What if They are Wrong?

What if They are Wrong?

Welcome to Instapunditers!

Because the theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) depends on a feedback mechanism between increase in CO2 and an increase in atmospheric water – a mechanism about which there is considerable, scientifically justified doubt – it is possible that CO2 has effectively no influence on global climate.

There is now considerable data collected, and being collected, that gives a fairly accurate view of the global temperature, insofar as such a thing can be defined. And the temperature record shows reasonably clearly that a heating took place from around the beginning of the industrial age in the early 20th century until around 1940, followed by 30-40 years of cooling, followed again by 20 years of warming until ~1998. In an interesting admission the (British) Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit have now admitted that the global temperature has ceased rising for the last 15 years. Don Surber has done a nice little riff on this report here.

The main point is that there are other potential mechanism to account for the warming trend of 1980-1998 than CO2. Notably, ocean climates and interactions between solar wind and cosmic rays relating to earth’s cloud formation are scientifically established mechanisms for the change.

Here I ask this. Suppose it turns out that CO2 has essentially nothing to do with the earth’s climate. How will the history of this colossal mistake be written?

They will say that a mechanism called the “greenhouse effect,” was postulated long ago (~1824 by Joseph Fourier) and gained adherents in the late 20th century. They will say that the theory was seemingly invalidated by the decrease in global temperatures from 1940-1975, but that the adherents patched this up by explaining the cooling with pollution, specifically sulfur, from industry

They will say that the theory was challenged by the noted vast gap between the amount of CO2 produced by civilization and the substantially smaller increase in CO2 in the atmosphere, but that the theory was patched up by examining the increased CO2 uptake by the hydrosphere and the biosphere.

They will say the theory was seemingly invalidated by the evidence that the atmosphere was already nearly opaque in the wavelengths that are absorbed by CO2 and so the additional CO2 could have, on its own, little effect, but that the theory was patched up by positing a feedback mechanism between the small temperature increases directly due to CO2 and the production of water vapor which is the main greenhouse gas.

They will note that the theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) proceeded much like any scientific theory (cf. Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions) in that it was modified and patched up and adjusted to fit empirical challenges until it finally collapsed altogether under the weight of incontrovertible evidence. But, the scientific historians will have a new phenomenon to consider, and that is the social and political context of this particular scientific theory.

Kuhn describes very well the build-up of evidence that ultimately leads to the over-turning of accepted orthodoxy within the scientific community, of some particular theory. But AGW is intrinsically wrapped up with political ideology and, increasingly, with economics and government (cf. “Solyndra”). The only apt comparison I can think of is Lysenkoism, the anti-genetics theory of Trofim Lysenko that was bought wholesale by Stalin and ultimately hobbled the entire Soviet biological establishment for generations (to say nothing of its role in leading to the starvation of people who followed its tenets in regard to things like agriculture).

Scientific revolutions are difficult and traumatic enough without the added inertia of government sponsorship. To put it more bluntly, scientists have difficulty enough admitting that they have egg on their faces. Throw in the Solyndras of the world and the United Nations and the entire anti-capitalist Global Left and the backing out of this theory will be nothing short of a fiasco.

If someone were, for instance, to come up with indisputable evidence tomorrow that CO2 has essentially no impact on earth’s climate, could the world accept it? With the development of frakking and the concomitant extension of carbon based energy resources hundreds of years into the future, what would they do with all the windmills?

Well, the truth of this issue should be apparent within about 15 years…at which point we may be allowed to buy incandescent light bulbs again.

88 Responses to “What if They are Wrong?”

  1. EBL says:

    http://evilbloggerlady.blogspot.com/2012/01/lack-of-solar-activity-and-mini-ice-age.html Well at least the skiing and out door hockey should be good in the future!

    • The Realist says:

      At least we know where we can find a perfect hockey stick.

    • [queue jumping as there were only 3 comments in the last 2 weeks]

      NO “what” about it….this is photoshopped Faux Science with manipulated data. Carbon Climate Forcing was created as a credit default swap figleaf for FORCED Carbon Commodity Marketing. A puppet government system in the West, run by a banking crime syndicate is responsible. Visit FauxScienceSlayer.com for research on Faux Science and Faux History, including AGW, green energy, peak oil, big bang and more. Read “Fractional Reserve Banking Begat Faux Reality” to understand the reasons for all of these frauds.

  2. EconRob says:

    There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.
    - Mark Twain, Life on the Mississippi, Ch. 17

  3. Marturion says:

    AGW will go down in history as the equivalent of Philostogen. I would also like to pointout that you listen To Eisenhower’s farewell address, and no not for th e”military-industrial complex”, but for his warning about policy being set by a scientific elite. It is available on YouTube.

    • max says:

      I’d like to say it will go down with Lysenkoism, but I fear you are right. From the point of view of a scientist, there is little downside to being wrong in agreeing with the ‘consensus’ on AGW while there are serious downsides to being right on AGW of that is opposed to the ‘consensus’. If the ‘consensus’ is wrong a few of the more vocal proponents will have their reputations tarnished but not likely have their careers ruined, while most will merely point out that ‘everyone else’ om the climate community was also fooled and suffer no harm.

      • Rod W says:

        That’s why the skeptical community must hold those rampant AGW proponents to account, and mercilessly pillory those that refuse to recant their witchdoctory – the depth of scorn to be directly proportional to the time each takes to do so.

      • JimD says:

        This was exactly the calculation that plunged the world into the bloodbath of WWII – go with the flow for a temporarily easy life, whilst ignoring the lunatics taking over every aspect of daily life with their bullying and lies, or rebel and take the consequences. Fortunately dissentients can, for now at least, communicate without climate Gestapo interference.

    • Mike M. says:

      I use Piltdown Man myself.

  4. David says:

    Lysenkoism was a perfect fit with the Marxist/Leninist theory that the Soviet worker’s paradise would induce changes in humans such that a new species of man, homo sovieticus, would emerge. Therefore, Lysenkoism became Soviet scientific orthodoxy for political reasons, not on the basis of any scientific merit. This is uncomfortably close to the way that environmentalists have pushed for huge reallocation of resources towards prevention of “global warming” for political reasons, not on the basis of scientific merit. They don’t care if their agenda would increase human poverty and cause millions of deaths, any more than the true believers of communism cared that communism increased human poverty and caused millions of deaths. “Sacrifices must be made.”

    • Shredder says:

      Homo Sovieticus? Well, its been my theory that the Occupy movement is made up of milktoast whiners who evolved in their parents basement. Maybe Lysenkoism was true after all.

    • tonydunc says:

      That is not my understanding about lysenkoism at all.

