Friday, August 1, 2014

Rejected by the Evidence

Subject: Dangerous warming hypothesis rejected by the evidence

Dear Dr Keating,

We are delighted that you have expressed willingness to accept evidence that would lead an independent judge to reject the hypothesis of dangerous manmade global warming. We are writing to take up your challenge to provide such evidence...
Because submissions to your blog have a character limit and because embedded links to supporting evidence do not appear to be possible, we have posted our letter of response to your challenge here:
We look forward to your response. We are particularly interested in how you define "scientific evidence," and how you plan to make such judgments in an objective and scientific manner. Perhaps you might want to consider a science court? We would be happy to propose scientists for such a court.

Kesten C. Green
J. Scott Armstrong
Willie Soon

July 20, 2014


    My understanding of your paper is that you reject man made global warming because you don't trust the forecasts of the dangers. This is not only non-scientific, but irrelevant.

    Let's say, just for the sake of argument, that the forecasts of danger are overstated, just as you claim. How does that show that man made global warming is not real? In fact, your very argument seems to support the idea that AGW is real by saying it is causing damage, just not as much as some people claim.

    In fact, your entire submission consisted of criticizing FORECASTS. I find your comments to be very questionable with a great deal of bias in your work, indicating you are predisposed to find the conclusion you want. But, nothing you did addresses the issue of man made global warming TODAY. Maybe the forecasts are right. Maybe they are wrong. Maybe they are somewhere in between. So, what? How does any of that prove that the warming we are witnessing today (which you seem to acknowledge) is not man made?

    One of the comments to your posting was very pertinent and I quote it here:
    These 'Principles of Forecasting' appear to be derived from the field of econometrics forecasting with the main paper referenced from a Dr. J. Scott Armstrong, who appears to come from a Marketing background.
    Here is the 'Principles of Forecasting' referenced in your paper:

    Dr. Kesten C. Green appears to come from a management background.
    Dr. Willie Soon is the only geoscientist/physicist out of this trio.
    In your paper you make the statement:
    "Kesten Green and I examined the references to determine whether the
    authors of Chapter 8 were familiar with the evidence-based literature on forecasting. We found that none of their 788 references related to that body of literature. We could find no references that validated their choice of forecasting procedures. In other words, the IPCC report contained no evidence that the forecasting procedures they used were based on evidence of their predictive ability."

    If the 788 people who you surveyed did not come from an econometrics forecasting background, then how exactly do you expect them to know about these principles? Meteorological forecasting has been around a lot longer than that paper from 2001.

    At best, you raised questions about forecasting methods for future effects of climate change, but you did not do anything to prove man made global warming is not real. This is not to say you don't have some good points because there are things you said I agree with (although I disagree with you on others). But, that isn't what the challenge is about.


  1. "To go out and find some mistake by someone quoted by a newspaper reporter has no bearing on if climate scientists are right or wrong."

    Well unless that "someone" is in fact a climate scientist, like Dr. Viner, David Hansen, and a whole host of other climate scientists that have made predictions that have been falsified.

    "If you want to find out if climate scientists are making false claims you will need to get into the science, not the news stories."

    I've done both but it is not required if climate scientist are making false claims in news stories and not asking for retractions. Climate scientists are not some meek group that only communicates with the public via published papers. They make all sorts of false alarmist announcements that turn out to be false.

    "If some doctor made some erroneous statement about medicine twenty years from now, would that convince you not to go to see a doctor when you are sick? That is precisely the same thing you are advocating."

    That is not at all analogous to what I'm doing. You made the claim that these models are accurate. If they are in fact accurate then the current pause in temperature would not be all that surprising and in fact would have been predicted. In fact, climatologists are falling all over each other trying to come up with new papers which explain this pause." There have been many public and private statements made by climatologists expressing their surprise.

    "And, the discussion about models is itself a false argument because climate science is not about models"

    Hypocrite much? You just got done claiming "As for the models, they have been far more accurate then deniers want to admit." Make up your mind. If the models are pointless to climatology then their accuracy is moot and great, I don't want to hear you or any climatologist mention a model ever again.

    "One question for you about models, if the models made by climate scientists are so bad, why haven't any deniers come out with better ones?"

    That's a very easy question. I don't believe in the models build by astrology. I don't think you can accurately predict peoples personalities and life paths based on the motions of the stars. This disbelief does not require that I prove that this is not the case by building some elaborate model using some other mechanism to predict people's personalities and life stories.

    "That is just one of those little things the deniers don't like to advertise. Wonder why?"

    Actually, no I don't wonder why.

  2. I love it when guys like you make comments. You make nothing but false arguments and it is great to get you down on paper.

    Models are only a tool we use. But, if you are going to go about making claims about models, it matter a lot that you lie about them. The public needs to see that deniers are liars and deceivers, and that is what you demonstrated here.

    Thank you.

  3. Your article is one sided and cherry picking the end statements after you have argued in circles is misleading. To be called a troll you have to act like one. There in ZERO proof of man made climate change. Your link provided gives a "very good discussion" not "Proof".

    The science is not settled. All the predictions are wrong. There has been no warming in over a decade, yet CO2 has been pumped into the atmosphere are higher and higher rates.

  4. if you believe in global warming that proves you never, ever actually did any fact checking, because if you did ... you would be one of the deniers ...

