Union of Concerned Scientists Hates Truth About Global Warming

Don't say 'climate change'. We were promised global warming.

By William M Briggs Published on April 17, 2017

No scientist I have ever met has ever — and I mean never — denied the earth’s climate has changed. So obvious are observations of change, that I have never even heard of a civilian denying change, either.

No scientist I have ever met has ever — and again I mean never — denied the earth’s climate has changed in part because of human activities. But then, these same scientists also know that every creature, from aardvarks to zebras, has an influence on the climate. (Didn’t we read recently that spiders both weigh and eat more than men? Think about the climatic havoc these eerie arachnids wreak!)

Planets cannot be healthy or ill. Only things that are live can be healthy or ill. Planets are not alive — though pantheists believe they can be.

Nobody, save the odd lunatic, denies the earth’s climate has changed. And all scientists agree that mankind affects the climate. So the term climate chance denier has to be one of the dumbest, inapt, and foolish slogans of our times.

Anybody who uses it proves that she is clueless of the science of climatology. Or that she has something other than the practice of science of her mind. Like, say, politics.

Take the comments of Ann Reid and her two co-authors writing for the Union of Nervous — oops, make that Concerned — Scientists. Motto: Science for the healthy planet and safer world. (Before we get to Reid, note that planets cannot be healthy or ill. Only things that are live can be healthy or ill. Planets are not alive — though pantheists believe they can be.)

Anyway, Reid (and her pals) write “Is No Place Safe? Climate Change Denialists Seek to Sway Science Teachers.”

There’s the telling phrase: climate change denialists. This is a sure signal we’re about to be treated a political and not scientific discourse.

Seems Reid isn’t happy that Heartland Institute had a conference to which they invited scientists to opine on how likely global warming will destroy us all (as I have spoken before). Their answer? Not likely.

Heartland also sent the booklet “Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming” to science teachers across the country. When Reid angrily referenced this book, she twice appended the notation “sic.” That is a sign to readers that the error present in quoted material was not put there by the quoter.

Well, there is nothing wrong with the booklet title. Nothing is misspelled. And, indeed, the booklet is about why scientists disagree about global warming.

Global warming used to be what they called “climate change” — before the science of global warming went sour. Reid doesn’t like to be reminded that the science of global warming is a failed science.

So what was the mistake Reid wanted to signal?

Global warming used to be what they called “climate change” — before the science of global warming went sour. Reid doesn’t like to be reminded that the science of global warming is a failed science.

How do we know it’s failed? Easy.

The key purpose of any scientific theory is to make skillful predictions of reality. Any theory that cannot do so, is a false or flawed theory. And we should not rely on false or flawed theories to make decisions about the world, especially ones that greatly influence all people.

The theory of dangerous man-made global warming has not made skillful predictions of reality. Congress was reminded of this recently by John Christy (hat tip: Manhattan Contrarian). He’s a Professor of Atmospheric Science and Alabama State Climatologist University of Alabama in Huntsville . Christy said:

I demonstrate that the consensus of the models [relied upon by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] fails the test to match the real-world observations by a significant margin. As such, the average of the models is considered to be untruthful in representing the recent decades of climate variation and change, and thus would be inappropriate for use in predicting future changes in the climate or for related policy decisions…

What’s evident is that the model trends in which [man-made greenhouse gases] are included lie completely outside of the range of the observational trends. That means, again, that the models, as hypotheses, failed a simple “scientific-method” test applied to this basic, climate-change variable. That this information was not clearly and openly presented in the IPCC is evidence of a political process that was not representative of the dispassionate examination of evidence as required by the scientific method.

Christy shows a depressing picture of the range and mean of model predictions against reality. Reality wins and the models lose.

Here’s what really miffs Reid: Heartland, and scientists like Christy (and your present author), “disparages the well-respected, Nobel-Prize-winning, IPCC.” If by “disparages” she means pointing out their glaring errors, then Reid is right. And do we need a reminder that even Barack Obama won a Nobel Prize?

Perhaps seeing her own fuzzy reflection, Reid ends with “climate change deniers … [contribute] nothing except vitriol, achieving nothing except confusion.”

Truth is now called “vitriol.” And how dare truth soil a beautiful theory with such lofty political goals?

Print Friendly
Comments ()
The Stream encourages comments, whether in agreement with the article or not. However, comments that violate our commenting rules or terms of use will be removed. Any commenter who repeatedly violates these rules and terms of use will be blocked from commenting. Comments on The Stream are hosted by Disqus, with logins available through Disqus, Facebook, Twitter or G+ accounts. You must log in to comment. Please flag any comments you see breaking the rules. More detail is available here.
  • Timothy Horton

    I’ll just point out that Christy is a paid shill of the Heartland Institute, a political think tank funded by the oil and gas companies with an agenda to have all environmental controls removed from their drilling / digging. Christy’s testimony was the usual collection of cherry-picked data and misrepresentations all so common among the fringe climate change deniers. There’s a reason he and his fellow fringe loonies don’t represent the overwhelming 97% scientific consensus over the human caused severe effects on climate.

    It was a sad day for the environment when Man Baby Trump decided he’s going to let the oil and gas companies go back to raping the planet and fouling the air and water. Look at the air over Beijing it you want to see the U.S. in 20 years.

    • Gary

      You can do your part to limit carbon dioxide. If you aren’t doing all you can, then you’re a hypocrite to demand others do what you won’t.

    • Charles Burge

      Trotting out that tired “97 percent” figure just shows the weakness of your position. It’s been thoroughly debunked a multitude of times.

      But answer me this: If the cult of climate change is correct about what it says, then why is it so afraid of open and honest debate? Why resort to bullying, intimidation, and ostracization in order to silence any and all criticism? Those are the tactics of people who know they are wrong, but are unwilling to admit it.

      • Timothy Horton

        If the cult of climate change is correct about what it says, then why is it so afraid of open and honest debate?

        It’s not. But just like the moron Creationists do, climate change denialists ignore the primary scientific literature where real scientific discussions are held in favor of emotionally charged propaganda directed towards ignorant laymen just like you.

        • Charles Burge

          You’re in denial then. There are plenty of examples of well-regarded scientists being smeared and attacked by their peers, sometimes for simply questioning the alleged link between climate change and increased severity of weather events (such as hurricanes).