      In fact the majority of communist scientists in Russia had a good understanding of evolution and did not accept Lysenko’s claims. The “consensus” scientists in Russia were forced to “accept” Lysenkoism because Stalin insisted that they do so. If you recall Stalin’s insistence on pretty much any matter was a hard thing to resist.
      The political ideology of exalting “barefoot” workers who could be just as good as bourgeois highly trained scientists was a good propaganda issue for Stalin. Lysenko was form a peasant family and had no formal scientific training

      So there seems to be little resemblance to the current climate debate, unless one considers an ideology that believes weathermen and bloggers over thousands of experienced scientists.

      Inhofe…..er, I mean Stalin declared Darwinism a fraud so his ideological supporters rushed to embrace that and declare those who didn’t believe to be traitors trying to destroy the economy of the greatest country in the world. They found a few scientists willing to agree and pass off pseudo science that had no consistent theory to back up their claims. They just pointed to the uncertainties and problems in evolutionary theory and that was enough for them to justify their actions.

  5. Over50 says:

    Ah, Emily Litella, where are you when you’re needed?

  6. pst314 says:

    Oh my, another interesting blog to bookmark. Curse you Glenn Reynolds! ;-)

  7. pst314 says:

    “How will the history of this colossal mistake be written?”

    Since it is rooted in politics, I expect that it will, due to the prevailing biases of those who write about science, just “disappear.” That’s the way the Left has dealt in the past with inconvenient facts. First they attempt to silence their critics. Then, if that fails, they write their lies and thuggery out of history.

  8. algore says:

    Manbearpig is real dammit…i’m cereal!

  9. Daniel Messing says:

    Although I don’t ‘believe’ in AGW, I think there were those who did believe, based on what they thought was evidence–that is, not all had the cynical approach you assert. Don’t ascribe malevolence, the exception (I hope), when simple stupidity (the general rule) is more likely.

    • Charlie says:

      There’s a RAH quote in there somewhere.

      A good scientist questions everything and believes nothing. Science is not about belief: It is about data, statistical analysis, probabilities, and reproducible results. When you start believing stuff the science goes out the window.

      Unless science education in England is a great deal different from what it is in the US then those dorks at EACRU knew exactly what they were doing. Fraud! Their little prank has tarnished real science and good scientists for years, perhaps decades, to come. I’ve a good mind to run them to earth, and beat them brutally about the ears and nose with a rolled up newspaper!


      • Baa Humbug says:

        You are a very very selfish person. What about the rest of us?
        I propose that those “scientists” are paraded through the main streets of every major city tarred n feathered, whilst school kids, having been granted a day off of school, throw rotten vegetables at ‘em.

        That act alone should delay the next scare scam by a couple of generations. Not to mention the wholesale lifting of spirits around the globe due to justice and satisfaction factors leading to a lift in global GDP.

    • pegb says:

      It goes beyond sheer ignorance; perhaps stupidity fits if in the face of controverting evidence, not only do the global waming scientists look the other way, but so does ALL of the media.
      Remember a few years ago, the founder of the WEATHER CHANNEL came out to debunk the myths of global warming along with 46 other meteorologists, claiming it was hysteria founded on false information, and they offered facts, history, weather patterns, and recorded evidence.

      Knowing a political movement is responsible for imposing and creating a multibillion dollar green industry based on falsehoods and then continuing to ignore the facts is at the very minimum stupidity and at the other extreme truly dangerous for the fate of the U.S. economy.In point, Solendra (sp?)

  10. Evan K says:

    “Throw in the Solyndras of the world and the United Nations and the entire anti-capitalist Global Left and the backing out of this theory will be nothing short of a fiasco.”

    Naahh. They’ll just move on to the next ‘irrefutable’ fanatacism like nothing ever happened. They’re the ‘pro-science’ ones, you know. ;o)

  11. addison says:

    Being on the Left means never having to say sorry. They’ll simply move on to the next crisis where the only solution is, surprise (or not), massive redistribution of wealth and more interventionist governments.

  12. Shredder says:

    Mike gets at the core of the issue here. Climate science is not itself bad or good as some on the political right and left would have you believe. Science is comprised of observables, facts. Its a political ideology using ‘science’ to justify an agenda that is dangerous.

    Climate science may be one of our most important endeavors. Why shouldn’t we use our creativity and knowledge to prepare for our future, feed the world, and avoid catastrophe? But it appears that AGW has morphed into a religion of sorts.

    -Carbon Trading
    Imagine a world where the USA dives fully into a global carbon trading treaty.

    Windmills, labor, land and permits are all cheaper in China. So it is an absolute certainty that Chinese carbon credits will be cheaper than American Carbon Credits.

    The Honda Factory in central Ohio would be told that in order to expand they would need to pay a carbon tax. That tax would most likely be spent on Chinese carbon credits thus subsidizing energy in China. Since, under most plans China wont have to pay any carbon taxes because they are a ‘developing’ country, companies would have a choice; Remain in the US and pay a heavy carbon tax, or move to China, avoid the Carbon tax, and receive subsidized energy.

    When I first heard about Caron trading more than a decade ago it was on NPR. They were interviewing a proponent of Carbon Trading. The entire interview she bubbled with joy about the “wealth redistribution” capabilities of carbon trading.

    So in my opinion there is climate science, and there is wealth redistribution. The two have nothing to do with each other.

    Look at the hard core proponents of of AGW and you’ll find two groups. Idealists who have been weened on the environmentalism religion, And people who want money. They want your money and they want to redistribute it.

    • klem says:

      “When I first heard about Carbon trading more than a decade ago it was on NPR”

      I discovered it when reading the IPCCs AR4 report in 2007. It turned out that carbon trading was supposed to come to the USA, it was already established in the EU. And it so happened that Al Gore was a major owner of the Chicago Climate Exchange and the Montreal Climate Exchange. And it was supposed to become the single biggest market on earth, worth trillions every year. I could not see how it would become so large, until I read that the UK was considering making everyone a carbon trader by issuing a carbon credit card.

      The image of my children being issued their first carbon credit card was beyond enraging. The idea that my children would be forced by law to trade carbon through the Chicago Exchange was absolutly gross. Over my dead body.

      The understanding that Obama was instrumental in the creation of the Chicago exchange pushed me out of the Democrat camp, I am now Republican.


      • Parma John says:

        Yep, it sure feels strange after all these years to be looking for a Republican to vote for. Hell, my first presidential vote was for Walter Mondale! I just never imagined that Obama, as smart as he is, would open up the doors to the nutcases that are leading the environmental left. Of course, I have come around to the fact that that fringe is made up mostly of extremely intelligent people. It almost feels like we need an idiot for president again–wait, where’s Dubbya these days?

    • genemachine says:

      I believe the term you are looking for is watermelon. Green on the outside, red under the skin.

