayers — and as well, the world has been cooling on its own for the past 17 years. The hoaxters’ partners-in-crime operate in virtually every country on the planet and they constitute a cancerous dictatorship fastened upon the backs of mankind. I advocate their overthrow and destruction. We don’t need them in order to have clean air and clean water.

  • Osamas Pajamas

    The planet has been “cooling” for at least the past 17 years, or so. And your so-called “experts” have never “once” demonstrated, recorded, or proven human causation for “any” global warming — but the anthropogenic [“man-made”] global warming religion has proven very profitable for those who own the religion and who drag around by the rings in their noses the useful idiots, airheads, and drooling, googley-eyed, bobble-headed sycophants who have an intense itch to be followers and part of “a cause bigger than themselves.”

    Contemplate Gaseous Al Gore, the doomsday cult Chairman Of The Apocalypse, who sold his failed global warming alarmist TV station to Al Jazeera — a propaganda arm of some oil dictatorship somewhere out there in Kaboomistan.

    Now, isn’t Al Gore building a huge new mansion in the tsunami / flood zone where it is sure to be inundated by the TOWERING WAVES of polar ice cap melt — if his bullshirt theory of man-made global warming actually proves true to reality?

    That lying fascist skunk must be laughing up his sleeve at all the idiots who have enriched him through his scam, his fraud — man-made global warming.

    So desperate now are the profiteers of his nutty religion that they are resorting once again to Hollyweird for scary big-screen movies and TV shows to carry their lunatic propaganda.

    They turn scientific method on its head and demand that skeptics prove that “there is not” any man-made global warming — but no one is obliged to prove any such thing, for the same reason that we are not obliged to prove that the moon “is not” made of green cheese.

    OhBummer has hijacked my reference to the moon and the cheese in the past two weeks or so — unless his speech was written by Biden The Magnificent — that lobotomized serial plagiarist who serves as OhBummer’s principal criminal accessory, after Eric The Red Holder.

    The ecofreaks and enviromaniacs? Destroy them. Let’s just focus on ensuring clean air and clean water.

  • bob

    how do you prove a negative ?

  • N Buckley

    This is another pathetic attempt to confuse the vast majority of Americans (and reporters) who suffer from innumeracy as well as ignorance of the scientific method (or 6th grade science). In fact the burden of proof is on the the alarmist to prove their hypothesis with experiments and data. The poll saying that 97% of scientists believed in global warming was similar to this. It converted a complex scientific question, climate change or AGW, into something reporters could actually understand and love – a poll. Just phrase the questions to get the answers you want, as has been done for decades now, and report the results. Reporters read the executive summary and propagate the nonsense to the world. Dr. Keating has risen to the level of a political hack. Perhaps he could donate the $10k to some poor student loan victim.

  • Undecider

    Attn Dr. Keating:

    Confab of Climate Experts to Challenge Global Warming “Consensus”
    http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/18589-confab-of-climate-experts-to-challenge-global-warming-consensus

  • Undecider

    NOAA quietly revises website after getting caught in global warming lie, admitting 1936 was hotter than 2012
    http://www.naturalnews.com/045808_global_warming_fraud_data_manipulation_NOAA.html

    “Goddard shows how, in recent years, NOAA’s US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) has been ‘adjusting’ its record by replacing real temperatures with data ‘fabricated’ by computer models,” the paper’s Christopher Booker wrote. “The effect of this has been to downgrade earlier temperatures and to exaggerate those from recent decades, to give the impression that the Earth has been warming up much more than is justified by the actual data.”

  • DINORightMarie

    You say this:
    “…anyone who can disprove man-made global climate change….”

    and then you say this:
    “…anyone can disprove humans are not the cause of global warming….”

    The last sentence is a double negative; The “not” in the latter should be deleted. In fact, it is the first sentence that contains the “challenge”. But just as you cannot prove a myth; no matter what data, facts, or concrete evidence that anyone provides (emails, faked/altered data, etc.) this man would not accept it as “proof.”

    He is like Don Quixote – tilting at windmills, thinking he is brave and honorable when in fact he is deluded by his own self-imposed naivete or blindness.

  • ezra

    Ok well you are all wrong and all right depending on who is judging u the truth is we don’t have all the facts and never will. The solution is infinite there will always be the question but never a true answer there is always a what if or how or why please read this and give me any feed back would be appreciated.