Protesting at Justice’s Homes Should be a Subject of Condemnation, not Prosecution

Below is my column in the Hill on the call for the use of a federal law to arrest protesters outside of the homes of justices. The crushing irony is that many of these critics have spent years calling for the denial or curtailment of the free speech of others. Yet, these justices being targeted in their homes would likely narrowly construe or bar the use of this law.

Here is the column:

The leaking of a Supreme Court justice’s draft opinion on abortion rights, followed by the “doxing” and targeting of individual justices at their homes, has led to calls for prosecution under a federal law prohibiting “pickets and parades” at the residences of judges or jurors. While I have condemned these protests, I believe the use of this law to arrest protesters would be a serious blow to free speech and would be difficult to defend in the courts.

Ironically, those who are harassing these justices likely would be protected by the very people they are targeting.

Under a federal law, 18 U.S.C. 1507, any individual who “pickets or parades” with the “intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer” near a U.S. court or “near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer” will be fined or “imprisoned not more than one year, or both.”

On the key element of location, there is no question that protesters are picketing and parading near the residences of justices. (In one case, though, a protester in prior months thought she was targeting Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s home but picketed the wrong house; neighbors never told her of her mistake.)

Even after some groups supplied maps and addresses for the justices’ homes, President Biden could not muster the courage to denounce such acts. Days after insisting that the White House took no position on either the leaking of the draft opinion or the doxing of justices, White House press secretary Jen Psaki issued a tepid statement criticizing harassment, vandalism or violence directed at the justices.

Attorney General Merrick Garland also has failed in his leadership of the Justice Department. While Garland was quick to form a national task force to address parents protesting at school board meetings, he has had little to say about the targeting of  justices.

Yet, demands that Garland arrest all of the protesters is a case of the pendulum swinging too far in the opposite direction. Such prosecutions could create a massive chilling effect on free speech, even if any convictions are unlikely to be upheld. After all, protests are common at the court itself, which is covered under the same federal provision; if it is unlawful to seek to influence a pending decision through picketing “near a U.S. court,” such protests could be viewed as crimes under this interpretation.

Obviously, picketing a justice at home is more direct and threatening, even with security standing outside. Yet, the focus of our laws should not be on the act of protesting but on actual threats or violence committed against justices or their families.

The claim that such protests are acts of intimidation has been before the courts since the 19th century. In Vegelahn v. Guntner, 167 Mass. 92 (1896), for example, the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that a labor union could be found guilty of an intentional tort by picketing a business. Oliver Wendell Holmes, then a state court justice who later famously joined the U.S. Supreme Court, dissented and rejected the notion that protests “necessarily and always thereby convey a threat of force.”

Even under the vague intent element under the statute, protests are criminal only if they are done with the “intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer.” Certainly, today’s protesters are upset about Justice Samuel Alito’s draft opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, and they want to see Roe v. Wade preserved. However, few seriously believe that protesting at justices’ homes will make them more inclined to yield to mob demands. This is unadulterated rage by people who no longer recognize any limits of decency or civility in our political discourse.

If charged, the protesters likely would insist they were denouncing the justices’ views, not trying to coerce a change in those views. Many wanted to vent their rage directly at justices or use the home protests as a way to make the evening news.

Of course, the Constitution often supports those who would deny such protections to others. Many Democrats and liberal organizations have long advocated for sweeping investigations, criminalization or sanctioning of free speech as well as both state and corporate censorship. At the reported encouragement of Biden administration officials, the National School Boards Association sent a letter calling for a Justice Department task force on threats by parents at school board meetings, despite the small number of such incidents. This included the suggested use of national security offices, which also were referenced in the Justice Department’s press release.

Likewise, many Democrats have sought to bar Republican candidates from election ballots for questioning the legitimacy of the 2020 presidential election or calling for a challenge to the certification of that election. Many of them are still demanding criminal charges against figures like former President Donald Trump for “inciting an insurrection” with his speech on Jan. 6, 2020. And some are using the same kind of overheated language as Trump, such as Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot’s tweet: “To my friends in the LGBTQ+ community — the Supreme Court is coming for us next. This moment has to be a call to arms … We will not surrender our rights without a fight — a fight to victory!”

Many Democrats also supported sweeping bans on protests near abortion clinics, like a law in Massachusetts that was struck down unanimously in McCullen v. Coakley in 2014. In a concurrence joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas, then-Justice Antonin Scalia declared that “Protecting people from speech they do not want to hear is not a function that the First Amendment allows the government to undertake in the public streets and sidewalks.”

The same is true for the public streets and sidewalks near the homes of justices.

These protests are worthy of condemnation, not criminalization. Just because something is legal does not make it right. Fortunately, for these protesters, the people inside the homes they are targeting will likely protect them from prosecution — because the court will likely follow the lead of Oscar Wilde who said, “I may not agree with you, but I will defend to the death your right to make an ass of yourself.”

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. Follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

554 thoughts on “Protesting at Justice’s Homes Should be a Subject of Condemnation, not Prosecution”

  1. John, somewhere Benson said you had many egregious errors. Elsewhere, I brought up the possibility that you made a mistake in physics, mathematics, or logic.

    There was some difficulty reading the discussion in the emails as sometimes they did not come in in sequence. I took a bit of time to review one huge page of this discussion. No, I did not see any errors made by you in physics, mathematics or logic. Of course I have my own limitations.

    On the other hand, the errors made by Benson were numerous and glaring.

    I only write this clarification because Benson has been name calling and stating that you are ignorant. Inadvertently, my comment might had added to that feeling, so I wanted to clear it up. Your mathematics, physics and logic were all in order.

    1. S. Meyer, you are flat out wrong. Most egregious, John B Say fails to understand the absolutely fundamental
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_function
      Therefore he does not understand Stefan’s Law. So he fails to understand how to apply it.
      He doesn’t even recognize “e” as the name for the constant which is the base of the natural logarithm:
      https://blogs.unimelb.edu.au/sciencecommunication/2016/09/04/why-natural-constant-e-is-called-natural/

      He confused the quadratic formula with the logarithm function, since he doesn’t understand why, in this setting, the logarithm function exemplifies the underlying atmospheric physics.

      Next, he fails to understand the role of statistics in establishing empirical laws. I doubt he has any understanding of this important subject.

      Etc, ad nauseam

      Perhaps once he knew this and has suffered a stroke which has disabled part of his brain. I knew two men who had stokes without recognizing that their behavior was modified. In both those cases they then kcaused automobile accidents.

      1. David, I don’t see it your way and don’t see the glaring errors in John’s explanations. You did not prove your case. Instead, you referred to your presumed experts without providing a quote along with your explanation. You also didn’t prove John wrong using either physics or mathematics.

        I don’t see John being confused, but maybe you are or maybe I missed something, You are dealing with “climatologists” of many stripes. They have created their own formulas and rules, but, in the end, their formulas and rules have to comply with known physical principles. You didn’t show that and without doing so you can’t prove your case.

        You are the one with the theory. Theories need to account for all problems, not just some, to be accepted principles. If you have the requisite knowledge of physics, prove your case.

        1. S. Meyer, John B Say is wrong on high school algebra and pre-calculus mathematics. It doesn’t even rise to the requisite atmospheric physics. To repeat, he does not understand the exponential function nor natural logarithms. These are basic, used, for example, to calculate the interest owed on your house payment.

          John B Say introduced the quadratic function and then claimed that I had been the one to do so. The quadratic function has no role in atmospheric physics nor any other part of climatology.

          The “formulas and rules” are those of the 19th century physicists Tyndall and Arrhenius for the role of carbon dioxide, CO2, in the atmosphere. I’ve provided, indirectly, links to the fundamental papers by both via
          https://bravenewclimate.proboards.com/thread/748/climatology-background
          Arrhenius’ paper makes use of the Stefan law
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan–Boltzmann_law
          which you will note is a fourth power law, not a second power as in the quadratic equation for a parabola that John B Say introduced into the discussion.

          Now more heat-trapping gases such as CO2 lead to more surface warming. At this point all one can do is measure the relevant constant, called the climate sensitivity, because there are too many sources and sinks of energy. So climatologists use measurements of the atmospheric concentration of CO2 and the surface temperature since 1880 CE to determine the climate sensitivity. See the paper by Tamino linked at the BNC page given supra.

          Everything follows known physical principles but we use the derived logarithm approximation for climate sensitivity to avoid the overly great complexities of exact atmospheric physics. Only the large computer programs, so-called GCMs, do that. I have avoided all aspects for what goes into a modern GCM, since the simplification is good enough to determine the climate sensitivity.

          And of course, climatology isn’t a finished science. There is plenty more to study, especially about the climate of the past.

          1. “S. Meyer, John B Say is wrong on high school algebra and pre-calculus mathematics.”

            You must be joking! I read both sets of comments and John knows his stuff.

            You haven’t proven anything, while providing the same stuff repeatedly. Try again. Pick one specific area of disagreement and go deep. Skip all references without quotes and personal explanations. Leave out the ad hominems. Prove your case.

            1. The above was from S, Meyer.

              “climatology isn’t a finished science.”

              It certainly isn’t and climatologists have destroyed themselves by being unwilling to permit others to criticize their work along with permitting politics to enter the field.

              1. S. Meyer, “others” have certainly attempted to criticize the work of climatologists. The approved method is via peer-reviewed contributions to the literature. There have been plenty of others whose blatherings to the press have been shown to be irrelevant, illogical and not in accordance with the data.

                “Politics” does not enter climatology. Some climatologists prepare lengthy reports via the IPCC which are then available to those interested in responses to the ever warming climate. Other climatologists have directly made statements to Congress. None of that is part of the climatological literature, which consists of peer-reviewed papers in journals.

                In my opinion, policy makers everywhere ignore the estimates provided by the climatologists willing to speak up at our joint peril.

                “Don’t Look Up”

                1. David, I am very familiar with peer review, and so are many others on this blog. In recent years peer review is failing in many disciplines. It was just mentioned on the blog that one of the physicians no longer trusts the NEJM.

                  Assuming the studies are adequately reviewed, the advisories are not, nor are the advisories that inform the public. You should know all of this. In fact some have suggested that the advisories based on highly technical material need to have a red team to intentionally argue against the advisory in order to make sure the advisory covers all the bases. That those in charge refuse to permit such debate demonstrate the politicalization of climatology.

                  I don’t think you know how these things works.

                  You were insulated all your life in the university environment. That leaves a giant gap. You ought to read Sowell’s Intellectuals and Society.

                  1. S. Meyer, indeed I know about the situation regarding IPCC. The first, so-called executive section, is written with the concurrence of panelists from government policy agencies. Some claim that this is inhibiting the full scope of the revelations of increasing problems for society.

                    My own experience is entirely with regard to the electrical power industry, regulated by a board appointed by governors or time. They are supposed to represent the consumers interest. The power companies don’t want what is called sunk capital, i.e., capital expenditures which fail to pay their obligations due to early closure. Thus it is difficult to turn off coal burners as early as one would hope for and it seems impossible to eliminate some hydro dams which should never have been built.

                    1. “S. Meyer, indeed I know about the situation regarding IPCC. “

                      Good. Then you know that the advisory statements have become political.

            2. S. Meyer, I already did. John B Say clearly did not understand that the “e” in e^x is a constant, the base of the natural logarithms, and that x is the variable of the exponential function written e^x.
              He thought it was just an alternate notation for a power, x^n, where again x is the variable and n is a constant. His favorite, having nothing to do with atmospheric physics, is x^2, x squared.

              I don’t think that I need to go on, given that his misunderstandings are so elementary. The exponential function,

              exp(x) = e^x

              is fundamental to mathematics and hence to physics.

              1. I can’t answer what is in John’s mind however, different disciplines can use alternate conventions because of conflicts that cause confusion. For example, what does SLR mean? You will say Sea Level Rise, while a photographer might call it Single Lens Reflex.

                Now, I realize you might be talking about still something else, but what was in his mind can only be answered by him. What is in your mind is clear. If one can’t win the argument with the facts, try showing your opponent to be ignorant. Where John is concerned, that isn’t a smart move because he is knowledgeable. That puts the focus on you.

                1. S. Meyer, there is no alternate notation for the exponential function. The notation is standard everywhere in the world.

                  John B Say only gives a veneer, a pretense, of being “knowledgeable”. He actually only is entirely superficial. As I have stated, II suspect a brain stroke.

                  1. David, if you are talking about character usage, you are wrong.

                    You are wrong too about John having a stroke. Your observations, a figment of your imagination, do not meet the criteria of a stroke patient.

  2. If actions speak louder than words, then it could be argued that guy who fired the shot heard around the world was just expressing how he felt about the Redcoats.

  3. Why not amend the constitution so that your right to be left alone outweighs someone’s “right” to intimidate you, which can often be accompanied by that which looks like free expression, but really just augments and boosts the harrassment.

  4. OT: Jeff Bezos asks disinformation board to fact check Biden tweet

    Amazon boss Jeff Bezos said the nation’s newly formed Disinformation Governance Board should take a look at the White House after a tweet from President Biden which attempted to link skyrocketing inflation with the country’s corporate tax rate.

    “The newly created Disinformation Board should review this tweet, or maybe they need to form a new Non Sequitur Board instead,” Bezos scoffed in tweet late Friday night. “Raising corp taxes is fine to discuss. Taming inflation is critical to discuss. Mushing them together is just misdirection.”

  5. Svelaz, I am just ensuring you had access to this earlier reply. When I use that reply to show how you run away after acting dopey, I want to avoid your excuse that you never saw the response. Enjoy.

    “Why don’t you post the original claim”

    Svelaz, what do you think was said? Tell us, and I will send the first post.

    The author of an article you linked to thought Howard Zinn wrote an excellent textbook on American history. If he is an excellent textbook writer, he would be an accurate textbook writer, which he is not. That was my point throughout.

  6. It seems John Say was right.

    “Sheriff of Arizona county featured in ‘2000 Mules’ announces 2020 general election investigations

    Alleged Yuma County ballot harvesting “mule” interviewed in the documentary is cooperating with authorities, says the film’s director, Dinesh D’Souza…

    Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich has already indicted a half dozen people on illegal ballot harvesting charges. In December 2020, Brnovich’s office announced the indictments of two ballot harvesters from Yuma County.”

    1. Anonymous,

      “ Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich has already indicted a half dozen people on illegal ballot harvesting charges. In December 2020, Brnovich’s office announced the indictments of two ballot harvesters from Yuma County.”

      Two is not half a dozen.

      There have only been two indictments and both allegedly put four ballots. That’s hardly a major fraud issue.

      Where is the link stating the Arizona AG indicting half a dozen people?

      John B Say was also skeptical of the “mule” interviewed because the story was not credible.

      1. Please do not put words into my mouth.

        There is a difference between beleiving the remark of person interviewed were self serving and likely lies with respect to their own personal culpability, and thag they are completely lies.
        The Whistle blower is a criminal, and their testimony is self serving. But the self serving testimony of criminals is the evidence in nearly every trial.

        The person interviewed claimed that they lost a lifelong freind over being asked to deliver another person’s ballot, and then claimed she worked giving bundles of ballots to others to deliver.
        Anything is possible – that is not morally consistent, and not credible.

        That said the “witness” merely confirms the geotracking and video evidence. Her remarks do not in anyway undermine other evidence.

        The TTV investigation PROVES beyond any doubt that 2020 was NOT a secure election. That means every single person who claimed that 2020 was secure is untrustworthy.
        That also means the COURTS failed, when they FAILED to conduct meaningful inquiry.

        There are many many things that TTV PROVES – to a high degree of certainty but NOT beyond doubt.

        TTV PROVES it is highly likely Trump won. They do NOT prove it is CERTAIN that Trump won.

        TTV PROVES it is CERTAIN there was fraud, and NEAR CERTAIN there was massive coordinated fraud.

        All the “fact checks” on TTV have small merit. It is near certain in the hundreds of thousands of instances of likely ballot harvesting Fraud that TTV identified that some SMALL percentage of those are not fraud.
        But the odds that more that a SMALL percent are not fraud is very near zero.

        The evidence supporting many “laws” of physics is weaker than TTV’s evidence of election fraud.

        1. “ There is a difference between beleiving the remark of person interviewed were self serving and likely lies with respect to their own personal culpability, and thag they are completely lies.
          The Whistle blower is a criminal, and their testimony is self serving. But the self serving testimony of criminals is the evidence in nearly every trial.”

          John, that’s just a long winded way of saying you’re skeptical. It’s that obvious.

          “ That said the “witness” merely confirms the geotracking and video evidence. Her remarks do not in anyway undermine other evidence.”

          Her remarks do undermine the other evidence. It points to the ignorance of the argument by not noting the specific reasons why geotracking and video don’t really provide any proof of the claims. It’s pure speculation hence the poor credibility which you confirm by your skeptical statements.

          “ TTV PROVES it is CERTAIN there was fraud, and NEAR CERTAIN there was massive coordinated fraud.”

          You are still basing your claims of “massive coordinated fraud” that a lack of evidence is evidence.

          Nobody, nobody except republicans or Trump supporters are claiming others are saying there has been zero fraud.

          Every election has its inconsistencies or rare cases of fraud. The majority of fraud cases turn out to be simple mistakes with no intention of willfully committing fraud.

          “ All the “fact checks” on TTV have small merit. It is near certain in the hundreds of thousands of instances of likely ballot harvesting Fraud that TTV identified that some SMALL percentage of those are not fraud.”

          Again, here you are just grasping for anything to substantiate your speculations that are dependent on the notion that the absence of evidence is evidence of more. You WANT it to be that way because it justifies your need for it to be despite the lack of evidence. This is how conspiracy theories rot your brain. You end up finding one little clue after another feeding the need for proof that your rabbit hole of reason is valid. It’s not.

          When the evidence keeps showing you are wrong. You keep looking for excuses to validate, even using the absence of proof or evidence as proof. It’s a nasty form of circular logic that won’t let you accept reality.

      2. The data TTV purchased was anonymized.

        I doubt TTV was provided with the actual IMEI’s of the phones they tracked.

        This is one of the reasons that the rest of this investigation must conducted by law enforcement.

        I would greatly prefer that law enforcement only us TTV gather data as the justification to investigate.

        Law enforcement should subpeona the same data from Google, and Cell companies, it should get the actual IMEI’s it should do its own data collection and analysis, and it should interview the Harvestors that this ideintifies and then slowly roll up the entire criminal conspiracy.

        This will take a great deal of time. It is likely that charges filed now, are based on those instances where it was possible to clearly identify people in the surveilance video.

        TTV has proven that there were far more than 2000 illegal ballot harvestors in 2020.

        They have NOT proven that John Doe was a ballot harvestor.

        Just as video of the inuagural tells us that thousands attended, but does not tell us the names of those who attended. That takes more work.

        Cui Bono tells us that it is almost certain that Biden benefited from proven fraud.

        But getting from almost certain to a criminal conviction sometimes requires more.

        Regardless, TTV has provided far more than enough evidence that there is no doubt that everyone – including the courts claiming that claims of election fraud were wron and successfully proven false is WRONG and likely lying.

        It is likely Trump is right the election was stolen. it is CERTAIN that it was fraud ridden. It is CERTIAN that the courts FAILED. It is CERTAIN that J6 protestors had legitimate greivance.

        1. John, do you not see the absurdity of your argument?

          “ TTV has proven that there were far more than 2000 illegal ballot harvestors in 2020.

          They have NOT proven that John Doe was a ballot harvestor.”

          How can TTV claim they are illegal ballot harvesters when the data they got doesn’t say anything about the actions or who were these “pings”?

          None of the data reveals how many ballots they had or even if they were ballots harvesters, no party affiliation either or if they even dropped off a bunch of ballots. But you’re saying that the data proves there were hundreds of thousands of illegal ballot harvesters.

          “ Regardless, TTV has provided far more than enough evidence that there is no doubt that everyone – including the courts claiming that claims of election fraud were wron and successfully proven false is WRONG and likely lying.”

          No it hasn’t. Even YOU doubt some aspects of TTV’s claims. As it is the flawed theme in your arguments, absence of evidence is evidence. No Court of law will accept that. Not even a conservative one because that’s not how the law works.

          “ Cui Bono tells us that it is almost certain that Biden benefited from proven fraud.

          But getting from almost certain to a criminal conviction sometimes requires more.”

          An assumption based on lack of evidence is not a certainty. It’s just biased speculation or more simply BS.

          You’re certain about a lot of things without any substantive proof. Your only “proof” is a lack of proof. Your arguments are pretty weak in the evidence department.

          By the way. Your suggestion that law enforcement subpoena the data providers to investigate won’t fly. A crime must have been committed or proof that one occurred before they can invade the privacy of those who were near the ballot boxes because you have no idea if they were really “ballot harvesters”. You’re suggesting a witch-hunt type of investigation not a forensic one.

          1. Svelaz,

            You are the one who is clueless.

            TTV provides 3 independent proofs of ballot harvesting.

            The goetracking data is one.
            Despite your cluelessness ordinary people grasp that 16t data points tracking several thousand different cell phones, that show patterns of movement ONLY immediately before the election – they excluded all cell phones that were near the ballot box locations or the 501C3 in the weeks prior to the start of the election – so anyone who in the course of their ordinary lives went to any of these locations in the weeks prior to the start of the election were excluded.

            Next, they culled the data for phones that went to 5 501C3s AND 20 Ballot boxes – but ONLY during the election.
            Then they pulled all the tracking data for only those cellphones so that they would could plot the travel of the people with those cell phones.
            What they find was those cellphones went back and forth between 501C3’s and Ballot boxes each night during the election.

            The odds of a false negative – i.e. that the missed a ballot harvestor are very high – if they reduce the number of 501C3’s each had to visit to be including in the fraud data set, or the number of ballot box visits. the number of harvestors jumped from 2000 to 8000 and the likely number of fraudulent ballots from 380K to well over 800K

            The odds of a false possitive – i.e. that they selected a cell phone that accidentally traveled in a patter matching that of a ballot harvestor is almost zero for the 2000 harvestors data set and slightly higher for the 8000 harvestors data set.

            Right now Ukraine is using similar processes to KILL russian generals and armor. They track signals, look for movement patters and KILL those that fit patterns of Tanks, APV’s, or ranking military leaders.

            During WWII Bletley park used similar data to identify German military units and their movements – either to kill them or to predict their actions.

            Much is made of the enigma code cracking at Bletchley park – but for most of the war Bletchley was unable to read enigma messages and had to rely on locating signals and looking for patterns. The Sub war in the atlantic was not won mostly because the allies could read Uboat messages – but because they could triangulate signals look for patterns of movement and anticipate where they were going, and have convoys avoid them while destroyers lay in wait.

            This is called signals analysis or traffic analysis and it is done all the time.

            It is done during war to KILL the enemy. It is done by the police all the time today.

            I would note that during WWII the positioning error was enormous – often miles.

            The TTV cell phone data is within 3 ft.

            If you traveling to within 3ft of several 501C3’s then traveling to within 3ft of 20+ ballot boxes spread accross a region – you are beyond a reasonable doubt engaged in ballot harvesting.

            A finger print match is only 10 points (sometimes as low as 6), This is a similar pattern match with a 25 pt match.

            But lets say there is a 1 in 20 error rate – i.e. 1 false positive for each 20 real positives. That is still 1900 mules.

            If you do not think this evidence ALONE constitutes proof – you have no understanding of probability and statistics.

            But the Geotracking data is only PART of the data.

            TTV collects 4million minutes of official ballot box surveilance data using FOIA requests and in many instances was able to use time date and location data to find the video of a specific “Mule” from the geo tracking data – when they have been able to do this that PROVES that a specific geotracked mule was visiting ballot boxes and depositing 5 or more ballots in each one.

            Yor are seeing some arrests prosecutions guilty pleas.

            These are people they caught on video AND were able to identify from the video – my guess is by reading the license number of their car.

            TTV is not law enforcement and the Goetracking data they are provided uniquely identifies a specific cell phone but they are not given the IMEI and therefor they can bit match that cell phone to a person – except by video.

            Law enforcement can request the data with IMEI’s and that means they can find the actual individual mules and prosecute them.

            So long as law enforcement wants to do so – these people can be identified and prosecuted.

          2. Let me try this a different way you might understand.

            The data that puprotedly proves CAGW is many orders of magnitude less reliable than this

            1. john Say, Global warming is a consequence of physical laws which were understood in the 19th century. There is more than enough data as a proper understanding of statistics would make clear to you. But no, your mind is made up and you don’t want to be confused by the facts.

              What a fool…

              1. “Global warming is a consequence of physical laws which were understood in the 19th century.”
                Is it correct that there is a scientific basis to the claim that additional GHG’s will increase global temperatures – all other variables controlled for – absolutely. There are several different laws of science – Arhenius, Plank, SB …. that confirm this.

                But there is no LAWS OF science that tells us the amount of warming that will result from some specific increase in C02.

                That constant for earth has been determined by scientists through computer models, and those models have been statistically falsified for well over a decade.

                “There is more than enough data as a proper understanding of statistics would make clear to you.”
                It is in fact the STATISTICS that prove you are wrong and anti-science.

                We have had myriads of warmist predications – since Hanson turned off the AC and shut the windows while testifying in congress about CAGW. NONE have come true. Ignoring those of wingnuts like Gore or Gretchen – those of SCIENTISTS have not come true.
                The CMP5 model average is now 2.5 std dev above actual tremperatures. Even the coldest model is warmer than the actual planet.
                Warmists have been constantly trying to hide this by shifting the starting point forward in time – a failed model will always look better the shorter the forward projection is.

                In REAL science – that would be called Falsification and scientists would go back and recalculate TCR and ECS – but they have not.

                ” But no, your mind is made up and you don’t want to be confused by the facts.”

                The current satelite Temp anomally – the difference between the current global temperature and the average since 1979 is +0.26C
                There has been no average warming since 1998

                All of these are FACTS – and they falsify CAGW.

                Personally I find global warming to be an IYI test – Intellectual Yet Idiot.

                I have found the global warming priesthood so idiotic that I have not even bothered to read AR6.
                But the predictions in AR4 and AR4 were FAR from Catastrophic. And we have undershot every one of them.

                Even the claim that the earth will warm slightly between now and 2100 – which seems likely based on the past 50-250 year trends – still presumes an unbelievable number of things we just do not know.

                This is just a very small subset of the problems with CAGW.

                But one of the biggest problems with it – one of the reasons it is NOT SCIENCE, is as Einstein once said – all it would take to destroy his entire lifes work would be for a single prediction of his to be falsified.

                CAGW has MULTIPLE serious flaws – only one of which is that nothing it predicts has been correct.

                CAGW ultimately is not science – it is politics. Any scientist that makes a value judgement based on science – is engaged in politics.

                Climate Scientists are both Wrong in their predictions about global temperatures, they are also outside their domain the moment they pretend to tell us what to do.

                There is no correct number of species on earth. There is no correct sea level, there is no correct number of polar bears, there is no correct temperature. Science does not tell us what is right or wrong. it does not tell us how things SHOULD be, Good science can sometimes tell us what will happen based on some changes – but it can not tell us whether that is good.

                Whether the earth warms or cools there will be alot of effects that we can judge for ourselves as positive or negative – but Science can not.

                We know as an example that humans tolerate heat better than cold – lower global temperatures one degree and you will get 3 times as many deaths from cold as you will if you raise the temperature 1 degree.

                Finally – there have been “scientific” predictions of imminet disaster since …. Malthus. Not a single one EVER has been true.
                There has been no peak oil. not peak food production, no mass starvation, the earth’s population will peak at 3 times what it was when Prof. Ehrilich wrote the population bomb. 3 times the level at which he predicted hundreds of billions of deaths by starvation. We have a population of nearly 8B people, the food intake of the average human is DOUBLE what is was in 1965, The amount of farmed land is less than half what it was in 1965. We are feeding twice as many people on half as much land twice as well – starvation today is entirely political.
                But for politics every country on earth is capable of feeding its own people from its own production.

                The crisis that is nearly on is is too few people – not to many – something Ehrlich never would have predicted. Throughout the world – most populations are in decline 0r very near it. And in many the impact is disasterous.

                Real Science is amazing. But politicized science – which has grown throughout my lifetime is disasterous.

                I would suggest something to you that I beleive it was Lloyd Bentson said when Clinton was trying to pass national healthcare.

                One of the things about things that can not go on forever ? They don’t.

                If Global warming is an actual problem – we will handle it – with ease if we do absolutely nothing now, when it is actually a problem.
                But if it is not (or even if it is) we actually screw ourselves by doing something now.

                Warmists and idiots – I repeat myself. Believe we are at a tipping point. If life was so fragile that such tipping points existed – life would not exist. Tipping points – or what warmists call postive feedbacks – have a different name in chemistry and physics – explosions. If the planet had numerous positive feedbacks – life would not exist. When science posits something that has never existed – we should be extremely dubious.

                The constant of the universe is change, the constant of the planet is change, the constant of the climate is change.
                It is near certain the earth will be warmer int he future than today. It is near certain it will be colder than it is today. Anyone who claims they can predict 50 years in advance which of those will be true is a charlatan and a liar. What can be predicted with ease is that 50 years from now people will be more prosperous, healthier, better off than now – regardless of climate.

                1. John B Say —. You are full of it.

                  Take a dump and then learn climatology. Although I suppose that “Principles of Planetary Climate” by Ray Pierrehumbert is much too difficult for you. That is an upper division or graduate school beginning text.

                    1. Dr. Judith A. Curry, American climatologist and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. She has published over a hundred scientific papers and co-edited several major works.

                      “Let me start with a quick summary of what is referred to as the ‘climate crisis:’

                      “It’s warming. The warming is caused by us. Warming is dangerous. We need to urgently transition to renewable energy to stop the warming. Once we do that, sea level rise will stop, and the weather won’t be so extreme.

                      “So, what’s wrong with this narrative? In a nutshell, we’ve vastly oversimplified both the problem and its solutions. The complexity, uncertainty and ambiguity of the existing knowledge about climate change is being kept away from the policy and public debate. The solutions that have been proposed are technologically and politically infeasible on a global scale.

                      “Specifically with regard to climate science. The sensitivity of the climate to a doubling of carbon dioxide has a factor of three uncertainty. Climate model predictions of alarming impacts for the 21st century are driven by an emissions scenario, RCP8.5, that is highly implausible. Climate model predictions neglect scenarios of natural climate variability, which dominate regional climate variability on inter-annual to multi-decadal time scales. And finally, emissions reductions will do little to improve the climate of the 21st century; if you believe the climate models, most of the impacts of emissions reductions will be felt in the 22nd century and beyond.

                      “Whether or not warming is “dangerous” is an issue of values, about which science has nothing to say. According to the IPCC, there is no evidence yet of changes in the global frequency or intensity of hurricanes, droughts, floods or wildfires.

                      “Climate change is a grand narrative in which manmade climate change has become the dominant cause of societal problems. Everything that goes wrong reinforces the conviction that there is only one thing we can do to prevent societal problems – stop burning fossil fuels. This grand narrative misleads us to think that if we solve the problem of manmade climate change, then these other problems would also be solved. This belief leads us away from a deeper investigation of the true causes of these problems. The end result is a narrowing of the viewpoints and policy options that we are willing to consider in dealing with complex issues such as public health, water resources, weather disasters and national security.

                      “Does all this mean we should do nothing about climate change? No. We should work to minimize our impact on the planet, which isn’t simple for a planet with seven billion inhabitants. We should work to minimize air and water pollution. From time immemorial, humans have adapted to climate change. Whether or not we manage to drastically curtail our carbon dioxide emissions in the coming decades, we need to reduce our vulnerability to extreme weather and climate events.

                      “With regard to energy. All other things being equal, everyone would prefer clean over dirty energy. However, all other things are not equal. We need to secure, reliable, and economic energy systems for all countries in the world. This includes Africa, which is currently lacking grid electricity in many countries. We need 21st century infrastructure for our electricity and transportation systems, to support continued and growing prosperity. The urgency of rushing to implement 20th century renewable technologies risks wasting resources on an inadequate energy infrastructure and increasing our vulnerability to weather and climate extremes.

                      “How the climate of the 21st century will play out is a topic of deep uncertainty. Once natural climate variability is accounted for, it may turn out to be relatively benign. Or we may be faced with unanticipated surprises. We need to increase our resiliency to whatever the future climate presents us with. We are shooting ourselves in the foot if we sacrifice economic prosperity and overall societal resilience on the altar of urgently transitioning to 20th century renewable energy technologies.

                      “We need to remind ourselves that addressing climate change isn’t an end in itself, and that climate change is not the only problem that the world is facing. The objective should be to improve human well-being in the 21st century, while protecting the environment as much as we can.”

                    2. David, I don’t think I mentioned anything from Koonin, but he is an intelligent individual.

                      I don’t need to deal with complicated equations and physics, though I have training in both. Almost always, one should be able to win the argument with raw data and logic. Too many people get confused from all the mumbo jumbo provided.

                      If in discussions like we are having, you can’t prove your point in a simple fashion, then the chances are you are not as well versed in the subject as you think, or there is no satisfactory proof you are right. I think Feynman might have taught you that.

                      KISS existed where you are from.

                    3. Neitehr I nor Benson got into complicated physics – merely noting that Energy = Temperature^4
                      That means every increase in Temperature requires exponentially more energy than the last.

                      CO2 captures Energy as EM waves strive molecules and are reflected back to earth (or back to space) regardless the energy capture is at best linear to the CO2 level.

                      If CO2 is responsible for temp gain since 1750 then the temp gains would have to graph as the 4th log of CO2 gains or the CO2 gains would have to be the 4th power of temp gains.

                      Regardless Both could not be close to linear – which they are – as is SLR.

                      That automatically means something besides C02 is responsible.

                      The alternative – which is the core to Trenberth chasing “missing heat” in the oceans about a decade ago – is that an increasingly massive amount of energy is being stored somewhere. But contra Trenberth – it can not be in the oceans because any ocean heating at any depth will cause thermal expansion and SLR – and SLR is linear.

                      Actually modeling global temps is incredibly difficult – climate is complex orders of magnitude beyond what computers are capable of today – if ever.

                      That said there are some FUNDIMENTAL physics that is not complex at all that means that if you posit a specific primary cause, even if you can not predict actual temperatures, you can predict the pattern of correlation between the dependent and indendepent variables.

                      Temp gains are near linear, CO2 gains are near linear. That is not the mathmatical relationship between the two, therefore CO2 can NOT be the primary driver – something ELSE is responsible.

                      To use a similar example. If you measured sound levels at a Jet engine, then 20ft away, then 40 ft away, then 80ft away and found a LINEAR change, you would know that something other than the Jet engine was determining the sound levels – because sound from a single source declines exponentially with distance from the source.

                      The sound example is apropo – this specific pattern – of constant energy with exponentially decline with distance or some other term, is all over physics.

                      The higher you seek to raise a temp the exponentially more energy you need. You can prove that with a hot plate and water in your kitchen.

                      It is why warmists need a positive feedback – which was supposed to be water unitl it was established that water vapor is both a positive and a negative feedback at different times.

                      I would note that even CO2 has this problem – on the one hand it captures radiation from earth and reflects it back to earth, on the other it reflects radiation from the sun back to space – clouds work the same. Low clouds primarily trap heat near the surface, but higher clouds primarily reflect heat to space.

                      There is a reason Mr. Benson keeps refering to books, papers and “experts” – because he does not personally know the topic well enought to debate it – even with all these experts at his fingertips.

                    4. “There is a reason Mr. Benson keeps refering to books, papers and “experts” – because he does not personally know the topic well enought to debate it – even with all these experts at his fingertips.”

                      John, we are in total agreement. You provided a great explanation of a few contradictions in the so-called settled science of climate change. That is why I asked David the simplest of questions, for they represent the intermittent discoveries being made all the time and the conflict between the settled science and reality.

                      David could not answer these questions without proving the science is not settled. Had he gotten through those simple questions, I would have asked him about the CO2 relationship to global warming, which you described so well. If he used logic combined with physics, he would have had to agree with you, and then we could have had a discussion based on the realities of what is known and unknown.

                      This situation reminds me of a low-level physics class I had to take. This course didn’t teach me physics but taught me how to think. The instructor said some things that didn’t make logical sense, so I asked her to explain her logic after class. She did a Benson. Immediately she said it was too advanced for me and that I needed calculus and a lot of other stuff to understand the problem. She started to show her proof using calculus without knowing that because of scheduling difficulties, my physics studies lagged far behind my courses in calculus and chemistry. Without tact, I suggested that what she put on the board was meaningless junk. I was angry because I was paying a lot of money for my education, and she knew less than I did.

                      That is when I learned an important lesson. Why was she teaching the course? The lesson didn’t involve physics. It had to do with the question “why” and the logic behind the answer. It had nothing to do with the subject matter but was very instructive. The answer was her husband was the chairman of the physics department.

                      From then on, “WHY” is the first thing that always comes to mind.

                    5. You do not seem to understand that you and 10,000 others standing in front of the ocean shouting “fire, fire, run you will all be incinerated”
                      is not compelling.

                      If I demand that you read a treatise that posits they earth will be destroyed in a decade by extra solar jello balls – would you do so ?

                      Warmest predictions are wrong – only cult members are listening to you.

                      While S.Meyer insists on trading sources with you – for which he can be commended,

                      I have mostly refrained and tried to combat you nonsense with THE REAL WORLD.

                      You can produce the modern equivalent of the eminent 16th century scientists who drubbed Gallellio with proof the sun orbited the earth.
                      It is still religion.

                      actual science does not deviate from reality by 2.5 std dev’s.

                      “The global average lower tropospheric temperature anomaly for April, 2022 was +0.26 deg. C, up from the March, 2022 value of +0.15 deg. C.”

                      i.e about 0.11C/decade or 1.1C/century – the same as the past 2.5 centuries.

                    6. I would note that you and other warmists have only recently tried to claim that CAGW started in 1800.

                      That is because it is increasingly clear that while individual decades can have significant warming, that long term trends are close to linear.

                      Warmists have run out of tricks fudging temps in the 30’s and 40’s to preserve a modern steep slope, so they have had to back off the starting point into the distant past.

                      Now suddenly James Watt and a handful of steam engines magically had a small but purportedly measurable impact on CO2 and climate.

                      If you have to keep changing reality -= the problem is with your theory.

                    7. S. Meyer, climatology is a branch of physics. Some laws and equations are part of it. If you can understand Ray’s book, go for it; fascinating. I first started with Ruddiman’s elementary text as a warmup.

                      For some reason, a relevant comment ended up posted at the top of this page. There it is.

                    8. David, you said that man is a more significant cause of temperature rise than nature.
                      You needn’t persuade and provide literature.

                      All that is needed exists in the raw numbers. You can demonstrate your point by showing that at ~1960, temperature increases deviated from what was seen previously. Then you can calculate the deviation, and if it meets your numbers, you are through the front door.

                    9. John Cook is a professor of communications – essentially he is a teacher of climate journalism – propoganda
                      He is not a scientist. Meteorologists know more about climate by far than he does.

                    10. “John Cook is a professor of communications – essentially he is a teacher of climate journalism – propoganda He is not a scientist. Meteorologists know more about climate by far than he does.”

                      That is precisely the problem with Wheeler, who ATS thinks is the greatest. He feels her Ph.D. means that she is an expert. Her Ph.D. is in literature. She can write, but she is not a good thinker. That means what she writes is not thought out well but is written well enough to convince Anonymous the Stupid that what he is reading is sophisticated stuff based on a knowledgeable person.

                    11. John B Say, re: yours of May 19 @ 6:56 pm: I haven’t made predictions, others have. It is you who use the word “catastrophe”. Too bad you are incapable of understanding climatology, it is an interesting science.

                      … and, by the way, some more houses built on the Outer Banks of North Carolina have collapsed into the waves, but don’t let predictions of ever increasing sea levels stop you from building your very own beach house …

                      How soon will it be too hot to farm in India and Pakistan, maybe Bangladesh as well?

                    12. You are defending a theory(religion) based on those false claims.

                      Yes, I use the word catastrophe – without it this entire debate is irrelevant.
                      If you wish to pretend that the climate is going to increase 4C by 2100 but that will not be a catastrophe and does not require constraints on people’s liberties – fine, beleive whatever you want.

                      I do not care if you beleive the earth is flat – so long as you do not use force to prevent me from nearing the edge.

                      Houses collapse all over the place all the time. Coastlines shift all the time. Old buildings rot and decline all the time.
                      Venice is Sinking and has been for a long time.

                      None of this has anything to do with Global warming.

                      But even if Some of it did – we are not free to spend trillions of dollars in the vain hope of overpowering nature to save a few homes on the NC outerbanks.

                      Again the word Catastrophe is EXTREMELY important. We can not at great cost infringe on the liberty of people all over the world to prevent minor annoyance.

                      How soon will it be too hot to farm in India or Pakistan or bengeledesch ? Never. Trading Economics has India’s agricultural Output steadily rising for the past 25 yrs Pakistan’s more than doubled from 2020-2021.

                      The only obstacle to any country in the world being able to feed itself today is politics – war. From 1965 to the present we have increased global agricultural yeilds per acre by a factor of 8. We are using 1/2 as must land to feed more than twice as many people twice as well.

                  1. I strongly suspect I have read more by “Climate Scientists” than you have.

                    The condescending garbage just makes you look stupid.

                    I have provided you with several specific Failures of the CAGW claim that neither you nor anyone else have addressed.

                    I have not addressed at all “Climate Science” – that is completely tangential.

                    There are so many errors in the arguments made by the left.

                    One you are making here is pretending that “Applied Science” and “scientific theory” are the same.

                    Applied science is engineering.

                    If you want to design a bridge you do not hire a materials physicist, you hire a structural engineer.

                    Pretty much every purported climate scientist is NOT an engineer. They are completely clueless about applied science.

                    The two most consequential failures of Warmists are piss poor understanding of statistics, and failure to accept when real world results are at odds with predictions.

                    There may be nothing at all wrong with Climate theory. But as applied it has been falsified and nothing has been done to address that, that makes it religion.

                  2. Have you designed and built a bridge that people use ? I have.

                    Have you taken your cherished science out of upper division graduate school and made it actually work with real things and real people in the real world ? I have.

                    I have participated in lead, or independently developed innumerable things actually used by people in the real world that MUST work, that if they are not done correctly – will kill people. No ivory towers, but the real world.

                    When your religion actually works in the real world – then you can talk.

                  3. Economist Paul Romer Published an economics paper about 15 years ago – it was really about the mathematics of complex models, not economics, and it applies beautifully to climate.

                    Regardless, he mathematically demonstrated that any mathematical model with enough coefficients could be altered to hind cast perfectly even though it made no sense at all. He went further and noted that the biases of those working with a model could subtly nudge a model to hindcast perfectly while being significantly off at future predictions.

                    One of the most complext models in science today – far more complex than economics models is the climate model.

                    It is so complex that the largest super computers in the world – one of the projects I have been a part of was the development of HPC’s supercomputers, can not even come close to running climate models real time – much less several times faster than real time necescary to forecast. As a result Climate models are deliberately simplified – assumptions are made to limit the complexity so that supercomputers can run them.

                    Mr. Benson – do not make presumptions about my knowledge and experience, it will only make a foll of you.

                  4. David Benson;

                    Every single Warmist should already be so embarrased you crawled under a rock and hoped No One recalls the stupid claims you have made.

                    Can you name a SINGLE Climate prediction that can be measured that has proven true ?

                    One ? Just One ?

                    Here is a claim in the NYT in 1978 – claiming that a 30 year cooling trend had no end in sight.

                    https://cei.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/15.jpg

                    1. “Scientists use the celcius temperature scale;”
                      Hanson is a SCIENTIST.
                      In fact he is close to the FIRST scientist to start ranting about CAGW.

                      “American reports use degrees Farenheit.”
                      No ordinary americans and US weather is reported in Farenheit.

                      UAH is American.

                      YOur citing a denver post article by a journalist as evidence ?

                      “Thirty years later, it’s clear that Hansen and other doomsayers were right.”
                      Nope – global Temps have not increased by 5-9F, 5-9K, 5-9C,

                      Far more wildfires rage.

                      https://fabiusmaximus.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/US-acres-burned-1926-2017.jpg

                    2. “Some of the models suggest to Dr. (Wieslav) Maslowski that there is a 75% chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during some of the summer months, could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years.”
                      2009 Al Gore

                      Professor Wieslaw Maslowski from the Department of Oceanography of the US Navy predicted an ice-free Arctic Ocean by the summer of 2013.

                      Also back in 2007, we had NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally’s prediction: “The Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions.”

                      Artic Sea Ice 2022 –

                    3. The Peak Summer temp in Antarctica is -9C, The Low is -78

                      Ice does not melt as a result of temperature at -9C

                      Most though not all of Greenland remains below 0C all year long.

                      Meltin Antartic and Greenland ice is either caused by friction as the Ice is pushed out to the see by the weight of new Ice
                      Or by volcanic activity below the Ice.
                      Greenland is entirely the former. Antartcica appears to be mostly the former.
                      Many scientific papers have noted that Antartic ICE is flowing faster than in the past.
                      But warmists are brain dead. It is flowing faster because the weight of Ice added by precipitation is pushing it.
                      There is very little precipitation in Antartica – but the continent is enormous and a small average precipitation over a massive continent is a massive amount of ice.

                      Average Antartic precipitation is 166mm.
                      The area of Antartica is 14,200,000 km²
                      Average Ice gain in Antartica is 2357.2km3 – 1km3=1Gt
                      Total Antarctic Ice – 26.5M Gt.

                      Some antartic Ice is likely lost through sublimation – but the rate of sublimation at antartic temperatures is incredibly low.

                      Various studies place the Antartic Ice loss at between 150-200Gt – if that was a NET loss – it is not,
                      It would take antartica 135,000 years to be ice free.

                      https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

                      The same process applies to Greenlan too – which will also take over 100,000 years to lose all of its ice.

                      It is near certain another ice age will occur before either antartica or greenland lose much ice.

                    4. The period from 1979 is 44 years not 30, The Current global Temp anamoally is +0.22C that is that is the deviation from the Average for the past 44 years which means the total change is 0.44C – or 0.1C/decade.

                      If absolutely everything remains as it is the Earth will have warmed 1.0C by 2079 That is almost 3C less than warmists predict.

                      Of course that presumes everything remains the same. Warmists promise a tipping point, but it is as likely temps will go down as up.
                      Nearly all the warming since 1979 occured before 1999 – in the first 20 years. There has been very little warming since.

                      The rate of warming in the 21st century is probably the lowest it has been in 250 years.

                      Global CO2 is estimated by readings at Mona Loa
                      Global CO2 increases since 1950 have been nearly linear. At about 1.6ppm/year
                      https://www.sciencealert.com/images/2019-05/processed/017-carbon-ppm-415-co2_1024.jpg

                      Arehinuis, SB, Plank, … all the basic physics relate energy to the 4th power of temperature.

                      In otherwords each increase in temperature requires far more energy than the last.

                      Energy capture by Co2 is linear with respect to Co2 concentration. Linear increases in CO2 as we have will produce ever decreasing increases in temperature – all other things being equal.

                      This is actual Physics and well known. The amount of energy needed to get water from 79C to 99C is far greater than needed to get it from 59C to 79C. Anyone with a hotplate can test that.

                      Climate Science be Dammed, you are on the wrong side of basic physics.
                      This is why all warmist scientists presume some “tipping point” – this has variously been from water vapor or Ch4

                      https://tse3.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.gq_J4DpNc2HIADPg_5wAYwHaFb&pid=Api&f=1

                    5. I have debunked the first several of your Denver post claims.

                      Though honestly the debunking is not relevant.

                      The FACT is that Actual warming is 2.5 std dev below what models have predicted.

                      That ALONE thoroughly falsifies CAGW.

                      Put simply there is a serious error in modern climate science – my Guess is that ECS is about 1/4 what warmist scientists are using.

                      Regardless, the faux science has been falsified,

                      REAL scientists would correct the error.

                      This is an error that has been well known and increasingly apparent for the past 20 years.

                    6. Finally CAGW has a massive psychological problem.

                      Either Warmists are horribly wrong on the actual warming in the past 40 years,
                      or they are right and people have not noticed.

                      Overall the world has gotten better not worse.
                      we have not seen the coasts go under water,
                      Far more people still die each year from cold than warm.

                      There is actually far more wildlife where I live than when I was a child.
                      I can look out my window most days and see deer, occasional a fox, owl’s even hawks.
                      None of which were present in the 60’s when I was a child.
                      Things are greener and more lush.

                      We are producing far more food rather than less.
                      People are eating more rather than less.

                      BTW I fully expect all the problems of renewables to be solved over time – so long as government stays out of it.

                      Though all of this is complex – US CO2 consumption is declining – as we shift from Coal to natural gas for reasons that have little to do with climate. NG scales to load far better than coal. Slowly we are shifting to Electric cars. In a couple of decades – without govenrment interferance all or most new cars will be electric. While they have problems that Gas cars do not have, they also have many advantages.
                      Small gains in batteries that are likely will move us closer to a tipping point.

                      But all these things will happen slowly because we want them to. Not because they have too.

                      We really should be moving to more decentralized energy – more smaller NG gas turbines to generate electricity – even down to the home level. NG distribution is far more efficient than electricy, and NG turbines are efficient at small scales.
                      Also Gas Turbines can switch to hydrogen easily or even Coal gas.

                    7. So far Mr. Benson you are proving how little you know about Climate,
                      and how much of a sychophant you are to climate scientists.

                      IYI

                    8. As the graphs by Tamino posted below show, the global surface temperature has increased by more than 1.2 K since 1880. So John B Say is simply wrong, as he s also about the prediction by James Hansen.

                      Then John B Say posts two more graphs by ignoramuses; one about wild fires and another about Atlantic land-falling hurricanes. In the case of Atlantic hurricanes, reading Ray’s book enables one to understand why fewer are landfalling in the Atlantic with rising sea surface temperatures. Not so in the western Pacific.

                    9. Gloabl temps have likely increased by 1.2K since 1880.

                      1880 is 140 years ago. Global temps have increases about 0.11C/decade since about 1750 (with large error bars).

                      Your posting a graph which has nothing at all to do with CAGW proves nothing.

                      I do not know a single person who thinks that the planet has not wormed over the past 250+ years.

                      Human contributions to CO2 were inconsequential before the 1960’s.
                      What cause the warming before that ? Why is it that you beleive that warming stopped and magically only Human caused warming has occured since.

                      Why hasn’t the rate of warming increased, Since 1979 the average estimated warming per decade has been 0.10-0.13C/decade depending on what source you use. Either slightly lower than the 140 year average or slightly higher – regardless not a catastropy.

                      As you beleive that all trends must continue forever – that would mean that at the 0.11C/decade rate in the century starting in 1880, that Temps would rise 2.42C from 1880 to 2100 from natural causes.

                      BTW do you have any idea what the global population was in 1900 ? What the CO2 output per capita was then ? or 1950 ?

                      Here is a graph of human CO2 production from 1700 through to near the present – from a WARMIST site.

                      The human CO2 is almost exponential. The change in global temperatures over the same period is almost linear.
                      i.e. it does not corelate to Human CO2

                      https://skepticalscience.com/images/co2_emissions.gif

                    10. The graphs I posted directly rebutted the claims made in the Article YOU claimed was proof of global warming.

                      How is insulting the source of a graph an argument ?

                      Are the graphs wrong ? Yes, or No ?

                      Data is data, facts are facts, Even if they come from Hitler or a moron.
                      Make arguments using FACTS.

                      You must have learned this cast aspersions on anyone who disagrees with you from Tamino.

                      You claim some expert of your explains something about some graph – that is irrelevant. If they are right that would not change the FACT that YOUR source made a specific claim and the graph specifically refuted it

                      Absolutely there are different huricane cycles accross the globe, There are several major ocean currents with their own cylces like ENSO, NAO, AMO, PDO and these all effect huricanes.

                      Absolutely there are different huricane cycles in different regions in the world.

                      There is however no global disruption of hundreds of years of patterns in Huricanes.

                      Though the general Data on Huricanes/Cyclones over the past century+ is for the Atlantic – because that is where we have the best data.

                      For comparison purposes ONE Average Hurricane produces 5×10^19 J
                      Total Human energy consumption for ONE Year is 5×10^20 J – i.e. the equivalent of a single average hurricane lasting 10 days.

                      Large portions of CAGW nonsense are just the fallacy of large numbers. As an example the 150-200GT of ice shed by Antartica is enormous. But it is SMALL compared to the total Ice Gains in Antartica.

                      Here is GLOBAL huricanes.
                      https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.BGZANyUW0NMKYICB_xbc5wHaFS&pid=Api&f=1pi&f=1

                    11. You do not seem to understand Logic.

                      Asking anyone to read some book you find intriguing does not change Facts.

                      I have no idea if the author you cite is as stupid as the arguments you make.
                      But I have no reason to read someone who YOU claim explains everything.
                      If your arguments came from this book – that reflects badly on the author.
                      But I am not going to malign a book I have not read because one of its advocates makes stupid easily refuted arguments.
                      Nor am I going to read a book sold to me by someone who makes stupid easily refuted arguments they claim came from that book.

                      I doubt you have read a tiny fraction of what I have on CAGW.
                      But 10’s of thousands of pages of books and papers still distills down to a long collection of problems,
                      the most fundimental being the real world has FALSIFIED Global Climate Models.

                      We are not arguing whether the world will continue to warm by the about 0.11C/decade it has for several centuries – long before humans could have effected anything. It probably will – thought the error bar is enormous, and it is as likely the trend will decline as it will increase.

                      We are debating whether global temperatures will increase dramatically in a way harmful to humans because of humans.
                      So far there is ZERO proof of that. The models predicting otherwise have been falsified.

                    12. John B Say, as is learned in elementary climatology, the forcing causing temperature changes due to CO2 concentration is proportional to the logarithm of the CO2 concentration. Exactly what is seen if you could view the graphs on Tamino”s Open Mind blog (He is the expert professional statistician Grant Foster.)

                      Instead of flailing away, why not go learn some actual climatology? Hmmm?

                    13. I do Know how to read a graph as well as to Unders stand the implications of equations of the form E = T^4

                      The increase in CO2 increase since 1955 is very near linear.
                      The Temperature increase appears to be tapering off.

                      THAT is what you would expect.

                      Tamino’s chart is self refuting

                      Why were temps increasing at about 0.11C/decade starting in 1750 – or 1880 as I beleive Tamino trires to cherry pick through to the 1960’s which is the earliest that Human CO2 could have had ANY impact ?

                      You can not attribute Pre 1960’s warming to Human CO2 when Human CO2 emission were almost non-existant

                      So why did temps rise from 1750-1960 ?

                      And Why is the increase after 1960 SOLELY attributable to Human CO2 ?

                      I know that Warmists have answers to these questions – but they do not have logically correct answers.

                      The Null hypothesis must be that the small difference is meaningless, and Humans have had no effect.
                      I strongly suspect that proper statistical evaluation will support that and then – YOU ARE DONE.

                      The next best alternative is only the difference between prior warming and post 1960’s warming can be attributed to Humans – or about 0.02C/decade – or 0.2C/century.

                      BEFORE you can presume something else you MUST prove the null hypotheis false – that has not been done.

                      Separately I have very little interest in graphs by Tamino – he has repeatedly produced deceptive graphs.

                      As an example I have provided you with the graph comparing the models to UAH/RSS.
                      Tamion took that graph and shifted the reference point – the point at which The models and Satelite tems were coincident to the middle of the interval – esentially he added a constant negative Bias to the models.

                      The resulting graphs APPEARS to have the Satelite record fully inside the models.

                      The problem is the slopes are Still 2.5 std dev apart. All he did was changed the model problem from a 2.5 std dev forecasting problem to a 2.5 std dev hindcasting and forecasting problem – still Falsified – though the graph looks less dramatic to the untrained eye.

                      Regardless fudging graphs is a common warmist Trick – That is the root of the “Hide the Decline” fraud. Manns tree ring data started to show declining temperatures in the mid 20th century – in otherwords his Tree ring data falsified itself as a reliable proxy. A problem that has never really been fixed. To “Hide the decline” he truncated the tree ring data and grafted on the termometer record getting the infamous “hockey stick” It is scientific fraud to claim tree rings are an accurate record of past temperatures When they do not work in the modern era.
                      It is fraud to remove the part of the data that demonstrates that your proxy is not a reliable proxy. It is fraud to graft on the human record.
                      You can produce a graphs showing two differnet records to visually show they correlate. It is fraud to pretend they are one in the same.

                      Regardless, do not expect anyone to rely on people who engage in scientific Fraud.

                    14. It is already self evident that I am more knowledgeable about Climate than you are.

                      You claimed the log relationship is climate science – actually it is Physics and it is E=T^4(constants ommitted) , and that alone disproves the thesis.

                      The fact that T is in degrees K somewhat mitigates the problem, the FACT still remains that each small increase in temperature requires exponantially more energy than the last. There fore a LINEAR increase in temperature requires a exponential increase in energy and therefore an exponential increase in CO2 – absent some very large exponential positive feedback which you do not have.

                      We do APPEAR to have a decline int he rate of increase in temps in the 21st century – THAT is consistent with near linear increases in CO2.
                      There are other possible explanations – such as being at a different point in the solar cycle, but NONE of that make anything better for warmists.

                      The Most rational prediction given the underlying physics is that so long as the rate of CO2 increases remains near linear, the rate of increase in temperature will decline until it stops increasing entirely.

                      I would note that explanation ASSUMES – as does all warmist climate science, that all temp increases have been the result of CO2.
                      That is FAR from established. In fact all that is is an assumption. It has not really been tested. No warmist has ever regressed temperature data against other possible warming factors to determine what the strength of correlation is for those.

                      Climate Scientist Roger Pielke Sr. (not Jr.) beleives and fairly strongly demonstrated that all or nearly all warming has been due to land use changes – which explains the plateau near the start of the 21st century.

                      Roger Pielke JR – also a climate scientist has and continues to refute all the – “increasing frequency of extreme weather” nonsense – which I would note is the OPPOSITE of what most climate models produce. We actually know that in most things – including the earth warming leads to more STABILITY, not more variability. That also should be obvious from E = T^4. If it takes vastly more energy to reach a high temperature then small variations in energy will produce larger changes at lower temps than higher ones.

                    15. In a divergent argument – that applies to Climate and myriads of other debates I would suggest considering the Pareto Principle – which is roughly that 80% of the effect comes from 20% of the cause.

                      This principle is recursive – of the 20% of cause causing 80% of the effect – 20% of that causes 80% of the 80%.

                      This explains the distribution of money in the world. Something that is near impossible to correct without making all of us poorer.

                      But it also applies to talent, to creativity, to myriads of other domains.

                      It does not ever surprise me that 80% of the people in a field are often mostly wrong. I have seen that in most every domain I have been involved in, in my life. Most Doctors are not very good, Most lawyers are not very good, most architects are not very good, most scientists are not very good. Most Climate scientists are not very good.

                      This is not some plot. It is just the natural way the world works. What is particularly troubling TODAY – and one of the massive failures of the left, is that we – and especially the left increasingly rely on authority – rather than evidence – and worse still – the 80% of authority in any domain that sucks.

                      We are having massive inflation right now. That was trivially predictable. What was NOT predictable was the exact tipping point at which printing money to pay for spending would result in a spike in inflation. There have been people predicting a spike in inflation since the stimulus after the housing crisis. They were only wrong about the timing – and not so much wrong about that, that spending and easy money DID result in the US exporting rising prices – mostly in food and mostly to the mideast which destabalized as a result. Given that the US is directly experiencing inflation now – expect things to get really violent in the mideast.

                      Regardless. my point is that 20% of us do 80% of everything. The least capable people in science seem to gravitate to climate science – though we see problems elsewhere.

                      We have seen the same with Covid – The 80% of the scientific and medical community with the war of govenrment – are the least capable and least productive. Most real answers regarding Covid came from elsewhere.

                      Sweden ultimately did better than most of the western world – no out of trend increase in mortality for those under 65.
                      Sweden’s health minister has far more skills and far better education and credentials that Fauxi. But he runs the health for a country of 20m not 350m.

                      Regardless, we did have very capable people telling us how to deal with Covid – they were the 20% and few listened.
                      And mostly their voices were suppressed often literally by Dr. Fauxi.

                      Returning from Covid to the point – whatever the problem you should assume that 80% of the “experts” do not know what they are talking about. Climate, Psychology, economics, government, does not matter. That is the normal distribution.
                      The trick is finding the 20% who do, and unfortunately that requires critical thinking as well as actually learning something about that field – and learning it ON YOUR OWN – because the random chance that any “expert” you pick to inform you knows what they are talking about is 1:5.

                      This is also BTW where very very very few problems are EVER solved by concensus.

                    16. John B Say, humans first started to significantly modify the climate with the advent of burning coal in1750. Without that the climate would be slowly cooling towards another stab at a glacial stade. Easy to read “The Long Thaw”, as. suggested.

                    17. Nope. If that is the thesis of “the long thaw” – it is facially garbage.

                      Approx 1750 is a NORMAL cyclical minimum. It is not some inflection point attributable to coal.
                      BTW Coal uses started long before 1750, but it did not become significant until long after 1750.

                      Human CO2 output is a function of atleast two factors – population size and fossil fuels consumption per capita.

                      Both were close to inconsequential until 1960. I am pretty sure I already provided you with a graph of Human CO2 over the past 2 plus centuries. Human CO2 has been completely negligable into the mid 20th century.

                      The world population was under 800M in 1750, It was double that by 1900, it was double that by 1965.
                      Global Per capita emissions in 1750 were about 1mT, in 1900 1mT, in 1950 about 2.5mT in 1975 about 5mT which is about where they are today.

                      You do not seem to be very good at understanding Exponents.

                      Global warming and nearly every trend actually associated with warming – like Sea Level have ALL been trending up linearly since 1750 – with large error bars in the past as well as a fair amount of noise along the way. While CO2 emmissions have been so inconsequential as to have no possibility of an impact until about 1960.

                      I would note that the ocean still outgasses an order of magnitude more CO2 every year than humans. It also absorbs an approximately equal amount. At the large leverls we produce today – we are inconsequential compared to the ocean.
                      And you expect that humans started warming the planet in 1750 ?

                      I am presuming that you are trying to argue that Humans have altered Milankovitch cycles ? That started long Before, changes in cycles started before humans existed.

                    18. John B Say, you do understand that

                      log(exp(x)) = x

                      so that the exponential CO2 increase results in a linear increase in temperature?

                      That equation is learned in beginning calculus. Perhaps all this is beyond your ken?

                      Or are you going to get busy learning it?

                    19. “so that the exponential CO2 increase results in a linear increase in temperature?”

                      Correct.

                      A linear increase in CO2 results in a logrithmic increase in temps.

                      https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.B7F8ELmGkq4JjqKlYwZGjgHaFj&pid=Api&f=1

                      There are only Two choices given what we know from reality.

                      The actual effect of CO2 is quite small – i.e. something other than C02 is the primary driver of global temperartures – which is pretty much certain given that temperatures started rising long before CO2 could have any effect.

                      OR, the impact of Human CO2 has been diminishing in the 21st century because temps have increased about as much as they can with only linear increases in CO2.

                      OR some combination of both.

                      What is NOT possible is nearly linear increases in CO2 and near linear increases in Temp – or as warmists predict – exponential increases in temp.

                      Your curve bends the wrong direction.

                      Again you do not seem to understand exponents.

                      I would note – you do not need calculus to understand this.

                      I beleive I was taught the formula for parabola’s in 5th grade.

                      https://d138zd1ktt9iqe.cloudfront.net/media/seo_landing_files/general-equation-of-a-parabola-1-1626423151.png

                    20. John B Say, stated more simply:

                      “My mind is made up and I don’t want to be confused by the facts.”

                      The fact is that the anthropogenic CO2 concentration that you posted from skeptical science directly explains the observed warming via the Arrhenius equation, with a constant of about 2.4 K per doubling of CO2 for the transient climate response, TCR.

                      But then, you would have to learn about TCR when you aren’t willing to even start on the elementary texts. Ruddiman’s doesn’t require calculus which it seems you don’t know.

                    21. When you provide actual evidence that there is error in the falsification of the climate models – I will change my mind.

                      You keep arguing that Data that is plain as the nose on your face – looks different than it does.

                      We seem to agree on the basic math.

                      But YOU do not seem to grasp that the close to LINEAR temperature Trend we have requires an EXPONENTIAL CO2 Trend – unless something other than CO2 is driving temperatures.

                      And While we have a SORT OF exponential CO2 trend from 1750-1960 – the scale of CO2 in that period was absolutely incosequential.

                      So that you are clear – I am not aware of a single prominent WARMIST who claims that warming prior to 1960 is as a result of Human CO2 – so you are arguing at odds with your own authorities.

                      REGARDLESS, Since 1960 CO2 has increased very close to linearly. NOT exponentially as would be required to drive a near linear increase in temperatures.

                      I would note that though this argument is related – because the models rely on the same underlying math.

                      This is a different argument than the argument that the models are falsified by a 2.5 std dev variation from actual temps.

                      There are two likely causes to the disconnect between the model predicted temps and the actual temps.

                      ECS/TCR are much lower than warmists use.
                      CO2 is not the primary driver of increasing temps.

                      Both are probably true.

                      I would also not that you have a beautiful circle with ECS/TCR – There is no empirical derivation of ECS, It is determined by using the models and hind-casting until the models accurately match reality.
                      The models overheat – ERGO ECS is too high.

                    22. John B Say, your reading of “Tens of thousands of pages of books and papers” has left you completely befuddled. For example you misunderstand just where the 4th power of temperature applies. Since you are unlikely to actually learn the physics and then the climatology, I assure you that the “climate models”, as you put it, do accurately describe the total reality well enough to project up to 100 years into the future.

                      A future without coral reefs with ever increasing sea levels, with killing heat-humidity waves, and possibly without much crops. Here in the Palouse this year, like most years, looks to be providing a good crop. Maybe the wheat will sell for enough to pay for the costs of production — the costs have gone way up. Expect to pay much more for food,

                    23. I am not the one who confuses the formula for a parabola with that of a line.

                    24. “For example you misunderstand just where the 4th power of temperature applies.”
                      How so ? Are you arguing that the fundamental principles of mathematics – like the distributive, associate, and commutative laws do not apply ? Or are you arguing that S-B or Plank do not apply to global warming ?

                      The laws of mathematics and The laws of Physics such as S-B and Plank are pretty fundamental – how is it that you think “learning” more about climate science is going to work if doing so requires rejecting the fundamental laws of math and physics that climate science rests on.

                      You can “assure” me of whatever you wish – that does not make what is self evidently FALSE suddenly true.

                      You have SEVERAL problems that are FUNDIMENTAL.

                      First is that even today there is no proof that CO2 is the primary driver of climate changes.

                      The Climate models are frankly worthless – climate is far too complex to model with todays technology – further it is a chaos system and that may mean that it can not be modeled at all. It is not impossible for the vastly oversimplified versions of the physics that underlie climate used in the models to accurately hind-cast and forecast – at least within the period for which we have useable data, but even that would leave them far from proving anything.

                      Regardless, the models do NOT accurately hind-cast and forecast. If Warmists were REAL scientists that would mean revising the hypothesis and therefore the models. With the most likely error being a substantial over estimate of ECS. Though I would note that even that would not constitute PROOF that the models are correct. As I noted with Rohmer’s paper which was more a Mathematics paper – in any complex model perfect hind-casting is a requirement but far SHORT of proof of correctness of the model. Rohmer’s domain is economics, but his conclusion is fundimental to all science – including physics, Astronomy, and Climate.

                      I would note there are plenty of other climate models that hindcast and forecast better than the Warmist GCM’s.
                      There is a fairly simple solar model will run in an excel spreadsheet that it much better at hindcasting and forecasting than the warmist models.

                      Finally, though it is still early and the quality of data is still marginal, this debate is likely to be resolved. We can “model” the earth both simply and accurately …. From space. It is the early results of that effort that have lead Trenberth chasing all over the oceans looking for the “Missing heat” – because the black body model of the earth from space does not balance for warming based on our current ability to measure. But that will improve.

                      I do find the chicken with its head cut off efforts to find “missing heat” in the ocean hillarious.

                      One of the other PROOFS of model failure – and that there is not sufficient heat stored in the ocean to account for the energy imbalance that falsifies CAGW, is that Sea Level Rise measures two things – the thermal expansion of the ocean as they absorb energy, and the net melt effect of ice on land.

                      Again the thermal expansion of the oceans has been near constant since 1880 – long before Human CO2 could have an effect.

                      http://sustainabilitymath.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/sea-level.png

                    25. “A future without coral reefs”
                      Coral has been arround form well over a billion years it has survived massive changes in climate, and all the warmist claims regarding coral have self falsified as coral reefs have waxed and waned without regard for warmist claims.

                      “with ever increasing sea levels”
                      SLR has been constant for 150 years – more like 250 except that like temperature measeurments the error bars become enormous as we move back in time. At the current rates – which are centuries long there will be no disruption.

                      The Maldives – Gore Canary – are dropping, and billions are being invested in housing that will be worthless in a few years if warmists were actually correct. Even Obama built in a part of Martha’s vineyard that will be under water if Warmists are correct.

                      “with killing heat-humidity waves, and possibly without much crops.”
                      I just love this one – the only think crops like more than CO2 is water.

                      “Here in the Palouse this year, like most years, looks to be providing a good crop. Maybe the wheat will sell for enough to pay for the costs of production — the costs have gone way up. Expect to pay much more for food”

                      Do you live in the real world ? The primary source of fertilizer in the world is Fossil Fuels. The price of food tracks the price of fossil fuels.

                      We are in the midst of what will likely be massive global food problems – much like those post 2008 that resulted in “the arab spring”
                      Only my guess would be worse – driven by Western inflation, and high energy costs which drive food prices up.

                      This is likely to cause significant global instability – and to the extent it has ANYTHING to do with CAGW – it will be that warmists policies have made the problem WORSE.

                      With respect to actual food production – it is 2022. There are more than double the population of 1965 when Ehrlich wrote “The Population Bomb” – you should read that, 50 years ago that would be one of the books you would be trying to convince me to read, regardless, it is a beautiful example of perfect malthusian thinking – except it is wrong. Just as EVERY malthusian claim EVER.
                      Regardless, we have double the population, double the per capita food intake, and we are using half the land we used in 1965 – i.e. we are producing GLOBALLY 8 times the food per acre. With farming technology already being used – but not globally – we could feed 20-50B people. With more advanced technology such as what is being used in Marijuana grow houses today we could feed 100B people.

                      With even more advanced technology – but still only improvements in engineering cities like NYC could produce their own food inside the city.

                      Most though not all of this presumes exponential increases in energy and decreases in energy costs – which but for idiotic warmist and government interferance is the global Norm.

                      Long ago Ehrlich and economics Simons bet that the long term real price of a basket of 10 commodities that Ehrlich selected would decline.
                      Simon won that bet, and in fact for most selected commodities the nominal price declined.

                      Human history is the history of DECLINING cost, and increasing production.

                      In fact that is a REQUIREMENT for rising standard of living.

                      When Warmists such as yourself seek to force people to pay more for energy – standard of living DECLINES.

                      Standard of living is what we produce divided among all of us.

                      It increases when we produce more per capita.
                      Increased human production ALWAYS means more energy consumption.

                    26. There is a massive problem everytime you try to compare records from direct observation to proxies or even different proxies.

                      This was also addresses with Mann’s Hide the Decline Hockey stick.

                      The accuracy of every single past proxy tends to depend on current correlations to present measurements.

                      We have only been reliably directly measuring CO2 since the mid 1950’s.

                      We have really never accurately been measuring the thermometer temperature.

                      We have only been accurately measuring lower troposphere temps since 1979.
                      And even that has a number of problems – but atleast those are easily identified and corrected in public data.

                      So anything you claim about PAST CO2 is from a proxy that is calibrated using information from the past 7 years.

                      Whether you like it or not the error bars for proxies are enormous, And they get worse the farther back you go.

                      Man produced a hockey stick for the past 1200 years temperature – but there is plenty of evidence that temps were not stable for 1100 of those 1200 years.
                      And the fundimental issue with “hide the decline” – is that in the last half of the 20th century the tree ring proxies showed declining temperatures when everyone knew the world was warming.
                      What this means is Mann’s tree ring proxy is not reliable – it is NOT an actual proxy for temperature.

                      Proxies are NOT by definition a direct proxy for whatever they are reporting. They track something else that USUALLY correlates.

                      We have excellent reason to beleive that CO2 was both higher and lower than today in the past – but little reason to beleive specific claims of CO2 levels at specific times.

                      Further every single proxy is granular – Tree Ring proxies HOPEFULLY provide a best guess of the global temperature for a whole year.
                      As we go back further in time proxies can not tell us about years, but they might tell us about decades, or centuries, or millennia, or million year periods or hundred million year periods.

                      One of the central premises of CAGW is this has never happened naturally before.
                      That is both false – it is highly likely we have seen repeated warming much like the moment in the past 2000 years, but it is also true that when looking at proxies for 100,000 years – we know absolutely nothing about what happened within centuries of millenia for that proxy.
                      If a proxy tells us the temperature 250,000 years ago was 21C That temperature could have varied +-4C or more over 1000 years and we would not know. The granualrity of nearly all proxies increases rapidly as we go back in time.

                      Further like Mann’s tree rings there is USUALY a reasonable presumption that some proxy – from on or a few locations is also a proxy for the world. Man’s tree rings with all there other problems corrected can only tell us about the arctic regions those tree rings were taken from.

                      Nearly every other proxy is the same.

                      That does not mean that we can not speak of the past.
                      But it does mean that it is fallacy to draw strong conclusions about the present from proxy measures of the past and that such problems get worse the farther back we go.

                      You are making claims about PAST CO2 – how are you certain of them ?

                      Even modern data – The primary measure of CO2 is Mona Loa in Hawaii. We beleive it is accurate and isolate from local factors, but it only reflect one place on earth. We assume that even if the Mona Loa number is NOT an accurate global average it is an accurate global trend.
                      And that is probably correct. But probably is not certainty.

                      Since you like Tamino – here is his graph of Past CO2

                      So let me ask – looking at the chart (and I know it is a log chart) do you really beleive the current hundred years have spiked, the past 10000 years were flat, and the prior 400m years were highly variable ?

                      https://tse3.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.8YED5Ccm1ZNVty5D9LhRbAHaFj&pid=Api&f=1

                    27. Here is a different chart showing that CO2 lagged temperature – but I am using it to demonstrate that Tamino’s claim that CO2 levels were flat for the past 10,000 years is true. Certainly not in this chart.

                      It shows them rising steadily then breifly dropping before returning to steady rise.

                      Regardless, according to some proxy there has been a natural variation of about 150ppm up and down over the past 300K years.

                      That certainly was not from burning fosil fuels.

                      https://tse3.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.2eqtZQkYNVAFa1ND_QzjzAHaDz&pid=Api&f=1

                    28. I will read “The Long Thaw”

                      if you read ONE of the following:

                      Julian Simon’s The ultimate Resource Book II – it is available for free on the web.
                      Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations – also available for Free on the Web.
                      Robert Nozick’s Anarchy State Utopia
                      Thomas Sowell’s Basic Economics.
                      Or Fredrick Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom.

                    29. Lets address your claim – Why did CO2 change in 1800 ?

                      Per capita human CO2 was pretty much the same as the prior 100,000 years ? Humans were still insufficiently numerous to have an effect solely by numbers.

                      The industrial era was nascent and only a blip in the west. Most of the world did not start creating CO2 on any scale until very recently.

                      Are you saying that a handful of Steam Engines in the US and UK in 1800 was a tipping point for a world of about 800M people nearly all burning dung or wood to eat and heat as they had for 100,000 years before ?

                      Even today the CO2 output of the US is dwarfed by China – that puts out less per capita but has 1.6B people
                      So how is it that ONLY the US and UK deviating slightly from centuries of prior trends changes global CO2 starting in 1800 ?

                      You IYI’s never think through the arguments you make.

                      In addition to the other reading list I suggested add

                      Bastiats “the seen and unseen” – or anything else by Bastiat.

                      You need to learn critical thinking.

                      Several years ago I had a project to put a low cost dynomometer on the axles of European agricultural combines.
                      The harvest season is very short and is often followed by rains that destroy the crops. If Farmers pushed combines hell bent for leather – they would break axles and the replacement cost was large, but worse was the delays. If they slowed down to avoid breaking axles it took longer to harvest crops and some of the crop was lost.

                      We developed a prototype in the lab and it worked beautifully.
                      Then I spent a week in Wisconsin testing it on a real axle against a dynamometer – within a few hours it was clear we were in deep trouble.
                      There was so much vibration outside of the labs – the data was essentially just noise. I spent the week finding every available data cleaning method and inventing some of my own and at the end of the week my $1000 gadget was matching a 1M dynamometer, and it is in use today in europe substantially speeding up harvests increasing yeilds.

                      Data is often abundant. Good data must be sorted from the weeds.

                      When patterns in data do not reflect reality – it is probably the data that is wrong.

                    30. Keep pushing fraudster’s

                      Someday – maybe,

                      You will start to see a pattern.
                      The people who want you to let them take over and change the world, are the ones claiming catastrophe.

                      It does not matter whether the story is the Collusion Delusion. Biden’s laptop, the origens of Covid, the policies to combat it or CAGW,
                      The story is always the same – you MUST cede control to US or everything will go to hell.
                      Facts do not matter.
                      Reality does not matter.

                      Once again the one thing that every malthusian claim since …. Malthus has in common is that they were all FALSE.

                      They were all false for fundimentally the same reason, but that is obviously beyond your ability to comprehend.

                    31. John B Say, your comment at 8:25 pm, May 18, is so full of elementary error it is difficult to know where to start.

                      First of all, Stephan”s Law, E=s*T^4, is not an exponential! It is a fourth power law, not a quadratic. You failed high school algebra?

                      Second, Stephan”s Law, often called Stephan-Boltzman, is for radiative energy from a blackbody, not the current issue.

                      Third, the CO2 concentration iin the atmosphere is indeed growing approximately exponentially. You posted a link to an appropriate graph from Skeptical Science.
                      Hence, the temperature is growing approximately linearly. Check any and all of the global surface temperature products from Japan, USA(3 of those) and England.

                      For a self-claimed critical thinker, you appear tremendously confused. Learn the basics of climatology before commenting, hmmm?

                    32. Mr. Benson – you are beautifully demonstrating your own mathematical and scientific incompetence.

                      S-B is the law of black body “perfect” radiation.

                      All that means is that in the real world other factors have small effect.

                      This is no different from Newton’s laws.

                      Are you saying we can not construct bridges because statics does not account for The varying gravitational effects of Jupiter ?

                      I would note you ignored my post that we can treat the earth as a near perfect black body – if we mathematically evaluate heat losses and gains FROM SPACE. Presuming that we have the ability to accurately measure heat losses and gains – the entire messy complexity of atmospheric models goes away. We can measure all inbound and all outbound radiation and we can calculate the black body temperature of the planet and if that does not match – then we do not accurately know inbound and outbound energy.

                      The quality of space instruments is reaching the point we can do that – and the planets energy budget as measured from space is not matching warmist models.

                    33. “First of all, Stephan”s Law, E=s*T^4, is not an exponential! It is a fourth power law, not a quadratic”

                      exponential: of or relating to an exponent

                      “You failed high school algebra?”
                      I did quite well in all maths my entire life

                      You have self evidently failed english.

                      Quadratics can be defined as a polynomial equation of a second degree, which implies that it comprises a minimum of one term that is squared. It is also called quadratic equations. The general form of the quadratic equation is:

                      ax² + bx + c = 0

                      All quadratics are exponential. All exponentials are not quadratic.

                      I have not used the term quadratic in my posts – you have introduced that.

                      Further it does not matter WHAT specific non-linear relation there is between temp, CO2, SLR, …. All that matter is that Physics establishes a non-linear relationship – Arrhenius, SB, Plank are all interrelated but not identical. They all must be true where they appl, and they all apply to climate, S-B as an example dictates the immutable relationship between energy and temperature.

                      I am dealing with FUNDIMENTAL physics that falsifies CAGW,

                      If CAGW does not conform to the requirements of FUNDAMENTAL physics – it is falsified – and the truth or error in all the claims of your experts is not relevant.

                      I do not need to explain all the factoids you spray that may be false, party right or even rarely actually right – so long as you are at odds with fundamental physics.

                    34. “Third, the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is indeed growing approximately exponentially. ”

                      Nope.

                      It is LIKELY though not proven that there was a short period of exponential growth during the first half of the 20th century.

                      During the time period we have direct measurement data all the relationships are very very close to linear.

                      Which is only possible TWO ways.

                      CO2 is not the primary driver of temperature.
                      Or ECS is as much as an order of magnitude lower than Warmests claim.

                      There are so many problems with most everything you offer.

                      One of the first fallacies you start with is that Global climate is static but for humans.

                      This has FORCED you to claim that humans are responsible for all warming since 1880, or 1800, or 1750 0r …

                      Because otherwise you have unexplained warming.

                      but this gets worse – 1750 was a modern Minima. Prior temps were higher – and there is lots of data supporting several warm periods in the last couple of millenia warmer than the present.

                      Did Humans cause the medevil warm period or the roman warm period ? or the several other warm periods that coincided with humans flourishing since the end of the last ice-age about 10,000 years ago ?

                      Again 1750 was a Minima. one of many over the past 10,000 years.

                      Even after cherry picking start and end dates – you can not get the relationships that Physics requires.

                      And without the cherry picking – it is obvious – there is no relationship at all.

                    35. “Third, the CO2 concentration iin the atmosphere is indeed growing approximately exponentially.”

                      Then it should be a simple exercise to fit the data from 1960 through the present and provide the formula for the curve.

                      You do not seem to be able to read a graph.

                      I would hope that with all your experiences with Hockey stocks you could grasp that a hockey stick is NOT an exponential curve.
                      It is an abrupt transition beetween one near linear curve and another near linear curve.

                      There is a very small possibility it is a hyperbola but that would presume natural drivers that started 1750 or earlier

                      Put simply – you are either connecting disjoint curves with different drivers – which IS the argument of warmists.
                      Or you have natural causes predating 1750.

                      I would note that you CLEARLY are connecting disjoint curves – because you are connecting proxy data with direct observation data,

                    36. Japan, the US, and the UK are NOT the planet. You are using two islands and a continent in the western hemisphere.
                      You are also using surface temps. 75% of the planet is water.

                      The results – whatever they are – I am not accepting anything just because you claim it, may or may not reflect the world – just as arctic circle tree cores may or may not be a good proxy for global temperatures over 1400 years. Probably not since they inverted after 1960.

                      If you want to make claims about the planet, you need close to uniform data, you need both standards of measure and standards of quality.
                      And you need to make the data public and quit jiggering with it.

                      When warmists are constantly manipulating data from 80 years ago, they destroy trust.

                      We have only one source that meets those requirements.

                      Though I would note that while the Thermometer measures have serious quality problems and are LESS out of sync that the satelite data – even they are out of line with the models.

                    37. Bad speculation about me is not argument. It is also note relevant.

                      I am not the slightest confused.
                      But it would not matter if I was.

                      Plenty of people without my understanding of the physics, or logic skills, or advanced degrees KNOW when something is not right.

                      You can fool all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.
                      You have run out of time.

                    38. John B Say must have flunked high school algebra:
                      The quadratic equation, for a parabola, is
                      y = a*x^2 + b*x + c
                      and there is no fourth power to be seen.

                      But John B Say doesn’t even know the 19th century foundations of Terra’s climate:

                      The Arrenhius law is
                      F = s*log(c/280)
                      where F is the temperature forcing due to CO2, s is the equilibrium climate sensitivity constant and c is the current concentration of atmospheric CO2 in ppm.
                      Yhe constant s is to be measured and there s now enough actual data to ascertain that it is about 3.2 K for a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere.

                      The Stefan-Boltzman law,
                      j* = S*T^4,
                      where S usually written as lower case sigma, is the Stefan-Boltzman constant derived for fundamental physics, first by Boltzman, and T is the absolute temperature of a BLACKBODY. Then j* is the intensity of the outgoing radiation; that iis an energy flux, not heaven help us the energy!
                      This has little to do with the surface temperature of the earth; read any of the dozen or so introductory texts on atmospheric physics.

                    39. David, to prove your thesis, you have to be able to negate legitimate attacks. You haven’t done that, so your foundation is filled with cracks and loose sand. Yet you keep building higher. The only conclusion one can garner is that what you constructed will eventually fall into a mess.

                      It appears that John is mostly correct and responds to most of what you say correctly. You do not reciprocate. Both of you have made errors. John’s are repairable while yours look like they are not. I haven’t looked as deeply as I should, for I have been removed from these science disciplines for too long, but I can get the gist.

                      The John and David discussion is technical, with complexities and difficulties that the average person cannot follow. However, there are simple ways of making your point that you do not avail yourself of. I have pointed that out numerous times, but you pretend such a method doesn’t exist. Based on that alone, you lose the argument. Based on debating points in competition with John, you lose the argument. Based on a solid understanding of the world around you. You lose the argument.

                    40. SM

                      if you think I have made some errors – please point them out.

                      Reasoned debate is the crucible for sorting truth from falsity.

                      “He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion… Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them…he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.”

                      ― John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

                    41. In Physics 101 I had to derive F=ma plus the error term from E=mc^2.\

                      Arrhenius S-B and Plank are all interrelated in much the same way.

                      I will leave it as an excercise for you to determine how to derive Arrhenius from S-B or Plank.

                      Everything about climate derives from the fundamental laws of physics – I do not understand why you are having so much difficulty grasping that.

                      The fact that S-B is the formula for a black body does not mean it does not apply for EVERYTHING. It means that there will be a few additional factors

                      The speed of light is not exactly the same in a vacuum as it is through glass. But the one can be derived from the other.

                      You can prove the exponential relationship between temperature and energy with a hotplate and a pan of water – even though the pan of water is not a perfect black body.

                      I would further note that the core problem you are having – that if SLR, CO2 and Temperature are all changing near linearly –
                      either CO2 is not the primary driver or ECS – the constant that scales the effect of CO2 is so low as to produce nearly linear results.

                      i.e if
                      y = ax^2 plus bx + c and a=0.000001 what you have is almost a line.

                      I would also note that regardless of a – y = ax^2 is very nearly linear for SOME range of x

                    42. I would suggest that you might quit referring to introductory works that you CLEARLY have not read.

                      You seem to be under the delusion that climate science operates in its own silo independent of the rest of physics.

                      Do you think that the structural formulas used to design bridges exist in their own silo independent of newtons laws ?
                      Or might you be able to grasp that the former are just a version of the latter simplified for the domain ?
                      If you doubt that – I refer you to any good introductory text on statics.

                      If your introductory texts on climate fail to note that they rest on the foundation of standard physics, then they are poor texts.

                      “Specifically, the Stefan–Boltzmann law states that the total energy radiated per unit surface area of a black body across all wavelengths per unit time (also known as the black-body radiant emittance) is directly proportional to the fourth power of the black body’s thermodynamic temperature T”

                      Do I need to specifically note that raising the temperature requires exponentially increasing the energy or are you familiar with the commutative, associative, and distributive laws of math ?

                    43. John B Say on May 19 @ 6:10 pm is again full of error.
                      (1) The Law Dome ice core minor gas concentrations are direct measurements, not proxies. They fit precisely into the modern continuation, the Keeling curve. The Keeling curve was originally just from measurements in Hawaii but are now a product derived from measurements in several locations around the globe. It is a minor matter as CO2 is a well-mixed gas in the atmosphere with a mixing time of about 2 years due to the ITCZ inhibiting mixing between the northern and southern hemispheres.

                      (2) The temperature curve extending back many thousands of years ago is from Antarctic ice core data. One can read more about how this product is derived from the ice measurements. The primary virtue of this data is to see the cycling between interglacial and glacial periods, but it also shows that global temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentrations go hand-in-hand.

                      (3) Just ignore the Mann et al. reconstruction of temperatures into the past. There are more recent results which give essentially the same temperature curve.

                      … I suppose it is good for me to review these matters which I learned years and years ago …

                    44. No they are not direct measurements.

                      You clearly are clueless. No one measured CO2 200 years ago much less far earlier and preserved that measure.

                      Nearly all measures humans use outside of the modern era and often outside the most recent parts of the modern era are proxies.

                      You are doing a measurement TODAY of a PAST condition, based on something that you beleive accurately captured what you are trying to measure and preserved it.

                      There are lots of factors effecting the quality. Regardless, merging proxy and direct measured data as if it is the same is scientific fraud.

                      I would note that even the error bars for direct measurements increases dramatically the farther back in time you go.

                      The Surface temperature data for the world LAST YEAR is pretty poorly collected. Every year back in time you go the quality gets worse.
                      We have temperature data back to 1640 do you think you can accurately tell the global temp in 1640 from that ?

                      And that is direct measures.

                      You are so screwed up on so many fundamentals.

                      So you are clear – I am not saying anything specific about the Law Dome data.
                      My criticism is of YOU and your fundimental misunderstanding of science.

                      We can do alot with all kinds of different problematic data sources.

                      But when YOU are ignorant of what they can and can not demonstrate YOU reach idiotic conclusions.

                    45. You still do not understand the difference between a direct measure and a proxy.
                      The Keeling curve starts in 1958. The rate of CO2 increase in 1958 was slightly lower than it is today, but the “curve” is incredibly close to linear. Regardless. If you wish to mathematically fit the curve – be my guest you still end up with an incredibly shallow curve with an incredibly small exponent. Pretty much NOT what you need for CAGW.

                      But lets presume you actually had an exponential curve.
                      You have exponential increasing CO2 – that would mean that you have at BEST linear or a declining rate of increase in temperature.

                      CO2 must increase exponentially for linear energy capture and energy must increase exponentially for linear temperature gains.

                    46. The more recent reconstructions of past temperatures rely on the same data and contain the same errors as Mann and Biffra’s early reconstructions. You do not seem to be very knowledgeable about this.

                    47. With respect to antartic ice cores – STILL at best measuring LOCAL not global data. So you are dealing with a proxy on top of an assumption – or many assumptions.

                      I am neither accepting nor rejecting either – just noting that you are treating as the devine word of god, something that is no such thing.

                      Finally I would not that Ice Cores proving 10’s of thousands of years past temperatures – pretty much by defintion can NOT show yearly, decadal, or possibly even century variations.

                      This is a fundimental problem of ALL proxies.

                      The further into the past a proxy goes, the less granual the data is.

                      You also end up with impossible calibration problems.

                      I expect there exists proxies that acturately reflect temperature changes – atleast to the level of granualarity possible with the specifc proxy
                      but measuring change is NOT measuring the actual value. All proxies must be calibrated against direct measures.

                      Given that we have only 60 years of direct CO2 measure and that most past CO2 proxies have a granulatity of a century or more – we only have 1/2 a point of calibration.

                      This is one of the huge problems with Mann/Biffra and all modern past reconstructions relying on artic tree rings – those rings started devating from direct measures in the 60’s Temps when up when tree rings said down.

                      That is not a fixable problem.
                      It means the arctic tree rings are NOT an actual proxy for global temperatures.

                    48. I would further note you TALK about arround all these proxies – but you never address them directly.

                      You state they exist and expect others to assume they support your claims.

                      Greenland was warmer when the vikings visited almost 1000 years ago.

                      It is generally accepted – including by me, that changes in the artic and antartic LIKELY reflect those in the globe at the time.
                      In fact the changes further from the poles are likely larger than at the poles.

                      So a warmer greenland a thousand years ago means a likely warmer world.

                      That is Annecdotal data – from viking acounts – but also from archeology finding norse farms on Greenland and North america. that would not have existed unless the climate was much warmer than than now.

                      If you try to sell some past proxy that does not have the world warmer than today 1000 years ago – there is good reason to reject it.

                      We also have evidence that the roman period was warmer than today.

                      So if you produce some past proxy that is at odds with that – why should we accept it ?

                    49. John B Say, I learned about Wealth of Nations decades ago and Hayek’s nonsense more recently from Stoat. Neither is scence.

                      Attempts to estimate a global temperature before the Pleistocene become ever more problematic. Back through the Pliocene is quite good and even the entire Cenozoic era i good enough. Earlier?

                    50. Both Hayek and Smith are Economics, which is substantially more of a science than Climate.

                      I have read criticism’s of everyone you think I should read – if your reading a criticism of the founder of economic science and a nobel prize winner and one of the 4 greatest economists in the past hundred years by a nobody is sufficient – why should I read anything from your sources ?

                      If I had not before – I should add Nobel winner James M. Buchanon to my recomended reading, asthough he never addresses climate he still accurately dismantles the foundations of the warmist argument. Buchannon is responsible for Public Choice theory – or Why governments pretty much always get everything wrong.

                      Buchannon should be very appropriate reading at the moment as we watch the Biden administration which took office with the wind at is back turn everything it touches to $hit.

                      While Friedman is the worlds most famous monetarist – the foundations of monetarism are with Hayek.

                      Hayek predicted the start of the great depression to within 2 months.

                      We spent some ungodly number of trillins of dollars on Covid – and low and behold inflation is out of control.

                      Seems like Hayek and Freidman were right

                      Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomena.

                    51. I have addressed proxies repeatedly. There is a world of difference between proxies are useful and this particular proxy is correct.
                      If you want to use a proxy – use MANY not one, and then PROVE the constraints that each can be used reliably.
                      You never address that. You do not even do anything besides name drop proxies as if they support your claims without actually demonstrating or even arguing that they do.

                      Older proxies are not more problematic, they are just more granular and uncalibrateable.

                      You can use deep past proxies to establish whether CO2 leads or trails temperature – it appears to trail.
                      That can SUGGEST that one causes the other but it can not alone prove it. It is highly likely that CO2 and Temperature are a feedback look,
                      Rising temperature causes rising CO2 and rising CO2 causes rising temperature (and declining temps cause declining CO2) but Obviously other forces limit both temperature rises and falls – more that warmists have no understanding of.

                      Why do ice ages start ? Why do they end ? You claim to be familiar with milankovick cycles yet warmist reject insolation was driving climate – that means that their MUST be another explanation for ice ages.

                    52. John B Say, re: yours of May 19 @ 6:46 pm.

                      No, what the Law Dome CO2 data shows is that CO2 started an uptrend in 1800 CE. Not only was there coal burning but surely considerable deforestation as well. When was the entire American Midwest cut down for agricultural land? Not to mention much of Europe. And, oh yes, the French were busy casting cannons for Napoleon…

                    53. The population of the world was about 800m in 1800. Little of that was in England and North america
                      5M westerners lived in the US in 1800 – that is less than 1% of the world. The population of England in 1801 was 8.2M 1% of the world.

                      So you are claiming that 2% of the world at best doubling their CO2 per capita Output had an effect ?

                      Estimated atmosphereic CO2 in 1750 was 288ppm. In 1958 it was about 300ppm

                      This is your exponential increase from human activity ?

                      This is also a period during which Global temps rose more than 2C – NATURALLY – it is near certaint hat the increased CO2 is do to ocean outgassing do to warming.

                      Every good warmist knows that warmer ocean water holds less CO2 – though this is at odds with recent data which claims the oceans have captured more CO2 in the past 14 years than previously – that claim is required for warmists to explain the dramatic lack of warming int he 21st century.

                    54. John B Say, re: yours of May 19 @ 7:06 pm.

                      Malthus is very likely to be proven right this year and the next. Doesn’t have much to do with global warming, so it looks to me that you are shot-gunning…

                    55. About what do you expect Malthus to be proven correct ?

                      I expect the next year to be bad. But the causes are political and will eventually pass.

                      All the next year or so will do is prove again we can feed 8B people – absent war and govenrment idiocy.

                      You keep making this incredibly stupid argument that government caused FAILURE proves the need for more government control.

                      I agree the moment is significant.
                      We are in the midst of a global proof of the merits of libertarianism.
                      That individuals can do better left alone on most things than their governments.

                      That is pretty much the OPPOSITE of your warmist malthusian nonsense.

                      BTW Malthus was a brilliant economist for his time and quickly realized the error of his claims, but not before lending his name to all end of the world prognostications forever.

                    56. S. Meyer, re: yours of May 19 @ 10:38 pm —- I present the science, based on the physics developed since the beginning of the 19th century. I use the correct formulas, giving those the correct names. I certainly don’t make mistakes of high school algebra.

                      John B Say doesn’t none of that. He flounders from topic to topic, demonstrating a complete lack of any understanding. He references those who have “gone emeritus”, claiming the are climatologists when in fact, they are merely meteorologists of just social scientists.

                      I have pointed out the most egregious of his mistakes, suggesting where one can read the science at various levels of preparation. Try educating yourself.

                    57. David, I don’t care about particular formulas. I care about follow-through. Piling up one study on top of another without review and linkage is dangerous. That is what you do, and that leads to a bad foundation.

                      Nowhere do you follow from one thought to the next, and where there is a question, you quote a supposed expert’s expertise or a book. That doesn’t provide the following link in the chain, so you are left with a meaningless broken chain.

                      The following is your answer to any question that rocks your boat. “Try educating yourself.” That immediately tells everyone that you do not have the answers and they don’t have to know physics or calculus to realize that.

                    58. Mr benson
                      Your reply is entirely ad hominem
                      Worse it is only true of you

                      You seem to think that plank and S-B are only conditional applicable

                      Lindzen is one of the earliest climate scientists from MIT
                      Curry was the department head at GA Tech and a strong advocate for CAGW until climategate exposed that the very people you use as sources were burying the work of peers even other warmists wise work did not perfectly support the ruling cabal

                      Not only are many of your sources will know for scientific fraud but I have demonstrated that fraud often using data YOU provide

                      You linked to a Denver post story with a long list of claims
                      And when I debunked the first several paragraphs you were confused because the claims I debunked were not from climate scientists
                      Fine then do not use journalists as sources
                      You source john cook is an assistant professor of climate communications at GMU that is less credibility than a meteorologist

                      Micheal Mann as well as many other of your so called climatologist is a geophysicist
                      I do not mean that as an insult
                      A substantial portion of climate skeptics are in geophysics or related fields
                      What distinguishes the from Mann is they are not frauds

                      I would further note that most of the graphs I provide come directly or indirectly from your sources
                      Those that do not come from easily verified public data

                      If you think UAH or RSS got it wrong you can download the entire raw satellite data and write your own Algorithms or modify your own

                      The land temp raw data is impossible for anyone outside the climate cabal to get

                      I can go on and own discrediting your sources

                      But despite your ranting this is not a war of experts
                      CAGW has been falsified -long ago
                      Your done
                      Most people in the us and the world grasp the world is warming slowly and it is not a problem

                      I have tooted some of my own credentials far too much here in response to obviously idiotic claims by you that I failed physics 101

                      Appeals to authority are logical fallacy even when I make them

                      Further haven’t we had enough crap from self serving institutionalized experts who who have done us all enormous and obvious harm ?
                      The experts who have destroyed our standard of living to accomplish nothing regarding Covid have a better grasp of statistics than the warmists priesthood and still they f’d it up who in there right mind would trust warmists ?

                      The proof is NOT in my credentials
                      Or anyone else’s
                      It is in the facts

                      There are hundreds of problems with warmest science but the existence of problems is not the issue
                      It is the religious zealotry that precludes warmists from fixing problems

                    59. No you have not pointed out mistakes
                      Your arguments are entirely vague appeals to authorities
                      You can not even explain anything beyond if you would just read … you would know

                      Not an argument

                      It is increasingly evident that you know little about climate and do not even have the ability to regurgitate what you have read

                      Your arrogance could be forgiven if it was backed up by valid and credible arguments

                      But it isn’t

                    60. No, David – you have not presented science. You have engaged in appeals to authority. You have not provided a single argument that is not of the form – someone else says. And often not even that. Some of your arguments are of the form “Your wrong because of some proxy that I am not even prepared to say what it says”.

                      Einstein has more than “gone emeritus” – he is long dead. Does that discredit him ?

                      Freidman is dead, Hayek is Dead, Coase is dead. They are all still the still standing pillars of modern economics, they have been found wrong about NOTHING so far. Even Adam Smith the founder of modern economics has far less error than Freud despite being dead more than twice as long.

                      Get past these stupid appeals to bad authorities. You appear to have accepted that Mann and Biffra are charleton’s. You have yet to grasp that they are just part of a stupid cabal.

                      You fixate on what is a climate scientist – and yet your sources are in geology, or communications

                      Arrhenius was not a climate scientist, nor was Plank. Yet Climate science could not exist without them and many others.

                      I would note that model Climate models are just Meterological models drastically simplified.

                      You do not even know what you do not know.

                      You can not even win fallacious appeals to authority.

                    61. Saying I disagree is not pointing out a mistake.

                      If there is an error in my assertions – point that out with FACTS, LOGIC, REASON. Not appeals to authority.

                    62. S. Meyer, the story is simple: humans started to seriously interfere with climate starting about 1750-1800 CE by burning coal, etc. This caused atmospheric CO2 to climb exponentially ever since. Thus warming the globe as Arrenhius already noted in the 19th century; I’ve given the simplified form of his equation.
                      The consequences are evident. Many of the articles on this subject have been collected in a fairly readable form on
                      https://bravenewclimate.proboards.com/

                      All else is simply floundering, principally here by John Say, who seems to have lost his mind.

                      I have tried to supply places where the interested can go to learn the subject. I suppose an online source is John Cook’s Skeptical Science; it comes well-regarded by those whose opinions I hold in regard.

                    63. “All else is simply floundering,” “the story is simple”

                      David, that attitude discloses you think the science is settled when science is NEVER settled. Didn’t Professor Feynman teach you that?

                      You bring to the table a specific theory of mostly anthropogenic global warming instead of primarily global warming due to natural phenomena. When incontrovertible facts don’t align with the theory, we see new timelines, equations, fudge factors, fraud, and many other things. We don’t see questions of the basic theory. Why? Further, those eminent scientists believed and trusted the scam. How can we trust them on such a complex issue if easy fraud goes undetected? Are they so focused on convincing people their theory is correct that they don’t question their own? Why should I trust that type of scientist?

                      Today you say the problem started around 1750-1800, but when I first heard about global warming, I was told it started around 50 years earlier due to the increased use of fossil fuels. Why the change? In fact, why was the name changed from global warming to climate change?

                      Were those scientists who were then convinced as much as you wrong? Why should we accept them as correct today if they were wrong then? Why are they so protective of their underlying theory when the data and modeling continue to prove them wrong?

                      If you base what you say on Arrenhius today, why wasn’t that done yesterday? Why weren’t you smart enough to use that argument 20 years ago? Why did the timeline suddenly change? He noted these things in the 19th century. Were all these scientists that said the science is settled wrong? Why should we believe them today?

                      “The story is simple,” scientists were latching onto a singular idea they did not want to be questioned. Because of that hubris, they prevented any alternative theories from arising, but since the science was not settled, they have floundered ever since.

                      I am saying that the global warming scientists have lost their credibility, which has little to do with them being right or wrong. They lost that credibility because they adhered to your religious precept, “All else is simply floundering.”

                    64. Your story is simple.

                      It is also WRONG.

                      According to YOUR sources atmospheric CO2 was 288ppm in 1750 it rose 12ppm in 200 years. Nearly all of that between the end of WWII and 1960.
                      It has rising over 100ppm in the past 80 years.

                      1750 approx BTW is the coldest global temps in 1000 years – the Thames froze, and londoners ice skated on it. that did not happen before or since.

                      The Vikings setlled in Greenland in 980AD and lasted into the 5th century when it got too cold and inhospitable.

                      The planet warmed and cooled naturally again and again before 1750.

                      It is only recently that Warmists have tried to claim that CAGW started before 1960.
                      That shift is because it is increasingly evident that there is little difference between pre 1960 and post 1960.

                      You claim that CAGW began in 1750 ? or 1800 ?

                      It is absolutely true that since 1750 the earth has warmed at a steady average rate of about 0.11C/decade
                      Yet according to you CO2 has exploded exponentially. So why hasn’t the warming accelerated ?

                      I would note the temperature curve has not been smooth – there was warming in the 30’s, cooling in the 50’s and 60’s significant warming in the 80’s and 90’s and weak warming in the 21st century.

                      None of this consistent with CAGW.

                    65. I find your cite interesting.

                      I find it very interesting that Warmists like you now feel compelled to go back to 1800.

                      That is pretty much an admission of failure.

                      Wow the Earth has warmed 1.2C over 200 years.

                      With few exceptions we do not mostly disagree on the facts, only whether Humans are causing most warming – they are obviously not and your own site proves that if your sources were self aware enough to read their own charts.

                      As an Aside – I have ZERO interest in Surface Temperature graphs – the data underlying them has been massively manipulated over time, and beyond bias they have innumerable quality issues.

                      The average warming since 1979 has been 0.11-0.13C/decade, since 1999 is has been 0.05C/decade.
                      Since 1750 it has been 0.11C/decade in otherwords warming appears to be slowing.

                      I would note – it has done that before and may start warming rapidly in a few years or decades or it may grow even colder.
                      We have no way of knowing.

                      What we do know is that Human CO2 is not the primary driver of climate.

                    66. I would further note that we have all this wonderful data of the OK dustbowl int he 30’s yet your sources say it was much colder then than now ?

                    67. John B Say, my use of the term “exponential” is to the exponential function
                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_function
                      the inverse of the logarithm function for positive numbers. This is pre-calculus which everyone serious knows. Too bad you never learned it.

                      The earlier so-called warm periods are solely North Atlantic phenomena, not global. I repeat once again, learn the basics of climatology. I am now sure that a standard test on atmospheric physics is simply beyond you, but the “climatology for poets” texts such as those by W.F. Ruddiman and also David Archer are good for starters and might relieve some of your confusion.

                      As for the CO2 concentrations in the past, the co2.earth site provides links to the graphs. Indeed the the CO2 concentration since about 1750 CE has grown exponentially, i.e., according to the exponential function. Matching the forcing to a global surface temperature product is found just now at the beginning of Tamino’s Open Mind blog. The fit is so good that the modern climate sensitivity is determined.

                    68. David, I am listening to you insulting John’s knowledge of math and physics when he has a good understanding of both. That makes people question why and start wondering what you are bringing to the table.

                      I hear no significant rebuttals from you about one of John’s claims that physics doesn’t change just because we deal with climate. Yes, I know you quote books, equations and names, but that is not a rebuttal against long-standing physical principles. Nor is pointing out a potential minor error.

                      Earlier, I asked intentionally simple, direct and unsophisticated questions that didn’t rely on a solid scientific background in order to avoid in-depth formulas and the like, and you didn’t respond to that either.

                      If you wish to use physics, use it. If you want to use logic and simple explanations, use it. But don’t stop the physics when you have no answer and cite references. Alternatively, don’t provide logic and simple reasons, only stopping when a gap in your knowledge forces you to refer people to the literature.

                    69. From your source

                      exponential – z = e^z

                      not z = e^2

                    70. “Abrantes et al. reconstructed a sea surface temperature (SST) history for waters off the coast of Porto, Portugal covering the past thousand years…revealed the occurrence of the Little Ice Age, as well as what they describe as the “persistently higher temperatures registered in the AD 960-1300 interval that we identify as the MWP [ed: Medieval Warming Period].” And from a graph of their SST history, one can see that the peak warmth of the MWP was about 1.2°C greater than the peak warmth of the CWP during the late 20th century.” [F. Abrantes, T. Rodrigues, B. Montanari, C. Santos, L. Witt, C. Lopes, A. H. L. Voelker 2011: Climate Research]

                    71. Is antarctica in the North Atlantic ?

                      Hemer and Harris (2003) extracted a sediment core from beneath the Amery Ice Shelf, East Antarctica, at a point that is currently about 80 km landward of the location of its present edge. In analyzing the core’s characteristics over the past 5,700 14C years, the two scientists observed a peak in absolute diatom abundance in general, and the abundance of Fragilariopsis curta in particular-which parameters, in their words, “are associated with increased proximity to an area of primary production, such as the sea-ice zone”-at about 750 14C yr B.P., which puts the time of maximum Ice Shelf retreat in close proximity to the historical time frame of the Medieval Warm Period.

                    72. Khim et al. (2002) likewise analyzed a sediment core removed from the eastern Bransfield Basin just off the northern tip of the Antarctic Peninsula, including grain size, total organic carbon content, magnetic susceptibility, biogenic silica content, 210Pb geochronology, and radiocarbon (14C) age, all of which data clearly depicted, in their words, the presence of the “Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm period, together with preceding climatic events of similar intensity and duration.”

                    73. “Working in the same general region of the continent, Hall et al. (2010) write that “over the past 50 years, the Antarctic Peninsula warmed ~2°C,” and that resultant rapid ice breakups “have destroyed several small, thin ice shelves fringing the Antarctic Peninsula (i.e., Cook and Vaughan, 2009, and references therein),” leading them to ask, “is the recent warming of the Antarctic Peninsula unique in the Holocene?”

                      I am sure it is hard for warmists like you to understand, but the breakup of Small thin ice shelves – means the breakup of shelves that only formed recently and therefore it was WARMER int he past.

                      We had the same When Obama noted that retreating glaciers in Alaska exposed areas that had not been uncovered for 250 years – in otherwords 250 years ago it was WARMER.

                    74. working in the Ross Sea region of Antarctica, Bertler et al. (2011) obtained new deuterium (δD) data acquired via analysis of the top fifty meters of a 180-meter-long ice core that had been extracted from the ice divide of Victoria Lower Glacier in the northernmost McMurdo Dry Valleys, which they converted to temperature data by means of a temperature-isotope relationship developed by Steig et al. (1998) from data obtained from the Taylor Dome ice core record. In doing so, Bertler et al. report that they identified three distinct time periods in their record: the last 150 years of the Medieval Warm Period (AD 1140 to 1287), the Little Ice Age (AD 1288 to 1807), and the Modern Era (AD 1808 to 2000). And with respect to the Medieval Warm Period, they write that “the McMurdo Dry Valleys were 0.35°C warmer during the MWP than during ME, accompanied by warmer conditions in the Ross Sea.” The three researchers also note that “a magnetic susceptibility record from Palmer Deep marine core (PD92 30MS) also supports warmer MWP conditions, this time in Drake Passage (Domack and Mayewski, 1999).”

                    75. Noon et al. (2003) used oxygen isotopes preserved in authigenic carbonate retrieved from freshwater sediments of Sombre Lake on Signy Island (60°43’S, 45°38’W) in the Southern Ocean to construct a 7,000-year history of that region’s climate. This work revealed that the general trend of temperature at the study site has been downward. Of most interest to the present discussion, however, is the millennial-scale oscillation of climate that is apparent in much of the record. This climate cycle is such that approximately 2,000 years ago, after a thousand-year gap in the data, Signy Island experienced the relative warmth of the last vestiges of the Roman Warm Period, as delineated by McDermott et al. (2001) on the basis of a high-resolution speleothem δ18O record from southwest Ireland. Then comes the Dark Ages Cold period, which is also contemporaneous with what McDermott et al. observe in the Northern Hemisphere, after which the Medieval Warm Period appears at the same point in time and persists for the same length of time that it does in the vicinity of Ireland, whereupon the Little Ice Age sets in just as it does in the Northern Hemisphere. Finally, there is an indication of late twentieth century warming, but with still a long way to go before conditions comparable to those of the Medieval Warm Period are achieved.

                    76. Evidence of the MWP and RWP are present throughout the world, but most critically in DOZENS of studies in Antartica

                      Whether YOU like it or not these periods of warming were NOT issolated to either the mediterainian or North Atlantic.

                      Further BOTH were warmer than the present.

                    77. We have beaten past CO2 to death.

                      YOUR sources report a 12ppm gain from 1750-1960 and a 100ppm gain from 1960-present.

                      You can call that exponential if you want – but it does not make your argument.

                      In fact it strongly supports the SKEPTIC claim that CO2 trails temperature.

                    78. John B Say, re: yours of May 21 @ 2:01 pm.
                      At what school did you study Physics 101? That you missed out on the exponential function?

                      Here is Arrhenius’ original paper:
                      https://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf
                      which you will observe does not contain the modern approximation for the forcing

                      f = S*log(c/c0)

                      with climate sensitivity S to be determined by measurement. This latter is called the Arrhenius law in his honor.

                      Do try to learn some climatology, hmm? Stand of giants’ shoulders, not their toes.

                    79. My understanding of science and math should be readily apparent from my posts,

                      You keep arguing that I do not understand exponentiation of Logrithms but your OWN sources make a fool of you.

                      exponential is y=x^n not y=x^2

                      As to appeals to authority We have been over this.

                      I am not sure why you are fixated on my science education.

                      I had 5 years of college track science in HS. I won the county sciencefair in chemistry twice, as well as an airforce prize for chemistry.
                      And my science fair paper was published.
                      I took Chemistry 101 at F&M, then skipped to Physics 201, At GA tech took Enineering Physics – which is the most demanding at GA Tech. as well as 2 years of structures.
                      I then took another semester of advanced physics at F&M over the summer, and another 2 years of Structures – which is basically newtonian statics, at RPI, in addition to a plethora of engineering courses.

                      I had 5 years of Math in HS, skipped the first year of Math at F&M and went straight to 2nd year math including advanced calculus, diff eq and linear algebra.

                      I received A’s in all of this – 40+ years ago when grades were not being inflated as they are today.

                      Further I have several concurrent careers, one of which routinely requires advanced math and physics.

                      If you have the precise round trip time for 10,000 packets between two WiFi devices some fixed distance apart can you predict the distribution of those packets and wither the distance corresponds to the max, min, average, median or whatever other measure you wish for those packets ?

                      This is actually a simple problem and you do not need any math to solve it.

                    80. John B Say, re: yours of May 21 @ 2:27 pm

                      The CO2 and other trace gas data is from air trapped in the ice from Law Dome. These are not proxies as the term s used in climatology. See Chapter 1 of “Principles of Planetary Climate”.

                      Oh, I forgot it is too difficult for you.

                    81. Bzzt, wrong.

                      I do not care what some warmist source of yours says.

                      We are not living in 1984.

                      They are not direct measures of CO2 taken at the time. They are proxies.
                      That means a whole assortment of factors distinctly different and in addition to those for direct measures must be addressed.

                      Why is it you continue to wish to argue over stupid things that you are obviously wrong about.

                      You keep making a fool of yourself.

                      exponentiaion x^n not x^2

                      Proxy – not direct measures and not at the time.

                      proxy – a substitute for a direct measure.

                      I have no problem with Proxies – only your pretense that we can ignore the factors that might cause errors.

                      BTW you have the same problem with direct measures – you are unable to grasp that the thermometer record has massive problems with error – so much so that warmist scientists make significant adjustments to the thermoter record. Again no one argues this is not necescary only that the raw data is not public and neither the adjustments nor the methodology for them are made public.

                      So we have bad data requiring substantial adjustment being adjusted without transparency by people seeking a specific end.
                      Nothing could go wrong.

                    82. Mr. Benson – I have been familiar with Arrhenius for decades.

                      You can derive Arrhenius from SB or Plank.

                      YOU are the one on the wrong side of Arrhenius.

                      You have an exponential function – or a log function as you write it.

                      But you do not have a real world data pattern that matches.

                      That does not mean Arrhenius is wrong.

                      It means that you either have the coefficient – ECS wrong, or that CO2 is not the dominant driver or both.

                      This is pretty basic math.

                      it is also why Global Climate models are running way warm.

                    83. Lets try to give you some BASIC Science regarding Arrhenius.

                      CO2 is NOT the only driver of surface temperatures, There are a whole raft of factors, water vapor, methane, albedo, insolation,
                      Cosmic rays, gravatational waves, Volcanoes, Variations in energy from the earth core.
                      And myriads of others.

                      You can mathematically calculate that with all other factors controlled more CO2 will result in higher surface temps – though temperature will increase logrithmically with increases in CO2 that is why Climate scientists talk in degree’s of warming per doubling.

                      But there is no direct or empiracle means to know the scale of the effect of More CO2. Temps could increase by 0.25C/doubling or 8C/doubling. Warmists determine the rate of increase per doubling using the GCM’s – but the GCM’s are running way too hot,
                      That either means that the estimated rate of increase per doubling – ECS is wrong, or it means other factors dwarf CO2 and the models are not accurate regarding those. It does not matter which – the models are sitll wrong, and with that the whole CAGW ediface falls.

                      I noted a handful of other factors that also impact warming – not even close tot he entire list.

                      To make a valid claim regarding CO2 you must control for ALL of the other factors. That is not only unbeleivably hard but highly prone to bias.

                      Further you have walked right into the situation I posted earlier about from Rohmer – you are regressing many coefficients – you will ALWAYS be able to dick with the coeficients and hindcast perfectly with no assurance you will be able to forecast at all.

                      Rohmer demonstrated that with sufficient coefficients to regress even the unconscious biases of scientists will lead to wrong results.

                    84. S. Meyer, re: yours of May 21 @ 9:17 pm

                      John B Say has repeatedly demonstrated a failure to understand the standard names for formulas and concepts in mathematics and physics. The worse, which took me a long time to realize that he did know the
                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_function
                      and its relationship to logarithms.

                      As for physics, he earlier denied that carbon dioxide was a so-called greenhouse gas, i.e., a global warming gas in the atmosphere. This fact has been known since Tyndall:
                      https://bravenewclimate.proboards.com/thread/748/climatology-background?page=1&scrollTo=8346
                      Arrhenius certainly used it in his 1896 paper.

                      The list of his egregious errors is too lengthy for me to correct. He needs to read the textbook literature, developed from research for over a hundred and fifty years now. One can’t get by with only Physics 101, which I guess he claims to have taken.

                      I assure you that the essence is indeed as straightforward as I have stated: Anthropogenic carbon dioxide (and other minor global warming gases such as methane) have significantly warmed the surface of the globe, most noticeably so recently. I don’t understand how one could doubt this, but there is a substantial literature, more daily as various interesting aspects of climate are finally understood. Obviously the science isn’t complete, but it is settled sufficiently well to make dire predictions about the future.

                      I have visited, once, part of the Great Barrier reef. Recent reports are that it is now 90% DEAD. Read David Archer’s “The Long Thaw” to see just how long it will be before it is once again cool enough for the coral to regrow. This is only one instance, there are more than I know to begin to list.

                    85. “Obviously the science isn’t complete, but it is settled sufficiently well to make dire predictions about the future.”

                      Finally, we get an admission from David that the science isn’t settled. It is merely “settled sufficiently.”

                      What does that mean? What isn’t settled? The models? That is where the dire predictions come from. That is why the Statue of Liberty is supposed to be underwater but isn’t. That was a dire prediction that didn’t come true. Do we destroy the world’s economy and cause billions of people’s living standards to fall because of “dire” predictions that do not come true?

                      The virtue signalers are running the show while people have trouble buying food. They fly their private jets worldwide, feeling good about themselves for saving the Statue of Liberty from going underwater, telling the rest of the world to suck it in and not drive their cars, walk.

                      Let’s get real and recognize that climate change occurs naturally. Man is a part, but there is no immediate effect. Even the long-term effects appear manageable. Technologies develop over time, especially when affluent communities are promoted, so why do you wish to impoverish those societies? Malthus was wrong, and we didn’t starve. The elites are always finding some new way to glorify themselves. Tomorrow they might suddenly wake up and say we have to worry about global cooling and place a tax on ice cubes. They already stirred up that fear yesterday.

                      But since you have such great fear, why haven’t you considered and discussed known mechanisms of cooling the planet? Why did you get on that oneway train with only one conclusion? Why are you permitting elites to virtue signal off your back? Are you virtue signaling as well? Why aren’t you using your talents to search for alternatives? Why do you want to enrich those that aren’t paying for this craziness but benefiting through their exultation?

                      Instead of discussing climate science, why do you spend so much time proving John doesn’t understand elementary calculus when it is obvious he does?

                      Do any of John’s errors, whether large or small, affect global warming? NO! So why is that part of your argument?

                      You write: “As for physics, he earlier denied that carbon dioxide was a so-called greenhouse gas, i.e., a global warming gas in the atmosphere. This fact has been known since Tyndall:”

                      I don’t know that John said any of that. You need to quote him and let John speak for himself. However, your idea of CO2 trapping heat to heat up the planet seems to be only half the story. Can it not also act as a barrier? Is it the sole factor involving heat transfer? No. There are many more variables, and science continues to change when it comes to those variables. Why do you look at such a narrow path eliminating everything else from your mind when the science isn’t settled?

                      You write, “I don’t understand how one could doubt this”

                      That is the problem. You are sure of yourself, yet you know the science isn’t settled. Mann committed fraud, and despite all those brilliant people you mentioned, no one noticed. How could that happen? It was apparent, but it satisfied the preset conclusions of all those brilliant men. How can we trust them when they can’t deal with their own? Instead of directly answering questions, why do you refer to books instead of facts? That tells us you don’t have the answer. Why do we not have opposing viewpoints before releasing any analysis to the public? Why are so many afraid of contrary perspectives? Why is research funding so biased in one direction?

                      All of these things point to an unwillingness to search for the truth. Without question, money, status and power are involved. That is what is running the show, not science.

                    86. Mr. Benson.

                      Your remarks are degrading from merely wrong to slander.

                      I have NEVER claimed CO2 was not a GHG. It is merely not likely a very strong one.

                      And the error regarding Exponentiation is YOURS – demonstrated by your own links.

                      Y = AX^N not JUST Y = AX^2

                      You keep pretending I am ignorant of Arrhenius – which is nonsense. You can derive Arrhenius from S-B or Plank.
                      I just prefer S-B as is it more fundimental, and easier to understand.

                      But Arrhenius runs YOU into the SAME walls that S-B does.

                      You do not see in the real world the mathematical relationship you are looking for. Therefore either you have vastly over-estimated the warming coefficient of CO2 or there are other stronger factors in play.

                      You want to argue that CO2 since 1750 has increased exponentially – fine – go ahead – fit the curve.

                      Then we can discuss the results.

                      It is quite obvious visually you are NOT going to get what you need.

                    87. Repeating things we are actually in agreement on – while pretending I am not just makes you look stupid.

                      Of course the list of my errors will be infinitely long – if you get to make up whatever you want for my position.

                      Stick to what I have actually written.

                      So lets TRY to get some things out of the way:

                      CO2 is a GHG – it is one of Many GHG’s, it is generally one of the weaker GHG’s.

                      Our only disagreement on CO2 is SCALE, and significance. i.e. how strong is the warming effect of CO2 and how strong at the other factors known and unknown. You NEVER address that pretending that CO2 is all alone in driving climate.

                      Aside from your lunatic confusion claiming that exponentiation is only powers of 2 we are agreed on the basic math.

                      You seem to think S-B does not apply – sorry S-B ALWAYS applies. As to your black body nonsense – NOTHING is a perfect black body, somethings are better than others. We use S-B regardless, we just expect small error because we are not dealing with black bodies.

                      Regardless S-B Plank and Arrhenius are all mathematically related – just as the shear equations for steel beams derive from Newton’s laws.

                      You keep waving Arrhenius arround as a talisman. Failing to grasp that As you are applying Arrhenius – it FALSIFIES your claims.

                      Again:

                      I have not said CO2 is not a GHG – you LIE when you say that.

                      I raised the exponential discontinuity – not YOU,
                      Regardless exponential – y=Ax^n

                      You continue to accuse me of math error – when the error was YOUR – you LIE when you say that.

                      I have no problems with Arrhenius, S-B or plan – you LIE whey you say otherwise.
                      They ALL either falsify CAGW and the GCM;’s or at the very least demonstrate that CO2 is not the primary driver of climate and not a STRONG GHG.

                      Are you desperate to move from merely being wrong about many things to making numerous false allegations.

                    88. “According to the Australian Institute of Marine Science’s Annual Summary Report on Coral Reef Condition, which was released today, conditions have been relatively good for coral recovery during 2020-21.

                      Researchers surveyed 127 reefs and found that at least 69 had seen an increase in hard coral cover since they were last surveyed.”

                    89. “Saxon Reef, for example, suffered some form of bleaching on 47.1 percent of its live coral cover during the 2016 event. Fortunately, much of the bleached coral recovered thanks to better conditions experienced in 2018,” Sheriden Morris, RRRC Managing Director, said in a statement.”

                      47.1% is not 90%

                    90. John B Say, re: yours of May 22 @ 1:57 pm and following

                      Once again, measurements of trace gases are direct from the air trapped in the ice, not proxies. The Law Dome data is annual. That is all that is necessary for showing that CO2 and other heat-trapping trace gases have caused the global temperature rise since the modern, instrument based, global temperature product begins, 1880 CE.

                      See Tamino’s Open Mind post about it. You can find this via
                      https://bravenewclimate.proboards.com/thread/748/climatology-background

                    91. Playing games with the definition of proxy does not change whether something is a proxy.

                      You did not measure the actual atmosphere directly 100, or 1000, or 10,000 years ago.
                      You are measuring a proxy.

                    92. Oh My God, you are an actual poster on Tamino’s board !!

                      You really are a nut job.

                    93. BTW the law dome data is 2000 years not 10,000 years.

                    94. John B Say, re: your flounderings of May 22 in the afternoon.

                      The exponential function of argument x is usually written e^x, and certainly isn’t x^n for any value of n. It seems you have forgotten to math you claim to have once studied. Do you recognize that you have had a stroke? Many fail to do so.

                      The strrong correlation between global temperatures since 1880 CE and atmospheric CO2 concentrations since that date set the climate sensitivity. I posted the link to Tamino’s analysis, once directly and once via BraveNewClimate. Since we already know that carbon dioxide s a global warming gas, from Tyndall’s work, it is just a matter of determining the climate sensitivity. This does not require a climate model, a so-called GCM.

                      I gather you are unable to comprehend straightforward scientific argument based on observations. Too bad.

                      Of course the study of economics has nothing to do with this. That you bring it up is additional evidence that you have suffered a stroke. recommend tht you seek medical advice.

                    95. You are STILL arguing exponential ?

                      From Wikipedia

                      The exponential function is a mathematical function denoted by f(x)=exp(x) or e^x (where the argument x is written as an exponent).
                      Can we end this or do you wish to Keep demonstrating your stupidity ?

                      Are you actually arguing over when I use e or x for the variable and x or n for the exponent ?

                      Really ?

                    96. “The strrong correlation between global temperatures since 1880 CE and atmospheric CO2 concentrations since that date set the climate sensitivity”

                      Both false as a matter of warmist climate science and false as a matter of fact.

                      Warmests derive ECS by hindcasting using the GCM’s

                      There is OBVIOUSLY not a strong correlations. Just look at the graphs.

                      And can you make up your mind about your time frame.

                      You keep jumping from 1750, to 1800, to 1880.

                      The debate is much the same regardless, But there are fundimental historical differences. population differences, ….

                      In 1750 the West – North America, England, Europe were at most produced marginally more CO2 than the rest of the world, and all together were about 1% of the population. By 1800 the industrial revolution had barely started in England and their combined population was less than 2% of the world and only a few million. By 1880 it was fully underway in the US and England and the US population was 50m, while the population of England was 24m Global population was 1.4B so the industrial west was about 5% of the world. There were still no cars.
                      So we are dealing with trains and other steam engines.

                      Burning wood rather than Coal produces as much as 5 times the CO2.

                      It is not the shift of the industrial era to coal that produced more CO2 that actually reduced CO2, it is the consumption of more energy per capita combined with rising population. And BOTH of those were very small globally until after WWII.

                      CO2 did not start to rise rapidly until the post war industrialization of the world.

                    97. As YOU have stated repeatedly and correctly – climate is extremely complex.

                      It is not possible for a human on their own to calculate even 1/1000th of a single climate cell for 5 minutes if they spent their entire lifetime doing it.

                      The most common means of deriving ECS is from the climate models – as they are in theory atleast the only means of covering all factors.

                      I noted before that Pielke Sr. has produced peer reviewed work demonstrating that all 20th century warming is do to land use changes.

                      He may or may not be right regarding ALL warming, but he is absolutely correct regarding SOME warming.
                      Did Tamino factor in land use ?

                      A massive debate is over aerosoles and particulates – these tend to have dramatic cooling effects.
                      Did Tamino factor in Aersols and particulates ?

                      There are thousands of other factors,

                      You can make a good guestimate at ECS by curve fitting – but only if you presume the only driver of climate is CO2 – which is obviously false.

                      I would further note that the GCM’s either do not factor everything in or they factor things in simplistically – because the full calculations can not be done many times real time as required to hindcast and forecast.

                      Finally the Romer example I used is about MATH – and specifically the impossibility of accurately modeling complex systems with many coefficients. And we do not have a more complex system that climate.

                      And you think Tamino is going to get ECS correct by hand ?

                    98. JOhn B Say, re: yours of May 22 @ 3:10 pm.

                      I have posted nothing whatsoever about governments. Don’t MAKE STUFF UP.

                      Seek help with your mental condition.

                    99. “I have posted nothing whatsoever about governments. Don’t MAKE STUFF UP.”

                      So you oppose government mandates regarding climate and government climate regulations ?

                      If so – we are done. I do not care in the slightest what you beleive – so long as you do not seek to impose it on me or others by force.

                      You can beleive the earth is going to explode in a fireball tomorow – so long as you do not wish to elicit government to infringe on peoples rights to stop that.

                      At the core to this debate – the ENTIRE debate about myriads of forms of leftist malthusian nonsense is not your stupid beleif in malthusuan nonsense. That is self punishing.

                      It is your willingness to use force to overcome a non-existant problem to the harm of myself and everyone else.

                      We are in the midst of high inflation, of an uncertain economy, of a near certain recession, all because of global government stupidity to thwart Covid that FAILED.

                      The left has done an incredible job of PROVING that ultimately every single thing including human lives has a monetary value.

                      Why ? Because when you pretend that we must try to stop every Covid death even though we can not, you end up killing people other ways.
                      Through suicide, or drug overdose or delayed medical treatment. And we harm far far more by wrecking their jobs, and their lives.

                      Look arround you RIGHT NOW – look at the carnage. That is a small part of the harm that trying to thwart GAGW will cost Real or imagined.

                      Worse you want to destory lives and kill people to stop something that even if real would ultimately be net positive.

                      You say economics is not involved – that just demonstrates your incredible stupidity.

                      Every single thing about values is about economics – and visa versa.

                    100. The prediction is for even more massive coral dieoff:
                      https://www.npr.org/2021/11/08/1052198840/1-5-degrees-warming-climate-change
                      So far it is still bad enough:
                      https://www.npr.org/2022/03/26/1088886918/australia-great-barrier-reef-coral-bleaching-climate

                      These are direct results of global warming. Global warming is primarily caused by increased atmospheric CO2, with the assistance of other heat-trapping gases. I am not about to duplicate here the lines of reasoning called climatology.

                    101. There is absolutely nothing in your bleaching article. It is not reporting a new occurance. it is pontificating about the past and speculating about the future.

                      Tree coral grows fast dies easily and recovers quickly. It will do that over and over.

                      And again the primary cause of damage to the GB reef is cyclones.

                      And AGAIN you keep ignoring this

                      No Warming pattern to Cyclones and hurricanes.

                      It is entirely possible that the GB reef has been hit by an unusual string of cyclones over the past decade.
                      But such patter in NOT present globally – it therefore is NOT CAGW and that means someplace else got hit LESS.

                      https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.BGZANyUW0NMKYICB_xbc5wHaFS&pid=Api&f=1

                    102. “These are direct results of global warming.”

                      No they are not.

                      There is absolutely no claim that you are unwilling to make.

                      We have discussed numerous issues with Warming.

                      You positions is CLEARLY religious – not evidence based.

                      I have established to a high degree of certainty that the MWP and RWP were Global – not north atlantic,
                      and the RWP was much hotter than the present – and probably the MWP.

                      You ignore that. “Inconvenient truth”

                      The data on hurricanes and cyclones is readily available.
                      Beyond natural cycles specific to the atlantic, pacific or Indian oceans the global frequency and strength of tropical storms shows no correlation to warming.

                      Given that nearly all the damage to the GB is from cyclones – you are selling garbage once again.

                      If everyone is a racist – no one is a racist.
                      If every bad thing is cause by Global warming than nothing is caused by global warming.

                      Warmist now try to claim unusual cold, unusual rainfall, unusual snow are all global warming.

                      You are selling a religion – not science.

                      Faith is the domain of religion, facts are he domain of science.

                    103. I provided you the entire 2000 year Law Dome Data graph. 1750 was the minima on the graph.
                      That ALONE causes serious problems to your man made claim. What was causing CO2 levels to be high 1000 years ago ? 2000 years ago ?

                      You cherry pick data – badly.

                      So far you are something like zero for 20 trying to prove ANYTHING.

                      1750 was the coldest point in the past 2000 years.
                      It was the least CO2 according to YOUR sources in the past 2000 years.

                      Sea level has been rising near linearly since 1750
                      Temperatures have been rising near linearly since 1750.
                      CO2 rose about 12ppm from 1750 to 1958 and then rose 100ppm in 80 years – near linearly.

                      YOUR data confirms all of these.

                      Often the graphs I have used to debunk YOUR claims come from Tamino or others that YOU claim are experts.

                    104. John B Say, in writing an exponential function, the base of the natural logarithms is often used. Everybody who studies mathematics learns that this is the constant written e.

                      I already posted links to the Wikipedia pages where you might repair this deficiency in your knowledge.

                      But from this egregious error on your part, it is clear that you actually comprehend neither the Stefan Law nor the Planck Law.

                    105. You are still pushing this ?

                      You lost this argument once again – it was a stupid argument.

                      exponential
                      adjective
                      Of or relating to an exponent.
                      Containing, involving, or expressed as an exponent.

                      https://d138zd1ktt9iqe.cloudfront.net/media/seo_landing_files/definition-of-exponential-function-equation-1625118952.png

                      You remind me of a physics TA I had 40 years ago.

                      I solved some problem and provided the answer (1,1,0), he took 50% off because in introductory physics the form was 1i^ + 1j^ + 0k^,
                      I told him that was not correct for advanced physics of linear algebra and there fore I was losing points.

                      The only thing was then pendantic is pendantic and wrong.
                      You win that prize.

                    106. And here in the Wikipedia page for Arrheniua you will find that his law is derived from S-B

                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius

                      So much for your nonsense about S-B being inapplicable to climate.

                      Arrhenius rule is derived directly from S-B

                      That should also end your Black Body nonsense.

                    107. Mr., Benson this debat has gone on for a long time. You keep doubling down on stupid – most of that stupid has nothing at all to do with Climate and just reflects your absymal understanding of Physics and Math.

                      Lets rehash
                      The only person who referenced quadratics is you.

                      S-B is Exponential and is derived from Plank and Arrhenius is derived from S-B.

                      If the fact that S-B is about black bodies is a problem in Climate – then Arrhenius is wrong too, because it derives from S-B.

                      An exponential equations has many forms, e^x is only one of those.
                      And even Wikipedia refers to S-B as Exponential – and therefore so is Arrhenius – though it is often expressed in log form.

                      These are merely the mathematical and physics errors that you have made that I can recall,

                      These errors are NOT “egregious” but they are yours. Further it is ARROGANT for you to continually call me out for “egregious errors” – that are YOUR errors.

                      To quote you to yourself “it is clear that you actually comprehend neither the Stefan Law nor the Planck Law.” and I would add Arrhenius too.

                      Finally this whole debate is pointlessly stupid.

                      I made absolutely no error at all and we have wasted an enormous amount of time beating that into your arrogant and think skull.

                      This should have been a trivial part of the science of Climate that we could accept and agree on – without your arrogant bad pendantic and erroneous nonsense.

                      All of this was to get to the actual point which is that GIVEN that T and CO2 relate through an exponential function.
                      Given the real world data we have and assuming that CO2 is the primary driver of T, the coefficient – the ECS must be very small – because we have a very flat curve.

                      One of the things I find amazing about IYI’s – and ITI’s are found throughout climate science is how blind they are to the OBVIOUS.

                      But then these are the same people who thought they could beat Covid with Forced Public Policies that were known not to work.
                      We KNEW that masks did not work against respiratory Viruses before 2020. Yet we FORCED people to use them – while stupidly allowing them to use cloth masks which are WORSE than useless.

                      I understood immediately when I learned that the Half life of the vaccines was 5-6months that they could not work – there was no possibility of delivering almost 18B doses to 95% of the world in less than 3 months.
                      All of us would have loved it if the vaccines were truly a cure for Covid – but it was self evident from the start they were not. They were at their very best a mitigant for those at high risk.

                      I and many others KNEW when we started dumping Trillions of dollars in Covid Releif we were going to get inflation. and then Biden trippled down.

                      Many people KNEW that on its surface the Collusion Delusion was just idiotic nonsense. It was like a 4 yr old blaming his infant baby brother for stealing a cookie – when the cookies were in a jar out of reach of the infant.

                      It was obvious to all but moron that the Hunter Biden laptop was not russian disinformation.
                      Frankly it was Obvious BEFORE the laptop that the Bidens were corrupt and abusing power for personal profit BEFORE the laptop.

                      And it was obvious 20 years ago that CAGW was just another Malthusian fraud that IYI’s would convince themselves were true.

                      All the people you keep citing – should be embarrassed, they should return their degrees.

                      And that has been crystal clear for over a decade, and is all the more so now.

                      But like you they have no embarrassment at their errors. They deny every making errors and blame everything on those who expose their errors.

                    108. Correlations among CO2, CH4 and CO in the Arctic, March 1989
                      Conway et al.
                      Atmospheric Environment. Part A.
                      v. 27, 1993
                      https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/096016869390319T

                      “The mixing ratios of CO2, CH4 and CO were highly correlated on all flights.”

                      Thereby it suffices to use just the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere to establish a very good approximation to the climate forcing parameter.

                      Which is done here:
                      https://bravenewclimate.proboards.com/thread/748/climatology-background

                      But maybe that is too difficult for John B Say to comprehend.

                    109. You are still clueless.

                      And there are so many errors it is hard to begin

                      Lake many warmests you seem to think that proving things that are distant from the actual issue is meaningful.

                      I am not sure whether the first article you link proves what you claim it does.
                      But even if it did you are still 10,000 miles from your goal.

                      It is absolutely true that higher CO2 concentration will mean more warming. But that does not tell you how much.

                      That would be True regardless of what the coefficient was.

                      I can fill a pool with a fire hose or with a straw. In each case there will be more water in the pool the more time passes.

                      It is completely false that there is any means of calculating that coefficient directly.

                      It is not like the boiling point of water that you can measure in a lab – event that is effected by a small number of other factors.

                      Global Temps are NOT a function of CO2 alone – you yourself are admitting there are other GHG’s such as CH4 and Water.
                      But that is a small portion of all the factors.

                      It appears that you have never heard about regressions ?

                      Though Climate is so complex and the high quality data we have over so short a time that we are far short of the information needed to determine the coefficients of all factors without enormous error.

                      One of the uses of the Climate models is to essentially acquire the data to perform regressions without having the real world data to do so.
                      But that has massive cart before the horse problems – as well as the Romer complex math problem I noted earlier.

                      You really have serous problems understanding math.

                  5. In 2000 we were told Killimanjaro would be snow free year round in a decade.
                    It is still snow covered year round.

                    Alfred Nobel wants his prize back.

                    1. I know why.

                      There are excellent and reasonably well known reasons why ALL malthusian predictions are wrong.

                      Not Just Kilamanjaro.

                      There is always someone predicting the end of the world. They are always wrong.
                      In the next billion years – Maybe they will be right – once.

                      Fundimentally Climate Science is a religion – no different from Harold Camping or the others who predict the end of the world
                      Frankly the paralells are uncanny.

                      Religion BTW is a fundimental trait of Humans. Humanity has never been without religion.
                      As the modern left abandons christianity or judiasm, they have created something else – Climate religion.

                    2. Mr. Benson,

                      In 1978 I was in Architectural School at GA Tech. The Core of the Architectural curriculm was Sustainable living.

                      Long before Hanson turned up the heat on the Senate, I was designing passive solar homes. Trombe Walls. Dry toilets, … Hyrdoponic gardens in homes.

                      I would note there are many many good design principles – ones that are centuries old that where appropriate improve human comfort and efficiency.

                      Anyway along with this sustainable design indoctrination was the core claim that the world would run out of Oil in 1984.
                      We had to design buildings that would not need fossil fuels.

                      And the entire Architecture department at GA Tech was busy doing just that.

                      We had contests to convert the entire city of Atlanta to Passive solar buildings by 1984.

                      It did not take me long to grasp that as much importance as I placed in efficient buildings this goal was impossible.

                      I realized that even if I managed to build my own fully sustainable home by 1984 that it would require something else not in the curiculum – machine gun nests. Because in a mad max world where only a tiny few had seen impending doom and prepared – the rest would just steal it. This is also what is wrong with right wing preppers. Even if they are right they are irrelevant. Right wing preppers are fundimentally no different from warmists. They have just bought a different end of the world scenario.

                      If by some miracle you were right – and the end of the world was nigh – there is absolutely nothing that can or will be done about it.

                      But you are wrong – and just as 1984 did not bring anything close to the end of oil, so is CAGW a Hoax.

                      Whatever the future actually brings – man will deal with it – from the bottom up, with no need for government.

                      Even the mess that is the pandemic shows us quite well that Top down is a disaster.

                    1. “John B Say, such ignorance! Satellites measure temperatures in the troposphere, not surface temperatures.”

                      David, satellites do not orbit within the troposphere.

                    2. Yup – actually lower troposphere
                      From NASA
                      “The troposphere is the innermost layer of Earth’s atmosphere.”

                      and physics tells us what the temperature gradient will be at every altitude.

                      I would note that thermometer readings which only cover 25% of the earth – mostly badly, are also not taken at the same altitude.

                    3. In other words, David, you failed the most straightforward test to open doors. You could not demonstrate the warming trends caused by man using raw temperature graphs. Instead, you linked out and failed.

                      We have the raw numbers, and we note both warming and cooling trends. If man caused the majority of warming, you could plot the lines, and then in 1960, you would be able to show the divergence between the expected line and that line caused by man’s activities. That, as evidence, would open the door to further discussion, but being unable to show such a divergence, you slammed the door shut.

                      That leads us to a new question. How do you explain the lack of divergence after mankind started to spew out so much CO2 and the like? Can you answer that? Based on your first response, my guess is no. Your actions are additional proof that much of global science is on tenuous grounds at best. If the science was correct and understood (at least by you), you could have answered question number one and failing that, you could have explained where that question failed.

                      Remember, I am agnostic and willing to be convinced either way., I accept global warming from natural sources and expect additional global warming from man. I don’t embrace your contention that man is the primary cause of global warming. That requires proof that you don’t have or understand, even though simple observations likely are all that is required.

                    4. John B Say, re: yours of May 22 @ 9:09 pm

                      This I won’t just let slide. The exponential function with base b for variable x is

                      b^x

                      The base b is a constant. Ordinarily in mathematics and natural sciences the constant is the distinguished base of the natural logarithms, always written as

                      e

                      As in Stefan’s Law and Planck’s Law.

                      The exponential function is used in matters economic, although usually with a base of 10. It’s how the interest of your house mortgage is determined, among other matters.

                    5. Aparently every web source I have found for S-B including Wikipedia and the cut below from Britanica does NOT follow your norms.

                      S-B

                      if E is the radiant heat energy emitted from a unit area in one second (that is, the power from a unit area) and T is the absolute temperature (in kelvins), then
                      E = σT4
                      , the Greek letter sigma (σ) representing the constant of proportionality, called the Stefan-Boltzmann constant.

                      How long do you wish to keep up this nonsense ?

                      Your now making a stupid argument about norms which is irrelevant – and you are STILL wrong.

                      The Sumerians did all their finances in base 64, I beleive.
                      Computers do most economic work in binary, though Floating point numbers have a binary fraction and a binary exponent that raises the fraction to a power of ten.

                      My house does not have a mortgage,

                  6. S. Meyer, I don’t understand your 11:55 pm comment.

                    Climatologists thoroughly understand the orbital forcings which have given rise to the cycling between glacials and interglacials. These cause changes in atmospheric CO2 which changes the temperature. From the Law Dome ice data, one sees what is expected, a slow decrease in CO2 and temperature until 1800 CE. At which time humans began adding enough CO2 to cause the concentration to rise and so the temperature did as well.
                    It became much more obvious starting around 1960 CE but that wasn’t the beginning.

                    In addition there is Ruddiman’s early anthropic influence hypothesis, borne out in part by the Law Dome methane data, but I am trying to keep the explanation as simple as possible.

                    1. “S. Meyer, I don’t understand your 11:55 pm comment.”

                      David, It’s simple. Provide the raw temperature numbers and show how the numbers deviated from the trend around 1960 to the present while meeting the numbers you stated previously. That is not difficult.

                    2. In other words, David, you failed the most straightforward test to open doors. You could not demonstrate the warming trends caused by man using raw temperature graphs. Instead, you linked out and failed.

                      We have the raw numbers, and we note both warming and cooling trends. If man caused the majority of warming, you could plot the lines, and then in 1960, you would be able to show the divergence between the expected line and that line caused by man’s activities. That, as evidence, would open the door to further discussion, but being unable to show such a divergence, you slammed the door shut.

                      That leads us to a new question. How do you explain the lack of divergence after mankind started to spew out so much CO2 and the like? Can you answer that? Based on your first response, my guess is no. Your actions are additional proof that much of global science is on tenuous grounds at best. If the science was correct and understood (at least by you), you could have answered question number one and failing that, you could have explained where that question failed.

                      Remember, I am agnostic and willing to be convinced either way., I accept global warming from natural sources and expect additional global warming from man. I don’t embrace your contention that man is the primary cause of global warming. That requires proof that you don’t have or understand, even though simple observations likely are all that is required.

                    3. If climatology “thoroughly” understood anything you would have no problem addressing the FACT that CO2 SLR and Temp are not correlating in the way that fundimental physics says they MUST.

                      You have a very odd view of science. not just climateology.
                      In real science – Newtonian physics is wrong – but the error is sufficiently small we can treat it as correct at the speeds normally encountered on earth.

                      Conversely einsteinian physics has incredibly strong support – but it is still not completely proven. It is still being adjusted, revised or confirmed by new experiments or by astronomical observations.

                      The standard model is widely accepted – but it would not shock the physics community if something inconsistent with it arose. We still can only speculate about dark matter and dark energy with make up most of the cosmos. We know very little about them.

                      Psychology has been shaken to its foundations as a significant amount of fundimentals of psychology dating all the way back to the 50’s has been falsified,

                      Economics – which is very similar to(like climate it is a chaos system), but several orders of magnitude less complex than Climate is still beyond our ability to predict

                      And you run arround as if Climatology rests on a firmer foundation than Physics ?

                      No the Milankovitch cycles are NOT fully understood. If fact there is a very fundimental problem with them – if you look at long term global climate – the pattern looks like the ringing of a bell – with the amplitude declining over time and the frequency shifting.
                      Milankovitch cycles are based on astronomical cycles.

                      Milankovitch provides a variety of cycles, that are self evident in the climate record, but it does not explain why sometimes the period is 110K years and other 90K and why it appears to have suddenly changed to 42K years nor why the current inter glacial with near certainty should have ended long ago.

                      My point is NOT that Milankovitch is wrong – it is not. Only that there is much more going on and that when you say these things are well understood – you are just BS’ing.

                      The fundimental problem with Climate Science is HUBRIS – it is that you can not admit that there is far more that you do not know than that you know.

                    4. Just to be clear – Human CO2 was inconsequential before the mid 20th century.

                      Even today human CO2 is DWARFED by natural CO2 exchanges between the Ocean and atmosphere.

                      Like Mann and Bifra you can not graft proxies onto directly measured data. We do not have a long enough record of Direct CO2 measures to calibrate proxies. That does not make them wrong, but it does mean you can not concatonate proxies onto real data.

                      Whether they are for temps or CO2 or anything else – good Proxies MIGHT accurately show us past PATTERNS. They can tell us when something went up or down, and to what relative extent, there are very very few proxies that can tell us accurate actual measures.

                      Further – as with the problems with Mann and Bifra – most proxies are only truly accurate for a single location or region. Climate scientists try to chose where to take cores or measure proxies based on best guesses regarding the long term stability of other factors. Parts of greenland and antarctica have been ice covered for over 100,000 years. That makes them stable in certain respects.

                      But they are still at best reflective of what occurred at a single point on the planet – while we know that climate is variable accross the planet that even while the plaent as a hole warms or cools that whole contentents can move against global trends.

                      There is nothing wrong with proxies.

                      But there is a great deal wrong with treating them as gospel when the confirm your hypothesis and rejecting them when they do not.

                      Again Hubris.

                    5. I would note – you are STILL making arguments that are nothing more than appeals to your prefered authorities.

                      You do not even provide a basis to assure that you are accurately reflecting the authorities you have chosen.

                      You are also making this incredibly stupid argument that Human CO2 impact started in 1800.

                      The industrial era started in the late 18th century in England – the PRIMARY power for much of the early industrial revolution was Hydro.
                      There were few steam engines with limited use. The US followed England in the early 19th century with Europe following int eh mid 19th century. Throughout the 19th century to the mid 20th century little of the world outside the west had any consequential industrialization at all.
                      Throughout the 19th century the primary source of industrial CO2 in the west would have been Locomotives, As consequential as you might think these – the entire western 19th century CO2 output is dwarfed by a single modern GigaWatt coal plant.

                      The early 20th century was the era of automobiles AND electricity – again IN THE WEST.
                      And again early electrification was Hydro, and early cars were NOT numerous and only in the west.

                      It is the End of WWII that brings about – first in the west, large scale private automobile ownership and driving, and significant electrification.

                      Johnny Cash grew up without electric or a car.

                      It seems impossible for you to grasp that things that are commonplace throughout the world today – were non-existant or rare a century ago.

                    6. John B Say, re: your latest rant of May 22.

                      But Tamino has worked out the highly significant correlation between atmospheric CO2 concentrations and global temperature.

                      So once again, you are completely wrong. Seek help, your maths is all bemuddled.

                    7. Many people have worked out correlations – all with different results. Tamino has a poor track record, he was one of the hockey stick apologists.

                      As I noted before – by far the best correlation to global temperatures is the fourier model of solar cycles that you can run as a spreadsheet on your laptop Thje statistical signifcance is 5+ times anything warmists have ever managed.

                      The flaw is that we know that insolation changes are just not sufficient.

                    8. I understand complete – you pick and choose who and what you wish to beleive without reference to reality.

                    9. The Law Dome Cores were taken more than 20 years ago.

                      When Warmists “revise” things – you pretty much know they are lying.

                      I found the abstract explaining why they revised this quite fascinating.

                      Can I reject any past Data collected that I do not like and retweak it to be more suitable to my argument ?
                      Why was the past work wrong – I recall you telling me these measures were direct measures – not proxies.
                      Direct measures do not require all kinds of adjustments.

                      Regardless, one thing is pretty clear from the abstract – either Warmists did not know what they were doing in the past, or they do not know now (or both)

                      I provided you with graphs of CH4 and CO2 that were accepted for years.

                      Until warmists were no longer able to fudge temps prior to 1960 to get steep enough modern Temp increases.

                      Your claim that consequential CO2 Warming started anytime before 1960, is not supported by the facts.
                      Regardless YOUR “new” source, still sets CO2 in 1750 at about 12ppm below 1960, Playing games with the graph does not change that.

                      12ppm in 200 years is NOT consequential increases in CO2

                      Further YOUR chart still shows 1750 as a Minima for 2000 years.

                      Are you claiming that martians sucked all the CO2 out of the air in 1600 ? and that it would have stayed far below the 2000 year norms but for a few Humans burning Coal ?

                      You keep trying to create a narative – because the prior narative has FAILED,
                      But the new Narative is falsified by your own 2000 years of history.

                    10. From one warmist site.
                      “The Earth has experienced seven cycles of glacial advance and retreat over the last 650,000 years. The last ice age ended 7,000 years ago. The current warming period is happening much faster than past changes, and 95% of climate scientists agree that human activity since the mid-20th century is the cause. “

                    11. From national academies

                      Most of the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has occurred since the late 1950s. In Earth’s distant past, it would take between 5,000 to 20,000 years to see the amount of change in carbon dioxide levels that humans have caused in just the last 60 years.

                    12. It is interesting going back and finding how warmist web sites are whitewashing their own past errors.

                      I can not believe that you are unaware of the fact that most scientists were predicting global cooling in the 60’s and seventies – there were hysterical headlines warning of global cooling.

                      I suspect I can find that the early IPCC reports assert that Human Global warming did not start prior to 1960 or even 1970.

                      But as it has become impossible for warmists to further manipulate past Surface temp records without it being stupid and obvious – now Human caused warming must start much earlier.

                      The planet has always been changing. 1750 is generally the peak of “the little ice age” probably the coldest the planet has been in more than 2000 years. Both Temps and CO2 were inevitably going to NATURALLY return to prior averages – and even peaks.

                      I honestly do not care about this argument – the Fallacy of CAGW is the same even if you pretend human warming started in 1750.
                      Nearly every error I have pointed out is correct regardless of what point you claim AGW started.

                      But I am arguing against yout 1800 claim – because it is stupid, and because it is more evidence of warmists moving the goal posts whenever the get caught

                    13. “Pay no attention to the claims and data we have been feeding you for 30 years.

                      We have rejiggered out means of measuring and now we have it right and this fixes all the flaws in what we have been arguing was correct for decades. “

                2. John B Say — Well, I suppose I understand better now why you are full of it: the arrogance of the engineer. I’ve met lots of those.

                  It is clear that you fail to comprehend climatology. Given you claimed background perhaps you. could manage to read Ray’s textbook with some comprehension. So after finishing Chapter 6, do you understand why the average precipitation, global of course, is increasing with a limit of double that of during glacial stadia?

                  There are many more questions. Correct answers to many can be found by going to the Real Climate website and clicking on the ‘Start Here’ button at the top of the page. There are also the books by the Real Climate consortium; one is David Archer’s “The Long Thaw”, not difficult, and also his introductory textbook.

                  Since I doubt you are actually interested in learning some climatology, just wanting to spout off, I’ll wait until you report you have accomplished the above before suggesting more. The the meantime, just how long before it becomes deadly hot and humid on the Ganges River plain?

                    1. Arrhenius is actual science.

                      If you actuall calculate the Arrhenius constants correctly – you MUST get reality.

                      Given that you do not – you do not have the constants accurate.

                      This is the FUNDIMENTAL error of Warmism.

                      Arrhenius tells you nothing more than that GHG’s will all other factors unchanging increase temperature – and that the increase will be proportionate to the 4th root of the energy gained

                      There is no physically determined property for C02 that tells us the energy capture. Close tot he entire warmist debate is over the correct value for ECS.

                      I would note that of course models “correlate”, that is very close to meaningless. They can be off by a factor of 100 and they will still “correlate”

                      Real science requires that they accurately hindcast and forecast.

                      They do not. Forcasting is off by 2.5 std dev.

                      You keep thinking that you can fudge reality.

                      I would also note that you keep introducing conflicting data of YOURS.
                      Some of your claims have been 0.54C over 30 years, others have been 1.1-.8C over similar periods.

                      RSS and UAH are in very close agreement, they are also in agreement with balloon measurements.
                      The various thermometer measures are not even in agreement with each other and in fact are not even in agreement with themselves.

                      They keep flattening the past to make the present curves steeper. And Unlike UAH and RSS they do so without explanation and showing their data.

                      I would note that while UAH and RSS are in close agreement – UAH is Christy and Spensor – Skeptics, while RSS is Mears a warmist.
                      Yet amazingly with open data and open algorithms and open analysis they get very nearly the same results.

                    2. God no – you are citing the Fraudster Tamino ?
                      He has been caught repeatably fudging data.
                      Further he is arguably not a climate scientist – just a propgandist.
                      That is like Citing Rachel Maddow or Alex Jones.

                      UAH and RSS are the only data sources that consistently measure the same thing across the planet uniformly over the past 44 years.

                      Other sources show the same patterns as UAH and RSS but are subject to far more manipulation and error.

                      UAH and RSS both work with the same satelite data collected over the past 44 years and publicly available.

                      They have been subject to intense scrutiny and the periodic adjustments that are made to improve them are completely public and subject to scrutiny.

                      Nothing else holds up.

                    3. John B Say, re: yours of May 22 @ 12:11 pm

                      You are wrong. Arrhenius used the Stefan-Boltzman law, see his original paper via
                      https://bravenewclimate.proboards.com/thread/748/climatology-background
                      Planck’s Law
                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck's_law
                      clearly uses the exponential function, not the fourth power. Which you mislabel as quadratic and continue to think parabolas have anything to do with the matter.

                      Since you have demonstrated, repeatedly, complete incompetence with elementary algebra, and failure to comprehend the 19th century physics, why not give up trying?

                      Instead read “The Long Thaw”, currently available from Amazon for as little as $1.45. But it is a book that your local public library should own; ask them to buy a hard-bound copy.

                      Finally, you are obviously not a “critical thinker’. Do you understand why this is the case?

                    4. Please read my actual posts.

                      You keep making up claims I have never made.

                      I stated that Arrhenius, S-B and Plank were related – you are now admitting they are.

                      I have never said any of them are wrong, or do not apply – which YOU have.

                      I have not used the word Quadratic in the past year for any post – much less this thread with you.

                      YOU used Quadratic.

                      S-B sets proportional the total energy of an object as the 4th power of its temperature.

                      Arrhenius is essentially a permutation of S-B in a narrower context. The relationship in Arrhenius is squared and it is not to total energy – there is no conflict there.

                      You keep making false assumptions regarding what I have said and then beating that straw man to death.

                      It embarrasses you.

                      Logaritmic curves and parabolic curves are closely related exponential curves the fundimental difference being that parabola’s are symetric, while logarithms are asymptotic.

                      The difference dies not matter for the purposes of this discussion.

                      MY POINT which you are entirely oblivious to is that BOTH curves have near identical diminishing returns.

                      The more you increase CO2 the less temperature rises.

                      You do not seem to get that – but it is fundimental to arrhenius, and S-B

                      https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-zvS2P2g6a_s/U1UIlFoHF7I/AAAAAAAABfs/5M6Vdcpzoi0/w1200-h630-p-k-no-nu/y%5E2+=+2x.PNG

                      https://www.geogebra.org/resource/GzK5bH5m/nzUmzrVDcMzbd0Oi/material-GzK5bH5m.png

                    5. “Since you have demonstrated, repeatedly, complete incompetence with elementary algebra, and failure to comprehend the 19th century physics, why not give up trying?”

                      Yes, Why haven’t you given up ?

                      You repeatedly misrepresent what I have claimed, you make numerous fundimental mathematical and physics errors.

                      You go off on meaningless diatribes debating some voice in your head – certainly not my posts.

                      Most of the errors you have accused me of making:
                      You made
                      I did not.
                      Aren’t fundimentally relevant.

                      It pretty much does not matter precisely what mathematical curve the relationship between CO2 and Temperature follows – it is NOT evident from the real world data.

                      That does not mean the relationship does not exist, it means that either the coefficient is so small the relationship is very weak or some other factor(s) are much larger.

                      You want to hiss and piss over quadratics and precisely what exponential means only in the context of climate, and the differences between the graph of a log and a parabola, none of which you can managed to get right, while at the same time failing to grasp these differences do not matter. You do not have correlation. either the effect of CO2 is weak or the primary driver is something else or both.

                      This is called Math, Physics, Logic, Reason. Facts

                      And your on the wrong side of them all.

                      You keep trying to hold me to some bogus standard of precision – which is not required to falsify CAGW and then when I meet that standard anyway – you make up errors that I did not make and do not matter.

                    6. Mr. Benson

                      Being insulted by you is a badge of honor.

                      The MWP and RWP both are found in numerous “proxies” much the same ones you relay on in Antartica – obviously NOT a north atlantic phenomena. While the Tree rings that Mann, Biffra and all the other Hockey Stick Warmists rely on is a bad proxy, and likely limited to the arctic.

                      exponents are y=Ax^n not y=Ax^2

                      Regardless of whether you use S-B Plank or Arrhenius you have rapidly diminishing returns from approximately linear increases in CO2

                      Further you do not have the correlation required between the CO2 curve and the temperature curve

                      You are obviously wrong about Past CO2 even from your own sources – but even if you were right – again the curves do not correlate.
                      Not in the distant past, not in the recent past, and not currently.

                      And you keep ranting and fighting over things I have not said.

                      Keep beating that straw man to death

                      It perfectly exemplifies your critical thinking ability.

                    7. John B Say, re: yours of May 22 @ 6:21 pm

                      I never mentioned quadratic; you brought it up. A complete red herring.

                      This
                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_growth
                      and only this is exponential, due to the uniquely defined
                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_function

                      Your mind is completely muddled.

                      The extent to which the heat-trapping gases cause global warming is now entirely determined from data by the application of elementary statistics. This is the strongest way of determining an empirical scientific law.

                      Too bad you are so throughly confused.

                    8. “This
                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_growth
                      and only this is exponential, due to the uniquely defined
                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_function

                      Still hung up on something that you are pointlessly wrong about.

                      Let it go.

                      First you put words in my mouth I did not say,
                      and then you incorrectly accused me of being wrong about exponential when I was clearly not.

                      You can confine the meaning of exponential to whatever you want for your OWN posts.

                      But others are not wrong for using it correctly but not as you do.

                      I would further note that for the purposes of the falsification of CAGW it does not actually matter.

                      Whatever the type of curve you are trying to fit – the CO2 curve since 1958 is very near linear, and the Temperature curve since 1750 is very near linear with occasional noise.

                    9. “The extent to which the heat-trapping gases cause global warming is now entirely determined from data by the application of elementary statistics. This is the strongest way of determining an empirical scientific law.”

                      Nope. That is one of the stupidest things you have said.

                      We can compare CH4 to H2O to CO2 and know their relative strengths. But we can not actually know their actual effect without either models or massive regressions – which are essentially the same thing.

                      In any complex system with myriads of factors that interact, you can not know the impact of each without either accurate models or regressions. And with Climate we do not have the data for either.

                      Just one SIMPLE example – you could try to measure the ECS of H2O in a laboratory, but we know that the acutal effect varies with altitude.

                      That Low water vapor traps heat at the surface and high water vapor reflects it into space.

                      As GHG’s go CO2 is one of the weakest – H20 is atleast 4 times as strong – at low altitudes. CH4 is much stronger but much rarer.

                      But even the effect of CO2 varies with altitude. Regardless, like all GHG’s they both block insolation from the sun and trap it reflecting back to space. The effect is not balanced,

                      It is possible that we might sort this out in 4 or 5 decades with better space instruments.

                      You like to rant about Black Bodies do not apply – but from space you can treat earth as a black body, and if you can accurately meassure the energy flows you can work much of this out much more easily and accurately than climate models.
                      But it requires better quality measurement than we have had until recently. And trying to isolate the impact of CO2 requires decades of those measurements data that we do not have.

                  1. David, from what you write, it is evident that you think science is consensus thinking. It isn’t consensus thinking is political.

                    Based on all the errors made by scientists pushing your ideas and based on the failed models, one can only conclude that things are Unsettled. Below is the full name of the book, Unsettled. It would help if you looked at its graphs, many identical to the ones promoted by those pretending to be experts on climate change. This book will take some of the exact same graphs except provide a more extended timeline so one can see the BS being thrown. Koonin is not concluding. He is only trying to give a complete graph so one can decide for themselves.

                    John said it right. Too many advocating climate change do not understand statistics. They use selection to promote their ideas.

                    Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn’t, and Why It Matters What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn’t, and Why It Matters __Steven Koonin

                    1. There are myriads and myriads of errors made by warmists, that undermine their arguments,
                      The relentless failure of so called climate scientists to get simple statistics right.

                      McIntyre spent a long time reverse engineering the “Hockey Stick” – because Man and Bifra and others failed to publish complete data or algorithms. But they did publish enough and the same or nearly the same data was used for many papers, that he was eventually able to reverse engineer their algorithms.

                      Then he fed red noise into the algorithm and got a hockey stick.
                      That is a test for statistical validity of the algorithm and it failed.

                      But the long list of statistical failures is not the big problem.

                      Scientists can get statistics wrong repeatedly and still end up with the correct answer – though they can not prove it without solid statistics.

                      The BIG climate problem is that the real world has falsified the models. PERIOD.

                      Predicted 21st century warming was 3-4C we are way way way off track for that. We have never been on track for that, but each year that becomes more obvious.

                      This is part of the reason for the word game shift from CAGW – Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming to Climate Change.

                      Of course the climate is changing. It has changed every day for the 3.5B years this planet has existed.

                      Warmists are slowly lowering their predictions – though it is still an earth shattering catastrophe. Now it is 1-2C by 2100
                      Soon it will be just 1C – the same as the warming in the 20th century and the 19th before that.

                      I am almost 64 years old. The world has changed alot. But there has been no “Catastrophic” change.

                      Nearly all the change in nearly everything has been positive.

                      People live longer, the eat better, they are healthier, there is less war and less death from war.

                      In fact nearly everything the Left rants is going to hell is much better than it was when I was a child.

                    2. John, there is no doubt that global warming exists in our timeframe. But, most global warming is not caused by humans, so changing the way we live can only alter a tiny fraction of the temperature increase.

                      To meet the presumed goals of reducing CO2 through reductions in the use of carbon products is a fantasy. The rich and western nations, because they are rich, can reduce their percentages to a limited degree, but as the third world develops, they will wipe out any possible savings.

                      Why are we emphasizing a policy that is doomed from the start and, if only marginally successful, will impoverish the world has little to do with climate control. It has to do with the elite’s desires for more power and money.

                      If global warming becomes problematic, there are two ways of managing it.

                      1) Adaptation: Towards the equator, we have temperatures in the 100’s and far north temperatures that are freezing. Man can adapt to wide swings of temperature. We have even learned to adapt out in space.

                      2) Geoengineering: I talked about this a long time ago. We have proof that we can drastically alter temperatures in a rapid time frame. That is what would become necessary if wide swings in temperature occurred.

                      None of my comments above mean I agree or disagree with any of the climate science today. I am solution-based when looking at the problem.

                    3. My emphasis is different and my argument with Benson is different, but I agree with you.

                      If Global Warming was a problem – humans left alone will find a way to cope, and it will be little more than a speed bump.

                      The pandemic should be an object lesson in institutional failure.

                      Even China is now destroying a surprisingly fragile economy to try to hold on to the claim that their totalitarian state out performed the free world.

                      I will be happy to criticise Trump over Covid. He let his eyes off the ball.

                      As James Carville reminded everyone long ago – “Its the economy stupid”

                      Nothing we have done regarding Covid has had any benefit – why should we expect mostly the same people to do better with Global Warming. Everything we have done has been Net Harmful on a large scale.

                      Sweden is the ONLY western country with a net zero deviation from mortality trends for people under 65.

                      Through the entire rest of the west – all cause deaths increased significantly above trends.

                      In the US red states ans blue states had little difference in Covid outcomes – some of the worst states were blue, and a few were red.
                      Some of the best states were red and a few were blue.

                      But the economic impact, the deaths from other causes is RADICALLY different.

                      With specific respect to Benson, I am not addressing “what do we do about warming” – honestly that is almost a non-problem.
                      With few exceptions nothing is likely the right answer. But even if that were not true – what needs done will happen, that is how free markets work.

                      What I am addressing is the actual BAD Science of CAGW. Frankly CAGW is a religion not science. It can not be flasified, and things that can not be falsified are religions. Benson takes CAGW on faith. He keeps saying that if I only understood some expert I would know better.

                      How did that work with Covid ? I can fill notebooks with things experts have said that are wrong.

                      If you entrust the critical choices in your life to Benson’s experts – your life will be miserable brutish and short.

                      https://tse2.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.92Ihrs-O-BC060r_OzDffAHaKO&pid=Api&f=1

                    4. John, I like your emphasis. I am impressed with your knowledge, but I don’t spend much time following the math and physics required for your discussion with David. It’s not that I wasn’t taught those subjects. Instead, my road didn’t need all I was taught, making it rusty and almost useless.

                      However, what I learned isn’t useless today, for I can see when a person uses these things as a smokescreen rather than a valid argument. Further, I have learned to open the door slowly using the simplest logic that can quickly prove the other to be a charlatan or brainwashed.

                      My interests lie in solutions and quickly moving on when there are none so that elsewhere I can find a solution.

                      We differ as to how good a President Trump was. His most significant failure was picking people for important positions, but he had to rely on others. His reliance on the Bushes was a great mistake. The Bushes are globalists deeply entrenched in government while Trump was not. Trump had a much more difficult battle than Reagan, so one could not envision him as successful. Further, Reagan was a politician being governor of California and knew how to deal with large groups of people, while Trump was more of a one-person show. That Trump succeeded as well as he did, to me, was extraordinary.

                      Covid has proven that we cannot trust the government or its institutions. I’ve learned that from personal experience. Maybe our approach to government should be like that of a child. The government should be seen but not heard. It should exist quietly and inconspicuously while being almost entirely transparent.

                      David is unable to stay and discuss a singular thought at a time. That is because he is unable to defend his position. He has to jump around or become trapped, proving that what he thinks is absolute proof, at best, is just another bit of information.

                    5. The math is quite simple – and you do not need to get very deep into it.

                      Arrhenius is the scientist the left loves to rely on. But subsequently S-B and Plank found more fundimental principles.

                      Contra DB these all interrelate and you can derive one from the other – and though all three are related to temperature – the physics goes beyond that. As a general rule linear changes in the real world require exponentially greater energy.

                      ALL of these have the GENERAL mathematical form of E = xT^n

                      Where E is energy and T is temperature or sound level or …..

                      This means that Linear increases in T require Exponential increase in E.
                      Basically there is a parabolic relationship. How dramatic that parabola is depends on x and n but the relationship will still be a parabola.

                      When we look at Global Temp’s – choose whatever source you want, and C02 – you do not get line-parabola relationship

                      DB will say things are much more complicated than that – and he is correct – but that only undermines CAGW more.
                      More complicated means additional factors beyond CO2. Regardless is it highly unlikely that human CO2 is the primary driver of climate.

                      I would note – it is actually mathematically possible that Human CO2 is the primary driver of Climate and that we DO have the correct relationship between CO2 and warming – but ONLY if CO2 is an incredibly WEAK driver and we are approaching the almost flat part of the parabola.

                    6. We are in a larger conflict – one of competing Ideas – CAGW is just ONE reflection of one of those ideas.

                      Do you believe that Man is fundamentally good and a force for good ? Do you believe that Free Will is a good or a bad thing ?

                      If you do you are echoing several millennia of building western philosophy.
                      It means that you think that regardless of what is True about Global warming – that humans will not only cope they will thrive.
                      It means that you beleive as Adam Smith wrote

                      Little else is requisite to carry a state to the highest degree of opulence from the lowest barbarism, but peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of justice; all the rest being brought about by the natural course of things. All governments which thwart this natural course, which force things into another channel, or which endeavour to arrest the progress of society at a particular point, are unnatural, and to support themselves are obliged to be oppressive and tyrannical.

                      The alternate view is that best reflected by the extreme left – the post modernists. That view is that man is inherently evil, that humans are a plague on the planet. That but for rigid control of our lives that humans left to their own will do great harm.

                      The intrinsic self contradiction in this is that somehow those at the top reigning in our destructive instincts are also fallible evil humans.

                      Almost no one fully accepts either world view. Many people are not even aware that these two competing world views are what is driving all public conflict. Many are evaluating individual issues one at a time – falling on one side of abortion and the other of CAGW and … without understanding that the real underlying battle is about the nature of humans not Global Warming.

                      I am optomistic that the view that Humans are basically good will prevail – until the next time, as it always has through the past several millenia.

                      That does not mean that the path will be smoothed.

                      I am hopefull we are at peak woke. But if we are not – ultimately the left is its own worst enemy.

                      It is chance that one of the current disasters is baby formula.
                      It is not chance that we face a snowballing sequence of disasters.

                      I am surprised by two things – that the left has failed this greatly this quickly, and that it has taken this long for a majority to grasp they do not know what they are doing.

                      I am shocked that Biden has a 38% approval rather than a 12% one.

                      Biden’s ratings were driven by actual failure. Trump’s by relentless negative press.

                    7. John, I do not see humans as intrinsically good or bad. They are what they are. They try to survive. However, inside the human lies the undefinable, which amongst other things, leads to compassion. Some try and define it, but that is of minor significance. Man survived and prospered no matter the definition. Man’s quest for survival will not change. In man’s favor is his ability to adapt along with his intellect though the latter permits the nihilist and other negative tendencies to exist. How we cope with that tendency determines our future.

                    8. Humanity is unarguably net good.

                      We do not still live in caves.

                      We are constantly improving our own lives, and the lives of others.
                      Most of the time improving our own lives automatically benefits others.

                      This does not mean humans are not capable of great evil.
                      But it is obviously net good over the long run.

                    9. “Humanity is unarguably net good.”

                      John, that is based on perspective. Our perspective is from the Judea Christian world, so we could call it a net good.

                    10. “I am shocked that Biden has a 38% approval rather than a 12% one.”

                      That is the reason one should be pessimistic about the future.

                    11. “Steven Koonin is a fool.”

                      David, what makes you say that? Your religion? You sound faith-based and one who relies on the priests of your faith to tell you what to think and say. They have been wrong for decades. Do you believe that they have to be right today based on the law of averages?

                      Have you ever met Koonin? Have you read anything he wrote? Have you read any of his papers (in the hundreds)? Precisely what do you think makes him a fool other than the fact that he is skeptical and, like a real scientist, believes science constantly questions, recognizing science as a continuous search, not something fixed in stone.

                      In the past, I discussed the Nobel Prize Laureate Richard Feynman and his opinion of how science needs to be looked at. Do you disagree with him as well? Do you call him a fool? He was a skeptic like Koonin.

                      Koonin should have some gravitas in your world. He was Undersecretary for Science in the Department of Energy under Obama. He was a professor of theoretical physics at Caltech. You have been retired for some time, so I bet his skills are still sharp while yours dulled. Today is your time to ask questions, not to play the part of those that follow the Pied Piper.

                      You can look up the rest of Koonin’s biography and read some of his work. When you complete that task, you will have the right to call him “a fool,” even though it would make you sound less distinguished.

                      By the way, Koonin does not provide solid conclusions. He took your graphs and numbers, showing how they don’t work by using more complete charts rather than creating a timeline to fit a pre-announced conclusion. You were a professor, so you should understand what I am saying.

                    12. S. Meyer, all global warming ids due to humans. Without burning stuff, principally coal, the global temperature would be slowly declining. Read David archer’s “The Long Thaw”.

                    13. I don’t have to do any of that stuff. All I have to do is look at the raw temperature numbers without limiting them to selected dates.

                  2. I have no interest in reading the Chronicals of Zion, or scientific exegis on the earth centered model of the universe.

                    I have little interest in reading people with a reputation for fraud and lies, who are making arguments that are obviously false.

                    It is possible that 98% of the science in the sources you cite is perfectly correct.
                    You do not seem to grasp that 98% is not good enough.

                    You do not seem to grasp that climate theory could be perfectly correct – and climate Science as applied still a useless disaster – which it obviously is.

                    Much if not all of what makes up actual climate science – is likely fairly good.
                    You keep refering back to Arrhenius as if anyone thinks his equations are wrong – the physics is solid – no one argues that.
                    In fact much of the basic physics demonstrates that without exponentially growing positive feedbacks even steady linear increases in temperature with linear increases in CO2 are not possible.

                    I have addressed multiple problems with climate science – the first is that the physics, the fluid dynamics, as applied to the entire earth have never been calculable by a human much less the most advanced computers we have. We are not even close to being able to run the full mathemtatical models on existing computers at several times realtime.

                    So your first problem is that all that physics and chemistry and science tells us an enormous amount that we can not use to make predictions. It is like trying to identify a black hole with a dime store telescope – it is not happening.

                    Next – after mangling the models – over simplifying to get them to run on existing computers, the results do not accurately hind cast and forecast. The forecasts were off by 2.5 std dev. That does not mean the science is wrong. But it does mean that we can not get from the science to actually predicting. It is like trying to catch a higgs boson with a cloud chamber made from a gallon jug – not happening.

                    Last apparently being a climate scientist means failing statistics.

                    1. Three observations: John Say views science through the lens of libertarianism and skews his observations through his political beliefs. In other words, he decides his conclusions first and then selects information (often completely flawed information) to back up his initial conclusion. And his spelling is atrocious.

                      Allan makes perhaps the most fundamental mistake to be made in science. While he claims he’s agnostic as to possible conclusions, he openly proclaims absolute truth can be told through a solitary data point. This is the most direct pathway to making a faulty conclusion.

                      And David Benson is where many of us have found ourselves on the blog…, trying to explain objective truth to people who literally have their hands over their ears and who communicate in completely bad faith. They actually get off on playing childish ‘devil’s advocate’ games and clearly are heavily influenced by such deep thinkers as Tucker Carlson and other speakers of the hour on a network dedicated to spreading misinformation and disinformation.

                      Such is the state of our existence.

                      Eb

                    2. “Allan makes perhaps the most fundamental mistake to be made in science. While he claims he’s agnostic as to possible conclusions, he openly proclaims absolute truth can be told through a solitary data point. This is the most direct pathway to making a faulty conclusion.”

                      Eb is useful only for the hot air needed to blow up basketballs. He is vacuous. There is no reason even to discuss Eb’s comments because, aside from a total lack of facts, almost everything he says is wrong.

                      Eb writes, Allan, “he openly proclaims absolute truth can be told through a solitary data point.”

                      Anyone who has read what I have written can see that Eb lacks the intellectual ability to respond accurately to anything anyone says. He makes things up out of thin air. I am the opposite of what this dunce proclaims. I want to know “why” from all points of view. I don’t firmly adhere to one point of view. That is the domain of Eb, for he cannot hold in his head more than one point.

                      My most recent comment (below) proves what I say above while unfortunately proving Eb’s best talent, and perhaps only one is blowing up basketballs under supervision.

                      https://jonathanturley.org/2022/05/12/protesting-justices-at-justices-homes-should-be-a-subject-of-condemnation-not-prosecution/comment-page-3/#comment-2185721

                      SM

                    3. There is no scientist on earth that does not start with a preconception, and assumption of what they will find.

                      The test is not whether you start with preconceptions but whether the evidence will sway you when you are wrong.

                      An example – in all of human history there has NEVER been a single Malthusian claim that has proven true.

                      I use that as a starting point for EVERY new Malthusian claim – that is it false and that it is the burden of those advancing it to prove otherwise.

                      That is BOTH an ideological position, and a properly reasoned one.

                      We must all be careful not to let ideology cloud our vision – but I would note that the core of libertarianism – or Classical liberalism is REASON.

                      Absolutely I come at every problem “clouded” by a compelling beleif in REASON, in LOGIC, in FACTS.

                      Skepticism is the CORE to science. It is also the core to both conservatism and libertarianism.

                      Science by its very nature is wrong far more often than it is right. That is not evil. It is how it works. Look at the number of permutions of conceptions of the Atom we went through before the standard model – and even that is still not set in stone.

                      You say my “libertariasm” effects my positions – absolutely.

                      Other famous libertarian or classical liberals “blinded” by their ideology:
                      James Watt.
                      David Hume
                      Ben Franklin
                      Adam Smith
                      John Locke
                      Ronald Coase
                      Milton Friedman.
                      John Milton
                      Voltaire
                      Immanuel Kant
                      Thomas Jefferson
                      Jeremy Bentham
                      James Madison
                      Jean-Baptiste Say
                      David Ricardo
                      Frédéric Bastiat
                      Alexis de Tocqueville
                      John Stuart Mill
                      Lysander Spooner
                      Henry David Thoreau
                      John Dalberg-Acton
                      F. A. Hayek
                      James M. Buchanan
                      Gordon Tullock
                      Julian L. Simon
                      Elinor Ostrom
                      Robert Nozick
                      Walter Williams
                      Hernando de Soto Polar

                      And many many others.
                      I would note there are about half a dozen nobel prizes among them
                      Many times that if I go beyond the most prominent.

                      It is not an accident that ONE “ideology” is shared by so many of the worlds greatest thinkers.

                    4. The truth is not defined by a single point.

                      But a single point disparate point WILL falsify any actually scientific claim.

                      Anything that can not be falsified by a SINGLE valid counter factual is religion not science.

                    5. Mr. Benson quite obviously does not know his material.
                      He is constantly demanding that we read some tome e values, as if that is an argument.

                      Nazi’s tell us to read Mein Kampf in the hope of making us all national socialists.

                      You do not make a case by begging people to read more about your ideology.

                      Make a good argument and maybe people will be interested in going further.

                      With specific respect to CAGW – Mr. Benson lost the debate – badly.
                      That is to be expected – Warmists have lost the debate.
                      Most people grasp the world is warming slowly and they do not think it is a catastrophe.
                      You can hop on one foot all you want ranting they are wrong.

                      But you have FAILED to persuade them.

                      The majority of people have little or no knowledge of my arguments – still they have rejected those of warmists.
                      Those of warmists have FAILED.

                      There are many reasons they failed – nearly all boil down to ordinary people are not over the long run as stupid as those on the left think.
                      They know a bad argument when they hear it.

                      You can fool all of the people some of the time
                      but you can not fool all of the people all of the time

                      And you have failed.

                      Right now the fate of CAGW rests with those in POWER – it is now entirely a totalitarian ideology depending on those in power to impose it by force. people refuse to accept it on their own, or by democratic consent.

                  3. Mr. Benson,

                    I have been to every propganda site that you think is a resource decades ago.

                    I have lost track of the number of times they have been caught lying.

                    But as I have written repeatedly – the fundimental problem is that the predictions have FAILED – both the hysterical predictions sold often by climate scientists to the news, and more seriously the preduictions of the computer models.

                    The failure of those predictions is not a catastrophe.
                    Real Scientists fail all the time.
                    But the failure to go back and find the problems and correct is evidence of the fundimental fraud and corruption of climate science.

                    I do not think the computer climate models are fixable. We just do not have the computations capacity to do the actual math for climate yet, and we are not even close. But that does not mean it is not worth some effort to try.

                    But instead “climate scientists” just deny reality. That makes climate science religion.

                    I would note that climate models are several orders of magnitude more complex than economic models.
                    And we are pretty sucky at those too.

                  4. I would suguest that you read someone else – Nasseem Talib. Hr id not a climate scientist, nor an engineer, nor really an economist.
                    He is the author of “The black swan”. He is one of the people who grasped that something was terribly wrong with the markets in 2006 and bet the farm against them and made his entire family incredibly rich.

                    Most importantly he is someone capable of critical thinking, and if you are not a complete dolt, capable of teaching you critical thinking.

                    He will not teach you about climate or politics. I do not recall him addressing either. But he will teach you how to grasp when stories you are being sold are off, wrong.

                    And he is just the start. Given the people you appear to be influenced – you should go to a great deal of trouble to seek out the best of the experts that disagree with your experts.

                    I HAVE read most of the people you trust. I doubt you have read any of those who disagree.

                    “He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion… Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them…he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.”

                    ― John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

                    Mill would be another place to start.

                    I am pretty sure he never writes about Climate, but you could learn alot about how to critically think from him.

                  5. I will start reading the people you recomend when the earth starts behaving as warmists predict.

                    1. But it now does so behave:
                      (1) The unprecedented heat blob in the Pacific Northwest last year, a “black swan” once in. million years event, barring global warming.
                      (2) The pre-monsoon temperatures in India.
                      (3) The heat death of the Great Barrier Reef in Australia.
                      (4) Ice shelf collapse in Greenland and Antarctica.

                    2. You demonstrate a terrible understanding of probability and statistics. This is similar to data mining.

                    3. thousands of 100 year climate records are broken every single day arround the world – and have been forever.
                      The planet is enormous change is constant. much longer records are broken frequently.

                      BYW Aparently you do not know what a million year event is.
                      https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/~/media/infographics/2016/bg3119/bg-climate-science-chart-1-825.jpg

                      The Great Barrier reef – as well as many other reefs world wide are doing fine.

                      All the nonsense of warmists about mass extinction are BS, alot happens with reefs we do not yet understand – and it happens quite frequently – and they recover.

                      As I said BEFORE – runway postiive feedbacks are very rare to non-existant. If there were unregulated runaway positive feedbacks life would not exist.

                    4. So you are using as proof claims regarding purported climate events caused by something that has not happened ?

                      Just to be clear almost no one claims climate does not change – all the time.

                      Somewhere in the word at this moment it is RECORD BREAKING COLD.
                      Somewhere there is a drought. Good things and bad things happen all the time.

                      You seem to be shifting to an argument of
                      “The planet is not really warming anymore than it did any of the past 3 centuries – but NOW we have reached some special moment evidenced by purported unusual events that is catastrophy”

                      That is a piss poor argument. A truly random number generator, producing numbers between 0-99 will like produce 10 numbers in the 90’s out of every 100 produced.

                      You are repeating a variation on the fallacy of large numbers.

                      You are pretending that unusual events in a world so large that unusual events are common – with catastrophe.

                    5. Greenland contains as much ice as ever – as does antartica. Already been addressed. Antartica is likely growing. It may even be sinking into the mantle under the weight of additional ice and increasing volcanic activity under the ice sheets.

                      Or do you think Volcanoes are caused by Global Warming ?

                      “Greenland is one of the coldest countries in the world and is to a large extent (85%) always covered with ice or snow. The thickness of the ice is approximately 1500 meters (59 055 inch). The temperature is almost the whole year below 0 degrees Celsius (32° Fahrenheit). Only at the coast in the summer period, which is short-lived, temperatures sometimes rise above the freezing point.”

                      So you are telling me that in a country where nearly all the country is nearly always below 0C that Ice is melting because of Global Warming ?
                      You do know that Ice does not melt because of temperature – until the temperature is above 0C ?

                      As With antartica the primary cause of Ice melting or being pushed into the Sea is the massive weight of the ice already on the land.

                      So long as temps remain below 0C – additional melting or ICe going to the sea means there is MORE snow falling on the island and more weight pushing it harder.

                      And I thouhgt you understood physics.
                      BTW you can find the average preciptation over Greenland, multiply by the size of greenland to get the total number of cubic kilometers of ice forming on Greenland each year and convert to Gt.

                    6. John B Say, you are the only one using the word “catastrophe”. But the island nations of the Pacific might agree that sea rise is a catastrophe for them.

                    7. David, when I saw the Statue of Liberty going underwater in one of the magazines some years ago, I found that scary. My properties in different states are coastal and subject to damage from rising waters.

                      I took a look, and most of the hype is untrue. I will keep my properties as Obama will keep his coastal properties. Waters rise and fall, and though they are rising slightly, it is not catastrophic. What we have been fed is bull.
                      The last time I was at the Statue of Liberty, it was high and dry.

                    8. We have had 140 years of SLR at pretty much the current rate – which Pacific island nation is underwater ?

                      Which has seen any ACTUAL negative impact ?

                      I would further note that the Earth is a complex systems that climate is just part of.
                      The mantle is fluid. While the surface is solid – like a underinflated beechball. Or a waterbed.

                      Buildup of Ice on Antartica causes it to sink into the mantel – increasing volcanic activity under it.
                      Increasing the MASS of the oceans causes the continents and islands to rise.
                      But increasing the volume through thermal expansion causes the continents and islands to sink slightly.

                      Even the position of the sun and planets within the solar system impacts not merely tides in the ocean – but the flow of molten rock in the mantel.

                      I would note that even Warmists beleive that capturing the energy of tides is a “sustainable” form of energy.

                      Not the last part “form of energy” – where did that energy come from ? The sun and planets. In addition to insolation, the Earth receives energy from the sun moon and planets through gravity. That is obvious with respect to oceans – but it is also true of flows in the Mantle.

                      We KNOW that volcanic and earthquake activity correlate to solar cycles. Warmists ignore that this also reflects ENERGY transfers.

                      You rant badly about climate – but you are blind to the fact that not only are you wrong about climate science, but completely oblivious of most everything beyond CO2.

                  6. I can not seem to link back to your post claiming 1.2K increase since 1880.

                    The rate of increase since about 1750 has been 0.11C/decade or 1.1C/century.
                    Which is about the same as 1.2C since 1880. Obviously the error bars going back intime grown enormous.
                    The earliest thermomenter temp records are 1645, and a few readings in Europe is NOT a global temperature.
                    Even today the accuracy of temperature records in different parts of the world is greatly varied.

                    Human CO2 output was incapable of having any noticable impact on Climate before 1960 at the earliest.

                    Depending on whatever actually credible source you use the rate of warming since 1979 has been between 0.10 and 0.13C/decade – very close to the rate from 1880 to the present according to YOUR source.

                    With a huge error bar I will agree that 2100 is likely to be about 1C warmer than 2000.
                    That is not enough to be concerned about.

                    I would also suggest that you serious look at the physics – absent positive feedback which there exists today no proof of, and infact the NORM for all natural processes is negative feedback so that the self regulate, warming MUST slow or CO2 MUST increase exponentially. CO2 is increasing very close to linearly.

                    Even you should be able to figure out with some water a thermometer and a hotplate that linear increases in energy will result is far less than linear increases in temperature.

                    This is REALLY BASIC science. You should have learned it in middle school.

                    1. John B Say, for temperatures, K stands for kelvin, the SI unit of temperature. A difference of one degree Celsius is the same as a difference of one kelvin.

                      And to show just how little you understand, temperature is the average kinetic energy of the molecules in the substance.

                      So I was wrong about you. How did you ever pass Physics 101?

                      Maybe you were just the draftsman on that bridge you mentioned “designing”?

                    2. Wow! Mansplaining something to me that everyone who gets through middleschool Physics knows.

                      Is there some place I claimed that Delta K and Delta C were different ?

                      Before you lecture me on the stupid errors you think I have made – actually read what I wrote and be SURE that I made those errors.

                      Your posts have been full of nonsense assumptions.

                      You said Scientists use C not F – Guess what James Hanson is one of the earliest and at one time most respected Warmist Climate Scientists, and in 1988 he said 5-9 Degrees – C or F you tell me ? I thought Scientists used C. And you are the one who implied Hanson was not a scientist

                      The grandady of all Climate models was Hansen’s model for Venus.

                      Here is Hanson’s wikipedia page.
                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen

                    3. “And to show just how little you understand, temperature is the average kinetic energy of the molecules in the substance.”
                      Anything I say contradict that ?

                      “So I was wrong about you.”
                      And you still are.

                      “How did you ever pass Physics 101?”
                      With ease.

                      “Maybe you were just the draftsman on that bridge you mentioned “designing”?”
                      You can beleive what you want – Obviously.
                      You beleive complete nonsens about climate

                      And you keep misrepresenting my posts in extremely stupid ways.

                      I am rapidly reaching the conclusion that you are even less intelligent than I thought.

                      It is one thing to buy into warmism. It is completely different thing to attack my posts with claims that are not in them.

                      Just about every snotty attack you have made is a direct rebutal to either one of YOUR Sources, or To a leading Warmist scientist like James Hansen.

                      A moral person would reread THEIR SOURCE and my posts and apologize.
                      That will be the day.

                  7. Mr. Benson,

                    I am not an engineer or scientist, or …. I am a crtitical thinker.

                    I am not going to dump my CV into a pseudonymous post on Trutly.org, but my real world successes and experiences are more than sufficient to identify some idiot in an ivory tower that does not know what they are talking about and take them down a peg or two.

                    You do not have to be expert at most anything o spot fraud or error – though I am expert at quite alot.

                    I would note that a Plumber from the UK took a course in Psychology and was taught priming, and said this was BS, It took several years and more education and collaboartion, but eventually he was able to publich a paper that completely discredited priming.
                    But worse, this was the straw that broke the camels back and subsequently the field of psychology went back over decades of core theories and found many of them would not replicate. Psychology is in the process of rebuilding from ash – because of a plumber in England.

                    What have you actually accomplished lately ?

                    1. John B Say, lately I have learned that you are a KnowNothing whose mind is MadeUp and is incapable of serious study of the calculus, elementary physics, and elementary climatology.

                    2. And yet, you are the one ignorant of all those.

                      You do not understand basic math,

                      You do not understand basic physics.

                      You have no understanding of history or energy.

                      You clearly are oblivious to food production.

                      You do not understand how plants grow. The hottest and most humid parts of the world have the most rapid plant growth.
                      And you seem to be ignorant of the fact that CO2 is Plant food.

                    3. John B Say, you statement about temperature increase with additional energy was flat out wrong. I corrected you but you failed to see it. Your Physics 101 course must have been significantly deficient; or you were asleep in class that day.

                    4. So Stephan Boltzman and Plank are wrong ?
                      Not to mention YOUR favorite Arrhenius

                      Disagreeing without evidence is not correcting. It is just ignorance.

                    5. I do not like making arguments from personal authority, but since you keep trying to pretend that I am some dolt that could not manage Middle School Physics.

                      I won the County Science Fair in Chemistry twice in HS, and that work was published.

                      I have 2.5 years of physics at Franklin & Marshal, Georgia Tech, and Renelear Polytechnical Institute,
                      And another 4 years of Structures – which is fundamentally static Newtonian physics – and massive amounts of calculus.

                      I have all the math that is prerequiste for that. In addition I have work in computer science(programming), and computer and systems engineering(designing computers)

                      And aside from Structures NONE of this was part of my major.

                      These are among the top schools in the world – Short of MIT and Stanford you would not easily be able to do better.
                      I never received less than an A in any of these.

                      This is the internet and you need not beleive any of that.

                      But you are the one argument that S-B or Plank do not apply. They apply to EVERYTHING that has a temperature, ALWAYS.

                      Should they ever be falsified far more than climate science will collapse.

                      You are completely reluctant to actually engage in real debate or discussion here.

                      You are constantly trying to get me to “read” someone else.

                      This is simple – if you are not smart enough to make your own argument, I am not interested in your appeals to authority.

                      Claiming I think are smarter than you would refute you if they were here – is NOT an argument.

                      Claiming If you would just read what I have read but am unable to explain or defend you would agree – is NOT an argument.

                      If your “experts” are correct, and you are smart enough to understand what they have said – you are capable to countering my arguments YOURSELF.

                      If you do not understand fundimental physics, or math or are not cognizant of the real world – appeals to experts are worthless fallacies.

                    6. Tamino is expert statistician Grant Foster, now twice over published in the climatology literature. Where are your peer-reviewed papers, JohnB Say?

                    7. “Tamino is expert statistician Grant Foster, now twice over published in the climatology literature.”

                      Be careful, David. One depends on the other. Any weak chain in the link can cause all to tumble down.

                      I had a pleasant experience with one of Obama’s early major appointees that helped him form specific policies on the science side of things. He was very bright, but I spoke to him at the end of his lecture and showed him that one of the pivotal articles he depended on was flawed, making some of his conclusions invalid or unproven.

                      Tamino can be the most outstanding expert statistician globally, but his results will likely be flawed if given flawed data.

                      David, on another subject, did you see 2000 mules? Your experience and training would aid you in judging the quality of its work. It might be a bit annoying and boring because the science is so simple, but you are retired and have the time to evaluate its credibility. I have found it highly credible and have debunked the debunker on this blog.

                      I know you are a solid Democrat, and that is fine. I was raised and lived as a Democrat most of my life though I am an independent who is apolitical though it might seem otherwise on this blog. Love him or hate him, JFK was an icon to the Democrat Party. Today the party would set him up for impeachment. The Democrat Party is not what it was a decade or so ago.

                      When viewing 2000 Mules, don’t view it as the Democrat Party of today. View it as a JFK Democrat who loves this country in an honorable fashion.

                    8. I am wondering whether the current collapse of BLM and investigations in many states might also lead to or synergistically interact with the Election Ballot harvesting investigations.

                      We know that atleat 2000 – and probably an order of magnitude more people were involved in fraufulent ballot harvesting in 6 states in 2020.
                      It is highly likely that nationwide that may be double that.

                      Those people did NOT act independently. They were coordinated.
                      2000 mules did not provide any information on the 501C3’s that are coordinating this.
                      But they did tie about 1/3 of the ballot harvestors to BLM riots and violence in 2020.

                      BLM is under financial scrutiny right now – they took in enormous amounts of money – wasted some of it on mansions for themselves as marxists wont to do, but where did the rest go ?

                      It is possible – even likely that the two investigations will intersect, that BLM will turn out to be one of the organizational, coordinational and funding sources for the mass ballot harvesting operation in 2020.

                      I am actually deeply concerned that we are talking about organized Election fraud on a scale that is so large that the pressure to bury it may be too great to overcome.

                      I strongly suspect BLM was heavily involved in the 2020 Ballot harvesting fraud. I highly doubt they were alone.

                      Exposue of a nationally coordinated election fraud would be unprecedented,

                      Yet, right now is seems near certain that is what we are dealing with.

                      This would be HUGE and it would change everything.
                      The Durham investigation of the collusion hoax would be TINY in comparison and we already have “much worse than watergate” there.

                      Uncovering multistate coordinated election fraud JUSTIFIES far worse than J6.

                      It also exposes nearly all our courts, our governments, our media, as COMPLICIT or Dolts.

                      This is also part of why I expect bringing this to light is going to be incredibly difficult.

                      It should have been self evident to most everyone that post election the courts failed at inquiry into the election BECAUSE they were pre-election complicit in the lawlessness that made it possible.

                      Trying to expose large scale election fraud today indicts EVERYONE who said the election was secure.
                      It exposes ALL our institutions. It undermines ALL our institutions.

                      Expecting them not to fight back is wishful thinking.

                    9. John, I believe what you are saying about BLM and coordination is accurate, and IMO the investigations would intersect if investigated thoroughly. I don’t think a thorough investigation will happen. I give the US less than a 50% chance of completely turning around what has already happened. I held that belief once Obama won a second term.

                      Though there will be ups and downs, the downs will keep pulling us away from our Constitutional Republic in the direction of totalitarianism. Too much is at stake for too many people to let the law correct the wrongs.

                      Those who have gained from America’s near “free-fall” are unified. They are unified despite their differences because they wish to protect themselves. The larger population is not unified, and as long as their bellies are full, there will not be enough cohesion.

                      I will fight the decline, but we can easily see how unassertive those supposedly staunch supporters of our nation act no matter what side of the aisle they are on. We all lose in this game being played, though perhaps not personally. It will be the generations to follow that will pay the price. I fear for my children and theirs. I include the children of Anonymous the Stupid for his arrogance, and the arrogance of many like him has taken away their legacy.

                    10. You may be right,
                      My Crystal Ball is less sanguine.

                      I think that if the left gets what it wants the entire western world is in deep trouble

                      But I think we are at or near Peak Woke, and frankly even if we are not, the left makes more an more enemies each day.

                      I read several editorials that the Democratic party is continuing to move left.

                      Are they complete idiots ? Manchin and Sienema saved the democratic party from total annihilation.
                      How much worse do you think things would be right now with an Extra 3.8T is spending ?

                      Further Democrats are not content to push ONE idiotic policy that is important to the left – they are advancing stupidity and failure on ALL fronts.

                      If you alienate a different 10% of the country 10 times – you have no one left.

                      What most concerns me is that the moment for course correction was 2017.
                      The more Democrats double down the greater the failure, the greater the contrast between democrats and republicans.
                      And the more likely we are to be a one party country for a long time and that is not all that good either.

                      We are in the midst of what is essentially a modern cultural revolution much like that under Mao.
                      That is very dangerous, but I do not think the odds of success are very high.
                      That does nto mean the damage will not be.

                    11. And myriads of ACTUAL expert statisticians have found significant error and fraud in his work.

                      I have told you repeatedly – Tamino is a know fraud. This is not some secret.

                      He has repeatedly defended complete nonsense.

                      I pointed out how his tried to obscure the divergence of the actual global temperatures and the models by changing the base point.
                      That might produce graphs that to the uneducated APPEAR to make the probelm go away – but it does not change the divergent slopes or alter the fact that trading large error in forecasting for smaller error in forcasting and hindcasting does not make the problem go away.

                      I have falsified CAGW SEVERAL independent ways
                      – only ONE of those must be correct and CAGW is falsified and you must go back and correct – which has OBVIOUSLY not been done.

                      But you have not dented ONE of those claims.

                      And in fact you produce Tamino charts that support me.

                      There has been 1.2K of warming since 1880 – warming that has been very nearly linear.
                      Yet for 80 years of that graph there was NO human contribution to GW.

                      Why did natural warming stop in 1960, and human warming start AND why did the natural warming that stoped nearly exactly match the human warming that started ?

                      That is the OBVIOUS question from Tamino’s graph.

                      Often warmist fudge their data – as in the hockey stick or the games played with the human recorded land temperature records.
                      But many times their data and graphs are fine – and actuall disprove their claims, but their analysis is obviously faulty.

                      As above, the odds of a near imperceptible transition from natural warming to only human warming is highly improbable.

                      Nor has any warmist ever demonstrated that CO2 is the actual cause of Warming.

                      I cited Pielke Sr. before. He is near cetain correct that Land use changes have had an effect on global temps.

                      While he is making a much larger argument – we KNOW that we have an urban heat island effect that is entirely man made.

                      We have had warmin since 1750 – man is certainly not the cause of most of that.
                      So what did cause it ?

                      One of the strongest attacks that Warmist have on the Solar model – which has a far stronger corelation that CO2 models, is that Insolution variation falls short of what is necescary to explain temperature changes.

                      Fine, If it can not explain those changes from 1960-the present. then it can not explain changes from 1750 to 1960.
                      So what does ? Not CO2 as CO2 levels were unchanged during that period – or atleast not by Humans.

                    1. Great argument – something that purportedly only occured in the North atlantic shows up in MULTIPLE places in Antarctica – about as far away from Antartica as you can get – and because Your sources think they find SOME places in Antartica where they can not find a signal – your persuaded that it did not happen anywhere except greenland ?

                      You base just about all your claims on single sources. You are claiming that the Law Dome Ice Cory proxy measures from ONE location in antartica MUST be conclusive for the entire planet for 10000 years when the cores only have 2000 years of data from ONE place – and then you cherry pick only the data from 1750 onward when even the Law Dome Data shows that point as the LOWEST CO2 of the entire 2000 year period.

                      Mann, Biffra and nearly all proxies for the last 1400 years of Global temps are from siberian Tree Rings that fail in the mid 20th century – and you want to conclude the MWP did not occur – because maybe a few places in Antartica might not reflect it ?

                      I would note the ice self data is pretty damning. If the Ice Shelves are hundreds not thousands of years old – that means that region was TOO WARM FOR SEA ICE several hundred years ago.

                      This is like Receding glaciers in Alaska exposing Tree stumps several hundred years ago. Absolutely that means it has not been as warm until today as it was several hundred years ago when those Trees were growing.
                      That is several hundred years ago – not several thousand years ago.

                      Your not honest even with yourself.

          3. NO almost certain is the actual standard for a criminal conviction.

            Though I would note the standard for a claim that the election was stolen – not a criminal conviction is “more likely than not” and that is met a thousand times over.

            “An assumption based on lack of evidence is not a certainty. It’s just biased speculation or more simply BS.”
            True but irrelevant.

            There is plenty of evidence. There is more evidence than exists in most criminal convictions.

            Please take a course in probability and statistics.

            The probability of each data point being fraud or an innocent activity is calculable.
            The probability of the pattern of activity being fraud or innocent is also calculable.
            The probability of video of someone placing 5 ballots in a ballot box being fraud is calculable.

            The probability of each of all of these together being fraud is calculable.

            The odds that more than 1% of the TTV identified Fraud being error is astronomically low.

            This is about as good as it gets.

            The geotracking data is probably more accurate than the video.

            1. “ There is plenty of evidence. There is more evidence than exists in most criminal convictions.”

              Everyone keeps saying that, but never produce the evidence. Just saying there is evidence is not evidence itself. Your entire baseless argument is reliant on the idea that a lack of evidence IS evidence.

              Probability is irrelevant here. Because it’s still just a guess on a lack of evidence.

              “ The geotracking data is probably more accurate than the video.”

              Geotracking is not accurate or detailed enough to show anyone did anything specific or if anyone had anything in their hands.

              All you are doing is peddling BS because you don’t have any evidence to substantiate the claims. You’re jumping from one excuse to another trying to justify the lack of evidence as proof that there is more evidence than anyone realizes. This is how conspiracy theories devolve into endless cesspools of “clues” or “suspicions” that are needed to fill that lack of evidence. Your mind has been rotting for a while on that garbage.

              1. Plenty of evidence has been produced.

                I am sorry that you are clueless. But there are millions of minutes of operatives stuffing ballot boxes in the 6 key states.
                Ballot harvesting is illegal in all those states.

                There is 16T points of Geotraking data that identifies between 2000-8000 ballot harvestors – depending on how many illegal ballots someone delivered There are 200 operatives who delivered approximately 200 ballots each, There are about 8000 operatives if you reduce that to 100 ballots.

                Do you have a rational explanation for 8000 people getting within 1m of 10 different ballot boxes in one night ?
                Or 2000 people getting within 1m of 20 different ballot boxes in one night ?

                Especially when many of these are also caught on video depositing 5 or more ballots in a ballot drop box where they were tracked by phone at the same time ?

                Further anyone who was regularly visiting any of these locations prior to the start of voting was removed. So these are only people who visited multiple ballot boxes during the period of the election – not before or after.

                Geotracking can not show that you have drugs in your hands – but there are myriads of convictions all the time for drug dealing based on cell phone data that only places you in the same block.

                This is more than enough to get a conviction anywhere but DC.

                We are seeing some investigations start and some charges filed.

                But we will likely see again what we saw before – Plenty of evidence of election fraud has already been found in GA – about 380K votes, that may or may not overlap with this fraud. The evidence is there – but those with the evidence can not even get a republican DA to sign off on a private criminal complaint – because they are all being threatened with being disbarred if they allow any investigations of election fraud.

                Regardless, the evidence, scale and degree of collusion and coordination of the fraud grows everyday.

                2000 Mules only claims 380K fraudulent ballots in 6 states. There is evidence of that much fraud in GA alone.

              2. Geotracking is good enough for Ukraine to keep killing Russian generals.

              3. Svelaz – you can put your head int he sand and debate the scale.

                Thousands of people did not put 5 or more ballots each into drop boxes legally.
                There is video fo that.

                There would be more video – but election officials deleted alot of the video – also a federal and state election crime – more fraud.

          4. Svelaz

            Go watch a trial of a drug dealer.

            You are clueless.

            You are so far away from the actual legal standards it is laughable.

            If they had a single geotraking ping placing OJ near nichole on the night she was murdered – he would have been convicted.

            1. John– “If they had a single geotraking ping placing OJ near nichole on the night she was murdered – he would have been convicted.”

              +++

              Probably not. That jury would have hung or acquitted even if they had video of OJ killing her.

              Jury nullification.

      1. As a committed leftist, are you saying that America should provide the entire world with infant formula at the expense of its own?

        Do you believe infant formula grows on trees for free, or do you recognize that American citizens work their butts off to pay for things like infant formula?

        1. What do you want, anyway? Abbott Labs, that makes, coincidentally, 43% of American infant formula (the exact proportion for which there is a shortage) had to shut down its main plant because of bacterial contamination that killed 2 babies and sickened numerous others. The FDA required closure, cleaning and inspection before allowing reopening. Would you have them continue to put out adulterated formula? The plant still hasn’t re-opened, which tells me that they don’t have the problem under control. Therefore, the Biden Administration is importing infant formula from other countries that meets our standards.

          Americans need to be more resilient. There were commercial formulas around even when my older brother was born (my mom nearly died in childbirth, so it had to be formula), but parents made their own “formula” by mixing condensed milk, sterile water and corn syrup in various proportions and putting it in bottles and then sterilizing the bottles, contents and all. In fact, MeTv recently showed an episode of “Perry Mason” called “The Case of the Borrowed Baby”, in which an abandoned infant left at Mason’s office had his formula recipe attached to his blanket. Formula prepared from condensed milk was supplemented with liquid vitamins, like Tri Vi Sol and there was Tri Vi Flor for breast fed babies, to provide the fluoride that isn’t in breast milk for strong tooth development. I realize that babies who are allergic to cow’s milk can’t use this formula, but there’s always goat milk, which was an alternative for allergic babies even before I was born. If all else fails, there are breast milk banks or volunteer lactating mothers who will share. What isn’t necessary is panicking over a situation that is unfortunate but can’t be helped at this point.

          What really needs to be done with infant formulas, as well as meat production, is to decentralize production so that if one facility goes down due to contamination there aren’t shortages.

          1. It is not true that the Abbott formula was contaminated at the plant, according to the CDC. That is a Biden administration lie.

    1. Biden to American parents:

      Need baby formula? Tough. We’re sacrificing you, and your babies, to the needs of immigrants.

      1. BS. The federal government has a legal responsibility to provide food for infants in federal detention. Only an idiot thinks that implies “Americans are less deserving than illegal aliens.” Americans in need of formula have non-federal assistance to obtain it. Amazing that the conservatives who tout federalism when it serves them willfully choose not to understand this.

        1. The job of the head of a household is to feed his kids first. You haven’t learned that concept, except we all know that you would feed your kids while pretending otherwise. You are virtue signaling hoping everyone will follow so that you can benefit from everyone else’s generosity.

Leave a Reply