  5. You miss the good advice that mister Manz gave you early on... Provide evidence of the claim ... Which you did not... You provided a Link to a Biased Opinion based site that has been outed by a hacker as to cooking the books in the goal of producing propaganda... What he was asking for was your own intellectual content into the subject which you failed to provide... It's impossible to debate an issue when you fall to appeals to authority and add no intellectual content of your own to the debate... All that happens is a Link War where you provide a link you think bolsters your view and the other side post links that bolster their side...

    I would love to debate someone that understands the constructs of science and is the author of one of the claims the links mentioned point to but those people are not there... in this case You were the one posting, You were the one asking for debate and giving opinion... If you cannot make your arguments for yourself then what is the use of your input...

    It's fine to, after adding your own intellectual content to a discussion, provide likes to data and papers that support a claim but just adding links to Opinions and Summaries of works without your own content to explain your understanding of the subject is a waste of time ....

    And the specific site you mention is a admittedly one sided positional site and does not claim to provide both sides of the debate... As does Skeptical Science which Never takes the opposing view of the subject either... I have had post deleted and called assorted names in posts on Skeptical Science but I didn't wuss up and write a blog complaining about ow my poor little feeling were hurt ....

    I read the threads fully when you posted and yes you acted in a Trollish Manor and even here fall to the attempt to denigrate by calling people deniers which was started to denigrate people based on holocaust deniers when the word is not even close to descriptive,,, A Trollish move...

    No one has ever denied that the climate changes, has changed and will always change... So when you use such terms expect to be considered a troll and as a famous lady said..... "Ain't nobody gots time fo dat"

  6. If everything you said is consistent and we really are having "dialogues on global warming" then you will post our entire conversation. This global warming hoax has survived on censorship long enough.

  7. Ok, you're as deaf as you are stupid and dishonest.

  8. Neither Jesus nor hell are real, imbecile.

  9. I know that the statement that I quoted and then criticized is incorrect.

  10. " It has been a bit like playing chess with an opponent who responds to a check mate situation by adding more squares to the playing surface! God bless you."

    What a dishonest asshole you are, just like all deniers.

  11. Um, Beatty accused you of cheating and then said "God bless".

  12. " Sorry but it is very rare to encounter skeptic who doesn't think that fossil fuel burning causes some global warming."

    No, it's extremely common ... though not quite as common as your lie, as common as *that* is at WUWT.

  13. There is no debate. There is science, and there is lying denier garbage like you, who deserve nothing but abuse.

  14. No debate - not for you it seems. Rational discourse be damned, go straight to abuse. Thanks for your input.

  15. I tend to agree with other commentators here.

  16. Sorry, the science is settled. There is still lots to be learned about climate change, but the reality of man made global warming is beyond scientific doubt. The only way to reject AGW is to reject science.

  17. Well, you are welcome to read the postings and pages in this blog. I have been providing plenty of scientific evidence that AGW is real. I have also been very busy showing how each and every contrarian claim is scientifically invalid. The only people that believe these things are the people that have rejected science. Denying man made global warming is like believing the Moon landings were fake; or that 9/11 was a government conspiracy; or that there is a big face on Mars; or believing in creationism. All of these are examples of cases where people have rejected logic, science and evidence in favor of their foregone conclusion.

    What I have found about contrarians is they really don't want anyone to tell other people about how false their claims are. They spout their nonsense, thinking it makes them look intellectual and superior. After all, they are so smart they can disprove the entire global community of climate scientists. They look pretty smart as long as no one bothers to check their claims. So, they hate it when someone produces science or evidence contrary to their claims. Their biggest fear in life is that they are wrong and they can't stand the idea that someone is going to prove it to the public.

    Well, I have some bad news for you - Too late!

  18. What part of the conversation is not posted. Really, I have allowed things much worse than what you have said. You are merely delusional, there are some really crazy people that have posted here and I have not edited or removed their comments, with the exception of a few people that became overly offensive.

  19. Its not the worse thing that has been said to me on this blog. I don't pay attention to them any more.

  20. I am really amazed at how many contrarians use this line about no one denies global warming. Have they been living on another planet? Just read the comments and challenge submissions to see just how false a statement that is. You guys really need to stop saying that one because it makes you look even crazier than you did before.

  21. Jim, you need to reign it in a little. I prefer to let people say what they want here, but let's not go to far overboard.

  22. "Their science is invalid and my theory is the truth."

    I love this challenge because of lines like that. That's almost a gifted level of delusion.

  23. The problem is a lack of precision. To say that fossil fuel burning is causing global warming is to say that the planet is warming, while everyone who is paying the least bit of attention know that it is not presently warming, and hasn't warmed for 15+ years. So of course many skeptics, including myself, deny that humans are presently causing global warming.

    What there is broad agreement on is that the warming EFFECT of fossil fuel burning is in the warming direction (though founding warming alarmist Stephen Schneider used to claim the opposite, when he briefly thought he might be able to blame the 1970's global-cooling scare on fossil fuels).

    From the 15+ year absence of warming it is quite clear that the natural forces of climate change are at least of similar magnitude to human effects, and currently in the opposite direction. There is every reason to believe that those natural cooling effects are increasing (the 80 year grand maximum of solar activity that warmed the 20th century has turned into a profound minimum) and that the rational expectation for climate going forward is a period of significant and very likely dangerous global COOLING.