      -credit to James Delingpole of the Telegraph

  13. green on the outside, red on the inside says:

    From your lips to Gaia’s ear I hope. These people always wanted to raise your taxes and control the economy so they loved having AGW as a reason.

  14. melanerpes says:

    Heliocentrism, in which the Catholic Church was highly invested, went through centuries of “patching up”. By comparison, we are lucky to be subjected to only a few decades of dogma masquerading as science.

  15. Doug says:

    The great CO2 hoax is brought to us by the same people who have been lying to us for 100 years about macroevolution. If the CO2 hoax is a scandal, the Darwinist hoax will be revolutionary.

    • genemachine says:

      I’m sure that you mean well but these things are not the same. You do climate skepticism no favors by comparing the two.

  16. Edward W Wagner says:

    I think the Lysenko affair is the perfect analogy for the AGW controversy. And think, even Lysenkoism must have started with an honestly put-forth hypothesis before politics took over. Who will write the history of this scientific quarrel and be able to point to just when politics began to outweigh data. Will Al Gore be eventually seen as AGW’s soft Stalin?

    • David Bailey says:

      By a curious quirk of fate, there is a real phenomenon called epigenetics, in which the DNA is tagged with methyl groups in a way that does allow some information about (say) famine conditions, to pass to the next generation.

      The methyl groups are eventually lost, so this does not permanently change the genome.

      I don’t know if some of Lysenko’s results were caused by this effect!

  17. John Gregus says:

    Remember the movie “The Graduate”?
    The word is plastic….Black Plastic sheet to be specific.
    We could make a fortune and save the planet.

  18. klem says:

    “How will the history of this colossal mistake be written?”

    They will never acknowledge that it was a mistake. Ever. They will simply reframe the theory and make a minor adjustment to the climate models and continue with the alarmist strategy. Climate alarmism has evolved into a faith. And as with all faiths, you can present all of the evidence you want to disprove the faith, the faithfull will simply ignore it and carry on.

  19. TwoDogs says:

    Perhaps the time has come to begin taking ownership of the narrative – never let the words “global warming” or “climate change” pass your lips unless followed by “hoax”.

  20. kcom says:

    Unfortunately, for many, I think, you’re going to have to pry AGW alarmism from their cold, dead fingers. It’s just too perfect to give up. I am not talking about the science people (many of whom probably got carried away in the rush), but rather those who glommed onto the science, who used it as an excuse and a reason to get what they’ve wanted all along – control over the minutest details of the lives of everyone else. AGW alarmism is so perfect in that regard (it reaches into every aspect of every life on the planet) that there is nothing as all-encompassing and satisfying to replace it for those of that controlling mindset. Communism and socialism (where many of the ardentest eco-warriors transitioned from with the collapse of the Soviet empire) were pikers in comparison in the control department and a much harder sell. It must have been sweet to those so-inclined to realize how much more noble it would sound to claim they were “saving” the planet than it sounded to say they were trying to impose a certain political ideology on you for your own good. Like I said, for many it will just be too hard and too agonizing to give up. It was too perfect.

  21. The Realist says:

    Just like Animal Farm where it started out, four legs good, two legs bad, and became four legs good, two legs better, so history will be rewritten to make all previous references to global warming disappear and be written over with the new catch phrase, Sustainable Development. You’ve probably already seen it being bandied about.

    Rio20+ has dropped “Climate Change” from its agenda and has substituted S.D. as one example.

    • hro001 says:

      Rio20+ has dropped “Climate Change” from its agenda and has substituted S.D. as one example

      Quite so. Interestingly, even the UN “High-Level Panel on Global Sustainability” (which was supposed to deliver its report to the December dervishes in Durban, but didn’t) has acknowledged that the “environmental pillar” [of Sustainable Development] is “weak”. Although their solution, “strengthening the UNEP”, is even weaker. This paper en route to Rio has toned down its “climate change” emphasis, even as it clings (sort of) to “carbon trading”. But the bad news (surprise, surprise) is that they have declared that “Achieving sustainability requires us to transform the global economy”.

      For more gory details, pls. see:

      Of hypocrites, high-level panels and … sherpas and silos

  22. James Barber says:

    In the seventeenth century the new heliocentric theory suffered from its contradiction with a number of geocentric passages in the Bible, notably Psalms 93:1, 96:10 & 104:5, 1 Chronicles 16:30 and Ecclesiastes 1:5. It was not helped by Thomas Aquinas’ having interwoven Aristotle’s works, both metaphysical and physical, into Catholic theology. Where a scientific orthodoxy has been adopted by a religion, and that religion wields political power, such as through an established church, a scientific theory that challenges the orthodoxy represents a challenge to the religion’s political power, as Galileo found to his cost.

  23. CRISP says:

    If you’re a physicist, you should know that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics invalidates the Greenhouse Theory. Absolutely nothing can circumvent this law.

    Maybe you – and many other rather lazy physicists, I would suggest – need to brush up on your thermodynamics.

    Need clarification?

    • syphax says:

      Do you realize that noted skeptics Dr. Roy Spencer and Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT do not agree with your claim? Click on my link ( http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/04/in-defense-of-the-greenhouse-effect/ ) to see.

      One problem with climate “skeptics” is that, in their rush to invalidate climate science, they tend to embrace a set of beliefs that are internally inconsistent. If you claim that the 2nd law invalidates greenhouse theory, then you are saying that Lindzen and Spencer are incompetent. But if they are incompetent, then you’ve just lost most of your roster of published skeptic climate scientists.

      Here’s my take of climate science:
      - The increase in atmospheric CO2 is due to anthropogenic emissions. The mass balance works out, and the isotope fingerprints work. You have to really jump through hoops to not accept this. Keeling, the guy who figured out how to precisely measure atmospheric CO2, was a Republican, and an absolutely kick-ass scientist.
      - Increased atmospheric CO2 has a radiative impact. This can, and has been, measured directly. See e.g. Chen et. al. (2007). This is basic radiative physics. And no, the wavelengths in question are not saturated if you remember that the atmosphere is not a thin slab.
      - The only place where, in my assessment of the scientific literature, “skeptics” have a leg to stand on is the issue of positive and negative feedbacks. Here, there is uncertainty that’s still not sufficiently well understood. This is where Spencer and Lindzen largely focus their efforts. Opinions of their most recent works vary (to be diplomatic), but color me unconvinced at this time. I find the quality of Spencer’s work particularly worrisome.

      But, here’s the rub: if you think the science supports weak positive feedbacks (or even negative feedbacks), you wouldn’t have to worry about warming, but you are left with a new problem that must be addressed for the science to be valid: How did the ice ages happen? For our current understanding of them depends on fairly strong feedbacks to climate forcing. The forcing of Milankovitch cycles is not large enough to take us between ice ages alone.