          • Timothy Horton

            And you’re a scientifically illiterate ignoramus whose opinions on science carry less than zero weight. Come back when you have read and can intelligently discuss the topic.

          • Charles Burge

            LOL…. nice ad hominem there. I’m not going to lose any sleep over being insulted by the likes of you.

          • clarkma5

            Congratulations, stand up to these idiots. They can’t bully people into being as stupid as they are no matter how hard they try.

          • clarkma5

            It’s really obvious when someone doesn’t know what they’re talking about and is furiously flinging ad hominems. You. Are. Ignorant.

          • Alice Cheshire

            Again, insults and NO SCIENCE. NONE. ZIP. ZILCH. NADA. Maybe Timmy should come back when he can argue science?

        • m-nj

          “moron Creationists”… yes, by all means, ALL the people that doubt the scientific veracity of Darwinian evolution are “morons”, including the 500+ PhD level scientist who have signed the “Dissent From Darwinism” (including yours truly)… www. dissentfromdarwin. org. … not to mention the growing number of non-Christians / non-theists who are finally seeing how far short Darwinian evolution falls in explaining the variety and complexity of life, let alone who life arose.

          • Timothy Horton

            Then you’re a scientifically illiterate moron too. The DI’s phony “Dissent from Darwinism” list populated with mostly engineers and computer science majors is a joke. 500 names? The NCSE has a list of over 1500 real evolutionary scientists all named “Steve” (as a memorial to Stephen J. Gould) who say the DI’s Creationist nonsense if full of it.

            The DI’s Liars-for-Jesus Stephen Meyer and John West both have new threads here. You want to try and defend any of the sheer anti-science stupidity they and the DI put out?

          • m-nj

            I’ll echo Charles Burdge’s response… my 70+ peer-reviewed journal articles in the biological sciences would counter your nice ad hominem attack. And just because someone’s PhD is not in biology or evolutionary “science” doesn’t mean they are incapable of evaluating modern evolutionary theory from a scientific perspective.. I’ve done so, and found it totally lacking.

          • Timothy Horton

            LOL! Please list your “70+ peer-reviewed journal articles in the biological sciences ” with the positive evidence for Intelligent Design Creationism. I say you’re full of it. Go ahead and prove me wrong.

          • m-nj

            I wasn’t stating my publication record was in the field of intelligent design. I was stating it as evidence that I am not a “scientifically illiterate moron”.

            And the apparent paucity of intelligent design research in the peer-reviewed literature is further evidence of the the “group-think” and extensive bias against anything that is anti-evolution… just look at the cases of legitimate scientist who have been black-balled, harassed, censured, or driven out of their institutions for daring to question the evolutionary dogma… which is in line with exactly what this article was pointing out, and is what you are guilty of here… you don’t deal with the evidence, you spout talking points and launch personal attacks, just like those who cry “climate denier” do.

          • Timothy Horton

            I wasn’t stating my publication record was in the field of intelligent design. I was stating it as evidence that I am not a “scientifically illiterate moron”.

            Please allow me to rephrase. You’re a scientifically illiterate moron when it comes to all aspects of evolutionary biology.

            And the apparent paucity of intelligent design research in the peer-reviewed literature is further evidence of the the “group-think” and extensive bias against anything that is anti-evolution

            No, it’s just a clear indication IC-Creationists are nothing but lying BS artists with no scientific positive evidence at all to offer. Do you think the lack of flat Earth evidence in the scientific literature is evidence the Global Earth Conspiracy is suppressing evidence too?

            you don’t deal with the evidence, you spout talking points and launch personal attacks

            I’ve offered multiple times to “deal with the evidence” for ID-Creationism starting with the Meyer thread. Problem is no ID-Creationist has the stones to engage, including you.

          • Alice Cheshire

            Don’t see you engaging in global warming science discussions. Further evidence you know nothing of which you speak on this thread.

          • Alice Cheshire

            Timmy—You CANNOT explain the science you say you believe in. Yet you condemn others for doing exactly that. How really, really dumb must you be to not see that? (Don’t answer, we all know.)

    • m-nj

      you’ve drunk the kool-aid. there has to be balance between economic development, energy production, and environmental protection… and that is not by running “renewable energy” boondogles like the past administration did.

    • llew jones

      Reinforces my opinion of you, young Timmy, to see you belong to the alarmist sect of climate change. I wasn’t too sure whether you were just a bit out of touch with Darwinian fable destroying realities like the Cambrian Explosion and maybe not totally scientifically illiterate but here you are identifying yourself as one of the pagan, alarmist cultists who talk about “carbon pollution” destroying your pre-industrial revolution Garden of Eden (Young Timmy carbon ain’t a green house gas and that my boy is where the now disappeared “Global Warming” supposedly caused by capitalistic “carbon polluters” could only come from ). Old Joe Goebbels would be proud of your mob of propagandists. Those of my internet friends who are evolutionist “scientists” have at least enough science (you know the real stuff) to know that the alarmist sect of climate science is for the scientifically illiterate. Anyway, apart from saying hello that’s not why I’m here so here’s a bit on John Christy from Wiki:

      John Raymond Christy is a climate scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) whose chief interests are satellite remote sensing of global climate and global climate change. He is best known, jointly with Roy Spencer, for the first successful development of a satellite temperature record.

      He is the Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. He was appointed Alabama’s state climatologist in 2000. For his development of a global temperature data set from satellites he was awarded NASA’s Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement, and the American Meteorological Society’s “Special Award.” In 2002, Christy was elected Fellow of the American Meteorological Society.

      Other awards:

      1991: NASA Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal (with Roy Spencer).

      1996: AMS Special Award “for developing a global, precise record of Earth’s temperature from operational polar-orbiting satellites, fundamentally advancing our ability to monitor climate”(with Roy Spencer).

      • Timothy Horton

        LOL! It doesn’t matter how many letters he has after his name. The fact remains he’s a paid shill of an oil and gas industry think tank and his latest testimony is cherry-picked and a deliberately misrepresentation of the overall data.

        It doesn’t surprise me a scientifically illiterate like you doesn’t understand the science behind climate change any more than you understand evolutionary biology – zero point nil.