    There is still broad agreement that the human impact on climate is in the warming direction. Skeptics think that human impact is small. I and many others think in particular that it is small relative to natural climate drivers. Believers or consensoids or whatever you want to call yourselves think that human effects are "dominant." That official "consensus" view, as articulated by the IPCC is inconsistent with the 15+ year absence of warming and is on or past the verge of falsification, which means it cannot possibly be "extremely likely," as I PROVED in my challenge submission.

    Meanwhile you guys can't seem to comprehend the difference between a human warming effect that is small relative to natural effects and a human effect that is large relative to natural effects. You just think human effect = global warming. That's what you keep saying! Can anyone really be that oblivious?

  24. So, it is clear that I need to put together a page listing quotes about how man made global warming is not real. Senator Inhofe, the Senator receiving the greatest amount of contributions from the fossil fuel industry, stated on the Senate floor that AGW is not real and is the greatest hoax perpetrated on mankind. John Coleman, the make-believe meteorologist (he has no science degree and no certification as a meteorologist) who is frequently on TV shows and contrarian anythings has stated, "Man made global warming is not real and never will be." That may be my favorite quote of all. The list goes on. So, anytime someone makes the claim that no one is denying global warming their credibility immediately goes into the toilet.

    And, anytime some claims there has been no global warming in the past ## (fill in your favorite number) of years they again put their credibility into the toilet.

    The claim there has been no warming is a lie in two regards. Notice I call it a lie. That is because it has been debunked so many times that anyone saying should be well aware by now that it isn't true, but they keep saying it anyways.

    First, the claim is based on the idea of drawing a trend line from 1998 global average surface temperature plots to today's value. Even this line is not flat and shows a global warming average of 0.04 degrees C over the period. Much smaller than what was seen previously, but certainly not zero.

    But, what happens in you start you line at 1997 or 1999? Why do contrarians pick 1998? Because it gives them the results they want, that's why. Let's take a look at a plot from one of the biggest deniers out there, Roy Spencer. I used his plot located here:

    He has chosen to use a 13-month average (I'm sure it helps make his case) but let's just look at the actual temperatures. That is what is mostly used when someone makes this claim.

    From his plot, I read the surface anomaly in 1998 to be about +.65 degrees C and the higest since 2000 to be in 2010 at about +.58. This gives a change of -.07 degrees C.

    But, wait. What if we use 1997 as our starting point? The graph shows an average surface temperature of -.3 degrees C. If we use 1997 as out starting point (just one year earlier) we get a change of +.88 degree C. Whoa! What a difference!

    Now, let's use 1999 as out starting point (just one year later than 1998). Spencer's graph shows the average surface temperature for that year to be about -.34 degrees C. That gives us a change of +.92 degrees!

    So, you see that it is a total lie when someone says there has been no surface temperature change in the last xx years. This is a very classic example of cherry picking.

    But, that isn't all. I keep asking why people who make this claim only refer to the average surface temperature and ignore the 93% of the warming that is going on in the oceans. Take a look at this plot from NOAA that shows the total heat content and tell me no warming has occurred in the last 17 years:

    Clearly, the claim that there has been no warming for xx number of years is a total lie and any argument based on the claim is, therefore, completely invalid.

  25. I wonder if there is any site policy here at all about name calling
    [moron, idiot, imbecile]


  26. Let me start by clarifying your understanding of my mindset... The Moon landing occurred, 9/11 was a terrorist attack, And Mars has been a dead planet for billions of years and may have had basic microbial life early in it history... I don't believe these to be true, I Know them to be because I have studied and understand the testable, reproducible evidence of those events...

    In fact I don't Believe anything, Ever.... I know, I think I know or I do not know ... I Never Believe... Science has no place for Belief... that is the arena of religion and I am an atheist...

    I understand you Believe in AGW but I have read some of your writing as far as I can see you have displayed a basic understanding of the difference between the Scientific Method of Theory Production and the Alchemical Method of Theory Production so if you wish to debate the issue so that the readers of your blog can understand you positions better I give you the chance to debate me on the subject but we have to start with the basics and with no appeals to authority... If you wish to add linkage to data sets you think bolster your positions that is fine but not to links of claims, summaries and intellectual content of others as that would require my posting links from others that make differing claims in other summaries of work product.. And no rambling off on tangents, lets stick to the specific single point of each aspect until we have each others positions clarified and then move to the next reasonable point counter point....

    Very good Mr' Keating... lets try it this way.. In Science there is a requirement for any hypothesis to be falsifiable so sticking to the one simple, basic foundation stone of science what is the method you would state that would falsify the hypothesis that CO2 is the forcing cause of global climate variance?

  27. There is no comments archive I and II. Where is my first post, and your first response to it? You are throwing things down the memory hole.

    Part of the scientific process is to go back and re-evaluate data and conclusions when new evidence arises. I presented new evidence in the form of sea level studies, and you used 20 year old conclusions to refute new evidence, but you didn't actually link to that evidence. The article you linked to said it was there but it doesn't seem to be around anymore. So I guess it served its purpose, so down the memory hole it goes.

  28. Absolutely Untrue...

  29. If there was a would have had to ban a lot of contrarians. I agree with you, though, that it isn't necessary and I have asked him to tone it down.

  30. I will agree with you (have stated repeatedly) that AGW is not something you believe in. It is science and you either understand and accept science, or you don't. In your case, you don't.

    You statement there is utterly ridiculous and I have no idea of what you think you're trying to accomplish. You expect me to discuss an issue of very complicated science, yet your requirement is that it be done with no references to any work anywhere?