      The possible impact of cosmic rays is fascinating, but if you approach the topic with any level of skepticism, there’s a lot to question. Like, how come cloud cover does not respond to Forbush decrease events?

      For a group of “skeptics”, the commenters on this post seem awfully confident of their understanding of climate science.

      • The Realist says:

        No, we just have to look outside and see that all the predicted results of CO2 increase are not happening. Reality trumps theory every time.

        • syphax says:

          About that-

          “Skeptics” say things like “global warming has stopped’, “Arctic ice has recovered since 2007″, etc.

          I look at the same data ( http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/index.cfm ), and see things like:
          - The whole “global warming has stopped” thing hinges on one (1) year: 1998, which was hot (but not the hottest since). Every year in the 21st century has been hotter than every year in the 20th century, save 1998. The average temp for the 00′s was greater than the ’90′s, the ’90′s greater than the ’80′s, the ’80′s greater than the ’70s.
          Prediction: The average global temperature, using Spencer’s UAH satellite dataset, for the 2010′s will be at least 0.15 deg higher than the same for the 2000′s. Qualifier: unless there’s a huge volcano eruption (Pinatubo scale) in this decade.

          - The min. sea ice extent for each of the past 5 years has been lower than all other years of satellite data (to 1979). Yes, 2007 was the lowest, but any sort of trend analysis shows a continuing downward trend.
          Prediction: the Arctice ice 2007 minimum record will be broken this decade.

          - Antarctica is steadily losing ice mass. Unfortunately, good data (from the GRACE satellites) only goes back to 2003 or so.
          Prediction: Antarctica will lose at least 1000 Gt of ice between now and the 2/1/2022.

          FInally, you might wish to take a look back at the predictions of e.g. Hansen in 1981, or Broecker’s 1975 predictions. Hansen underforecast the warming we’ve seen, while Broecker was surprisingly on the mark ’til 2005. We’ll see what happens as the Sun kicks back an extra watt or two of forcing (it’s been pretty quiet the last few years – http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant ).

        • Axel says:

          Reality trumps theory, indeed.

          Even a cursory examination of the empirical facts, shows that CO2 concentration variations in the Earth’s atmosphere are a consequence of the temperature and not the other way around. Even that is an oversimplification however, and CO2 concentrations locally are dependent on factors related to biochemistry of plants and animals, and geological phenomena.

          The reality is, that there is no such thing as a “Global Average CO2 concentration”, or at least such a measurement is meaningless. Locally CO2 concentration varies between night and day, from day to day, and seasonally. This is because of the factors mentioned earlier, and the “elephant in the room”, photosynthesis in plants.

          In my own opinion, apart from the rather obvious pecuniary advantage in prolonging the “consensus”, the principal reason for the continuance of the scare stories, is the fact that most proponents are specialists in a single facet of the “science”. They are Paleontologists, Atmospheric Physicists, Oceanographers, and so on. Few people either have the breadth of knowledge, or the inclination to look at the issue holistically, and even fewer politicians have the intellect to be able to understand what is actually being said.

          Still, Criminal Frauds have knowingly taken place, and those who have deliberately committed those frauds must be prosecuted with vigour, so that others will be more diligent in the future.

          Persons have made a gain for themselves or another, and other persons have made a loss or been subjected to the risk of a loss. This is the very definition of Fraud. This is indeed a complicated web that has been spun, and of course it isn’t principally about the science at all. Literally it is meaningless bunkum in many cases, akin to medieval mysticism.
          A Fraudulent Climate of Hokum Science.
          See the website: http://u.to/ByVTAQ
          Where Hokum Science is Exposed as Fraudulent.

      • genemachine says:

        Good post. In addition to the feedbacks I think that the skeptics have also have good reason to doubt several of the temperature records and dendro reconstructions.

      • David Bailey says:


        You clearly know a lot of climate science – far more than I do. However, I didn’t concern myself with the validity of climate science, until I encountered those hacked emails from the UAE. Reading them, I knew something had to be wrong.

        When I did research, nobody discussed suppressing work by distorting the peer review process, or publishing graphs in which part of a curve was truncated with no explanation and hidden from view.

        This lead me on to the bogus statistics associated with the hockey stick, etc.

        I’d start to believe climate science if it started to clean up some of the wrong doing, in the same way as the Hendrik Schön case (say) was handled. Unfortunately, all I see is coverup.

  24. MichaelC58 says:

    No one, not one persaon will be held accountable. The scientists will say correctly – they always had disclaimers that their models were only scenarios, governments will say they listened to the scientists and the scam businesses will say they just followed government policy. It is a perfect scam.

    What’s more, if and when we enter a solar cooling period, these same climate scientists will seamlessly switch their models to predicting the effects of solar cooling – of course, who else is qualified and has all the tools.

    The real shame is on all the scientific institutions and journals who uncritically and enthusiastically lent their weight to the scam even after doubts arose. It has trully been two decades when the science establishment waged a war on society and the taxpayer. Shame, shame.

    I love science – but now I read every new report with cynicism.

  25. AntN says:

    “What if They are Wrong?” and we create a better world for nothing?


    What if your ‘global secular science conspiracy’ assertion is wrong?

    • The Realist says:

      So you think a world where countries are going bankrupt, where unemployment is skyrocketing, and real solutions are overlooked, all for the sake of pie in the sky ventures such as wind farms, is something to aspire to?

    • genemachine says:

      If the “consensus” is wrong then you are pushing hundreds of millions into poverty and denying billions a faster route out of poverty and malnutrition. These are serious matter right now, they are not hypothetical.

  26. Pragmatist says:

    And conversely, ‘What if they are right?’ Since neither case can be proved nor disproved, this is a perfect analog of Pascal’s Wager. One must bet that AGW is correct or incorrect.

    If you bet ‘correct’ and you win, then life on the planet continues. If you lose, then you spent more money on Green research and infrastructure than necessary, and economized more than necessary.

    If you bet ‘incorrect’ and win, then you saved money that would have been spent on Green research and infrastructure and continue to live the good high-energy lifestyle. If you lose, life on the planet ends.

    The winnings for one bet are essentially infinite, and the losses are finite, while the winnings for the other bet are finite while the losses are infinite. Therefore, as long as the probability of AGW being correct is not zero, the rational bet is that AGW is ‘correct.’

    • Mike Stopa says:

      Pragmatist, I wonder if you believe in God.

    • Axel says:

      But this isn’t just one bet though, is it.

      Excessive moneys spent on so called “green research and infrastructure” is not without consequence for many individuals who will, as a result suffer from the aftermath of increased energy costs and food prices.