        • llew jones

          Perhaps the greatest living (he’s a 1923 model but still kicking as of about an hour ago) physicist who as shown below was applying his physics to the climate system, probably before you were born. Plenty of info on and from him on the internet. (The following from Oct. 2015).

          “The life of physicist Freeman Dyson spans advising bomber command in World War II; working at the Institute for Advanced Study, in Princeton, New Jersey, as a contemporary of Einstein; and providing advice to the US government on a wide range of scientific and technical issues.

          He is a rare public intellectual who writes prolifically for a wide audience. He has also campaigned against nuclear weapons proliferation.

          At America’s Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Dyson was looking at the climate system before
          it became a hot political issue, over 25 years ago. He provides a robust foreword to a report written by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change cofounder Indur Goklany on CO2 – a report published [PDF] today by the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF).

          An Obama supporter who describes himself as “100 per cent Democrat,” Dyson says he is disappointed that the President “chose the wrong side.” Increasing CO2 in the atmosphere does more good than harm, (ever heard of photosynthesis Timmy) he argues, and humanity doesn’t face an existential crisis. Climate change, he tells us, “is not a scientific mystery but a human
          mystery. How does it happen that a whole generation of scientific experts is blind to obvious facts?

          You see young Timmy one doesn’t have to be an ignorant, right wing, Christian, creationist Repub. To see that climate alarmism as promoted by second rate “scientists” including evolutionists, whoops I nearly said like yourself, is a scam.

          • Timothy Horton

            LOL! Another of the 3% cranks on the fringe. Pimp his past achievements which have nothing to do with the evidence for climate change today as if that somehow matters.

            Tell you what – have him publish his critiques and make his case to the professional scientific community, THEN come back and bluster.

            BTW The “Global Warming Policy Foundation” is just another oil company funded propaganda mill, the English equivalent of the Heartland Institute. They have a long history of publishing disinformation on climate change. If they told me the sky was blue I’d still go outside and look

          • kevin jorgensen

            Ah, a consensus scientist groupy. That’s it. Transport Tim back a few hundred years and he’d be telling you the earth is flat and the center of the universe… because 97% of scientists think it so.

          • Andrew Brew

            Actually, they thought it was spherical, and the bottom of the universe. Not that it affects your criticism of the very silly Mr. Horton.

          • Alice Cheshire

            More ad hominem. If people haven’t figured out by now how great a faith you have in the belief but no understanding of it whatsoever, it’s hopeless. You’re just piling on more and more and more evidence that you don’t know anything about that of which you speak.

        • Alice Cheshire

          Timmy IS tapping phones and stealing mail.

          Timmy is also scientifically illiterate as he resorts to ad hominems and conpiracy theories constantly. He knows nothing about the science except he BELIEVES. It’s a religious-type belief to him—no proof is necessary. He cannot look at facts. His world will shatter.

    • Alice Cheshire

      How is it all you believers KNOW someone is a paid shill? You tapping their phones? Stealing their mail?

      The smog over China is due to no scrubbers and no regulations. Trump cannot reverse that nor does he have any desire to. IF you were right, Trump would want a world where he can only go out in a gas mask. How stupid is that?????

  • ImaginaryDomain

    Well put. So I have an open question. What is the end game with the “climate change” movement? Is it a new tax? Is it more government control on free enterprise? What do these people really want?

    • Timothy Horton

      Clean air, clean water, and an environment where we can keep most of the world’s population fed and healthy. Pretty much the exact opposite the greedy oil and gas climate change deniers want.

      • czechlist

        Governments are of the biggest polluters in history. One reason military bases aren’t abandoned is they are so polluted it is not cost effective to clean up.

        • Timothy Horton

          Yes, that is true. That’s all the more reason why we need government to lead the way in reducing emissions and pollution and working for a cleaner, more stable environment.

          • czechlist

            Sounds like the proverbial blind leading the blind.
            Why should I trust the entity that created a problem to resolve it?

            Governments consist of are fallible, greedy, incompetent humans just as any other collection of people. Why do you place so much trust in them? I don’t know of any company which is $20T in debt.
            I believe people in Cuba, Somalia, Ethiopia, Yemen,Venezuela … might be willing to speak to the competence of governments.

          • Timothy Horton

            Why should I trust the entity that created a problem to resolve it?

            The government(s) that created the problem are gone. It’s up to the new government(s) to work to fix the problems. If not the government expressing the will of the people then who?

          • czechlist

            RU kidding me? Governments consist of representatives of political parties with platforms. The people change – rarely the ideologies.
            Then there are the professional bureaucrats who can throw up roadblocks, can be unaccountable and or are protected by unions.
            You have more faith in government than I.

          • kevin jorgensen

            Gee. A few posts up you just convicted the present government of book burning and promoting ignorance and being led by “baby men”. Which is it? The benign, well-meaning government or the gastapo government? Does that simply depend on whether the party you happen to like wins? If you’re going to argue both sides, then we can resolve that you simply see government as the answer to all problems regardless, and go home.

          • Timothy Horton

            You realize that different administrations handle thing differently, don’t you? No, sadly you probably don’t.

          • Alice Cheshire

            That would be the government that allowed in millions of illegals, ignored laws they did not like, etc. And yeah, Trump’s in now, so the bad old government is gone for a while anyway.

      • kevin jorgensen

        Ah yes, the superfund sites. Where was the EPA when the government was doing all that polluting? The news doesn’t cover government pollution. It isn’t interesting because you can’t watch government stocks trade on the news. Much better to cover deep water horizon.

        • Alice Cheshire

          While ignoring the Colorado mine sites “clean-up” spill where we learned only corporate pollution is bad, not the EPA’s.

      • Alice Cheshire

        Sure, and the renewable energy saints don’t mine in third world countries with no environmental regulations, didn’t dump radioactive materials and poison a valley in China refining rare earth metals for wind turbines, manufacturing and installation of renewables is hardly noticeable on the land (if you’re over 50 miles away), and they are almost broke companies doing this out of the love of their hearts. You know, like Exxon, Duke, NextEra, etc, etc. Why I hear they have even considered just giving up all that oil money right after Al Gore gives back all the oil and tobacco money he ever took in. (No word on how the manufacture of renewables will go when there’s no more oil, but who cares? Right? Renewables are THE greediest and most evil of companies in decades. So sad they have so many worshippers.)