    I have laid out my claim that the science supporting AGW is so overwhelming that anyone can prove it, not just scientists and I put that proof in my book. You may read it, if you wish. I would be stunned if you did.

    Either way, I can already tell that there is no amount of science or logic that could ever convince you that global warming real. As for me? I go where the science takes me and that path, in this case, is unmistakeable.

  31. Look here:

    or here:

    or here:

    or here

  32. I am wondering how many times I have to repeat this to get you to understand it - the data is reevaluated every time there is a new core or proxy to examine. You have decided that the data is never checked and you have fixated on that thought and it simply is not true.

    Also, let me be absolutely clear to the point there can be no doubt - Your submission is invalid because your science is invalid. And, not a little bit invalid, either.

  33. I will accept this because I have already looked over your submission and have seen that it is invalid. But, I will not accept anymore additions. The challenge is closed and you had ample amount of notice of that deadline. You cannot beat the deadline by submitting a post and then continuously adding to it.

    Therefore, I am telling you now that any future submissions will be ignored or even deleted. The burden was on you to make the deadline and you failed to do so.

  34. I understand the deadline. That is why I labeled this a "comment".

  35. If you are relying on any work by Spencer and Christy you are on very weak ground. Just about all of their work has been shown to be invalid. What do you expect from a creationist? That is someone that has already demonstrated they will reject any science that doesn't conform to their religious beliefs.

  36. Thank you for all this.

    I have to say I've been both disappointed and unsurprised all at the same time with the submissions so far. I suppose I had a vaguely optimistic feeling that the promise of real money would bring out some real effort on the part of the more competent / reasonable deniers. But most of what's been put forward is much the same standard as the uninformed dreck that appears in blogs all over the place. The only saving grace is the reduction in overtly political statements.

    Now that you're proposing serious money, maybe there'll be some more serious work done to earn it.

    Well, we can always hope.

  37. Every one of those links says: "0 Comments".

    Just like your "0 links" to any actual data that backs up the ice core record.

  38. Let me check into that. I added Disqus to the pages in order to allow unlimited comments (unlike Blogger). The comments have not gone away, they are just hidden.

  39. I am worried about the increase in the number of people lately who honestly believe that something incredible like a person [human being] could have been created from absolutely nothing....It also seems [to me] that most people without God have little conscience or regard for other people

  40. btw

    If the oceans were warming, then the atmosphere would be warming too. It is I said.

  41. There are all sorts of false arguments in that statement. The first being, this is not a website devoted to discussing religious issues. But, sticking strictly to the issues of science and scientists, you are making a false argument to say that people who believe in evolution believe life came from nothing. For what reason would you ever suppose you know about the religious beliefs of others and what in the world gives you the right to pass any kind of judgement on those beliefs? I happen to personally know many scientists that are deeply religious and devoted to their beliefs. I resent your inference and I resent the fact that you would even bring that subject up in this forum. Take it somewhere else, it has no place here. Any further comments on this issue will be deleted.

  42. One more example of how you have not bothered to do your homework. The oceans are heated by absorbing sunlight. The oceans, much more so than the ground, are a three-dimensional environment. There are currents that move the cold water and hot water around. As these currents bring cold water to the surface this cold water will fail to heat the atmosphere and the hot water moving down to take its place will trap the heat in the depths. This is confirmed by measuring the temperature of the oceans and we see it heating all the way down to 2000 meters and even deeper.

    All of this is easily available to anyone doing a little research.

  43. Genius.

    In my view the global warming debate was won and lost when the “travesty” email from the West Anglia University surfaced. Since that time the GW debate has morphed into a type of international sport between the Deniers and the Warmers. Last time I checked the Deniers had won the season finals 18 years straight, but the Warmers were fighting back by disputing the game count and with a new tactic which can best be described as ‘trousering the warm water’ - can’t wait to see how that turns out! For my part I am happy to yell encouragement from the sidelines and let the “A” teams duke it out. It is a great pity that this whole GW sport is so damn expensive and wasteful.

  44. Cool... Let's make it clear to your read public that you do not have a knowledge base on the subject and the science involved without appealing to authority and debating the issue from your own intellectual content...

    I am.... I said you could reference data sets and reference material but just not fall to links to summaries and claims of others because doing so requires arguing the individual aspects of others works on an unlimited basis... That is why in debate appeal to authority is not allowed...

    Also let me state that your claims actually show you have no idea of the principles that form science,,,

    First Science does not Prove anything... The very term is non scientific and any first year physics student should no that Fact... The only Proofs in science is in the field of mathematics as in Mathematical Proofs... and have specific meaning...

    In Science the term is invalid as it is a Individual Construct... Science provides Evidence... Evidence is required to Testable, Reproducible and Verifiable... One individual may been presented a single piece of said evidence and consider a claim made based on that single piece of evidence as Proven... Another Individual may be presented 1000 pieces of Evidence and conclude that the evidence does not Prove the claim Valid...

    Second you made a religious based offer in the past... Your offer for someone to Disprove the claim is Religious in nature and is another corner stone in the scientific method.. It is Identical to someone making a Million Dollar offer to Disprove that God Exists.... Of Disprove that Invisible flying unicorns that poop glitter do not exist...