      There are ulterior motives, and you may find these both horrific and unpalatable, but nevertheless they exist. This isn’t some theoretical mathematical enigma. This is real world politicking which is corrupting scientific integrity, and causing mass deaths of individuals across the Globe. What you see as some wager to be won or lost, I see as a series of Criminal Frauds, leading to the obscene slaughter of millions of innocent and hapless Humans. The offenders must be tried in a Court of Law.

    • anon says:

      Pragmatist, I hear where you’re coming from, but I think you have it backwards.

      If you bet on AGW and lose, countless billions of dollars have been stolen from the people, directly in the forms of taxes, and indirectly in terms of funding for disease research, better health, better vaccines and mosquite eradication, better local environments, better water, and so on, money taken out of directly finding ways to raise the boats of all, and taken out of the economy, and redirected into the hands of government agenices, NGOs, and products that turn out to do us no good, CFLs, CO2 green this, CO2 green that.

      If you bet against AGW and lose, Man has a hundred years to prepare for a climate increase of a degree or two.

      The wise choice right now, is to do nothing, wait and hedge our bets. Spend the money on programs known to work, and ask the scientists to get back to their work, and to stop activism at least 20 years before its time.

    • genemachine says:

      Following your logic, if I tell you that I am god and will punish you eternally if you don’t do some number of evil acts you will do it because there’s some non-zero chance I am telling the truth and the punishment is infinite?

    • David Bailey says:

      No that isn’t the rational conclusion, because there really are an infinite number of possible ‘scientific’ scenarios like AGW for which some case could be made.

      For example, the issue of whether high voltage electricity lines are dangerous has never been absolutely settled, nor has the issue of possible dangers from mobile phone transmissions. I don’t suppose these issues can ever be conclusively settled, but possibly people will just get bored and move on!

      We could dismantle the whole of modern life piece by piece, based on scenarios that just might be true!

      I am still a believer in real green principles – that we must protect the planet – but I see AGW as an appalling waste of money that could be far better targetted on saving the rain forests, or preventing polution by genuinely poisonous chemicals, or trying to curb overpopulation.

    • Mike M. says:

      False, no one has to disprove AGW. “Positive feedback” from water vapor has not only not been proven there is mounting evidence that water vapor actually plays a thermostatic role in a number of ways such as perhaps via cloud altitude for example.

      “life on the planet ends. ” Show us in paleo evidence of that occurring back when CO2 was 5 to 15 times higher in concentration? The last decade was one of the warmest of modern record but there is no evidence of any increase in ‘extreme’ climate conditions from the warm condition. There is no evidence of catastrophe from even warmer conditions during the MWP, or the Roman or Minoan warm periods. There was generally more food, less war, less disease – no indication that the warming brought us to the brink of “life on the planet ends. ”

      The only thing that must die is the political climate scare machine usurping our liberty on the false pretense of impending doom from warming; an idea for which no sound science exists.

      What you are advocating is no different than what ancient shamans did to justify human sacrifices as a guarantee that the days would start getting longer again or that a solar eclipse would pass. “Listen to me and do as I say or you are all going to regret it!”

    • Rosco says:

      There is zero change the AGW theory is correct – the Earth is in thermal equilibrium with the Sun and all of the laws of Thermodynamics show this.

      A change in the constitution of the atmosphere cannot bring more energy into the system – only changes in the Sun’s luminosity can do that – it may change how energy is distributed but cannot increase the energy.

      If CO2 could actually trap heat then we could use this “attribute” in many useful ways -

      Vacuum flasks would contain CO2 instead of a vacuum, double glazing would be filles with CO2, etc etc – then, according to “the radiative heat trap” theory these magnificient devices could continually heat themselves just like the fatuous “runaway greenhouse effect” on Venus.

  27. we're all austrians now says:

    Saw Kuhn, then Lysenko, held my breath.

    For your next stop should have been von Mises. It is the Austrian School perspective that rounds out an understanding of the AGW phenomenon.

  28. sorrowful says:

    The biggest loser in this will be society’s belief in science. In fifty years, science in the US has gone from something with a great deal of admiration to something that has little respect now and will have even less in the future. As a former scientist, this saddens me. However if my children said they wanted to be scientists, I would do everything that I could to discourage it. I do not want my children to be liars and cheats in order to get grant money.

  29. anon says:

    Enough of your scientism.

    ThinkProgress has determined that babies cause global warming:


    “Any morally acceptable pathway to prevent catastrophic global warming includes broad access to affordable birth control for the world’s women.”

  30. The question is: has the greenhouse gas hypothesis been refuted? The answer is: Yes. All you need do is read Slaying the Sky Dragon:Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory.’ Also, check out the shorter summaries of that refutation in the ground-breaking papers by astrophysicist, Joe Postma, Professor Nasif Nahle and Dr. Matthias Kleespies under ‘publications’ at PSI here:

    Spencer and Lindzen are now in discussions with the above scientists – expect their conversion to the new science paradigm: NO GHE!

    • David Appell says:

      “Slaying the Dragon” is pseudoscience. Gobbleygook, literally. It besmirches the reputation of the authors, especially Claes Johnson whose chapter reads like classic crackpot papers. (Johnson thinks he has disproven nearly every major physics finding of the last 100 years, including special relativity, dark energy, and the GHE.) If these authors could do real climate science they would be participating in the usual arenas of science, instead of writing silly books.

  31. Simon says:

    Slight typo “In an interesting admission … now admitted that the *climate* has ceased rising for the last 15 years.” Should that read “…*temperature* has ceased rising…”?

    What amazes me is that so much of the AGW junk science has been disproved by experiment, evidence and basic physics, that so many so-called climate scientists and politicians still peddle it as fact.

    It’s notable that in the UK, Ed Davey could, if he so wished, use much of the new evidence available that debunks AGW to reset the emissions reductions targets under the Climate Change Act, effectively nullifying the Act, but instead is as bad as his predecessor in thinking that wind power will provide our future energy security.

    There are a lot of lazy scientists out there that just accept ‘belief’, without doing any checking. I am not a scientist, but have a science degree, and even I, when looking at the evidence, can understand that AGW is plainly absurd.

    Just today, I read of some basic chemistry that points back to school lab experiments of blowing CO2 through lime water (an alkaline solution). When you do, calcium, an insoluble white particulate forms, but when you continue blowing O2 through, this then disappears as it is dissolved by the carbonic acid (CO2 in water) to form calcium bicarbonate, which is alkaline. Acidification of oceans? Not!

  32. Girma says:

    Thank you for the excellent article.

    My interpretation of the data below agrees with yours.