    • m-nj

      of course it is all about control, since the entire “movement” is driven by statist leftist who think THEY know best.

    • Charles Burge

      What they really want is more government control over every aspect of our lives. In the case of the scientists themselves, it’s mostly about funding and grants. They have access to a never-ending supply of government money if they can successfully convince enough people that there’s an imminent threat that only they can avert.

      • clarkma5

        This is crazy. Oil companies make ten times as much profit every year than our government gives in grants. Scientists are not wealthy; quite the opposite, they invest huge sums of money in an expensive education for the honor of working in academia or research where resources are scarce.

        If you follow the money, it’s obvious that the motivation to deny climate change is way, way bigger than the motivation to support climate change. This inversion is just another example of pot-kettle-black deception typical of corporate interests, and the conservatives buy it because it’s what they want to hear, having been taught by centuries of evangelical thought to distrust any source of knowledge that isn’t the Bible, the church, or the pastor, which in and of itself is an age-old trick for the church to consolidate its political power by innoculating followers against absorbing actual knowledge about the world.

        • czechlist

          Profits vs grants? What is the correlation there?
          Corporations have to meet payrolls and satisfy investors first. Then comes infrastructure and R&D to improve their business processes. Government is always in business as it just uses taxpayer money and rarely has to account for it.
          Scientists are not wealthy whether they work in the private sector or the government sector. Besides, who determines “wealthy”?
          If you follow the money you will find that governments siphon off up to 40% of each gallon of gas (either at the pump or through multiple types of other taxation) for doing nothing but tax and regulate. You will also find that your Scientists working for government grants have as much of a vested interest in meeting the expectations of those paying them as scientists in the private sector.
          Knowledge of the world can be fleeting as our understanding of nature changes daily.
          If you are living in a cave off the grid and living as a hunter gatherer then you can complain. Otherwise you rely on the energy produced by oil companies and other producers. Look around and take inventory of everything you wouldn’t have without petroleum products – even that keyboard you use. Like it or not your quality of life depends on the oil companies.

          • clarkma5

            I don’t argue that petroleum brought us a lot of what we have today. But guess what? That’s the past. If we keep going, petroleum is going to DESTROY everything we’ve built this far. Shouldn’t conservatives want to conserve what we’ve all put so much effort into building? You’re making an economic argument here without understanding the economics. The idea that petroleum is cheap energy that makes the world turn is propaganda taken directly from the oil and gas industries. In reality, renewable energy costs are already beating petroleum costs on a dollar per unit of energy basis, and that is only accelerating as wind and photovoltaics advance in leaps and bounds…while most every process we put carbon fuels into has been refined near perfection, there’s just not much efficiency left to gain there.

            The economic costs of ignoring climate change and paying to adapt to it will cost our global economy 25% of its GDP output over the next century, it has been estimated. That’s GDP that could’ve been used to improve quality of life, advance technology, and move us into the future but instead we’re going to be wasting it throwing money and effort at a problem that would’ve been a hundred times cheaper and easier to deal with if we had started 30-40 years ago, as the scientific body of knowledge told us to do.

            There is a 1936 paper published that is considered the forebear of modern climate science models. It is not as refined as modern models but it still correctly predicted the global temperatures that got measured within a few percent of what really happened. We understand climate change. The basic concepts of it are simple…draw a control volume around the geofluidic spaces of the globe, determine heat fluxes, and find equilibrium. The concepts are taught to any college student taking introductory thermodynamics. The specifics of the models are refined by passing them around millions of scientists who share their information with the goal of refining their work and arriving closer and closer to truth with each iteration.

            We should be able to transition away from fossil fuels for the vast majority of our energy needs in the next few decades and save money on energy, cut down societal costs due to climate change mitigation, open up entire new industries for people to work in and become entrepreneurs in, and save the environment at large that we all depend on for food, air, and water.

            You can talk economics but you make the typical right-wing mistake: putting the economy and the environment in disconnected silos and assuming they will always stay apart. But they are not in silos, they are interconnected, and human economic activities are currently disrupting our environmental system to the point where we are in very major and immediate danger (a generation or so, which is quite immediate when it comes to extinction events and other major shifts in global climate) of messing up our environment so much that there will BE no economy.

            You want me to thank fossil fuels for not being in a cave right now, I’ll do it. Just as long as you understand that we need to stop using fossil fuels if we don’t all want to be living in caves in a few decades.

          • czechlist

            “renewable energy costs are already beating petroleum costs on a dollar per unit of energy basis”
            Sell that argument to South Australia and Europe. Subsidies in the US lower the cost to acceptable levels.
            “wind and photovoltaics advance in leaps and bounds…”
            Try mining, transporting and refining rare earth metals, copper, iron ore, etc then producing the photocells and windmill blades and turbines and then transporting and installing and maintaining without “fossil fuels”.
            Environment – those precious windmills, photovoltaic farms and solar stations have a large footprint and destroy flora and fauna.
            “right-wing mistake”? Says it all. Many people fail to realize that science and engineering is not ideological.
            There is no reason to believe we will be reduced to living in caves. There has been absolutely no convincing evidence with correlation/ causation between fossil fuels and catastrophic anthropogenic global warming – which is now conveniently climate change or climate disruption.
            BTW – if the “science is settled” as 97% of scientist agree – the why are there over 20 climate models (none correctly predicting the past – much less the future) instead of a definitive one?

          • Timothy Horton

            Climate models don’t make predictions. They make projections about the future behavior of the climate with the degree of uncertainty increasing the further out in time you go. Different models simulate different things but across the board they’ve performed quite well in projecting the actual changes within their error ranges.

          • czechlist

            Yeah, When their error bars cover their entire range?
            Prediction – Projection – potato- potahto
            The temperature rise has been less than half of what had been “projected”.
            The arctic hasn’t melted, Manhattan and Miami aren’t under water,(are they building sea walls yet?) a new $B airport is being built a few feet above sea level in the Maldives… the “projections” haven’t “performed quite well ” the have just been wrong.

          • Timothy Horton

            The temperature rise has been less than half of what had been “projected”.

            That’s demonstrably false. In fact the actual global temperature data through the end of 2016 falls almost exactly on the mean projected value of the CMIP5 climate models.