    Now you whine about me asking to debate you directly from your own knowledge base on a subject you Claim expertise on... I asked a Simple question you ignored "As per the requirement of the Scientific Method please provide a method to falsify the Hypothesis that CO2 is the Forcing cause of climate variance" ... And you want people to take your book serious when you cannot stand on your own intellectual content of the subject you claim expertise in ....

    As Einstein said

    "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough."

  45. I did not even bother reading your entire comment because you just keep raising the same false arguments that so many others have already raised and had answered. Please, do a little bit of homework, will you? And, I don't mean going out and reading the denier blogs. Read some real science.

  46. We actually can distinguish between the two. Naturally occurring CO2 has a different isotope ratio than CO2 that comes from burning fossil fuels. This provides a tag on all the man made CO2 and allows us to track it.

  47. Did you even bother getting the facts about the ClimageGate episode? Did you even bother to read the emails for yourself? I don't mean the version the denier blogs have put out there, I mean the originals. Did you know that deniers actually rewrote the emails to make them sound like something different? Did you know they were investigated by eight different independent panels and they all found there was nothing inappropriate? I'm guessing that you just found the story you wanted to hear and left it at that.

  48. If you would bother to quote the entire section you would see that what I said was that there are natural sinks that absorb CO2 from the atmosphere. Before we started pumping the air full of CO2, the natural sinks were enough to remove all naturally occurring CO2. They are also sufficient to remove about one-half of the man-made CO2, meaning out production has overloaded the naturally occurring sinks and resulted in rising CO2 levels.

  49. My "own intellectual content". Please explain what that means because it sure sounds to me that you have failed that very standard yourself. And, for the record, I already stated that I have put my claim out there. As for your permission, I do not need your permission to use any reference material out there that claims stating AGW is not real are scientifically invalid. If you have a problem with that, then you are just out of luck.

    You have obviously not bothered to do any homework on the challenge. The challenge was to people saying the could prove man made global warming is not real to do just that - prove it. If they can't, they need to stop saying they can. If you were anywhere near as intelligent as you would like people to think, then you would have known that.

    And, you continue your delusion if you think I have made some religious offer. Science is based on facts, evidence and the scientific method, which I have required all submitters to adhere to. Again, you just aren't doing your homework.

    You are trying to hijack this blog for your own purposes and are using amazingly ignorant statements to do so. Like your statement, "The Claim is... the .002% of atmospheric CO2 produced by Humans is the Cause of climate variation..." You continue to demonstrate your ignorance. Humans have increased the atmospheric CO2 level by about 43%, that is over 21,000 times as much as you quoted.

    "Correlation does not equal causation" This has become a tired-phrase used by deniers who really don't understand what it means. Go back to school.

    You are just a troll, trying to get me to waste my time and take over my blog with utterly stupid statements. You're done.

  50. Anyone stating they have no problems with Inhofe's statement are showing their true colors.

  51. 9/11 was a terrorist attack on America by Islamic fundamentalists. The moon landings happened. Aliens and chemtrails are not real. The face on Mars is a trick of light and shadow and as an atheist I have no belief in God of any kind. Thank you for insulting my intelligence and calling me a conspiracy theorist because I reject the false science and political agenda that is man-made climate change.

    Every climate model prediction has been wrong.
    Where are the millions of climate refugees?
    Why has there been no rise in temp for over 15 years?
    I have not seen the yearly Hurricane Katrina that was supposed to be the new normal.
    If Superstorm Sandy was so bad explain the 1939 Long Island Hurricane?
    Explain how 70 percent of record high temps take place before 1940.
    With the dramatic rise in CO2 since 2005 why has the temp not increased proportionally?
    Polar Ice sheet hit record low in 2012/13 but record highs in 2014?
    The list of questions is long. The list of failed doom and gloom scenarios is even longer.
    Sea level rise?

    Climate change is a bogeyman made up to make people feel good and self righteous about whatever. Rather than deal with real environmental issues like plastic oceans and U.S. superfund sites or poverty or again whatever. We are told none of that matters because CO2 will kill us all.

    Give me a break and please tell me one event proved to be caused by man. No one can, it is conjecture and 'Thought to be" "Likely" "Maybe" "Possibly" or any other we can't prove it and need to say so word or words.

  52. Dear Christopher, clearly, it is Mr Balter who
    1) has not brought any scientific contribution whatsoever
    2) acted like a scoundrel, calling me and others names
    3) was the person who brought up that it is his belief that Jesus (God) does not exist.

    If you had corrected him immediately -publicly in this forum- it would not have been necessary for you to make an issue with me

  53. I did read those papers (nutticelli) and it is nonsense. They are just trying to find an excuse for the fact that there is no global warming. Now it is hiding in the seas? Clearly, I threw the dice three times, and each time it comes up that it is globally cooling.
    With correlations >0.95.As we argued before, also the SST is going down. It must. If the atmosphere is cooling so must be the seas.
    I have now graphs now underneath each of my tables.
    Let us rather go to accepting that my work is correct. You could check it in any case if you were not so lazy. How could you bring a component of man made warming into the equations, or how could it be there without changing anything major to the equations and correlations' figures?

  54. Your not alone Christopher, the list of people that try to inform or educate Cyrus and his fellow lemmings is long and somewhat dignified, when presented with Facts the comments will be deleted, when presented with peer reviews the veracity of the peer body is questioned then the comments are deleted. I know that he deleted 15 or 20 of my comments a few days ago 'The fool is strong in this one' Cyrus has found a podium and he wants to get a following of other people that are willing to stick their heads in the sand too.
    If they were interested in scientific facts, they wouldn't be deniers.