    Here is the global mean temperature (GMT) data => http://bit.ly/Aei4Nd

    The most important observation in the above data is that the upper GMT boundary line passes through most of the GMT peaks, the lower GMT boundary line passes through most of the GMT valleys, and these lines are parallel. Also, the line that bisects the vertical space between the two GMT boundary lines is nearly identical to the long-term global warming trend line of 0.06 deg C per decade for the data from 1880 to 2010. This result indicates, since the GMT record begun, the GMT behaved like a stable pendulum with the two GMT boundary lines that are 0.5 deg C apart as the end points of the pendulum’s swings, and the long-term global warming trend line of 0.06 deg C per decade as the pendulum’s neutral position.

    From the above graph, the GMT has a single pattern that consists of a warming rate of 0.06 deg C per decade with an oscillation of 0.5 deg C every 30 years.

    In the above graph, a shift in climate to an accelerated global warming would have been indicated if the upper GMT boundary had been a curve with increasing positive slope with increasing years. As this has not been the case, there is no evidence of human emission of CO2 affecting the GMT.

    As a result, there is no evidence of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) so far.

    Future evidence of AGW would be if the GMT lies in the red region in the following graph.


  33. To calibrate the variation in Global temperature; needs a solid / RELIABLE starting point. As: water freezes on zero centigrade / boils on 100C.

    1] If you exclude part of the planet – that is not GLOBAL temperature. If you exclude 95%, as it is the case with the Conspirator’s GLOBAL temperature – it’s brainwashing business, nothing to do with the reality. If is monitored on 6000 places for IPCC, that says about the temperature on 6000m3, not GLOBAL temperature. On one small hill there are 1000 different temperature; AND THEY CONSTANTLY CHANGE for every 10 minutes in 24h. There are even days when between 10-11AM is warmer than at 12, doesn’t that matter? Temperature changes every 10 minutes – unless is data collected for every 10 minutes – is only fodder for the Urban Sheep. If upper troposphere is warmer than normal (because of dimming affect) – lower troposphere / just above the ground is always cooler / if upper atmosphere is colder – on the ground is hotter. Excluding one or the other – is not earth’s temperature; because on the earth temperature distribution is 3 dimensional.

    Therefore: must be included the warmth in the WHOLE troposphere / for every 10 minutes / on the WHOLE planet. Only if that is done, can be calibrated. But if that is done – no need for calibration, because OVERALL the warmth units in the Whole troposphere are ALWAYS THE SAME. Because the laws of physics and my formulas say so. They use the word ”sensitivity” to confuse the ignorant. If they use ”sensitivity” in oxygen + nitrogen in expanding when warmed / shrinking Instantly when cooled… the conspiracy would have fallen a part in days. When gets warmer than normal close to the ground, VERTICAL WINDS speed up! As soon as it cools – they slow down; why the real laws of physics are discarded? Using the word ”thermodynamics” but not using it, WHY?! Which people don’t want to see the end of the propaganda? The Warmist believe in 90% possibility in GLOBAL warming + most of the brainwashed Skeptics – they believe 101% in GLOBAL warming. They are the Devil’s advocates – doing the Warmist dirty job (the Fake Skeptics that are Warmist’ roles of toilet paper)

    Horizontal winds take the heat away from solid objects / vertical winds are taking the heat up and exchange it for extra coldness / as soon as it gets warmer > the vertical winds increase in speed / strength. 2] Warmed troposphere expands accordingly / increases in volume INSTANTLY; that is the second and most important factor; taboo for both camps… Look at it on the bright side: the brainwashing propaganda will make the psychiatrist rich.
    The laws of physics / my formulas and the truth will win

    • R. Gates says:

      Only problem with this troposphere analysis is that it account for such a small fraction of the energy of the Earth’s climate system, that it really wouldn’t much matter that much what you found. In that past 10 years alone aboug 10 x 10^22 Joules of additional energy have been stored in the ocean down to about 2000m, and probably more down even deeper but we don’t have enough mesaurements down deeper to know. Regardless, the ocean heat content has been increasing for going on about 40 years in a very continuous way, and this is a far far better metric of the Earth’s energy imbalance.

  34. Stefan‘s
    References about colder years / mini ice age, LIA, they were ALL localised. For the duration of the Big Ice Age in Europe / USA (N/H), on the southern hemisphere was much, warmer than normal. Don’t forget the laws of physics; same laws of physics were then, as today!!! If the whole troposphere was colder; oxygen + nitrogen shrink, INSTANTLY! Which means, release less heat / intercept less coldness, if you will; and equalises in a jiffy. Let me tell you something that everybody overlooks: tomorrow the planet will be exactly as warm as yesterday – today the sun will produce tremendous amount of heat on our planet; but ALL will be wasted, all of it + all the geothermal heat released into the air, precisely, all of it. But presume that the whole troposphere got much colder for some reason as in solar eclipse – troposphere instantly shrinks and WASTES only 90% or half of the heat that the sun produces on earth for 5 minutes – do you know how much extra heat would stay / save / accumulate in 5 minutes?! Would finish the biggest ice age in 5 minutes! My formula is the best proof: EC > AS > LHR (Extra Coldness > Atmosphere Shrinks > Less Heat Releases) Similar as when you are cold in bad – you go in foetus position – to minimize surface exposure – when you get warm, you spread arms and legs for bigger cooling exposure. In other words, you are doing a lousy imitation of what the troposphere can do. You minimise / maximise of 5% of extra surface area; troposphere can shrink / double in volume INSTANTLY, if necessary!!! Q: how fast can oxygen and nitrogen expand when warmed up? A: by expanding, they are pushing the bullet velocity from the barrel of the gun.

    The only way one hemisphere can get colder / ice age, is: if the other hemisphere simultaneously gets WARMER by as much, to equalise! Because in that case, on the hemisphere that gets colder – the air shrinks / volume decreases – but the EXTRA volume of air from the opposite hemisphere because of extra warming, is compensating in volume; for shrinking on the colder half – or in that case was 30- 40% of the planet’s area colder. The shonky scientists in the last 150 years were COMPLETELY disregarding the laws of physics!!!… As a bi-product, we had Nuclear Winter for year 2000 / lots of PHONY GLOBAL warmings in the past (from the ”pretend Skeptics) and in 100 years a PHONY GLOBAL warming, by the Organised Crime. Yes in the past Organised Crime was robbing banks and shops; now with CO2 / Methane conspiracy /con, they are robbing nations / countries… They are robbing the poor, the pensioner, the low paid; because carbon tax is a flat-rate tax. On every product in the shop, the pensioner pays same carbon-tax as the millionaire. The loot money disappears in the jet-setters pockets + for unnecessary phony GLOBAL warmings ‘’researchers. The ‘’spoils’’ are not evenly divided; the biggest liars get the most. The ‘’Believers’’ of the lower genera and IQ, as usual, get the middle finger
    formula: EC > AS > LHR (Extra Coldness > Atmosphere Shrinks > Less Heat Releases)
    formula: EH>AE>ECI (Extra Heat > Atmosphere Expands > Extra Coldness Intercepts) Under the laws of physics – increase of extra heat on the ground – INSTANT increase the vertical winds and equalizes in a jiffy. PART OF THE PLANET CAN GET WARMER THAN NORMAL, AND ALWAYS DOES – INSTANTLY OTHER PART MUST GET COLDER. The WHOLE planet cannot get warmer or colder – rule by the laws of physics. Everything is proven, on my blog and in my book

  35. David Appell says:

    I really do not understand this post — it seems to be asking, what if things there is evidence for were wrong? Because there is strong evidence of an increasing greenhouse effect:

    “Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997,” J.E. Harries et al, Nature 410, 355-357 (15 March 2001).

