The Climate Change Fight Might Be Better Off Without Joe Q. Public

Global warming

In an opinion piece at the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Dawn Stover recently wrote:

Apparently most Americans have not only lost interest in learning about what’s happening to our world, but are actively repelled by the very mention of this world.

Take a moment to let that sink in before we proceed. Ms. Stover again:

In a recent interview published by, marketing expert David Fenton of Fenton Communications said he tells environmental groups not to use words such as “planet,” “Earth,” or “environment.” … Even “sustainability” has become a dirty word in many circles. As the Southern Poverty Law Center explains in a new report, conspiracy theorists have “poisoned rational discussion” by spreading falsehoods about the United Nations’ innocuous (not to mention nonbinding) Agenda 21 global sustainability program.

Ms. Stover suggests engaging the public with humor and social media. Meanwhile in another opinion piece at the Bulletin two weeks later titled A modest proposal on climate: Public disengagement, senior editor Lucien Crowder suggests we stop trying to frighten the public into joining the fight to slow climate change. I’ve often written about bundling the causes of nuclear weapons and climate change (as well as population control), because they’re too weak to stand on their own. Crowder writes:

In my line of work—helping people understand that climate change is going to bake them if nuclear weapons don’t fry them first—it can be tough to decide which danger is more resistant to effective communication. … The Yale Project on Climate Change Communication, for example, splits public attitudes into six categories, ranging from Alarmed (climate scientists) to Dismissive (members of my extended family). People in at least four of the six categories feel no great urgency to achieve climate mitigation, though the virulence of their opposition to it varies widely.

But, Crowder writes,

… it isn’t necessarily true that climate policy would start running in the right direction if the public were more engaged with the issue—that people would clamor for action to counter climate change if only they understood.

That’s by way of prelude to this eye-opening statement:

Indeed, in the nuclear and climate realms, desirable policy often seems to flow less from public engagement than from public obliviousness.

Say what? Crowder explains.

Disarmament advocates, no matter how they try, cannot tempt most ordinary people into caring about nuclear weapons—yet stockpiles of weapons steadily, if still too slowly, decrease.

Nuclear weapons, he maintains, are invisible to most.

… you’ll never see a nuclear weapon detonate, except maybe in the movies. You’ve never noticed one lying around. Heck, you can’t even get within 20 feet of highly enriched uranium unless you’re an octogenarian nun. [Y-12 National Security Complex resister Sister Megan Rice ― RW.] … nuclear weapons seem very good at not exploding, so how urgent can their abolition be?


Since the fall of the Berlin Wall, disarmament has become a specialized movement, one that inspires little backlash. … Only during the earliest years of this three-decade span were people marching—in numbers, with regularity—to ban the bomb.

In other words

… with no popular movement working against disarmament, the movement in its favor need not be popular, either.


Climate advocacy provokes greater passion, but passion often manifests itself as outraged opposition to climate action.

Crowder suggests that (emphasis added)

… it might seem retrograde to suggest that citizen engagement is the biggest enemy of efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (next to the moneyed interests who profit from climate pollution). But benign neglect from the public might be just what the climate needs. If granted the obscurity and freedom of action that disarmament bureaucrats enjoy, the pallid technocratic elites who work to arrest climate change might just manage to save the planet.

It’s tough to agree that disarmament has been significantly more successful than efforts to slow climate change, but it’s true that it’s been marginally more successful. Crowder admits “existing stockpiles don’t face elimination.” But, he maintains,

Warhead inventories peaked at about 70,000 in the mid-1980s; stockpiled warheads today amount to about 10,000. Today, new nuclear ambitions face drastic constraints. … a web whose individual strands have never won broad public support or even enjoyed minimal public awareness. Technocrats built the web. Public engagement barely factored.

For its part

Climate change may seem a more immediate danger than nuclear weapons but immediacy is a mixed blessing, at best. To be sure, immediacy means personal engagement. Immediacy means passion. But immediacy also means petulant, blindered, conspiracy-minded backlash.

Crowder sums up:

What the climate movement needs, I think, is what disarmament got when the Cold War ended—something to lower the problem’s intensity, undermine its immediacy, and facilitate public disengagement. If only the wonks could sort things out in the background, dictating momentous policy changes that affected the entire planet but seemed fairly trivial in most Americans’ lives, there might be hope for polar bears and the islands of Kiribati yet.

Maybe Crowder is right. If mass mobilization is out of the question, it might be best if technocrats were left to work their magic behind the scenes. Perhaps it’s time to stop sounding the alarm about client change, which only makes many cover their ears or shout back louder. If that works, apathy would have the tables turned on it and, in a pretty neat jiu-jitsu move, antipathy could be sidestepped.

  • serious joe

    “If only the wonks could sort things out in the background, dictating momentous policy changes… there might be hope for polar bears…”

    Sheesh, are you still on the “Save the Polar Bears” kick? Polar bears – as a species – survived the Holocene optimum, the Minoan warm period, the Roman warm period, and the Medieval warm period, all of which were warmer than what we have now, so warming isn’t going to hurt the polar bears.