          • czechlist

            The models are all over he place. I’m not surprised one might be close to reality – within its error range- but the overall mean of all of the models is not near observations.
            And why are there still so many models if the “97% of scientists agree” “the science is settled”?
            Also, I read recently that the “scientists” want to hide their data from the Trump admin? Why? I have a great idea – “hide” it in the public domain for all to see and use. Most of it has been paid for with taxpayer money – why can’t we see it?

          • Timothy Horton

            Also, I read recently that the “scientists” want to hide their data from the Trump admin? Why?

            Because Man Baby Trump in all his idiot glory wants the EPA to destroy all the past data on climate change it’s collected over the past 2 decades. Not store it for future study, erase it completely. Burn all the hard copies, wipe all the soft copies. Thousands upon thousands of pages of scientific research on the environment gone because of the stupidity of one illiterate jerk.

          • czechlist

            The question remains -what do they need to hide? It is SCIENCE and much of the data collected at taxpayer expense.
            I can’t imagine it has any national security consequences – so release it to the public. I would think the more people that have it the safer it is.
            I am reminded of “Climategate” and the Jones / Mann email about FOI.
            If the data is valid – release it.
            The only reason to hide it is manipulation.

          • Timothy Horton

            You’re unclear on the concept. The climate scientists WANT to publish all the data and put it in the public domain. Trump’s oil and gas lobby buddies want it DESTROYED so it can never be used to stop their land rape.

            You’re shooting at the wrong bad guy, cowboy.

          • kevin jorgensen

            I see. So it is the evil grant providers who are hiding the results. How convenient. Had only Hillary won, all the data would be public. So why then don’t some of the uber wealthy liberals, say the hollywood crowd, underwrite their own grants and use their considerable, albeit honorably obtained and pure of heart, wealth to counter this evil influence of knowledge opression that was duly elected by the people? (concede that Hillary won the popular vote, so you don’t need to go there… but that doesn’t matter in our form of government)

          • Alice Cheshire

            Why wasn’t it public when Obama won? He was a huge fan of global warming—signed a non-binding agreement I believe. Why didn’t Obama’s eight years of cheerleading result in released results? Why would we need to wait for Hillary?

          • Timothy Horton

            It was available in public to anyone who asked, and many researchers did. Man Baby Trump decreed that the EPA could no longer release any scientific research at all unless it first passed “review’ by his oil and gas company cronies.

          • Alice Cheshire

            Please send me the link to the decree by PRESIDENT Trump (speaking of childish behavior, you pretty much are at preschool here) that says oil companies review it first.

            If the data is out there, there is NO problem. None. It’s out there and people everywhere have it. So you are making up a nonexistent problem.

            Show me the NASA page that says “No more data by decree of Trump”. Until then, you’re just making stuff up. You’re either deluded or lying, I can’t tell which. PROOF.

          • clarkma5

            YOU’RE ALL SO NUTS. HOLY CRAP.

          • Alice Cheshire

            Where did that insane nonsense come from. There is NOTHING stopping these people from putting it in the public domain. It was gathered at taxpayer expense and is not classified. No way does your idea fall under anything but the conspiracy domain.

          • Timothy Horton

            It’s still the intellectual property of the Government. You apparently have no idea how copyright and intellectual property laws work.

          • Alice Cheshire

            It’s open to FOIA requests, is it not? And if there were FOIA requests that were actually answered and not ignored, then the data is out there. So why is anyone worried about it going away? Are you saying Obama HID the data by ignoring the FOIA requests?

          • clarkma5

            Hahahaha, you accusing someone else of insane nonsense. Cute.

          • clarkma5

            They have terrible aim don’t they?

          • clarkma5

            They are protecting it from destruction from a corrupt, illegitimate presidential administration that is backed by global corporate elites who are out to distort reality enough that they can make us all bicker while they rape and pillage our society for their own profit.

            The funny thing is…that’s what the right accuses the left of doing. But right now, Trump and the right are doing it as I type this. You all got PLAYED by a master psychological manipulator and I am proud to say I never fell for it.

            But I am disappointed to say the consequences of the actions and policies of these corrupt, unempathetic, short-sighted, greedy, entitled, pseudo-intellectual egotists will still impact my life and the lives of those I love and care about.

          • kevin jorgensen

            There you have it. Ad hominem attacks… the sure sign of a failed argument. Try to make your case without resulting to insulting people… it sounds far less convincing without the emphatic vitriol. Wasn’t it Mann, the inventor of the so-called hockey stick, the definitive climate projection that supported the idea behind Gore’s inconvenient truth, who was the first to pervert his data? If you’re worried about Trump erasing precious data, the best way to preserve it is to make it all public. Try erasing something that’s been found by Google. You forgot to claim that if Hillary had been elected, climate change would be under control by now. A thermostat on the globe controlled by Washington and not greedy big oil … and enlightenment would have secured its place among all of American society.

          • Alice Cheshire

            Generally a case cannot be made for global warming without ad hominem attacks. It is part and parcel of the whole thing.

          • clarkma5

            Mann didn’t pervert that data, that’s a lie you idiots all swallow out of desperation to preserve your political and social ideologies that you feel are under threat by perceived conspiracies disguised as environmental advocacy.

            It’s such ludicrous paranoia it hurts me. How did so many people go so wrong, mentally, along the way? How can you be that manipulatable? Seriously now?

            Everything else you said was putting strawmen reductionist words in your opponents mouth.

            Put or shut up denier, if Timothy Horton only has ad hominem attacks… (he doesn’t. He’s had a lot of wonderful input into this discussion, though like all sensible people talking to the insane, it gets frustrating sometimes) …show me positive proof that the globe is not warming. Don’t just trot out some tired line that started on a tinfoil hat blog somewhere that points the finger at someone else for doing something that nobody has seen happen, which also coincidentally is something you fear irrationally.

            Show me you understand the physical phenomena of the atmosphere, ocean, soils, rocks, magma, volcanic emissions, radiant forcing, oceanic currents, heat flux in fluids, biological impacts on global systems, how complex systems interact.

            I am ALWAYS down for a great intellectual debate with a master in their field such as yourself. I pride myself on the ability of fighting my corner fairly and if you have a better argument, I will be more enlightened than I was.

            I’ve never seen a denier come up with anything that comes close.

          • Alice Cheshire

            Seriously, you believe that these “brilliant” climate scientists have NO backup for their systems? Wow, computer illiterates running computers and doing models. No wonder it’s a mess.

          • clarkma5

            You couldn’t do what they do, not even close. Why are you so petty and hateful of that you don’t understand?

          • Alice Cheshire

            On what “projection”?

          • Alice Cheshire

            There are many, many guesses as to temperature rise. If you look, you prove any number for the rise, a decrease or stabile. Such is the beauty of statistical models.

          • clarkma5

            “Guesses”. What do you think, there’s like three climate scientists in a room somewhere and they just pass the time painting their toenails? Can a denier go two sentences without twisting reality to suit their cognitive dissonance? Questions, questions…

          • Alice Cheshire

            Which means we should NEVER, EVER, EVER use them to make policy. They are basically “what if” scenarios that have no value in the real world.

          • clarkma5

            That’s not logic. That’s misusing words.

            They are very accurate projections based on models that have been back-calibrated against the measured past with high degrees of accuracy. These models integrate relatively simple, well-understood physical phenomena into statistical models (which is really just doing the same math problem a million times, but changing the input to the variables in a way that is random yet prescribed by a statistical distribution), which are run many, many times and statistically analyzed to the utmost for understanding of what is really happening and what is not.

            Climate change “skeptics” don’t understand what they disagree with.

          • Alice Cheshire

            According to the IPCC Data Center:
            When a projection is branded “most likely” it becomes a forecast or prediction.

            There are a lot of “most likely” projections that, according to the IPCC, are PREDICTIONS.

        • Alice Cheshire

          Oil companies LOVE global warming. They make billions off the renewable energy scams. Some build their backup natural gas plants for the useless wind plants almost for “free” from the tax saving. They LOVE it.

          The government was fully behind global warming for 8 years. Are you seriously arguing that oil companies have more money and more power than the government?

          Why did the teachers reject the pamphlets if the oil companies were so rich and wanted them to believe otherwise? Teachers are always short on supplies. Exxon could have bought them new computers and they would have jumped right into the oil companies pockets by your logic. Yet, didn’t happen. Sorry, your theory is rejected on at least three points.

    • Paul

      One world govt.

      • kevin jorgensen

        It’s amazing. Dial back a few hundred years and it was early scientists who raged against the choke hold the Catholic church had on their work. Atheists, who prize themselves as the purist apostles of the religion of science, love to point to the persecution of Galileo as the prime example of the ills of political influence in science. Yet in the present day, it is the scientists inviting the politicians to become increasingly involved in their work. Apparently modern scientists need to incorporate a few more history courses into their curriculum so they can be vigilant about the dangers of political influence and the necessary separation between science and government if science is to be trusted at all.

        • Rob Klaers

          You had it until.. you said this “political influence in science”
          What I think you mean was religious influence in science. That is the issue.

          Galileo had been hired to verify and look into God’s as seen in the Bible. When his findings contradicted what they thought was true.. they censored him. For life..

          • eddiestardust

            Then why, tell me, were most of the classical scientists Catholic Priests and Monks and the others were in fact, Christian?

          • Andrew Brew

            No, he wasn’t “hired” to do that at all. He was a free agent pushing Copernicus’ century-old theory that had aroused no particular hostility before. That he gave himself licence to insult his patron and claim to have proof (he didn’t) that Copernicus’ theory was correct (it wasn’t, but Kepler’s turned out to be) and that therefore the Church should defer to the mathematicians in the interpretation of scripture, was what got him in trouble. His punishment was to stay at home, where he preferred to be in any case, and to read three psalms a week. He continued to work and publish.

    • Alice Cheshire

      Christine Figueres stated the goal was to finally destroy capitalism.

    • Yawrate

      I think their long term goal is population reduction. They see the Earth as way past its carrying capacity. The only sustainable solution is many fewer humans. But, practically speaking, they know they can’t get that, so they work toward controlling human behavior. And if their prescriptions hurt tens of millions of people, well, it won’t be their problem.

    • clarkma5

      Something that works. You can be part of the solution and think of ideas that are amenable to you, we’ll listen. At this point we’ll take all the help we can get. There is no conspiracy, we’re trying to talk about a huge problem that affects us all and get people on board with making it less of a problem! For the sake of all mankind and most other life on earth.

  • Yawrate

    No rational person denies that there is a climate.

    No educated person denies that climate changes.

    Few educated persons deny the potential for anthropogenic influence on climate.

    Many educated persons are skeptical regarding the predominance of anthropogenic influences.

    Many educated persons are skeptical regarding claims of impending climate catastrophe.

    Much of current climate reporting and political rhetoric intentionally masks the difference between climate change, anthropogenically-induced climate change and potential catastrophic anthropogenically-induced climate change.

    It is an emotional appeal to the uneducated and uninformed, of whom our educational system assures an ample supply.

    • clarkma5

      “Many educated persons are skeptical regarding the predominance of anthropogenic influences.”

      You lost me there dude. Get more educated and come back to edit your post. You still have some steps to make until you actually understand, but you’re getting there!

      • Yawrate

        What I said is true. For example, Willie Soon, PhD, Richard Lindzen, PhD, Judith Curry, PhD. And these aren’t the only ones.

        As a masters degree engineer I’m able to evaluate data and evidence and draw my own conclusions.

        The earth is warming, mankind has caused some of that warming, but I don’t consider that warming to be catastrophic.

        • clarkma5

          I am also a masters degree engineer, who works with soils, water, and environmental stuff everyday, and previously worked as a calibration tech at a company that manufactures physical oceanography sensors and in doing so worked directly with the devices that are used to measure many of the core parameters that go into climate change research, and have also met and attended talks by several respected climate scientists and oceanographers through that job. I’ve seen a list of people as long as the one you just wrote with my own two eyes and they didn’t say anything about anthropogenic influences not being predominantly part of it…and if I can get that many people who are qualified to disagree with your premise into one ROOM, and you can’t get more than that in an internet post…kinda tells you where we’re at, relatively.

          So with your “…but I don’t consider that warming to be catastrophic”, you’re shown you’re on step 4 of 5 on the denier ladder. Congratulations, a handful of people with PhDs have joined you somewhere on these rungs (doesn’t mean you’re right):

          1- It’s not happening
          2-It’s happening but we don’t know why
          3-Climate changes naturally, this is just natural climate change
          4-Climate change is happening, man has even contributed, but it won’t be too bad/might be good
          5-Climate change is happening, it’s going to be catastrophic, and it’s too expensive to deal with so we’ll just pay to cope

          All five are some form of natural but maladaptive response to the incomprehensible problem that is geologically rapid anthropogenic climate change. It’s so BIG. We can’t ESCAPE it. We can’t pay it to go away. It won’t respond to prayers if you send them to it. WHAT DO WE DO!?

          Well, apparently, a lot of people just do what you do which is delve into the human psychology of stress adaptation via avoidance. At the end of the day, I really can’t blame anyone who does this…I definitely get frustrated because I’ve put in the time and effort and struggle to have gone through the grief that is facing climate change as a reality. I feel so sad for places that I remember for my childhood that I can’t go back to. They’re ALREADY changed so much…it’s in the vegetation, it’s in the way the clouds work in the sky.

          We talk about having a masters. I’ve met some pretty thick people with masters degrees. Do you have an innate feel for fluids? I must admit, I’m a huge Formula 1 fan, and I really geek out about all of it and get into all the aero development, have developed a good eye for how air creates performance (living next to aero engineers in college helped)…not to mention, as a calibration technician at that sensor company, I operated continuously stirred saltwater baths that ran through temperature sensors to test and calibrate new and service sensors. I was literally a data engineer, who was measuring physical phenomena, and what I was measuring involved a lot of churning, variable temperature and viscosity fluid. It was a high precision company and we were having problems meeting our own specs just due to the internal variation of the baths and I did a study between different baths and sensors and positions in the bath and different flow impediments and developed a better way to operate that set of baths to produce a more precise calibration. That involved having an innate sense of what that flow was doing because it was creating pressures and flow structures that were impacting the sensors.

          I feel like I look at the sky and see the pressure and temperature regimes that result in phase changes and weather and cloud cover and can feel the humidity, it all just happens naturally all the time…I’m constantly processing that as a person. And it’s abundantly clear to me that the weather has changed drastically in my lifetime, and with it the climate. The way storms move through, the way rain events vary locally and their durations…these are fundamental hydrologic markers that I use in my work as an engineer and also track for stormwater compliance for construction sites. I am looking at the weather for my job all the time, and tracking it. It’s doing weird things! And while I haven’t been tracking it since my childhood with that rigor, I remember that trees didn’t bloom in february and we used to have lows in the 20s on a regular basis in the winter, haven’t seen that in years…we used to have a consistent morning overcast in june that I have been saying in april and may lately. August has become this humid, stagnant, occasionally rainy weird super-summer that we never had when I was kid…August was just more July, and the sky was clear and blue and yeah we had heatwaves up to the low 100s sometimes but it was a dry manageable heat. I haven’t seen 100 in years, but when it’s 90 it’s humid and oppressive, and it gets worse year on year.

          I live in a place where there are so many microclimates and microbiomes, I see the edges of nearly every cool microbiome is dried up and stressed and failing and is being intruded upon by the warmer microbiome. Consistently. Farther afield, snow levels are rising in the mountains, bark beetles are invading forests where it used to be too cold for them to survive the winters. It goes on and on and on. It’s EVERYWHERE because it’s REAL.

          Both poles are at historical record minima for ice volume and extent. Subtropical and tropical glacier extent and volumes are diminishing rapidly, corals are dying in massive heat-and-carbonic-acid-induced bleaching events, hurricanes are increasing in frequency outside of the standard season and the ones in the middle of the season are getting bigger…Glacier National Park will have no Glaciers in the next 20 years, tops. “Why is it called Glacier National Park daddy?” What are you going to say. “Climate change isn’t real”? Good comeback…

          It’s all climate change. And I agree. IT SUCKS. I HATE IT. I WANT IT TO GO AWAY.

          The only real way to make climate change go away is to grow up and take it on the chin that it’s real and we gotta change our ways or we’re going to face some major consequences (famine, population collapse, economic collapse, disease, inhabitability of major stretches of the tropical regions of the earth, larger storms, etc.).

          THIS is normally where the climate change debate ACTUALLY starts. Because it’s never about the science. It’s about accepting the science and moving on to what happens next politically. And the politics of climate change deniers is, we don’t want change. We want the status quo with regard to energy and economics and technology because it suits us now and that’s what we care about. Take that argument into the world and see how much traction it gets politically…

          And I don’t want to have that debate on the political end of what happens right now, except to say this: not changing leads to such bad consequences that nobody in their right mind wants with such a high probability (risk = probability of consquence * cost of consequence occurring), we basically have no choice but to tackle this problem head on. And if you don’t want that to happen via government or whatever your ideology is, go put together a workable alternative to the existing plans and propose it. That’s where we’re at here. (Frankly I don’t see what’s so horrible about a revenue neutral carbon tax…is that really going to make the world go up in flames and be definitely 100% worse than the near-certain catastrophe that is oncoming climate change? Maybe it’s better to think of it as just more regular catastrophes…because that’s what is really is. A higher rate of occurrence of catastrophes. A slight tweak in the mean, a significant increase in the standard deviation.

      • I repeat : What’s your background in math ?

        Because without a sufficient math foundation , you can’t possibly carry on a meaningful discussion . You are just a parrot .

        • clarkma5

          Sir, I am the opposite of a parrot! I speak with bold confidence in my knowledge of this subject. I am not fed my lines…I like coming up with my own. Sometimes long, sometimes brief. 🙂

          For my credentials, you can see a B.S. and M.S. in Civil and Environmental Engineering both with honors from one of the top public engineering colleges west of the Mississippi, a 2 year stint as a calibration technician at a manufacturing company for physical oceanography sensors (the closest I’ll get to being famous: I calibrated two of the sensors that went with James Cameron down to the bottom of the Marianas Trench, before and after his trip 🙂 ), and 4 years as a working civil engineer…half that time as a general design engineer who had to deal with just about everything and half that time as a geotech/environmental/water engineer, which has definitely been cool 🙂

  • MikeW

    The Global Warming of Doom cult propagandists feed at the government trough. GWOD cult members have the right to continue sending their own money to these fraudsters, but they don’t have the right to force others to fund them with tax dollars. Fortunately, President Trump is now draining the US federal GWOD funding swamp.

  • Alice Cheshire

    A note to those who scream “Oil company conspiracy”:
    There is EQUAL evidence that renewables are paying people to write comments on the internet pushing the AGW or CAGW mantra. It is equally possible that persons posting pro-AGW are paid shills of renewables who don’t want their money cut. That’s the beauty of accusations never backed by facts—they are all equally possible.

  • m-nj

    on a related note… here is YOUR chance to give feedback to the EPA on their excessive regulations… they are soliciting public comment on how they can respond to the President’s Executive Order calling for re-evaluation and rollback of regulatory overreach that is NOT based on good science but done solely for gaining control over every aspect of your life and our economy

    EPA-HQ-OA-2017-0190
    www . regulations . gov/docket?D=EPA-HQ-OA-2017-0190

    based on what i read so far, the liberals are commenting in force, so i encourage you to share this far and wide to make sure their voice (e.g., all regulations are good, more regulations are even better) is not the only voice EPA hears.

    • clarkma5

      “liberals are commenting in force”.

      You guys are represented by way more than 3%. You know you’re in extremely friendly territory for yourselves, and you still look delusional and profoundly ignorant to people who understand things, right?

      Climate change deniers trying to convince people who understand the earth sciences that there is no global warming is like a four year old trying to bluff a college professor that he totally knows calculus, but his arm hurts right now and he can’t pick up the chalk but trust him he’s really awesome at this and he’s smart and he knows what he’s talking about.

      No matter how much benefit of the doubt that professor wants to give that child…it’s obvious the kid’s well out of his depth.

      In the end, this post is about politics and not science. If you want to come up with new ideas for how society should cope with global warming that are more amenable to your political bent, please develop them and bring them to the table, we look forward to getting buy-in and consensus on this most critical issue.

      ^^THAT’S the truth here guys. None of this one world malarkey, yeesh…

      • So you are claiming to understand earth science ?

        What’s your background in math ?

        And just who is denying climate changes ?

  • eddiestardust

    Mr Briggs is NOT an Astronomer, you can tell by the way he doesn’t talk about WHY Venus is hotter than Mercury….Venus has a runaway Greenhouse Effect…Her atmosphere is 90 x that of Earth. It is as simple as this: IF you make your atmosphere DENSER it’s temperatures will get WARMER. Please feel free to negate the science I just quoted you:)

    • Alice Cheshire

      There’s no more proof of a runaway greenhouse effect on Venus than little green men on Mars. We know next to nothing about Venus currently. We know the atmosphere is mostly CO2, it’s hot, dense and much closer to the sun. That’s it. The rest is science fiction.

      • clarkma5

        “There’s no more proof of a runaway greenhouse effect on Venus”.

        You can google the phrase “runaway greenhouse effect on Venus” and read PLENTY of things to inform yourself. Lord you’re THICK as a brick!

  • clarkma5

    I just wanna say, I’ve left some incredible, amazing comments on here, and because they’re critical of the denier camp, several have been marked as spam and many are left pending.

    These people are intellectual cowards, PLEASE think harder than their deceptions and rise above their level. For the betterment of all.

    • Timothy Horton

      Welcome to the club. A large reason this site exists is to let the anti-science religious conservatives whine and moan about things they don’t understand. Posting scientific evidence against their religious beliefs is strongly discouraged through selective censorship. It’s been my experience they only allow a bit of scientific content through, just enough to give the regulars something to throw their poo at.

      • clarkma5

        Thank you for your support and your good work trying to talk to these people as well.

        It’s really sad to see people on the left invite dissent and discussion and be open to rational arguments while people on the right claim they’re being destroyed and act as though they’re in a war over their very existence. That can only lead to them being too panicked and afraid to relate. The assumptions from the right that the left is trying to destroy them, that we have some sort of hidden agenda, is so frustrating because we don’t! We’re just trying to identify and solve problems and work to overcome real issues that affect us all, to advance the general public welfare and improve the quality of life for all. If we have blind spots or aren’t prioritizing things the way conservatives would like, talk to us! We’ll work to incorporate your ideas. I think any decent liberal is committed to making the world better for all and we’re not here to destroy or oppress anybody.

        When people from the right assume the left is there to destroy and oppress, the fight gets elevated because it becomes very clear that that assumption makes the right feel they have the right to destroy the left. W’re not trying to take anyone else over but at the same time we’ll stand up for our rights to exist and our freedom of speech and our right to live our lives in a way that makes us happier that doesn’t hurt others.

        It seems to me to be the fundamental difference between left-wing thought and right-wing thought. Left-wing thought, at its core, is trying to make something that works for everyone. Right-wing thought is only trying to make something for a limited group, and anyone outside of that group must conform or be imprisoned/marginalized/killed, because that core group is made “uncomfortable” by difference. But someone’s lack of comfort does NOT trump someone else’s right to exist and live their lives, EVER.

  • Colin Wright

    Christy’s model for bulk atmospheric warming is not peer-reviewed. (Anyone can google “christy guardian 14 Feb”). For instance, he used a misleading baseline, does not include error bars in his plot and does not use all of the available databases, opening him to charges of cherry-picking. The climate models have been verified rigorously for surface temperatures, ocean temperatures and sea rise. They are not flawless though – they underestimated arctic ice loss. In any case, bulk atmospheric warming only represents between 1 and 2 % of global warming. Christy already has wasted a lot of climate scientist’s time by using flawed satellite data. Real Science called him out for this years ago:

    “Now, there’s nothing wrong with making mistakes when pursuing an innovative observational method, but Spencer and Christy sat by for most of a decade allowing — indeed encouraging — the use of their data set as an icon for global warming skeptics. They committed serial errors in the data analysis, but insisted they were right and models and thermometers were wrong. They did little or nothing to root out possible sources of errors, and left it to others to clean up the mess, as has now been done.”

    As Joe Romm put it on Climate Progress (7/17/14): “Christy is simply not a guy you’d want to stake the future of humanity on.”

Inspiration
The Rest of the Jackie Robinson Story
Eric Metaxas & Roberto Rivera
More from The Stream
Connect with Us