    “Comparison of spectrally resolved outgoing longwave data between 1970 and present,” J.A. Griggs et al, Proc SPIE 164, 5543 (2004). http://spiedigitallibrary.org/proceedings/resource/2/psisdg/5543/1/164_1

    “Spectral signatures of climate change in the Earth’s infrared spectrum between 1970 and 2006,” Chen et al, (2007) http://www.eumetsat.int/Home/Main/Publications/Conference_and_Workshop_Proceedings/groups/cps/documents/document/pdf_conf_p50_s9_01_harries_v.pdf

    More papers on this subject are listed here:

  36. David Appell says:

    And as far as cosmic rays are concerned, they have not been proven to be a “potential mechanism” to account for the warming trend.

    First of all, there has been no substantial nonzero trend in cosmic ray incidence for the last 60 years. And the recent CERN CLOUD results do not establish the Sun or cosmic rays as the source of warming. In fact, here is what those scientists themselves wrote in their press briefing:

    “This result leaves open the possibility that cosmic rays could also influence climate. However, it is premature to conclude that cosmic rays have a significant influence on climate until the additional nucleating vapours have been identified, their ion enhancement measured, and the ultimate effects on clouds have been confirmed.”

    There is a great deal more to be proven in the inference chain for the Svensmark hypothesis to be viable.

  37. R. Gates says:

    This bit:

    “In an interesting admission the (British) Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit have now admitted that the climate has ceased rising for the last 15 years.”

    Hmmm, not sure what you mean by “climate has ceased rising”, so I’m going to guess that you meant global surface temperatures. Of course, there has been a flattening of temperatures of the surface, but the most important metric of Earth’s energy imbalance is of course taken by looking at the the big energy sink called the ocean. The ocean heat content over the past 15 years has been anything but flat, and we’ve seen the oceans continue to accumulate energy, reaching peaks just in the past few months. The truly curious would be asking why the oceans (as measured accurately down to about 2000m) continue to warm.

  38. David Bailey says:

    If we remember Al Gore’s temperature vs CO2 graph, the thing he didn’t tell us (or maybe didn’t know) was that the CO2 curve lagged the temperature curve rather than the other way round. This means that a hotter earth would cause a greater atmospheric CO2 concentration.

    Thus, if there really was a significant positive feedback at work, the Earth’s climate would be impossibly unstable – more CO2 would raise temperatures, which would themselves raise CO2 some more ………

    This seems to suggest that any feedback is negative.

    • R. Gates says:

      Gore may or may not have understood the finer points of CO2 outgassing from the oceans at the start of Milankovtich warming cycles, but it really doesn’t matter. CO2 outgassing does act as a positive feedback to Milankovtich cycle initiated warming. The added forcing of solar insolation from the Mlankovtich cycle alone is not enough to account for the warming the planet sees from the bottom of a glacial cycle to the top of the next interglacial. The additional wm^2 that comes from CO2 going from around 180 ppm during the glacial cycle to an average of around 280 ppm during the top of an interglacial gives additional warming to the planet. Additionaly of course, there are positive feedbacks from a reduced albedo as glaciers start to melt and recede, and biosphere feedbacks as phytoplankton in the ocean take up less CO2 from the oceans, etc.

      So, yes, CO2 does initially lag temperature by a few hundred years, but then it becomes a positive feedback, and so is part of the cause of additional warming. It really doesn’t matter if Gore knew this, or knows it. Changes in solar insolation from Milankovtich cycles alone are not enough to explain the full swing in temperatures from glacial to interglacial. Positive feedbacks from CO2, glacial retreat & albedo changes, and biosphere changes are needed to explain the full range of temperature swing.

      • David Bailey says:

        You guys always talk as though you had a complete working model of the climate, and could account for every last joule of energy – I don’t think your subject has reached that maturity.

        Perhaps you can explain:

        1) Why it takes hundreds of years for the CO2 to start warming the planet – and also how that squares with the claim that the planet has warmed from CO2 emissions in a matter of two or three decades!

        2) Is there, or is there not a positive feedback loop of the type I described, which would make the climate hopelessly unstable. There has to be something wrong with a theory that predicts that!

      • Mike M. says:

        In only the last 20 years global temperature has ranged up and back down about 0.8C

        Explain how a continuously increasing CO2 concentration had anything to do with it?

      • Mike M. says:

        Oh, and I wouldn’t stake my reputation on those ice core proxy CO2 concentrations. Fossilized plant stomata are painting a different picture of them suffering a low bias for whatever reason.

  39. this was a great post and interesting comment string. I have some thoughts, but they’re extended. I’ve posted them at:http://www.livingontherealworld.org/?p=564.
    continuing best wishes. Bill

  40. Rosco says:

    One bone to pick – I am positive Fourier did not propose any “greenhouse effect” – in fact he concluded it was not possible because he actually said –

    “In short, if all the strata of air of which the atmosphere is formed, preserved their density with their transparency, and lost only the mobility which is peculiar to them, this mass of air, thus become solid, on being exposed to the rays of the sun, would produce an effect the same in kind with that we have just described. ”

    I think Fourier assumed his audience had the intelligence to see it is not possible for the atmosphere to “become solid” – perhaps he was wrong and his audience was stupid.

    It is also clear he is talking about convective heat transmission NOT radiation.

    The simple fact that the Sun can heat the Moon’s surface to ~120 degrees C proves that “climate scientists” have concocted a mechanism to lend crdibility to their ludicrous theory.

    They divide the Solar Insolation by 4 to determine their ludicrous theory that the Sun’s radiation is feeble but this is simply wrong.

    If the Sun can heat the Moon to ~120 degrees C during the day, and during the day is all that matters as this is an argument about radiative heating, what mechanism explains the fact that Earth, exposed to the same radiation power, hardly ever exceeds 45 – 50 degrees C ??