  55. If you exhibit the behavior of the mindless conspiracy theorists, don't be surprised when you are bunched in the them. And, btw, you only have to subscribe to one to fit in with crowd and deny global warming definitely qualifies. You demonstrated that yourself with you little list of statements. Do a little homework for yourself instead of just repeating what is said on the contrarian blogs.

  56. I prefer to allow people to speak without moderation here (as long as it is family friendly). There are limits, though and I have asked him to tone it down. At the same time, I will not allow this blog to be hijacked by someone wishing to turn it into a vehicle for their own agenda. You are welcome to start your own blog with its own topic and with you as the moderator.

  57. For the final time, your work is not valid. Take your rants somewhere else. I will delete any further rants on this issue.

  58. Thanks for the information. I have met people like this and it really is a religion for them - all faith and no science.

  59. OK. The day will still come when you will remember your words

    "your work is not valid"

    On that day you will also remember my words: there is no man made warming. There simply is no room for it in my equation for the drop in minimum temperatures.

    You and ll the media and the whole world still believe that somehow global warming will soon be back on track again. Clearly, as shown, this is just wishful thinking. All current results show that global cooling will continue. Those still pointing to melting arctic ice and NH glaciers, as “proof” that it is (still) warming, and not cooling, should remember that there is a lag from energy-in and energy-out. Counting back 88 years i.e. the Gleissberg cycle, 2013-88= we are in 1925.

    Now look at some eye witness reports of the ice back then?

    Sounds familiar? Back then, in 1922, they had seen that the arctic ice melt was due to the warmer Gulf Stream waters. However, by 1950 all that same ‘lost” ice had frozen back. I therefore predict that all lost arctic ice will also come back, from 2020-2035 as also happened from 1935-1950. Antarctic ice is already increasing.

    To those actively involved in trying to suppress the temperature results as they are available on-line from official sources, I say: Let fools stay fools if they want to be. Fiddling with the data they can, to save their jobs, but people still having to shove snow in late spring, will soon begin to doubt the data…Check the worry in my eyes when they censor me. Under normal circumstances I would have let things rest there and just be happy to know the truth for myself. Indeed, I let things lie a bit. However, chances are that humanity will fall in the pit of global cooling and later me blaming myself for not having done enough to try to safeguard food production for 7 billion people and counting.

    It really was very cold in 1940′s….The Dust Bowl drought 1932-1939 was one of the worst environmental disasters of the Twentieth Century anywhere in the world. Three million people left their farms on the Great Plains during the drought and half a million migrated to other states, almost all to the West.

    I find that as we are moving back, up, from the deep end of the relevant sine wave, there will be a standstill in the change of the speed of cooling, neither accelerating nor decelerating, on the bottom of the wave; therefore naturally, there will also be a lull in pressure difference at that > [40 latitude], where the Dust Bowl drought took place, meaning: less weather (read: rain). However, one would apparently note this from an earlier change in direction of wind. According to my calculations, this will start around 2020 or 2021…..i.e. 1927=2016 (projected, by myself and the planets…)> add 5 years and we are in 2021.

    Danger from global cooling is documented and provable. It looks we have only ca. 7 “fat” years left……


    We urgently need to develop and encourage more agriculture at lower latitudes, like in Africa and/or South America. This is where we can expect to find warmth and more rain during a global cooling period.

    We need to warn the farmers living at the higher latitudes (>40) who already suffered poor crops due to the droughts that things are not going to get better there for the next few decades. It will only get worse as time goes by.

    We also have to provide more protection against more precipitation at certain places of lower latitudes (FLOODS!), <[30] latitude, especially around the equator.

  60. If you are too busy to read my comment I understand, but don't pretend that these responses of yours are in any way rational.

    I explained WHY I have no problem with Inhofe's statement. Because I understand him to be rejecting YOUR position that humans caused MOST recent warming. I do not see him as claiming that human activity has NO warming effect. So yes, I have revealed myself. I reject YOUR alarmist position and do not take the position that humans cause no warming.

    It is ludicrous that you want to keep pushing "no human warming" as the skeptic position when you yourself admit on your "clarification page" that there is broad agreement on both sides that the forcing effect of a doubling of CO2 is about 1 degree C.

    As to your characterizing what you admit you did not read as "false arguments," now THAT is highly revealing, about YOU. You are no scientist Mr. Keating.

  61. It isn't that I'm too busy, its just that when you start out with "I have no problem with Inhofe "stating on the Senate floor that AGW is
    not real and is the greatest hoax perpetrated on mankind."" I already know that you are not credible. I can pull up hundreds of comments like yours where the commenter simply has not bothered to do their homework or decided to reject science. I already know there is no amount of science or logic that could ever get you to realize you are wrong. So, why bother trying? Go in peace and live happily in your own little world.

  62. Your ignorant hatred of Inhofe is not science. You are such a blatant irrational bigot, not even pretending to discuss the substance of the issue. A scientific mind discusses substance. You never discuss substance.

    If you want to discuss substance, answer my question about how you rationalize dismissing the very well established correlation between solar activity and climate when there is no such correlation between CO2 and climate in the historical and paleo records. How do you rationalize going with the theory that gets has far less support from the empirical record?