    Headline on

    “Southern Beaufort polar bear ‘decline’ & reduced cub survival touted in 2008 was invalid, PBSG now admits”

    “It is now clear that the phenomenon of bears moving across Southern Beaufort Sea subpopulation boundaries compromised the US decision to list polar bears as ‘threatened’ and the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG) knows that was the case.”

    “…in an astonishing admission, the PBSG have acknowledged that the last population survey for the SB (Regehr, Amstrup and Stirling, 2006), which appeared to register a decline in population size and reduced cub survival over time, did not take known movements of bears into account as it should have done.

    In other words, that 2006 study almost certainly did not indicate bears dying due to reduced summer sea ice in the SB, as biologists said at the time — and which they presented as evidence that polar bears should be listed by the ESA as ‘threatened’ — but reflected capture of bears that were never part of the SB subpopulation and so moved out of the region.”

    Regher et al. (2006:11) admitted: “…the declines we observed in model-averaged survival rates may reflect an increase in the number of “emigrants” toward the end of the study, and not an actual decrease in biological survival.“

    Amstrup et al 2001:230 stated that, “…their SB [Southern Beaufort] population models gave them an estimate of more than 2500 bears, up significantly from the late 1970s estimate of 1,800.” They concluded (Amstrup et al. 2001:233) that this amount of increase “was unreasonable” so they made up a number: initially “less than 2000” but later 1,800.

    From “…scientists end up counting bears in many different ways, including incorporating observations by knowledgeable local residents. But population estimates are just that: estimates. Some subpopulations of bears haven’t been counted in decades, if ever. And some are counted more frequently but with slightly different survey areas or methodologies from year to year. The Polar Bear Specialist Group, an international consortium of experts, classifies 10 of the 19 subpopulations as being “data-deficient,” which isn’t exactly conducive to a coherent discussion about how polar bears are faring worldwide.

    In Davis Strait, between Greenland and Baffin Island, the polar bear population has grown from 900 animals in the late 1970s to around 2,100 today. In the Foxe Basin are of northern Hudson Bay, a population that was estimated to be 2,300 in the early 2000s now stands at 2,570. In specific areas of western Hudson Bay, the most-studied, most-photographed group of bears on Earth seems to have been on a slow but steady increase since in the 1970s.

    From The Globe And Mail

    “The number of bears along the western shore of Hudson Bay, believed to be among the most threatened bear subpopulations, stands at 1,013 and could be even higher, according to the results of an aerial survey released [April 2012] by the Government of Nunavut.”

  • serious joe

    Hope for Kiribati? Sheesh, it’s a coral atoll; if you keep the coral alive, it will grow upwards. Coral atolls often formed around the cones of active volcanoes; as the volcanic ash of the cone slumped back into the sea, the center of the coral ring became a lagoon (the characteristic shape as viewed from above).

    The inconvenient truth: sea level is not changing much. Did you know, “sea level rise” is slowing down? Actual measurements show that. There is no sign of anthropogenic changes, no evidence of mankind’s influence, in the sea level data. Sea level is rising, and should rise, for obvious natural causes. It is nothing to worry about.

    A new paper by Beenstock et al. finds global mean sea levels rose at only 1 mm/year, equivalent to less than 4 inches per century, over the 203 year period from 1807-2010.

    The authors also find no acceleration of sea level rise, which indicates that there is no human influence upon sea levels. In addition, the authors find that sea level rise is a local, rather than global, phenomenon; 61% of the tide gauge records show no change in sea levels, 4% show a decrease, and a minority of 35% show a rise. This implies that relative sea level change is primarily related to subsidence (land sinking), or post-glacial rebound (land rising) rather than sea level changes from melting ice on land, or from thermal expansion (called “steric”, from warming).

    Their measurement of sea level rise agrees well with the 1.1-1.3 mm/yr (4.3 to 5.1 inches per century) found by the NOAA 2005-2012 Sea Level Budget, which used both satellite and buoy data. They found no acceleration of sea level rise. NOAA: “The regional patterns of sea level change, however, are many times larger, and can be extremely complex.”

    Sea level rise is a local phenomenon. A lack of measured acceleration of sea level rise dooms the alarmist theory of “Global Warming”.

    Even more peer-reviewed, journal-published research shows that the rate of sea level rise is slowing. A paper by Ablain, Cazename, et al, “These new calculations highlight a reduction in the rate of sea level rise since 2005, by ∼2 mm/yr. This represents a 60% reduction, compared to the 3.3 mm/yr sea level rise (glacial isostatic adjustment correction applied) measured between 1993 and 2005. Since November 2005, MSL [mean sea level] is accurately measured by a single satellite, Jason-1. However, the error analysis performed here, indicates that the recent reduction in MSL [mean sea level rise] rate is real.” … “One of the most important indicators of global warming is the global Mean Sea Level (MSL), which integrates the response of many components of the climate system. … Tide gauge records have shown, that during the 20th century, global MSL has risen at an average rate of about 1.7 mm/yr (Church and White, 2006, Jevre- jeva et al., 2008). Since 1993, altimeter measurements from TOPEX/Poseidon (T/P) and Jason-1 satellites provide precise MSL measurements with global coverage (e.g., Nerem and Mitchum, 2001; Cazenave and Nerem, 2004; Leuliette et al., 2004; Nerem et al., 2006). The most recently published study using altimeter data reports a global MSL rate of 3.3±0.4 mm/yr over the 1993-2006 time span (Beckley et al., 2007). If the Global Isostatic Adjustment (GIA) correction … {about 0.3 mm/yr}; (Peltier, 2004)) is accounted, this rate increases to 3.6 mm/yr. However, differences in estimated MSL rates, from different authors, up to 0.7 mm/yr, are commonly reported. It is likely that such a scatter mostly results from differences in data processing and in applied geophysical corrections.”

    A paper in 2010 by Manfred Wenzel and Jens Schröter,

    in the Journal of Geophysical Research – Oceans, did not find the telltale signs of mankind’s influence, as predicted by “Global Warming” theory. The paper confirms other studies of tide gauge records which show that there has been no statistically significant acceleration in sea level rise over the past 100+ years, in contrast to statements of the IPCC and AlGore.

    Wenzel & Schröter: “The global mean sea level for the period January 1900 to December 2006 is estimated to rise at a rate of 1.56 ± 0.25 mm/yr [0.061 inches per year, roughly six inches per century] which is reasonably consistent with earlier estimates, but we do not find significant acceleration. The regional mean sea level of the single ocean basins show mixed long-term behavior. While most of the basins show a sea level rise of varying strength there is an indication for a mean sea level fall in the southern Indian Ocean. Also for the the tropical Indian and the South Atlantic no significant trend can be detected. Nevertheless, the South Atlantic as well as the tropical Atlantic are the only basins that show significant acceleration. On shorter timescales, but longer than the annual cycle, the basins sea level are dominated by oscillations with periods of about 50–75 years and of about 25 years…” The rate of sea level rise, as determined by satellite altimetry (which is only available since 1992 and is calibrated to tide gauges) has decelerated over the past 5 years from 3.2 mm/yr to only 1.5 mm/yr, about the same rate as calculated by Holgate for the period 1954-2003.”

    According to the 2012 NOAA sea level budget,

    global sea levels rose at only 1.1 – 1.3 mm/year from 2005-2012, which is less than half of the rate claimed by the IPCC (3.1 mm/yr) and is equivalent to less than five inches per century. The acceleration of sea level rise, crucial to proving the alarmist’s “Global Warming” theory, is absent.

    The report compares sea level rise, calculated from two different methods. The first uses satellite altimetry measurements of sea surface level relative to the satellite’s orbital altitude. The second method combines ARGO (ocean buoy) measurements of ocean temperature, to calculate the the steric (thermal expansion) change to ocean volume, plus the GRACE satellite measurements estimating the ocean’s mass. The rate of sea level rise, using the ARGO & GRACE method, shows a sea level rise of only 0.2 (ARGO) + 0.1 (GRACE) = 0.3 mm/yr.

    NOAA: “The regional patterns of sea level change, however, are many times larger and can be extremely complex. Steric sea level change is the dominant contributor to the spatial trend patterns observed for total sea level … While the global ocean has been gaining mass from the continents during this period, the Indian Ocean continues to show a net loss of mass to the other basins (Chambers and Willis 2009).”

    Only by adding on a relatively large and highly questionable Gobal Isostatic Adjustment, (based on a computer model, Paulson’s, from 2007) of 0.9 mm/yr to the GRACE data, do the two estimates come close to agreement. Following this questionable Global Isostatic Adjustment adjustment, the ARGO + GRACE estimate is 1.1± 0.8 mm/yr as compared to the satellite altimetry estimate of 1.3 ± 0.9 mm.

    Austrailia’s ABC, June 2010, headline: “Pacific islands growing, not sinking”

    ABC: “Climate scientists have expressed surprise at findings that many low-lying Pacific islands are growing, not sinking.”

    “Islands in Tuvalu, Kiribati and the Federated States of Micronesia are among those which have grown, largely due to coral debris, land reclamation and sediment.”

    “The findings, published in the magazine New Scientist, were gathered by comparing changes to 27 Pacific islands over the last 20 to 60 years using historical aerial photos and satellite images.”

    “Auckland University’s Associate Professor Paul Kench, a member of the team of scientists, says the results challenge the view that Pacific islands are sinking due to rising sea levels associated with climate change.”

    Kench: “Eighty per cent of the islands we’ve looked at have either remained about the same or, in fact, gotten larger,” he said. “Some of those islands have gotten dramatically larger, by 20 or 30 per cent. “We’ve now got evidence the physical foundations of these islands will still be there in 100 years.”

    Dr. N. Mörner is a sea level expert (former president of the INQUA Commission of Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution; they hold opposite views). Dr. Mörner is a Geophysicist, specializing on the ground beneath our feet, the lithosphere, its plasticity and its dynamics. In particular, he is an expert on how the ground moves up and down in relation to sea level. He has 35 years of experience, and his work has improved the science of coastal sea level fluctuations. He calls these fiddlings, the isostatic adjustment, “personal calibrations” – a polite form for what is in essence, fiction. He led the Maldives Sea Level Project, which showed that sea level in the Maldives is not rising relative to the coasts, but has indeed fallen! Global sea level has been rising at a rate of about half a foot per century, but the Maldives are either rising, or subject to a local sea level anomaly, perhaps related to ocean currents, or evaporation rates. Thus, the ‘poster child’ of AlGore’s sea level alarm, is invalid. A television interview in 2001, in which Dr. Mörner explained how the Maldives were not threatened, was censored by the government of the Maldives. In June 2004, Prof. Mörner published his research results in an article titled ”The Maldives Project: a future free from sea-level flooding” in the Contemporary South Asia magazine. However, the bureaucrats did not react positively to these findings, since they went against what apparently is the ‘official’ Maldivian government policy.

    The ‘official’ policy of the government of the Maldives, apparently, is to shake down the western world for money. EU: €6.5 million (GCCA: €3.8m, other EU: €2.7m) + Australia AUD$ 1 million (AusAID) from the Global Climate Change Alliance, The Climate Change Trust Fund. The the Government of Maldives is planning to shake out an an extra €4 million (out of EU country programme funds) to scale up the ongoing activities. Haifa Naeem: “Nowhere in the Maldives was there a list of climate projects. We had to know that a project existed in order to be able to investigate the amount of funding it was receiving.

    We also found the criteria for projects very questionable, with no real explanation for why certain islands were selected [for monetary benefit], and other islands overlooked.”

    The 2011 Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index


    scored The Maldives at a 2.5 out of a possible 10, matching Cameroon, and barely better than Russia. Ninety-six per cent of Maldivians surveyed in the Global Corruption Barometer, (

    believed that their government was run by a few elites, acting in elite’s own interests.

    These statistics are brought to life through tales of cronyism and back-door dealing. In 2011, the Maldives’ Anti-Corruption Commission began investigations into a US$21 million public infrastructure project aimed at developing a stretch of coastline. A construction company had reportedly been hired to carry out the work without following the required procedures. The company in question was co-owned by Moosa Manik, chair of the country’s ruling party, meaning that, in the words of the Anti-Corruption Commission, the project would “illegally benefit a particular party”.

    The government of the Maldives uses top-notch publicity stunts to keep the money flowing. In 2011, the then-president of the Maldives, Mohamed Nasheed, held a televised cabinet meeting, underwater. Equipped with [scuba gear] and waterproof pens, ministers signed a document calling on other countries to slash their carbon emissions.

    Nasheed also pledged to convert The Maldives from fossil fuel energy by 2020 – a pointless exercise in politically correct appearances, since the quantity of fossil fuels consumed by the tiny Maldives cannot amount to a gnat’s mass, compared to the consumption of China, India, or the United States. Nasheed also announced his intent to buy land in neighboring India, or Sri Lanka, so that Maldivians could repatriate rather than become climate refugees.

    The nineteenth session of the Climate Change Conference of the Parties (CoP-19) opened with an impassioned speech by the Philippines’ lead climate negotiator. He classified typhoon Haiyan as “an extreme climate event” of the sort exacerbated by man-made “Global Warming”. “The climate crisis is madness,” he declared. Then, he got down to the money pitch: “We have to confront the issue of loss and damage. Loss and damage from climate change is a reality today across the world.” By the end of the CoP-19 summit, more than 130 developing states -The Maldives among them – were demanding an international “loss and damage” mechanism, bankrolled by wealthy nations, to be embedded in the 2015 global pact on climate change.

    Back in September 2011, Kiribati’s President Anote Tong and the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon issued a joint statement:

    “[they]….. today stressed that climate change posed the most serious threat to the livelihoods, security and survival of the island nation’s residents … [and] … underlined the need [to] make climate change adaptation funding available to finance the implementation of critical programmes to tackle the impact of climate change on communities there….”

    Sea level is not rising at all in the Maldives, the Laccadives, Tuvalu, India, Bangladesh, French Guyana, Venice, Cuxhaven, Korsør, Saint Paul Island, Qatar, etc.

    In the past decade or two, sea level has not really been rising much, as the Envisat and then the Grace satellites have confirmed, suggesting that all of the major global temperature records are correct in showing that global temperature has not been rising recently. A warming ocean expands, due to the thermal effects alone. That produces a bit of sea level rise. The warming stopped, at the surface of the earth, seventeen and a half years ago, and the oceans are slower to respond. Mörner asserts that satellite altimetry data indicate a mean rise in the order of 1.0 mm/yr from 1986 to 1996, whereas most studies find a value around 3 mm/yr.

    Alarmist-claims, about warming due to carbon dioxide, have a logical consequence. Since carbon dioxide levels continue to rise at a very steady rate, the the amount of forced warming should be increasing. This warming should produce not just a rise in sea level, but an accelerating rate of rise. Sea levels have been rising at a steady rate for many decades before the onset of mankind’s burning of fossil fuels. The alarmist theory of forced warming, if true, requires an accelerating rate of sea level rise. Measurements show that sea level rise is not accelerating, and recent data indicates a deceleration (which is expected, since earth’s surface and low atmospheric temperature measurements show no warming in the last seventeen and a half years or more, by not just one, but three temperature datasets). Science isn’t done by consensus or voting. In science, a theory is shot down if one fact shoots a hole in it. The lack of acceleration is one of those holes in the theory of “Global Warming”, even if you rename it to “Climate Change” or “Climate Disruption”.

    While pontificating about Climate Change causing sea level rises, AlGore, Tim Flannery, Kevin Rudd, Julia Gillard, and Greg Combet all bought expensive beach-front property, subject to flooding if sea levels actually rise, as they predict.

    On 03May2014 Steve Case said:

    “It’s fiddled with more than just that. The Internet Archives WayBack Machine allows us to see what their data said ten years ago:

    Here’s Colorado University’s 2004 Release 1.2 which when analysed for the rate of sea level rise comes to 2.6 mm/yr for the period of 1994 to 2004

    Here’s Colorado University’s data as it appears today 2014 Release 3 and today the analysis of that same period from 1994 to 2004 yields a rate of 3.5 mm/yr.

    That’s nearly a full mm/yr of fiddling.”

    Coral atolls and islands have previously demonstrated their ability to survive a rise in sea levels, for example, the 120 meters of sea level rise, since the glaciation from last ice age melted. Under natural conditions, live coral is able to grow, keeping pace with sea levels. If sea level actually does rise in the vicinity of these coral atoll or islands, and some action of mankind is actually at fault for their demise, it is likely to be the fault of the people who live there. The destruction the natural coral by creating roads, causeways, and buildings; dumping sewage, permitting bad fishing practices, is unwise. Without thriving, live coral, these islands have no coral growth to help keep them above water. Some of this damage was done to strategic coral structures in the Pacific by military actions in the war years, or the obvious atmospheric nuclear detonations (not by the people who live there), but residents and their development may be at fault in other coral locations.

    See the PDF at on several pages, for sea level anomalies, in a colored graphic format. The text says that, up to 2010, a sea level rise trend of about 3mm/year was determined mathematically from the data; see the papers cited above for discussion on how the trends have dropped. In Kiribati, at one point, the sea level dropped 250mm, which made the trend shift to negative for several months. Kiribati, Tuvalu, and other pacific coral atolls and islands do not appear to be under any threat of inundation, certainly not from any anthropogenic climate effects.

    Sea level was significantly higher in the Roman Warm Period than today. As recently as 1066, when the Normans conquered England, sea levels were quite a bit higher than today.

  • serious joe

    “t’s tough to agree that disarmament has been significantly more successful than efforts to slow climate change, but”

    Whoa, wait a minute… Efforts to slow climate change? It appears they have been very successful! Global surface temperatures have not changed in seventeen and a half years. Sea level rise, just like Obama said, “this is the moment” … looks like he was right, sea level rise is slowing way, way down. Polar bear populations are way up. Hurricanes, cyclones, tornadoes, typhoons, are reduced in both number AND intensity; streamflow gages show boring, normal water flow levels, on average (no trend towards droughts or floods). This is wonderful stuff! Shout if from the rooftops!

  • serious joe

    MAD-ness, Mutually Assured Destruction – the idea that either superpower would have enough nukes, surviving an enemy first strike, to retaliate and obliterate the offending enemy… kept us all alive throughout the fifties, sixties, and seventies, when the enemy of the United States was Russia aka the Soviet Union, and vice versa. It worked, it worked well, and it is something to be proud of. It is still working, but it isn’t as simple. For example, if New York City goes poof, the United States cannot necessarily return fire at Russia, because it might not have been Russia… even if it was a Russian-made weapon, it might have been detonated by Al Qaeda. Backing off of the trigger is a good idea, but disarmament? Sure, demobilize a few, recycle a few, refurbish a few, but not in great numbers. That only shows weakness, and will result in war.

  • serious joe

    “climate policy would start running in the right direction if the public were more engaged with the issue—that people would clamor for action to counter climate change if only they understood.” –

    More and more of us, understand… We understand that the alarmists are lying to us. “Climate Change” (as defined by the IPCC) is a total scam. We’re not talking about the sensible person who understand that climate always changes, that isn’t what the IPCC definition is all about. More and more of us understand that carbon dioxide actually is a harmless gas. The poorly-named “greenhouse effect” – sure, carbon dioxide gas, in the planet’s atmosphere, interferes with radiant heat transfer from the surface into the cold of deep space… but that effect has diminishing returns. Add a little CO2, you see an effect. Add another bit, you see less of an effect. 20 ppm, some, another 20 ppm, a little more, but by the time you get to 200 ppm, it is all petered out. More and more of us are understanding this all the time. The alarmists hate that. It makes them lie harder, scream louder. See, there are two primary points that show up in al the General Circulation Models (GCMs, the computer software that the alarmists use to predict future climate, you know, the ones that can’t predict the climate changes we’ve experienced in the last ten years, the models that didn’t predict that the global temperatures would stop rising, and stay flat for the last seventeen and a half years, those models). The GCMs predict two things of significance – First, the hot spot. The climate models show a strange blob of extra-warm air, well above the ground, around the equator. Real scientists, you know, the ones that like to make measurements in the real world… they sent up weather balloons, they consulted satellite measurements, and LO! no hot spot. Strike one. In science, one puts out a theory; one aspect of that theory that gets proven wrong, well, the theory is proven wrong. Bummer that “Global Warming” isn’t a scientists’ theory, it is a religion of the greenie. They believe in spite of being proven wrong. So, Second: If CO2 causes warming, a fixed extra addition to the atmosphere would create an imbalance, and that would start the earth warming. Even if the CO2 did not increase any more, that imbalance would persist, and continue to warm the earth at a steady rate. If the earth is warming, then so are the oceans. Warming water expands. Expanding sea water would produce a steady rise in sea level… but CO2 has not remained at some extra level, CO2 in the atmosphere has been increasing at a steady rate. That should turn up the heat at a steady rate, which means the heating should be accelerating. Well, three different measurements of global temperature show no increase, no increase at all, for seventeen and a half years now, while CO2 has been steadily rising. Warming oceans, they would be warming at an accelerating rate, and sea levels not only should rise, the rate of rise should be increasing. Ah, but the sea level’s rate of rise has been decreasing. So, world temperatures flat for seventeen and a half years, sea levels not accelerating, but decelerating… strike two. The two key components of “Global Warming”, the hot spot and the accelerating rise of sea level, both proven wrong. To real scientists, that is “game over”. “Climate Disruption”, “Climate Change”, “Global Warming” – all false, proven wrong. Proven wrong for a long time. More and more of us understand, every day. We understand that alarmists lie. We understand that alarmists have a hidden agenda, nothing to do with saving the earth from warming… We don’t understand what “the cause” actually is, but we know y’all have a cause. You’ll do anything, say anything, lie even more stridently, “for the cause” – More and more of us understand that, every day.

  • serious joe

    “In my line of work—helping people understand that climate change is going to bake them if nuclear weapons don’t fry them first—”

    Gee, I wish I got paid for helping people understand that climate change… is a lie.
    I suggest you refocus; drop the nuclear, drop the CO2, and look at the fiscal instability, the fiscal insanity, because the anarchy that will reign, after governments collapse under unimaginable debt – the anarchy will kill more of us than climate change will ever bake, even more of us than nukes will ever fry…
    It’s the economy, stupid!

  • serious joe

    “…“poisoned rational discussion” by spreading falsehoods about the United Nations’ innocuous (not to mention nonbinding) Agenda 21 global sustainability program.”

    Gee, I’ve read a lot about Agenda 21. None of them, falsehoods. I’m sure there are wild and wacky things out there on the internet, there always are. Still, Agenda 21 is the biggest, baddest thing the United Nations has ever come up with. Trying to follow Agenda 21 will just bankrupt the nations faster…but the damage it could do, in the meanwhile, is frightening.

  • serious joe

    “Apparently most Americans have not only lost interest in learning about what’s happening to our world…”

    Unfortunately, too many americans are just too busy to pay attention. Many of us, though, are gaining interest in learning about how “Global Warming” has transformed into “Climate Change” … and is attempting to hide out under “Climate Disruption”. People have noticed that everything seems to be “unprecedented” and “worse than we thought” … be it wetter or dryer, hotter or colder, longer or shorter… Jane says Joe’s ED is due to Climate Disruption… We’ve lost interest in the boy, who’s been hollering, “Wolf! Wolf!” … We’ve lost interest in Chicken Little… wait, are you too young to have heard the childrens’ bedtime stories, “The Boy Who Cried Wolf” – which teaches children not to lie… Oh, maybe that is why you’re willing to lie “for the cause” …

    “The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot,” according to a Commerce Department report published by the Washington Post.

    Writes the Post: “Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers. . . all point to a radical change in climate conditions and . . . unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone . . . Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones . . . while at many points well-known glaciers have entirely disappeared.”

    More evidence of human-caused global warming? Hardly.

    The above report of runaway Arctic warming is from a Washington Post story published Nov. 2, 1922

    Swiped from

    Glaciers disappeared, seals find the water too hot, unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic… in 1922

    “The United States and the Soviet Union are mounting large-scale investigations to determine why the Arctic climate is becoming more frigid, why parts of the Arctic sea ice have recently become ominously thicker and whether the extent of that ice cover contributes to the onset of ice ages.”

    From an article in the NY Times, “Climate Experts Assay Ice Age Clues”, January 27, 1972, Thursday Special to The New York Times Section: BUSINESS/FINANCE, Page 74, 731 words

    Arctic ice ominously thicker, Arctic climate becoming more frigid, in the seventies…

    So, in the twenties, Arctic ice was sparse, but in the seventies, Arctic ice was extra thick. The onset of mankind’s large contributions to atmospheric carbon dioxide, the theoretical cause to the supposed “Climate Disruption”, began to be noticeable in the fifties. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations show a steady rise since then. So if CO2 was rising, how did Arctic ice go from sparse in the twenties to extra thick in the seventies? That is the opposite direction of the CO2 concentrations.

    Arctic ice is following a multi-decade natural cycle. Nothing to worry about, it has happened before, it will happen again. The sky is not falling.

  • serious joe

    Back to your “hope for Kiribati” wisecrack, since you’ll never read what I wrote and quoted, here’s the “nut”:

    Austrailia’s ABC, June 2010, headline: “Pacific islands growing, not sinking”
    ABC: “Climate scientists have expressed surprise at findings that many low-lying Pacific islands are growing, not sinking.”

    “Islands in Tuvalu, Kiribati and the Federated States of Micronesia are among those which have grown, largely due to coral debris, land reclamation and sediment.”

    “The findings, published in the magazine New Scientist, were gathered by comparing changes to 27 Pacific islands over the last 20 to 60 years using historical aerial photos and satellite images.”

    “Auckland University’s Associate Professor Paul Kench, a member of the team of scientists, says the results challenge the view that Pacific islands are sinking due to rising sea levels associated with climate change.”

    Kench: “Eighty per cent of the islands we’ve looked at have either remained about the same or, in fact, gotten larger,” he said. “Some of those islands have gotten dramatically larger, by 20 or 30 per

  • certop

    it doesn’t matter what the “technocrats” think about climate change if their mandates are limited by the political decisions of governments. it’s not “the public” that’s keeping them out of the process.

    • serious joe

      The path for the success of technocrats is for votes to affect the make-up of governments. Communication is necessary; each side seeks to convince the uncommitted, towards voting in favor of their side. Alarmists seem to have great communications support in the general media; sceptic, deniers, are censored:

      Ross Gelbsan, former journalist: “Not only do journalists not have a responsibility to report what skeptical scientists have to say about global warming. They have a responsibility not to report what these [skeptical] scientists say.”

      Thus, I am attempting to reason, with those who will be reasonable. I seek to convince others of the fallacy of “Global Warming”

      • certop

        the “general media” treats climate change as a “debate”–a debate not over what’s to be done, but over whether the phenomenon is happening at all. john oliver had a wonderfully funny sketch about this recently:

        • serous joe

          He’s a great comedian. Hopefully, he’s not your source for news and facts.

          Let’s take a shot at “the consensus”, which was kinda the centerpiece of his pitch. 0.343% or 41 out of 11,944 papers – not much of a consensus!

          A 15 May 2013 paper by Cook, and his pals, ( claimed a 97.1% scientific consensus that mankind had caused at least half the 0.7 Cº global warming since 1950. Cook and his volunteers read abstracts of papers relating to global warming, and graded them into seven endorsement levels. Note that they didn’t read the actual papers, just the abstracts. 0.343% or 41 out of the 11,944 papers explicitly endorsed the “Global Warming” viewpoint.

          According to a paper by the climatologist, Dr David Legates, and his colleagues, published in Science and Education, only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate papers that Cook examined, explicitly stated that mankind caused most of the warming since 1950. Cook himself had flagged just 64 papers, as explicitly supporting that consensus, but 23 of the 64 had not, in fact, supported it.

          Dr William Briggs: “[Cook] arbitrarily excluded about 8,000 of the 12,000 papers in his sample on the unacceptable ground that they had expressed no opinion on the climate consensus. These artifices let him reach the unjustifiable conclusion that there was a 97.1% consensus when there was not. In fact, Cook’s paper provides the clearest available statistical evidence that there is scarcely any explicit support among scientists for the consensus that the IPCC, politicians, bureaucrats, academics and the media have so long and so falsely proclaimed. That was not the outcome Cook had hoped for, and it was not the outcome he had stated in his paper, but it was the outcome he had really found.”

          Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, an expert reviewer for the IPCC’s imminent Fifth Assessment Report, who found the errors in Cook’s data, said: “It may be that more than 0.3% of climate scientists think Man caused at least half the warming since 1950. But only 0.3% of almost 12,000 published papers say so explicitly. Cook had not considered how many papers merely implied that. No doubt many scientists consider it possible, as we do, that Man caused some warming, but not most warming.

          Dr Legates said: “It is astonishing that any journal could have published a paper claiming a 97% climate consensus when on the authors’ own analysis the true consensus was well below 1%.”

          Dr Legates: “It is still more astonishing that the IPCC should claim 95% certainty about the climate consensus when so small a fraction of published papers explicitly endorse the consensus as the IPCC defines it.”

          More detail, swiped from:

          CategoryNo. of Papers
          1 65
          2 934
          3 2934
          4 8269
          5 53
          6 15
          7 10
          Total 12280

          Take out Category 4, the “Don’t Knows”, and you get 4011 papers, of which 3933 are in the first 3 categories. And 3933 is 98% of the 4011 papers that have expressed some position on global warming. (These figures are slightly higher than Cook’s abstract gives, possibly due to the inclusion of non peer reviewed ones).

          In other words, Cook assumes that all the papers in Category 1-3 “agree that humans are causing global warming”, as his abstract states.

          a tweet from (not quite) Barack Obama that said:

          Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous. Read more: http://OFA.BO/gJsdFp

          As Cook et al’s study said absolutely nothing about whether or not climate change is dangerous. Barry Woods followed up on this point at Skeptical Science in a few comments.

          In 2008, Margaret Zimmerman conducted a computerized survey that asked two questions of 10,257 Earth Scientists at academic and government institutions. 3,146 of them responded. That survey was the original basis for the famous “97% consensus” claim. Of 3,146 who responded, 75 answered in the affirmative, to both questions. Cherry picking reformatted those three thousand to just 79, and 96.2% (76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1 and 97.4%(75 of 77) answered “Yes” to question 2. Thus, seventy some out of three thousand is the basis for your belief? On the other side, 31,487 American scientists have put their names to a petition against this foolishness, including 9,029 with PhDs. All the above is but an “appeal to authority”.

          This was the full set of questions that Zimmerman asked in their survey:

          Q1. When compared with pre-1800’s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?

          1. Risen

          2. Fallen

          3. Remained relatively constant

          4. No opinion/Don’t know

          Q2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures? [This question wasn’t asked if they answered “remained relatively constant” to Q1]

          1. Yes

          2. No

          3. I’m not sure

          Q3. What do you consider to be the most compelling argument that supports your previous answer (or, for those who were unsure, why were they unsure)? [This question wasn’t asked if they answered “remained relatively constant” to Q1]

          Q4. Please estimate the percentage of your fellow geoscientists who think human activity is a contributing factor to global climate change.

          Q5. Which percentage of your papers published in peer-reviewed journals in the last 5 years have been on the subject of climate change?

          Q6. Age

          Q7. Gender

          Q8. What is the highest level of education you have attained?

          Q9. Which category best describes your area of expertise?

          If a respondent answered “remained relatively constant” to the first question, then he wasn’t asked the second question!

          That’s obviously why only 77 answers were reported to the second question. Two of their 79 top climate specialists had answered “remained relatively constant” to the first question, and those two were not asked the second question, and were not included in the calculation of the supposed 97.4% agreement.

          That means only 75 of 79 (94.9%) of their “most specialized and knowledgeable respondents” actually gave them the answers they wanted to both of their questions.

          So, despite asking “dumb questions” that even most skeptics would answer “correctly,” and despite excluding over 97% of the responses after they were received, they still did not find 97% agreement. They actually found only 94.9% agreement.

          • serious joe

            It isn’t fair to say this is an argument between scientists, though. Most of the scientists, on one side, refuse to read papers written by scientists on the other side. These refuseniks say, ‘the science is settled’ and won’t talk about it.

            Science is about putting up a theory, and having other scientists try to shoot it down. That means sharing your data and your methods, so that your skeptics can see where you went wrong (if you went wrong). Only a theory that survives, gets to move on. Regarless of how may skeptics fail to shoot it down, one correct shot ends the theory. Climate ‘scientists’ (perhaps not all, but some famous ones, like Mann) fight like hell to keep their data secret. Some university in Australia has filed a lawsuit to stop a skeptic from using the other guys data (the data was obtained off of a server, legally). The University of East Anglia was hacked, and emails that Global Warming advocates had written, were released, revealing the attitude of the advocates – saying they’d rather destroy their data than release it; they discussed methods of thwarting Freedom of Information laws, etc. That crap isn’t science. Those assholes are not scientists. They, long ago, surrendered their credibility by siding with liars.

          • serious joe

            Universal Expansion

            Cosmologists have learned that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate rather than slowing down

            Cosmologists did not take to the headlines and scream, “we’re all going to be torn apart by gravitational forces! The expanding universe will rip the earth asunder! Hurry, send us more grant money, while we study this awful, terrible Universal Expansion”

            Cosmologists did not turn into activists.

            Note, however, that cosmologists reviewed the data, and ascertained that they were wrong, abandoned the old theory, proposed a new theory, and went on with cosmology.

            Cosmologists did not “bet the farm” that the universe was slowing down.

            These Global Warming activists have caused billions of dollars to be spent, governments to pass laws, and other effects.

            Global Warming activists (some, formerly scientists) refuse to review the data, refuse to discuss or argue, and simply raise the volume on their shrill claims, and shorten the time-span, regarding how many years or days we all have left before we go past “the tipping point”… Cosmologists did not inculcate our youth, regarding the terrible Universal Expansion. Cosmologists did not blame the consumption of energy for Universal Expansion… but they could have. It appears that those cosmologists still scientists.

  • Eric Erickson

    That’s an awesome idea. I love fascist coercion just as much as you do. Let’s trick those ignorant Americans that expect to see the scientific method practiced rather than just rely upon the ‘consensus’ of scientists- I mean only scientists that agree with you- of course. I can only imagine how much better life would be if we could find some super-wise all knowing technocrats and let them run the world without pesky dissenters getting involved or having to expecting them to actually prove their claims or be held accountable for their results. Truly brilliant ideas here.

    • serious joe

      Your sarcasm is so thick, I can’t make out what you really mean. Other than some snarky stuff, do you have anything to actually contribute to the discussion? Perhaps you’re just a drive-by-fruiter. Throw in a few rotten tomatoes, and drive off.