    The answer is obvious – the atmosphere acts to reduce surface temperatures during the day otherwise, with an albedo of ~0.3, the Earth could reach maximums close to 87 degrees C.

    So there is NO “greenhouse effect” as postulated by “climate scientists” – the atmosphere does not add extra heat during the day – it actually moderates the power of the Sun’s radiation.

    I am surprised no-one seems to challenge this quarter of insolation nonsense. How do Solar Panels produce ~ 170 W/sq m when Kiehl & Trenberth tell us the Solar insolation is only ~170 W/sq m ?? Do they work at 100% efficiency – I do not think so ??

    Unless they achieve ~100% efficiency(how does ~25% efficiency sound ? ) then the divide the solar insolation by 4 “trick” is wrong.

  41. jose lori says:

    Agendas and opinions are not science. The warmists have rode the AGW horse for over 30 years, changing their hat as the rest of us caught on to their charade. First it was global warming, and then it was climate change. Next came climate disruption all the time predicting catastrophic consequences. They seemed to have an insurmountable position as they morphed their belief into a theory that attributed all weather extremes – hot or cold, wet or dry, snow or no snow, glacial advance or retreat, greater or weaker hurricanes, changes in sea levels, and more to atmospheric CO2.

    At the same time real science, real data, observations and reality caught up with these extremists. None of the catastrophes that they have predicted have come to pass. The earth’s temperature, as measured by NASA’s Aqua satellite clearly shows stable to declining temperatures for at least the last 15 years.

    One might suspect that the end is near for these eco-terrorists and might even hope that the most egregious of them would be held accountable for the harm they have done to the earth’s peoples and economies. But I am afraid that this will never happen.

    Within the next year or two, the world’s elitist environmental police, led by the UN, will seamlessly slide into a new meme, still proclaiming the same dire consequences and demanding the same draconian sacrifices this time not in the name of global warming but now in the name of sustainability.

  42. David Bailey says:

    I’d like to add, that I think “Global Warming” is an issue that transcends politics. I know this is a Republican leaning blog, and if I were a US citizen, I’d still vote for Obama, because I think he has followed a much more cautious, thought out foreign policy – indeed he has inherited the mess created by the Bush presidency.

    The “Global Warming” problem seems to me to stem from a weakening of institutional science. Everyone – including politicians – think of science as being almost holy – a pure search for the truth! The climate science saga has exposed the fact that parts of science are just pretend science. Some of the actions of Mann – the Nature graph which used a trick to get rid of an inconvenient part of one curve, and the statistics behind the “Hockey Stick” have left me breathless.

    If the editors of Nature were prepared to ignore such behaviour, I am left wondering just how much modern science is really honest.

    Part of the problem, I think, is that scientists are reluctant to admit how narrow their specialisation might be, and are willing to support ideas that they have never examined in any detail. If you actually know about one part of the genome of one type of beetle, it is so easy to don the cloak of science in general, and discuss the dangers of AGW at a diner party, without knowing any more about the subject than the other guests!

    This is a problem that could affect the left or the right in politics.

    I am sure climate science isn’t the only pretend science, and I’d be interested in people’s suggestions for other areas of dodgy science.

  43. gallopingcamel says:

    CAGW will join Lysenkoism as an example of the danger of government and science riding together.

    Even more dangerous than government and religion riding together.

  44. Mike Williams says:

    Thanks you a voice of sanity to rise above this madness..!!
    Now they will label you..attack you..and look for funding from big oil..same same…

  45. BobjustBob says:

    For their purposes it doesn’t matter if they’re wrong. Like any good con it just has to hold together until the score. After that it doesn’t matter…except to the rubes who were taken.

    Why do you think they were constantly going on about how WE HAVE TO ACT NOW!?

    All cons have a shelf life…AGW is no exception. The worls owes the ClimateGate leaker a gratitude of global proportions.

  46. TonyL says:

    Hello Mike,

    My goodness. This is only my second visit to your site. You had a few responses to your last post but the number of people logging on to agree with you this time is astounding. As far as I can tell the only people presenting rebuttals referenced with empirical studies, however, are syphax and David Appel. As I noted previously, and as syphax makes clear, all climatologists, even the skeptical ones, accept the theory that water vapor in the atmosphere increases with increased CO2. Some find that the climate sensitivity is low, but most studies show it to be high–in the range or higher that the latest IPCC estimate. So, on what evidence, Mike, do you base your belief that CO2 has no effects? I do not know your specialty in physics but could you expect an article you submitted that has empirical conclusions but provides no empirical evidence and indeed flies in the face of all previous empirical studies to be accepted for publication on the basis of a hunch? Give us your evidence.


  1. Instapundit » Blog Archive » SCIENCE: Forget global warming – it’s Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are r… - [...] UPDATE: Thoughts from Mike Stopa. [...]
  2. Forget global warming…but media silent | pindanpost - [...] Thoughts from Mike Stopa. “Suppose it turns out that CO2 has essentially nothing to do with the earth’s climate. ...
  3. How Will they Rewrite History? | The Climate Realist - [...] some views here. Share this:TwitterFacebookLike this:LikeBe the first to like this post. This entry was posted in ...
  4. Mike Stopa: What if they are wrong? | JunkScience.com - [...] the whole thing, with embedded links, here Share this:PrintEmailMoreStumbleUponTwitterFacebookDiggRedditLike this:LikeBe the first to like [...]
  5. The Climate Change debate - Page 12 - PPRuNe Forums - [...] [...]
  6. "What if they are wrong?" | Australian Climate Madness - [...] Well, the truth of this issue should be apparent within about 15 years…at which point we may be allowed ...
  7. What if they are wrong? | Living on the Real World - [...] writing from a variety of sources. Her current post – What if they are wrong? – builds off a ...
  8. What if they are right? | Living on the Real World - [...] Remember the question? Originally posed by self-described Republican/conservative Harvard physicist-blogger Mike Stopa, it went like this: “Suppose it turns ...
  9. What if CARB is Wrong and Reality Does Not Support AGW? « Is it 2012 in Nevada County Yet? - [...] climate  change, specifically global warming.  Mike Stopa writing at his blog asks the question What If They Are Wrong? ...
  10. What If They Are Wrong? « Follow The Money - [...] http://www.mikestopa.com/2012/01/what-if-they-are-wrong/ [...]
  11. Monokultur » Hvis de nu tager fejl… - [...] Mike Stopa skrev forleden et godt indlæg, hvor han spekulerer over, hvordan historien vil se på teorien om [...]
  12. Mike stopa | Charlestonslip - [...] What if They are Wrong? | MikeStopa.comPosted by Mike Stopa on Jan 29, 2012 in Featured, General | 88 ...

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *



You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>