  63. I don't hate Inhofe. I just recognize how he is an example of the failure of the system. One of our senior government elected officials has been bought and paid for and is no longer representing the people, but busy representing the fossil fuel industry. It is very sad, really.

    As for discussing substance, I have hundreds of posts here discussing the issues. You are welcome to read them and to comment on them.

    And, if you were to bother doing your homework and stay away from the denier blogs, you would find there is a very strong cause and effect associated with CO2. The first being that the variation is solar activity did not provide even a fraction of the energy necessary to melt the glaciers of the ice ages. There had to be something extra. Like I said, if you had done your homework you would know this.

  64. Nothing new here. GW International thrives on controversy: Hockey stick, Himalayan Glaciers, Autumn leaves, Brimblecomb pines, Temperature records, etc..
    On a more technical note, can you point me to any GW information that mentions Henry’s Law? Best regards.

  65. "There had to be something extra." There are several good theories about how the "something extra" could be some mechanism of "solar amplification" by which the UV-shift associated with solar-magnetic activity or solar-magnetic activity itself somehow affects global climate. We do, after all, live inside the sun's extended corona so it is not at all implausible that some mechanism of solar amplification could be at work and indeed this is the only thing that could account for the well established correlation between solar activity and climate.

    There are also several strong theories for how solar amplification could work. So again, what is your excuse for ignoring the strong empirical evidence for a powerful solar driver of climate, when the proclaimed evidence for a powerful CO2 driver only comes from a single 25 year period (1975-2000)? The EVIDENCE points to solar amplification, and scientists are supposed to follow the evidence.

  66. Again... You claim expertise and run from debate ...

    CO2 in the atmosphere is today .038% .... You know that... It's the numbers used in NOAA, NASA and IPCC data sets.... of that .002% is attributed to human activities based on the C12/C13 isotope ratios... Anyone can look those numbers up...

    You seem to fluff of the hallmarks of science with the claim of science... I would say that from what I have seen you tend to more of the Alchemical method of Theory production versus even coming close to sowing any understand of the scientific method... If you did you would answer the simple question put to you... It's a requirement for any valid scientific hypothesis to rise to the level of theory...

    So again...

    Please provide a method to falsify the hypothesis that the .02% of atmospheric CO2 attributed to human activity is the cause for climate variation...

    Or even simpler...

    Please provide a method to falsify the hypothesis that the .038% of the atmosphere that is CO2 is the cause for climate variation..

    That should be a simple question if the hypothesis is scientifically valid ..

    And yes your "AGW is real, prove it's not" posting you made is religious in nature.... You may not have the intellectual honesty to admit it but it is the exact same statement made by ever religious fanatic and Believer for centuries.... "My God is Real, Prove he's not" as been the cry of every religious based argument since the first religions...

    Even the use of the the request for Proof highlights your religious Belief is AGW just as surely and the Southern Baptist's request for Proof there is no God....

    And I'm no where near done... When someone claims expertise and falls to Belief and Dogmatic adherence to pseudoscience while attempting to cash in on those without scientific understanding using fear and bulling tactics I tend to make them a on going project ... Not because I think I will get them to be intellectually honest but so when they are challenged their viewing public can see them for the frauds they are....

  67. Well, when my report turns out to be correct, as I am sure it will, in due time, you owe me the $30000 to the benefit of orphans and abandoned children. I leave it to you, Mr. Keating, to chose the specific charity that relates to this that you want to donate the money to. God bless you all. Henry

  68. I accept your point that you have already addressed many issues in other places and I should look first to what you have already said about the solar evidence, so I took a look at your "challenge submissions" page and I did find a post where you talk about "natural cycles," including variation in solar activity:

    But what you say there about solar activity seems opposite of the known facts. You write:

    "Two very influential cycles are the AMO and solar activity. Both of these give a lot of correlation to global average temperature. Unfortunately, both of these were in a negative phase throughout the warming trend of the 1980s and 1990s. The AMO has turned positive (warming), ironically during the same period deniers claim global warming has stopped (not true), but the solar activity has continued to be in a negative phase."

    The 80s and 90s were the last two decades of what several leading solar physicist have labeled an 80 year "grand maximum" of solar activity. See p. 304 here:

    So I'm wondering what you mean when you label these decades of unusually high solar activity as a "negative phase" of solar activity? Are you denying that solar activity was unusually high over the 80s and 90s? Cycles 21 and 22 would seem to have been quite strong by any measure.

  69. Only if you'll promise to pay me $10,000 for wasting my time when you continue to be wrong.

  70. You won't prove me wrong. Even with all the media on your side you will still be wrong. In science you only need one man to be right. In fact, you donot even want to know that you could be wrong, as you could easily investigate for yourself to see if you get the same results. I am gone. Sorry for wasting your time.

  71. Again you can attempt to lump me in with anyone you wish but you would fail miserably.... First I do not now nor have I ever Denied Global Warming/Climate Change .. That is an oft repeated red herring you seem to rely on... between 25,000 years ago to around 7000 years ago the planet warmed, between assorted time frames after that the planet warm and the planet cooled... between 1900 and 1940 it warmed, between 1940 and 1975 it cooled, between 1975 and 2000 it warmed, and between 2000 and today it has cooled slightly... So you see I do not and never have denied warming, cooling and periods of static temps... That has Zero to do with the issue at hand... That's why it's called a Red Herring ...

    The Only Issue, The Only Question is does CO2 Cause climate variation .... Correlations made between CO2 ppm levels and Global Temps are not Evidence as there are periods in time when CO2 levels were Much higher than today and temps were cooler and times when CO2 levels were lower and temps warmer... And if we use plant Stoma counts as an indicator of past CO2 we get a completely different data set on past CO2 concentrations... Where as none of the Ice Core data sets take into account CO2's ability to migrate and leach from containment...

    Again I am not posting to change your religious Belief in AGW as I have found in past debates with believers in Creationism that such beliefs are not breech-able... It's a issue of Cognitive Dissonance ... I post so that your readers can see that you display intellectual dishonesty in your blogs and do not display the scientific knowledge base you claim expertise in... As a guy once wrote...

    B'Levers Believe... Praise Gaia !!!... B'Levers Believe......

  72. Thanks for the talking point response. Did you get a discount on the playbook. Insult, belittle, dismiss, name call. I have done plenty of homework and every event EVER is possibly or thought to be. Keep drinking the kool aid Mr. Keating.
    My little list went unanswered by you and everyone else I present it to. Since I can counter any answer you give me with a counter scientific claim or claim by another climate change follower.
    Like the 17 year and counting pause. Some of your ilk claim lack of sun spots and natural cooling has offset any rise but soon enough it will get back to how the models predict.
    Yet others claim the the pause has not occurred at all. Instead the heat has gone into the oceans but not all oceans.
    Why has the Katrina not happened since? We were all told by every talking head that it was going to be the new normal. We better get used to it.
    You are a kool aid drinker and political and agenda follower. Think for yourself and do your own homework and while you're at it start lobbying for money to remove the plastic from the oceans and poisons from superfund sites.

  73. No, I had to pay full price.

    Do you really think your "little list" has gone unanswered? I think I have addressed every single one of your of your questions and I know scientists out there have.

    As for the Katrinas, do these names mean anything to you: Rita, Sandy, Haiyan, and now Halong?

  74. No, my challenge was to people who claim they can prove man made global warming is not real to come and do just that. You didn't prove anything and it is pretty pathetic that you don't understand that.

  75. Wow! Name Calling! How mature of you Jim Balter. *sarcasm*

  76. No? Please carefully re-read my submission and tell me where I am wrong, if you can

  77. Burl,

    I have done so repeatedly. You took a three-dimensional situation and thought that turning it into a two-dimensional was somehow appropriate. I am not at all sure about your math. I did not try to reproduce it because it is irrelevant. The issue is not how big is the source, the issue is how big is the amount of emissions. You did nothing to address that. Somehow, in your mind, you think because you can come up with some kind of math that says all of the emission sources combined makes a pipe only so big, then global warming isn't real. Well, let me ask you something that you even discussed yourself. Volcanoes have the ability to change the climate of the planet in very short order. Mount Pinatubo erupted in 1991 and changed the world climate for years. And, yet, the caldera was only a tiny fraction the size of your pipe. How can you explain that using your logic?

    It isn't the size of the source, its the volume of the emissions.

  78. I agree. It is not part of the scientific process and he needs to tone it down. But, if I censor him, I need to censor all of the contrarians that resort to the same thing and that would eliminate half of the people that comment on this blog.

  79. I told you where you were wrong: "This I have done" is wrong. Your post doesn't even begin to disprove AGW. It would help if you knew ANYTHING about climate science.

  80. Jim Balter, I have asked you to tone it down. I deleted this comment and will
    delete any in the future that are insulting like this. You are not
    helping by being a troll. You're comments are welcome, but the insults
    are not.

    These images paint a very stark picture of California.

  82. They are in serious trouble. I read the long range forecast is for 2015 to be equally dry. They are way past deep do-do out there. Take a look at the US. Drought Monitor:

  83. I am planning on getting up there soon for the same reason. See em while you can.

  84. I don't know what I said, but I'm sure it was true and accurate, quite unlike all the comments from the deniers.

  85. It's a series of unsupported assertions and non sequiturs that don't even touch AGW. At the very least you would have to address the basic physics of GHGs.The burden on you is to offer a proof ... you would first have to have some understanding of what that is.

  86. Forget about the $30000 challenge, if that were true, you could win the Nobel Prize!

    Try submitting your work to the Nobel panel. Of course, they'll wreck you even harder than Dr. Keating did here.

  87. The Sun sends into the atmosphere 30,000,000 times more heat than the Earth radiates back out. If we put any insulator into the atmosphere, it will block out 30,000,000 times more heat than it will keep in. Clouds for instance. At night clouds reflect heat radiating from the earth back at the earth, but during the daytime, clouds cool the earth by blocking out sunlight and heat. We don't suffer a runaway global warming effect when the sky is covered in clouds. Even with the clouds reflecting back to the earth some heat, the lost heat blocked out by the clouds is far greater than the heat kept in by the clouds and we get a cool day, not a hot day.

    Just look at the planet Venus. With it's 90 atm atmosphere it radiates only 840 Degrees Fahrenheit. If the Earth had a pressure of 90 atms the earth's temperature would be over 1400 degrees F, far warmer than Venus. When you remove the Pressure heat created by the 90 atms of pressure on Venus, the remaining solar heat is -444.969994 degrees F.

    I don't think minus 444.969994 is hot do you?

  88. You are correct when you say the challenge is closed. You are incorrect in supposing you did anything to show manmade global warming is not real. I posted your emailed version of this as a guest submission and you can view it, along with my response, here: