Nobel Prize Winner Canceled by the IMF After Questioning Climate Change Data

John Clauser, a Nobel prize-winning physicist, is apparently the latest target of a cancel campaign. According to a group called the Co2 Coalition, Clauser was scheduled to speak to a group at the International Monetary Fund on climate change when critics spotted a serious problem: he does not support the accepted view on the subject. The response was all-too-familiar (even if less expected by Nobel laureates): Clauser had to be barred from sharing his scientific views or being heard by others at the IMF.

During the pandemic, dissenting scientists were regularly banned or canceled for questioning the efficacy of masks, suggesting a lab theory on the origins of Covid, raising natural immunity defenses, and other viewpoints. They have been largely vindicated. Yet, censorship remains commonplace even at universities and organizations like the IMF.

Clauser was reportedly guilty of questioning the reliability of the predictions of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. So an organization of economists based on objective data and research decided to bar others from hearing countervailing views.

Clauser reportedly received an email from the Director of the Independent Evaluation Office of the International Monetary Fund, Pablo Moreno, who had seen a flyer for the zoom talk. It was immediately postponed. The natural default at the IMF and other organizations was to stop speech as potentially harmful when it does not comport with official viewpoints. It appears that Moreno and the IMF could not even tolerate a simple Zoom discussion that offered an alternative viewpoint.

Clauser has earned the ire of climate change advocates by calling the underlying scientific claims “dangerous misinformation” based on shoddy research. I can certainly see why that is not welcomed. However, rather than simply refute his views with their own data, these groups want to prevent others from hearing him.

The IMF has said little in the aftermath of the indefinite postponement. Why should it? The silence is precisely what it sought to achieve.

631 thoughts on “Nobel Prize Winner Canceled by the IMF After Questioning Climate Change Data”

    1. The question arises what is true? Were the defunct predictions of 20 years ago true then and false now? That is your problem David. Your type of rhetoric has been proven wrong over a period of decades, so one doesn’t want to believe you. Further, you as a climate change advocate can’t answer simple questions.

      1) Explain the failures of the climate community.
      2) Why does the climate community need to hide behind censorship?
      3) What is the time frame for a catastrophe? Short, medium, or long.
      4) Explain the value of what our government is doing.

  1. “David B. Benson says: August 10, 2023 at 6:00 PM
    S. Meyer, relieve your ignorance and misapprehensions by reading
    https:// com/Global-Warming-Understanding-David-Archer/dp…”

    David, this post came in late and broken up, so I couldn’t respond in the right place. Your ad hom doesn’t prove your case. It proves the opposite. You don’t have one and have to rely on an ad hom. You don’t know your material because if you did, you would have engaged and answered the questions asked. These are the easy questions. If unable to answer them, you fail to understand the subject matter. Here are four easy issues that do not involve physics or math but are what the climate community needs to answer. Those without answers do not know the subject matter.

    1) Explain the failures of the climate community.
    2) Why does the climate community need to hide behind censorship?
    3) What is the time frame for a catastrophe? Short, medium, or long.
    4) Explain the value of what our government is doing.

    1. Ha, ha, ha. One can only laugh at the stupidity of a drunkard who can add nothing but likes to hear himself talk. Are you that drunkard you sound like?

    2. Explain why not just CAGW but every single malthusian claim of impending appocolyspe EVER has proven false.

      With specific reference to “Global Warming” – aboslutely NONE of the catastrophic and not even many of the inconsequential claims have ever proven true.

      the IPCC claims – which are FAR FAR FAR less catastrophic than what the press typically sprays have themselves NEVER proven accurate. We have ALWAYS over time either ended up on the low side of all predictions or well Below the low side.

      I offer that there is actually good reason for all of this. Partly it is rooted in basic science, partly in statistics,
      But mostly it is rooted in probability.

      It is incredibly hard to accurately predict the future – despite the fact that it often seems obvious in hindsight.
      As a rule those who accurately foresee the future are incredibly rare – and even those rare few are wrong far more often than they are right.

      If you wish to bet on the future and actually have high odds of profiting on those bets. The closest probability to a sure thing is the bet that the future will in each respect be slightly better than the present.
      That is not UNIVERSALLY true. But it is true 90% of the time.

      Meaning if I bet that the future will be better than the present as a generalization, I will be correct 99.9999% of the time.
      If I bet that a randomly selected SPECIFIC thing about the present will be better in the future I will be correct 9 out of 10 times.

  2. 23 years ago, the Leftist “climate scientists” told us the following

    Ten years to save the planet from mankind

    “The Stern Report will tomorrow reveal that if governments do nothing, climate change will cost more than both world wars and render swathes of the planet uninhabitable.”

    The economist Sir Nicholas Stern’s report on climate change will paint an apocalyptic picture over 700 pages of where global warming could lead, arguing that, unless we act, it will cost more than two world wars and the Great Depression of the Thirties and render swaths of the planet uninhabitable. Even if the world stopped all pollution tomorrow, the slow-growing effects of carbon already pumped into the atmosphere would mean continued climate change for another 30 years – with sea levels rising for a century.

    Nor, he will say, is unilateral action by one country enough: if Britain closed all its power stations tomorrow, within 13 months China would fill the gap left in global emissions. Given that the effects will be felt around the world – from the collapse of the Amazonian rainforest to the melting of Greenland’s ice sheet and changes in the Indian monsoon – the response must be global, too.

    Alas in the 1980s we were told it was the coming Ice Age so there is that to cool hot heads.

  3. There is nothing in the scientific method about peer review (also known as pal review)

    Peer review is one of the worst things to happen to science.

    No scientific paper should be published without the work being REPRODUCED. That is the only criteria the scientific method requires.

    What has become evident is that the “peers” reviewing papers are NOT attempting to reproduce them.

    Peer review goes back several hundred years. So you have the where withall to change all that. LOL. I don’t think so. Ignorance is a complete strike out.

  4. In the past two decades numerous studies have confirmed rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations are benefitting ecosystems all across the globe thanks to the well-known growth-promoting, water-saving and stress-alleviating benefits of CO2 fertilization. The latest study to add to this growing body of evidence comes from Wang et al. (2020).

    Wang, M., Chen, J.M. and Wang, S. 2020. Reconstructing the seasonality and trend in global leaf area index during 2001-2017 for prognostic modeling. Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences 125, e2020JG005698.

    What Wang et al. did was use climate and soil variables and a biochemical model to reconstruct global leaf area index (LAI) values for the period 2001-2017. LAI is a key vegetation structural parameter that “controls many biophysical processes in the [plant] canopy, such as radiation absorption, photosynthesis, rain interception, and evapotranspiration.” After reconstructing their LAI dataset, the authors explored the mechanisms controlling global LAI, with a specific focus on the impact of CO2 fertilization.

    In discussing their findings Wang et al. report “the average global LAI increase due to CO2 fertilization was 0.05 m2 m-2 (about 5.0% of mean global LAI) from 2001 to 2017,” excluding tropical evergreen broadleaf forests for which they had no data. The spatial pattern of LAI change due to CO2 fertilization over the 18-year period is shown in Figure 1 and indicates the CO2 effect was strongest near the equator and diminished somewhat toward the poles. Nevertheless, the researchers report “the effects of CO2 fertilization on LAI were positive in all global vegetated areas and [yielded an] averaged value of 13.4% per 100 ppm at the global scale,” once again excluding tropical evergreen broadleaf forests for which they had no data. The relationship between percent change in LAI per 100 ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 is presented in Figure 2, which once again shows a stronger signal of CO2 fertilization near the equator and mid-latitudes as opposed to the high latitudes.

    The findings of Wang et al. are similar to that reported previously by Liu et al. (2006) and Zhu et al. (2016)), who also studied the relationship between LAI and CO2 fertilization, but who did so using independent satellite-derived LAI data. In each instance these additional authors also demonstrated that rising atmospheric CO2 is enhancing LAI across the globe, leading to enhanced ecosystem productivity and a great greening of the terrestrial biosphere.

    Atmospheric CO2, it’s not the demon so many make it out to be. Rather, it’s the elixir of life!

    more here:

  5. Bill Gates leaves a humongous carbon footprint with his 6 private aircraft. Not even he believes in what he insists other believe about climate doomsday. Nor does he believe in treating women and young girls with respect but thats another story

    According to the website Private Jet Charter, Bill Gates actually owns four private jets: Two Gulfstream G650ERs and two Bombardier Challenger 350s. He also owns two other aircraft: A Eurocopter EC 135 helicopter and a Cessna 208 Seaplane.

  6. It can be done and it will be done.

    The U.S. has over 4,000 gigawatts of offshore wind capacity, one of the best offshore wind resources in the world, a new report from UC Berkeley, Energy Innovation, and Grid Lab finds. If the correct policy actions are taken in the near term, those resources could account for as much as one quarter of U.S. electricity generation in less than 30 years, employ up to 390,000 people, and generate up to $1.8 trillion in economic development — all without materially impacting electricity costs.

    Offshore wind resources are also located near some of the country’s most populous regions. “The good news about this offshore wind potential is it is spread out across the country from the East Coast, West Coast to the Gulf, as well as the Great Lakes region,” UC Berkeley senior scientist Nikit Abhyankar said in a statement. “This will be a critical resource to diversify our clean energy supply.” The Biden administration has set goals of generating 30GW of traditional offshore wind by 2030 and 15 GW of floating offshore wind generation by 2035. (The Verge, Recharge News, Riviera, KCBX, reNEWS, Staten Island Live,, California Examiner)

    1. All of this is wishful thinking.

      Wind has NEVER proven viable.
      It is one of the most environmentally destructive forms of renewable energy.
      The windmills do not last anywhere near as long as they are supposed to
      producing them consumes lots of non-renewable resources.
      The blades fill up landfills
      and while better than Solar in that they work when the sun does not shine.
      When they produce energy is random – the wind does not blow when we wish it would.
      That means Wind energy – like most renewables requires massive energy storage capacity – which costs even more than the generation capacity – MOST renewables have this problem – and it ALWAYS makes their ACTUAL cost per KWH generate double or more that of other forms of energy.

      Pretty much the only renewable that actually works is Hydro.

      And if you do not actually know all of this – you are poorly educated on a subject you claim to be knowledgeable on.

      All of us would love a magic energy source that costs little is perfectly clean and delivers abundand energy exactly when we need it.

      If you want proof that at this time renewables are a FAILURE – eliminate government subsidies.
      If renewables are actually viable – they will win without help in a free market.

      If the claims you are making were true – you would not need to make them.
      No one would. We would not need to subsidize Wind. investors would be pouring money into it without subsidies.

      This BTW is true of most left wing nut nonsense.

      If an idea is REALLY a good idea – there is no need for government to push it.
      There is no need for subsidies, no need for government policies.

      We do not all have smart phones because Government subsidized them.

            1. It’s more than useful. It helps make people prosperous, and that prosperity leads to advances that make life better. It is our prosperity that reduced pollution in our nation. It is our prosperity that leads to solid-state batteries and new technological methods of obtaining energy.

              It is your type of thinking that leads to our country closing down relatively clean factories that open up in China polluting the world. Your type of thinking is a threat to humanity and intelligence.

              1. All Americans are guilty of products going to China starting with Walmart.

                Now science. GHGs are vital to us at a narrow range of concentration, otherwise we can get too warm for our culteral crops.

                Greenhouse gases are those gases in the atmosphere that raise the surface temperature of planets such as the Earth. What distinguishes them from other gases is that they absorb the wavelengths of radiation that a planet emits, resulting in the greenhouse effect.[1] The Earth is warmed by sunlight, causing its surface to radiate heat, which is then mostly absorbed by water vapor (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and ozone (O3). Without greenhouse gases, the average temperature of Earth’s surface would be about −18 °C (0 °F),[2] rather than the present average of 15 °C (59 °F).[3][4][5]

                1. “All Americans are guilty of products going to China starting with Walmart.”

                  Some are more guilty than others. Your lack of critical thinking skills makes you and your type close up factories in the US that are relatively clean permitting China to produce those goods using dirty energy.

                  “Now science. GHGs are vital to us at a narrow range of concentration, otherwise we can get too warm for our culteral crops.”

                  Very limited thinking. “GHGs”, “GHGs”, “GHGs”. That is where you stop without an understanding of the relationship of “GHGs to their effects. You are static, caught in a box where all you see is the rise of “GHGs”, but you don’t see the science. Your box is sealed shut and ready for transport… To China.

                  Providing a Wikipedia list of data in thin air is your attempt to demonstrate your knowledge of science. Your attempt fails.

                  1. LOL. GHGs are the isssue today. Were the issue yesterday and will be the issue tomorrow.
                    More GHGs make the surface of the earth warmer. No amount of imaginary images will change the physics.
                    OF which you don’t even begin to understand. Ignorance can only get you so far.

                    1. “GHGs are the isssue today.”

                      Congratulations for knowing what GHGs are. Next step is for you to learn the science.

                    2. From Wiki So Mr. Meyer, tell us with your superior self about climate sensitivity. Should you chose to believe this science, it will go against your backgound of disbelief about climate science.

                      Climate sensitivity is a measure of how much Earth’s surface will cool or warm after a specified factor causes a change in its climate system, such as how much it will warm for a doubling in the atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration.[1] In technical terms, climate sensitivity is the average change in global mean surface temperature in response to a radiative forcing, which drives a difference between Earth’s incoming and outgoing energy.[2] Climate sensitivity is a key measure in climate science,[3] and a focus area for climate scientists, who want to understand the ultimate consequences of anthropogenic global warming.

                    3. It’s good to see you are able to Google, but earlier I asked you a question you didn’t answer. The question was important because we need solutions not diarrhea from the mouth. Here is the question again.

                      Since you think you are so smart in repeating unproven data (more like slogans) where the creators of the data have been continuously wrong, tell me how much CO2 is added to and remains in the atmosphere ( percent increase) by use of fossil fuels in America? I am asking for numbers, not your BS that says nothing.

                      The answer to that question runs contrary to your solutions. You must be bad at math.

        1. “In a first, renewables beat coal in the US power sector in 2022”

          Which is like claiming:

          In a first, Tonya Harding beat Nancy Kerrigan. (While evading the whole knee-capping issue.)

          1. “In a first, renewables beat coal in the US power sector in 2022”

            Which is like claiming:

            In a first, Tonya Harding beat Nancy Kerrigan. (While evading the whole knee-capping issue.)

            I put up facts. You deny them. Don’t even put up actual numbers of what they do. This is why you lose the argument.

    2. What are the resources required to build this? What is the environmental impact on the area? How does it impact wildlife? How long do they last? What happens when there’s low to no wind? Who pays for this? How are the parts manufactured? Who manufactures them? How are the parts shipped? Who ships them? What company benefits the most from converting everyone to unreliable resources? What organization is at the head of pushing this agenda? Is that company a ranking member of this organization? How rich is everyone in the organization? Were they elected?

      1. Worst case scenario damage of climate change is huge. 23 trillion annually by 2050. We could spend 15 trillion annually on renewable energy systems totally eliminating fossil fuels and come out way ahead of the game.

        A study by the reinsurance company Swiss Reinsurance Company Ltd (Swiss Re) in 2021 estimated that global climate change is likely to reduce global economic output by 11-14%, or as much as $23 trillion annually by 2050, compared with global economic output without climate change. According to this study, the economies of wealthy countries like the United States would likely shrink by approximately 7% while some developing nations would be devastated, losing around 20% or in some cases 40% of the their economic output.[33]

  7. The Earth is ~ 5 Billion Years old. Climate “scientists” use the past millennial time frame to make their arguments. However, a million years, never mind a 1,000 years, is a drop in the bucket in the grand theme of 5,000,000,000. things. Using 1000 years out of 5,000,000,000 is not only dishonest but also unscientific.

    Setting all the aforementioned aside, these histrionic “scientists” never mention the dirty little secret known as the Little Ice Age which is the period of 14th – 19th century. During the LIA, glaciers were present in pronounced numbers, density and coverage, including around California and France. The ice coverage was so pronounced that crops were ruined, livestock suffered, and diseases driven by pathogens grew. South America saw ice flows, Istanbul’s Bosphorus Strait froze and the dominant trading practices of the Middle East Ottoman Empire were severely impacted.

    The Little Ice Age is never mentioned, except to discredit it as an “age” but rather sporadic coverage. Yet, their oft read decade of the 1990s is also a sporadic outlier. The period prior to the Little Ice Age is known as the medieval warm period (MWP), 10th – 14th century, which had nothing to do with human beings causing it.

    Climate is cyclic. Using 1,000 years to make fatalistic pronouncements about our planet is unscientific, particularly when 5 centuries of that period were very cool temperatures. It takes millions of years to predict trends. One thousand out of 5 billion is not a trend. Climate changes. Anyone who has lived in the Caribbean or Pacific Islands know that climate changes in a nanosecond. Way a bit and then it changes again. Climate is like that.

    The Little Ice Age is a well-established conception in glaciology and climatology, having been introduced almost eighty years ago by Matthes in 1939. This earliest mention, in relation to glacier dynamics in the Sierra Nevada, California, received more official notice in an article by Moss in 1951. Follow-up studies generally relied on observations of late-Holocene glacial advances in the United States and elsewhere. Lamb, however, concentrated on Europe, describing a relatively cool period with reduced harvests and abandoned villages……

    Conclusion: By reviewing a rich body of regional- to large-scale tem- perature reconstructions that span from the last millennium to al-most the entire Holocene, we confirm the existence of several temperature depressions that occurred at different intensities and spatial ranges between c. 1350 and 1900, thus supporting the conception of an lia (Little Ice Age).

    Büntgen, U. & Hellmann, L. (2014) The Little Ice Age in Scientific Perspective: Cold Spells and Caveats. The Journal of interdisciplinary history. [Online] 44 (3), 353–368.

    Matthes, F. E. (1939), Report of Committee on Glaciers, April 1939, Eos Trans. AGU, 20(4), 518–523, doi:10.1029/TR020i004p00518.

    Follow the science.

    1. Do you overestimate yourself in how smart you are? This is no secret.

      Setting all the aforementioned aside, these histrionic “scientists” never mention the dirty little secret known as the Little Ice Age which is the period of 14th – 19th century.

      The Planet is not Recovering from the LIA
      To sum up, with the exception of the human population, the factors which contributed to the LIA cannot account for the global warming of the past 50-100 years. Further, it is not physically accurate to claim that the planet is simply “recovering” from the LIA. This argument is akin to saying that when you drop a ball off a cliff, it falls because it used to be higher. There is a physical mechanism for these changes. In the case of the ball, it falls because of the gravitational pull at the Earth’s surface. In the case of the global temperature, it is warming from the increased greenhouse effect due to human activities.

    2. the warmist cult can not even get the past 1000 years right.

      One of the big climate scientific hoaxes was “hide the decline”.

      Mann and Bifra used siberian Pine tree rings as a proxy for temperature to establish a global temp record going back almost 1000 years. But when they correlated their data the tree rings delivered temperatures after 1965 that were declining when actual temperatures were rising.

      To all but morons this means that those tree rings are not a reliable proxy for temperature.

      We have A few direct temperature measurements going back to the 1600’s in Europe.

      We STILL to not had direct temperatures measurements of the entire planet today. Significant parts of the world have a single weather station providing data for thousands of square miles – and the oceans are even worse.

      Out data on past climate has enormous error bars.

  8. John Clauser’s ‘iris effect’ is directly contradicted by the measurement of albedo via earthshine. It is declining over time so Terra is absorbing more of the solar irradiance.

    1. This is one of the more non-sensical things that you’ve written on this topic. That’s saying a lot.

      1. Thersites, go find the references to albedo measurement yourself.
        You wll see that, no matter how non-sensical iit might appear to you, that I correctly summarized the observations.

        1. And in no way did you tie it into irising. You copy and paste like a pro but you can’t explain squat, pedant.

          1. He is usually a bit more scholarly in his comments when he uses Wikipedia as his sources.

            There was a regular commenter on here a few years ago, Paul S. Schulte, a paralegal, former college instructor, who kept Benson’s feet to the fire, and the wars between them were glorious. He was also very humorous, unlike Benson. I have more or less taken Paul’s place in ridiculing correcting Benson’s “scientific” contributions, though I would prefer someone else do it since it is such a bore. Benson lacks intellectual consistency in his commentary so much so that he convinces all that he is nothing less than an 80+ year old blowhard. It is a shame that as some people age they become such a drip. So much for wisdom and aging.

            Your previous comment about tautologies was terrific. By all means take over the chore of keeping Benson in check.

            This comment conforms to the civility rule though pales compared to Benson’s condescending hubris

            1. Estovir, your knowledge of the medical research literature is impressive and I profit from reading when you stick to that. However, your knowledge of physics is definitely at a much lower level. You do your reputation harm by venturing into areas beyond your ken.

              Do try to keep Matthew 25:40 in mind, your being Catholic and all.

              1. your knowledge of physics is definitely at a much lower level.

                Cardiology is a physics based discipline. Not that you would know since the heart is a pump, that does work, based on electrical currents, polarities, friction, tension, pressure, volume, stress, forces…oh for Heaven’s sake, Benson. Are you really that insecure!!!?

                Do try to keep Matthew 25:40 in mind, your being Catholic and all.

                says the failed husband, divorced and all

                yes, you are that insecure.

                1. “The Heart as a Pump” is found in an journal entitled Engineering Principles in Physiology, 1973.
                  Not physics per se.

                  I stand by my assertion that you don’t know enough physics and associated subjects to comment meaningfully on climate matters. You could study…

                  1. “I stand by my assertion that you don’t know enough physics and associated subjects to comment meaningfully on climate matters. You could study…”

                    Benson, Estovir might not know enough physics to delve deeply into the physics of climatology, but he knows enough to tell when another is a charlatan. If I remember correctly you were educated as an electrical engineer and moved into computers. Your training in physics is minimal. I think a course in physiology that Estovir had to take is a lot more taxing and requires a lot more integration of various disciplines. In fact many so-called climatologists might not have been as well trained in physics and chemistry as Estovir.

                    There is a reason physicians are smart. They are selected from an elite group.

                    1. S. Meyer, you don’t remember correctly.
                      As for physics education, 2 years at Los Alamos High School, 3 years as a undergraduate @ CalTech and 1 more as a graduate student. Semiconductors I learned about from an electrical engineering class, first two quarters.
                      All that was certainly enough for me to study, profitably, “Principles of Planetary Climates” by Ray Pierrehumbert in which climate is treated as a mathematical science kin to physics.

                    2. David, you had a promising beginning. Before retirement, you were in the School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science. I know you were at Cal Tech because earlier in the discussion, I asked if you had a course with Richard Feynman. You didn’t though I think you met him. I believe you are capable of reading some fine literature on climatology, but I think your ideology did a disfavor to you and your ideas.

                      I read your debate with John Say, and it is clear you had trouble keeping up. Instead of focusing on the hard core issues where you had difficulty, you focused on minimal error and differences in definition where you never clearly got the point. Many in climatology focus on bad modeling, constantly correcting the models. With your history in computers, you should be the first one to recognize that such model errors so far out from the standard deviation mean the models are not working and cannot be trusted even after adjustment with a fudge factor. Fudge factors don’t correct the modeling problem.

                      I think you can do better, but then you would have to put ideology in the back seat, replacing it with the hard sciences.

                    3. The climate debate is trivial. Warmists are trying to predict the behavior of incredibly complex systems almost 100 years into the future and are unable to grasp the fundimental fact that they are going to be with certainty WRONG.

                      While I have provided a number of very specific refutations of specific areas or claims of climate science.

                      The most fundimental problem – is that predictions that far out – even with far more rock solid science and far less complicated systems have a probability of being correct of near zero.

                      We do not even have to be discussing climate.

                      As an example current demographic predictions of populations through to about 2040, maybe 2050 are likely pretty close.
                      But anyone predicting populations in 2100 is just spit-balling.

                      notice – I have not attacked the “science” of demographics – just noted you can not accurately predict that far out.
                      There are far to many variables and unknowns. And ones that are small over 10 years are enormous over a century.

                      While there are many many other more fundimental problems with CAGW – including numerous actual scientific errors.
                      While I am not claiming that all warmist scientists get the basic science wrong (very many of them do), I am claiming that DB on numerous occasions gets the basic science wrong.

                      DB engaged in a protracted and tangential fight over mathematical terms failing to understand that even the warmist science HE claims to accept requires a fairly dramatic and non linear rate of energy capture to sustain a linear increase in temperature – and Warmists are constatnly predicting increasing rates of increasing temperatures. Basic MAth and logic requires that the odds of that being correct are infinetismial.

                      Another major argument I have made – which is very close to a tautology is that all malthusian predictions have been wrong.
                      There are actually very good statistical and logical reasons for that. But ignoring those, it si also something that most people learn as they age. as children everything appears possible at any moment. As adults we gradulally learn that radical change is extremely rare and generally hard.

                      The odds that the science of climate is actually settled are zero.
                      Just as the odds that the science of particle physics are settled are near zero.

                      You do not need to know what will go wrong with Warmist dogma to know with certainty that something will go wrong.

                    4. S. Meyer, yes, two of my children are in the practice of medicine.

                    5. S. Μeyer, I had dinner at the Feynman’s house, along with group of other freshman. Later I had lunch with him, just the 2 of us.

                      I have read ‘fine’ literature related to climatology, such as Pierrehumbert’s book, Not a word about the big GCM climate models which require substantial computing resources; others are experts about those.

                      Regarding John Say, I said enough to show that he is completely and utterly wrong. That is enough.

                      You, and he, could start with an elementary textbook on climatology; I did.

                    6. “You, and he, could start with an elementary textbook on climatology; I did.”

                      David, why should I bother? I don’t need to know climatology. My interests are less theoretical and more practical. How do we deal with change? Will changes be sudden or gradual? How will they affect the world?

                      In my lifetime, new opposing horror stories appeared. First, we would freeze to death, and then we would fry. Parts of NYC and Miami would be submerged. Those things didn’t happen, but the same experts wish us to believe them again. Additionally, climate models failed in their predictions. They responded with new models that failed again without admitting their errors. Such a group is not to be believed based on simple logic. [What do you think Richard Feynman would say?]
                      How do they convince other scientists and the public? They don’t do it the classical way with discussion and truth. No. They lie in their reports to the public, distort the number of scientists accepting the TOTAL theory, and censor opposing thoughts.

                      I read your debate with John. Both of you have much information, some proven and some not. You pushed a theory, so YOU had the burden of proof. John poked holes. That means you had to go back and revise your approach, not John.

                      If you wish others to believe your theory, you can skip the physics many of us are familiar with. Instead, rebuild your credibility. Start by explaining the failures of the climate community and why they need to hide behind censorship. Then you can discuss the time frame for catastrophe and the value of what our government is doing.

                      The ball is in your court.

                    7. I do not need to read texts on Phrenology to know that it is wrong.

                      All science can be reduced to reproducability.

                      If your claims can not be reproduced – familiarity with the details of the science allegedly underlying your claims is irrelevant

                      I do not need to know the fundimental physics of internal combustion to know that if the car you are selling wont start, I am not buying it.

                    8. And yet aside from bluster you have not addressed a single argument I have made.

                      I have no idea about some book you claim to have read. Nor any interest.
                      You do not have the credibility necescary to motivate me to do so.

                      I am sure there are thousands of texts on the basic science of climate that are free of error.

                      The conclusion that “science” – leads to global Warming is the Fallacy.

                      Is “Pierrehumbert’s” book correct on the basic science – I do not know and I do not care.
                      I am debating YOU – not him, He is not here making the Malthusian claims you are.

                      Arrenhius was basically correct on the science of Greenhouse gases – but he inarguably applied that science incorrectly.
                      We are more than 100 years past Arrenhius and his predications failed long ago.

                      It is probable that the vast majority of Climate TExts are correct in terms of the basic physics of climate.

                      You dismiss the debate regarding the models – but it is incredibly important.

                      That basic phsycis of climate science that you refer to is more than a trillion times beyond the ability of humans to actually calculate.

                      The use of computers to model climate is concurrently a necescity – because it is beyond the ability of any human to apply the science of climate to the climate inside a simple glass jar much less the planet.
                      But the problem is worse than that – it is beyond the capacity of all of the super computers int he world combined to do so.
                      And it is beyond them by large orders of magnitude.

                      Knowing the fundimental science does not get you anywhere if it can not be applied.

                      This should be obvious – even to you. The science of climate is about a billion times more complex than economics.

                      If a butterfly flutters its wings in Nevada – what effect does that have on the weather in Beijing ?
                      Studying climate is equivalent to trying to gauge the cummunlatvie effect of not merely trillions of butterflies all over the the world, but of millions of other factors. Even if we have the science absolutely rock solid in the scope of one tiny closed system,
                      It can not be applied to the planet – we do not and likely never will have the computational ability to do so.

                      During WWII we used thousands of women to perform the calculations necescary to crudely predict the trajectory of artilery shells – something that the science is pretty much rock solid. But we could not possibly do that real time. and the difficulties in that were the impetus behind the creation of the computer. Even today – we can not accurately target an artillery shell for more than about 15km – without adding active guidance to the shell itself. Why not ? It is the same problem just larger in scale ? Why is it that we can not perfectly model an artillery shell further than about 15km ? Frankly we can not model it to 15km. What we have at shorter distances is smaller error bars,

                      Climate makes the problem of targeting artillery shells look like childs play.

                      We can npot even model the actual science of climate – presuming that we have it correct, in real time much less many times faster than real time necescary for prediction without significant simplification of the “science”

                      I have repeatedly noted that the GCM’s are opff by 2.5 std devs. In real science we would call that FALSIFIED.

                      Nor should this be surprising – just like artilery shells the error bars get ever larger the further out you try to project.

                      DB you are not even sharp enoguh to understand what you do not know.

                      And you learned nothing from your encounter with Feyman.

                      Regardless on the RARE occasions that you have even attempted meaningful debate – you have failed miserably.
                      You failed – completely independent of my own skills. You have Failed to make your own arguments.

                      Even now – you are engaging in a long string of appeals to authority – and doing so without actually citing the support of those authorities. Has Feynman made the exact same claims as you ? Absolutely not. Has Pierrehumbert – nope.

                      You are engaged in incredibly bad appeals to authority. But why does that surprise me, that is typical of warmist nutjobs.

                      Name Dropping is not even an actual appeal to authority. It is not even a falacious argument – it is no argument at all.

                    9. “Regarding John Say, I said enough to show that he is completely and utterly wrong. ”

                      That is a very odd claim.
                      I rarely make basic claims about science. You do not seem to grasp the gigantic difference between

                      “This is my prediction of the future”
                      and “Your Wrong”.

                      The former can be right in every single detail but one – and still be wrong.
                      The later is correct in every instance where the prediction of the future is wrong – regardless of the reason.

                      Only the actual future can prove me wrong.

                      At the same time the multidecade long failure of the GCM’s has ALREADY proven me right thousands of times.

                      You and all warmists face the impossible burden of predicting the future – of getting EVERYTHING perfect – because there are millions of places where one error would and has falsified your entire hypothesis.

                      You do not even understand what you are arguing about.

                    10. John Say has it wrong, again and still. First of all, nobody is trying to predict a century from now. Some climatologists do offer projections of the form if so-and-so then this-and-that. Projecting the global temperature requires only projecting the concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and using the Arrhenius logarithmic forcing, as I have already mentioned. One can find more information starting from the climatology thread at
                      Second, I fear John Say does not understand even basic thermodynamics, the ideal gas law. I gave links to the pages on Wikipedia as online references. So I fear that John Say cannot begin to comprehend just why one does not require the large GCM climate models to make somme projections; just a table of Napiernian logarithms suffices.

                    11. Shucks, David, i thought John’s understanding was pretty good and at the same time I saw the need to question yours.

                      You want to make things complicated to hide what you don’t know and the fact that your beliefs appear faith based.

                      You have a theory, yet you cannot deal with the problems showing that theory to be wrong. In fact to protect your theory, your group has decided on censorship. Why don’t you deal with the simple things that make people believe the theory is poorly created. The reason is, you can’t.

                    12. S. Meyer — That you give any credit to what John stats is an indication of your ignorance. Also, I have made the matter as simple as can be. The causal relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature due to Arrhenius explains the dramatic warming since, say, 1950, when the global warming becomes obvious.
                      You simply expose your ignorance. I’ve provided plenty of sources on the remote chance that you might care to learn something.

                    13. “That you give any credit to what John stats is an indication of your ignorance. ”

                      David, your inability to answer simple questions that do not rely on many variables and complexities shows you hide your lack of knowledge in things few people understand, whereas the few include you.

                      Let’s get to the simplest of things. We have an energy policy based on preventing the catastrophe predicted by global warming hysterics. Does the present system work? Is the prediction for the long or short term? Provide your time prediction.

                    14. S. Meyer, everything which stops burning stuff is helpful in maintaining a more stable climate. That is completely obvious. Less obvious is the necessity of removing the excess carbon dioxide to return to a climate more conducive to agriculture.
                      Remember that you are one stating ‘a catastrophe’, not I.

                    15. “S. Meyer, everything which stops burning stuff is helpful in maintaining a more stable climate.”

                      That is a meaningless and laughable answer. It is similar to what you provided when delving into the physics of climatology. You said nothing there and have nothing to add here. We all understand the relationship between mass and energy.

                      The simple question was: ” Does the present system work? Is the prediction for the long or short term? Provide your time prediction.” You didn’t answer that.

                      “Remember that you are one stating ‘a catastrophe’, not I.”

                      David, it seems you took your nose out of the physics book of the climate crazies to start thinking logically.

                      Congratulations on distancing yourself from them who, decades ago, told us Miami and NYC would be underwater, and the earth would be gone.

                      I assume you now believe the problem is long-term? Let’s figure out some time
                      frames and what each means for the future. At the same time, let’s figure out where the climate crazies went wrong.

                      Why don’t you provide some time frames and solutions unless you believe what America is doing today is correct? Also, if the world warmed slightly, many believe the world would be better off compared to today based on food production and the comparative death rates from warmer or colder climates. Tell us which temperature would be better, 3 degrees higher or 3 degrees lower.

                    16. S. Meyer, I already answered your questions 1 and 3. Your question 2 is ill-posed, but I’ll assume you meant degrees Fahrenheit. Then 3 *F is 1.67 *C. We have already added enough carbon dioxide, by burning stuff mostly, to raise the global temperature by 1.2 *C. At 1.5 *C the global temperature is high enough to cause ‘catastrophe’ for the Pacific Island nations by submergence. As the Andaman Islands in the Indian Ocean, I guess. Etc. Also farming is already negatively impacted as has the livability of locations just north of the northern Hadley cell downflow, such as around the Mediterranean.
                      Lowering the temperature by 1.67 *C takes us back to 0.47 *C colder than around 1950, well within historic norms I opine, but of course can’t be certain. In any case, that would probably keep the spring tide flooding in Miami Beach, FL, under control.

                    17. “S. Meyer, I already answered your questions 1 and 3. ”

                      David, I saw links to blogs but didn’t see your answer. If you answered the questions, it should be easy for you to reproduce them now so we can discuss things with the answers in front of us.

                      “question 2 is ill-posed, but I’ll assume you meant degrees Fahrenheit. Then 3 *F is 1.67 *C.”

                      I thought we were discussing science, but from now on, I will remember that our discussion has to be simplified.

                      “We have already added enough carbon dioxide, by burning stuff mostly, to raise the global temperature by 1.2 *C. ”

                      Since you want to be specific, provide the time frame for the 1.2 C and the exact temperatures and times from where you derive that number. You might want to provide earlier temperatures so we can see a longer trend line.

                      ” At 1.5 *C the global temperature is high enough to cause ‘catastrophe’ for the Pacific Island nations by submergence.”

                      That is not catastrophic for the world because, assuming you are correct, other portions will produce more food while fewer people die of the cold.

                      Further, the climatology community was talking about world catastrophes. Is this a backhand admission they were wrong?

                      I think you get my point, so I won’t bother with the rest of your comment because it isn’t pertinent to the questions I outline below.

                      1) Is the time frame for disaster long-term or short-term?
                      2) Which temperature is better, 3 degrees higher or 3 degrees lower
                      3) Would what we are doing today prevent catastrophe?
                      Short term?
                      Long term?

                    18. S. Meyer, how many times do I have to answer?
                      1) Stop burning stuff! Doing so produces carbon dioxide, trapping heat. Further, start removing the excess carbon dioxide.
                      2) I just answered this, thoroughly. Briefly, colder is better.
                      3) Both. Doing little of nothing will make the problems much worse.

                      Finally, no, excess warming is *bad for agriculture* which has evolved for Holocene temperatures.

                    19. David, your responses are appalling and do not answer the questions.

                      Question #1:1) Is the time frame for disaster long-term or short-term?
                      Answer to #!: “Stop burning stuff! Doing so produces carbon dioxide, trapping heat. Further, start removing the excess carbon dioxide.”

                      Maybe you don’t know the definition of time frame, or recognize the difference between data and theory.

                      What does one do when the other doesn’t understand the basic scientific concepts?

                      “2) I just answered this, thoroughly. Briefly, colder is better.”

                      Why do you believe the world is better at a lower temperature? There is less arable land and more deaths.

                      Here is question 3: “3) Would what we are doing today prevent catastrophe?
                      Short term?
                      Long term?”

                      Here is your answer that doesn’t respond to the question. “3) Both. Doing little of nothing will make the problems much worse.”

                      You got me there. I didn’t learn gibberish in my physics class.

                      “Finally, no, excess warming is *bad for agriculture* which has evolved for Holocene temperatures.”

                      I smile because, in an ice age, you would say agriculture evolved, so the ice age has to be better for agriculture.

                      Try again, David.

                    20. S. Meyer,
                      1) The problem is both short and long term.
                      3) *Stop burning stuff!* Remove excess carbon dioxide.

                      Agriculture began in the Holocene, after the glacial stade had melted. We need to return to Holocene temperatures for optimality.

                    21. “1) The problem is both short and long term.”

                      David, start thinking and do so logically. The clams made involved catastrophe. If climate change destroyed the world short term, there would be no world to destroy in the long term.

                      “3) *Stop burning stuff!* Remove excess carbon dioxide.
                      Agriculture began in the Holocene, after the glacial stade had melted. We need to return to Holocene temperatures for optimality.”

                      Your ice age mentality would tell us to return to the ice age. There is no science in what you say. You do not understand the ideas involving climate change and do not know the difference between a Jackson Pollock scam and a climate scam.

                    22. S. Meyer, I don’t use the term ‘catastrophe’. There are problems right now, in Hawaii, Italy, Syria, Beijing, … Such will grow worse and more wide-spread if we don’t stop burning stuff, such as coal and oil.

                      Agriculture began when the so-called ‘ice age’ ended. The resulting interval, an interglacial, is called the Holocene. The Holocene might be said to end in 1950. Agriculture is currently propped up by burning stuff.

                    23. 1) Is the time frame for disaster long-term or short-term?
                      2) Which temperature is better, 3 degrees higher or 3 degrees lower
                      3) Would what we are doing today prevent catastrophe?
                      Short term?
                      Long term?

                      The only thing we have gotten from you is you don’t use the word catastrophe. Why not?

                      The rest of your answers are nonanswers and almost random. Try again.

                  2. S. Meyer, you continue to demonstrate that you don’t even understand basic physics, let alone climatology. This matter, the warming world, has nothing to do with Einstein’s Special Relativity which conclude with the equivalence of energy and mass.
                    As for warming being better for farming: nope. Consider the articles linked on the farming thread in Brave New Climate Discussion Forum:

                    Indeed, read more thoroughly there as I’ve had it with spoon-feeding you.

                    1. David, with all that knowledge you accumulated, are you still unable to answer simple questions? You discussed physics and mathematics with John Say, but you sounded like your understanding of the principles and laws was narrow. You sounded like the novice who lacked enough knowledge to know he knew very little.

                      Let’s get back to my simple questions that you try to avoid. I’ll reproduce them, and let’s see if you can’t answer them now that you had time to think.

                      1) Is the time frame for disaster long-term or short-term?
                      2) Which temperature is better, 3 degrees higher or 3 degrees lower
                      3) Would what we are doing today prevent catastrophe?
                      Short term?
                      Long term?

                      I have many more simple questions that a scientist should be able to answer without using complex physics or mathematics, so for you to answer these three questions should be easy.

                    2. Whenever a scientist tells you that something is good or bad – they are engaged in politics not science.

                      Science can attempt – though it rarely succeeds at predicting the future. But the judgement as to whether that predicted future is good or bad is a value judgement belonging to humans individually – not “experts”.

                      The sane among us spend most of out time attacking the bad science. Climate is about a million times more complex than say economics. Yet economists are extremely poor at making predictions a few months in the future much less decades.
                      With far more data and far better data that climate scientists.

                      Further the thesis of Warmists is absurd. The constant of the universe is CHANGE. Of course climate is changing. Wipe humans off the earth and climate and everything else about the earth about the universe is ALWAYS changing.

                      We have holy wars with warmists over the medevil warm period of the roman warm period – While each of these is reasonably well established what is much more important is that the claim that the climate has been stable for 100 or 500 or 1000 or 2000 or 1000 years is laughably absurd – and yet the CORE to warmist dogma – also the core to the entire left wing nut aspects of environment is but for humans nature is good and stable – and that is total nonsense.

                      I support cleaning up the messes that we make – because that is either directly good for HUMANS, or it is indirectly good for HUMANS. Species have come and gone.

                      The Dinosaurs are extinct. Nature just pissed all over Hawaii, destroying not just what humans had built by wiping out vast swaths of nature.

                      The loss of the carrier pigeon or the dodo bird is tragic – because HUMANS have lost the experience of those creatures.
                      NATURE destroys things all the time. The Greta Thunbergs of the world do not rant about earthquakes huricanes and volcanoes – unless they can blame them on humans.

                      Humans – like all creatures – like nature itself constantly change the nature that WE ARE A PART OF.
                      Humans are just better at it than other creatures. Beavers build Dams Humans build Hoover Dam or Ashwan.

                      I highly doubt Warmist claims that the earth will be 4C warmer by 2100. Thje real science does not support such a claim – and the 2.5std dev error int he models and predictions over the past decades is uncontrovertable evidence of that.

                      I could lose every single science argument to DB and Still I would win the debate – because any claim that is 2.5 std dev off – is falsified. That is SCIENCE.

                      But even if by some miracle I am wrong – we are dealing with probabilities – there is likely more than a 1 in a million chance that natural variability alone could result in a 4C rise by 2100.
                      Again SO WHAT ? Humans will adapt, nature will adapt.

                      While I can not predict exactly what the earth will be like in 2100 – one thing I can say with absolute certainty is that it will be DIFFERENT than today. You could eliminate every human on earth and that would STILL be true.

                      What I find very distubring is that we are 40 years past the start of CAGW theory and despite the fact that no predictions have even close to come true, people STILL beleive this garbage.

                    3. “Whenever a scientist tells you that something is good or bad – they are engaged in politics not science.”

                      They engage in opinion, whether political or not. Scientists have their important personal beliefs. However, if a scientist cannot directly answer simple questions, his worth is nil. Scientists built the bomb and engaged in opinion along with political opinion.

                      I asked David a few questions. Whether good or bad was not the object of the question, but how he provided his opinion. David failed in all regards.

                    4. S. Meyer, the answers can be found on the Brave New Climate Discussion Forum.

                      As I said.

                    5. ” the answers can be found on the Brave New Climate Discussion Forum.”

                      In other words, David, you lack answers and are referring me elsewhere.

                      1) Is the time frame for disaster long-term or short-term?
                      2) Which temperature is better, 3 degrees higher or 3 degrees lower
                      3) Would what we are doing today prevent catastrophe?
                      Short term?
                      Long term?

                      You use mathematics and physics to pretend you know what you are talking about, but some on the blog know those subjects better than you.

                      Quit hiding. Answer the questions.

                    6. David, thank you for proving you know very little about climate. You cannot answer three simple questions. The best you can do is provide a limited link without explanation.

                      If a student in your class gave similar answers on a test, you would flunk him. Therefore, It is fair to say you flunked, but I will permit you to retry the exam holding off your flunking grade until you try again.

                      Here are the questions.

                      1) Is the time frame for disaster long-term or short-term?
                      2) Which temperature is better, 3 degrees higher or 3 degrees lower
                      3) Would what we are doing today prevent catastrophe?
                      Short term?
                      Long term?

                    7. S. Meyer, I answered already on August 17 @ 8:56 pm.
                      Show some competence and find that answer!

                    8. David, you provided an ignorant response which was not an answer.

                      Here is a slightly different set of questions.

                      1) Explain the failures of the climate community.
                      2) Why does the climate community need to hide behind censorship?
                      3) What is the time frame for a catastrophe? Short, medium, or long.
                      4) Explain the value of what our government is doing.

                2. The cardiologist’s focus on things like pressure and volume are a big clue that physics has a lot to do with cardiology.

                  What’s interesting is that Benson tries to regale us with his knowledge of physics by quoting the ideal gas law. Which is really just a fusion of Boyle’s and Charles’s Law. Which have to do with…wait for it…pressure, volume (and temperature).

                  1. Thersites, the ideal gas law suffices to show that John Say was dead wrong.

                    My point above was that ‘heart as pump’ is an engineering application of physics, insufficient to comment meaningfully on climatology.

                    Try actually reading some climatology; it has some interesting applications of physical, chemical, biologicl and geological principles. Not to mention some solar physics.

                3. S. Meyer —
                  1) disaster is happening right now, so short term. It will grow ever worse if we don’t fix the problems, so long term.
                  2) As I said several times, 3 degrees Fahrenheit would be better. The hotter the worse.
                  3) As I said several times: Stop Burning Stuff. Coal and oil are the worst. There are many possibilities to provide sufficient energy. Most of these are mentioned in posts on Brave New Climate Discussion Forum.

            2. Estovir,

              I’m sorry I dropped the ball on this discussion. I just assumed that after a few days people like Benson had moved on to saying inane things on Professor Turley’s more recent topics.

              Arguing with Benson about scientific principles is like shooting fish in a barrel. It’s obvious that he has no training in science. For example, below he states that according to the ideal gas law, the energy of a monoatomic gas is linearly proportional to its temperature. Although he’s correct that there is a linear relation between enthalpy or internal energy of any gas, mono-, di-, tri- or poly-atomic) it’s the first law of thermodynamics that tells us this. Anyone who’s had an undergraduate course in thermodynamics would know that.

              His comments about Lindzen’s (not Clause) iris effect are particularly comical. He obsesses over the measurement of planetary albedo by measuring earthlight on the moon (which can be seen only in the crescent phase) but doesn’t even acknowledge that weather satellites measure albedo fairly regularly. Like, all the time. He also never mentions cirrus clouds, which is what the iris effect is all about. On second thought, his concern about earthshine on the moon may make some sense. He’s a lunatic.

              I’ll pay closer attention in the future.

              1. Τhersites, your comment contains several errors. First, if you don’t lie the reference to the ideal gas law, complain to Wikipedia from whence I took it. It agrees with standard that motion is an external energy. The internal energy of multi-atomic gases is the vibrational energy of the individual molecules, so the ideal gas law doesn’t strictly apply to such. (I hasten to add that it is a good-enough approximation for most purposes.)

                Second, what Clauser proposed is an ‘iris effect’, similar to Lindzen’s iris effect.
                Third, there are indeed satellites which provide measurements of albedo; t wouldn’t call such weather satellites. I used earthshine because there is a longer record of that phenomenon; a long record being necessary to see if there’s a secular trend. None is found.

                For more on albedo, consider studying
                The Albedo of Earth
                Graeme L. Stephens et al.
                Review of Geophysics
                As I read this, albedo is remarkably stable inter-annually.

                1. Thersties, in
                  the motion of molecules relative to the center of mass of the gas in question is considered to be an internal energy. This article also discusses the ideal gas law and is superior to the previously linked Wikipedia article.
                  My apologies for using non-standard conventions, but the point remains the same.

            1. DB – why would anyone trust you or other climate cultists.

              While I have no idea what you are refering to as proof of one of Clausens assertions it does not matter.

              You do not seem to grasp the scientific method – the means of actual discovery of truth.

              9,999 attacks on the cult of warmism can all be proven wrong – if ONE is correct the catastrophic warmist hypothesis is falsified.

              That said – while I do not know specifically what you are refering to. I do know that it is reasonably well know that the Earth does not balance for warming when measured from space. That has been the basis of the running efforts to “find the missing heat” in the oceans. Absent proof that heat is being caputred by the planet somewhere that we have not yet been able to meausure,
              the earth when measured as a black body from space is not warming as predicted.
              This is significant – because though it has only been in the last 20 years or less that we have had space based instruments of sufficient quality to measure the earth from the outside, That process eliminates ALL the problem with surface temperature measurements. It eleiminates all the problems with computer modeling. It merely requires sensative enough instruments to accurately measure the earths heat gains and heat losses.

              I would note this goes back to the debate with me that you lost miserably regarding the Physics or the relationship between temperature and energy. For each degree C that the earth warms it requires dramatically MORE energy to warm to the Next Degree C. This is FUNDIMENTAL physics. You can test it yourself by heating water on a stove. It is true of the planet,
              it is true of everything.

              Assuming that Global Warming is caused by CO2 linear increases in CO2 levels will result in ever slowing rates of warming.
              To get linear warming requires exponentially increasing levels of CO2 – or some other means of energy capture.
              To get exponential rates of warming requires dramatic increases in energy capture over time.
              This is the reason that Warmist constantly hypothesize some positive feedback mechanism – usually water vapor.
              Because without it CAGW violates fundimental physics.

              As to the nonsense you are constantly ranting about. In a contest over what “authority” speaks with the greatest credibility.
              A single nobel winning physicists greatly exceeds every single warmist that ever was.
              Not only is “climate science” nothing more than the physics of atomic and sub atomic particles examined at a macro scale, but the intellectual ability necescary to excell in physics is many orders of magnitude greater than Climate science.

              How it that you think the earth warms ? The foundation of climate science is the wave/particle duality that is the domain of Physics. The entire greeenhouse effect rests on the physics of molecules of CO2 or Water or CH4 of …. being excited by photons of the correct frequency – either emanating from the sun and striking earths atmosphere or reflecting from the earth and striking particles to be reflected back as they attempt to return to space.
              And what is it that you think that temperature is aside from the measure of the energy levels of subatomic particles ?
              I can go further – as we exand from individual atomic and sub atomic particles to the atmosphere that contains them – which is just a massive chaos system of fluid dynamics – also all PHYSICS.

              The vast majority of climate scientists are totally oblivious to the physics involved in this. You have personally proven unable to understand even the most fundimental parts. You do not grasp the fundimental physics that each equal rise in temperature requires significantly more energy than the last. While the actual physics is that constant increases in CO2 will have diminishing gains for TWO fundimental reasons. The first is the energy required for each equal increase in temperature is NOT equal.
              The second is that the very nature of the fluid that is the atmosphere means that it will be less efficient at capturing energy the higher the concentration of CO2. That is not only basic physics – it is also logic.

              A common way to test things is at their limits. If you have managed to do the impossible – and create a layer of CO2 that allows 100% of solar energy in and 0% of solar energy out. Will doubling the amount of CO2 double the temperature of the planet ?
              Will it increase the temperature at all ?

              CAGW – like the vast majority of ALL leftist falderal, is RELIGION not science, not fact,.
              It must be accepted on FAITH not facts. logic and reason
              It does not matter whether the issue is can men be women or the invalidity of the latest malthusian claim by those on the left.
              It does nto matter if the subject is economics, or law, or science.

              Those on the left CONSTANT try to sell Bull$hite that has been falsified long ago. that is illogical, and anti-historical.

              Reality ALWAYS refutes you.

              It is not an accident that all leftist regimes everywhere have historically turned to violence and been totalitarian
              Because FORCE is necescary to compell people to beleive Bullcrap.

              This is why free speech is so incredibly important. Because garbage can not endure where there is open and free debate.

              Because the left is correct – sunlight is totally lethal – to left wing nut nonsense.

              1. John Say, you messed up, per usual. First of all, the ideal gas law for a monoatomic gas shows that, for such, energy is linearly proportional to temperature:

                Second, as I have repeatedly pointed out, Terra is kept warm via atmospheric carbon dioxide, a trace gas. Over the range of interest, the relationship between global temperature and the concentration is logarithmic.

                Third, there are some decades of observation of earthshine which establishes that Terra’s albedo is decreasing. Hence a larger proportion of Sol’s irradiance goes into heating the surface, not less as Clauser would have it.

                Fourth, I have studied some climatology. You obviously have not.

                1. you dont know WTF youre talking about.

                  The greatest expansion of life on earth occurred 540 million years ago with CO2 levels fifteen times higher than now. That is when corals and shellfish appeared in the oceans. Corals appeared in the oceans 540 million years ago with CO2 levels fifteen times higher than now, and temperatures more than 10C warmer than now. They have thrived thorough huge swings in temperature and sea level. If you care, focus on real issues – not the #ClimateScam


              2. Here is the link to the best page on earthshine and albedo that I could readily find:

                Since the albedo is not increasing, Clauser’s ‘iris effect’, while plausible, is not observed to be operative. What is observed is the increase in global temperature proportion to the logarithm of the carbon dioxide concentration, already known to Arrenhius about 140 years ago.

    2. Searching for “Boston coastal flooding” provides lots of images of something which didn’t happen early last century and before.

      1. Really ? and you know How ?

        Were you alive in the early 19th or 20th centuries ?

        You do understand that the earliest accurate direct measurements of temperature are less than 400 years old ?
        That even today – absent satelites we have no truly reliable means of measuring the actual temperature of the earth ?
        That outside of The United States and Europe – which themselves have problems, that often thousands and sometimes millions of square miles of earth are represented by a single direct measurement of temperature

        Do you think that we have done better regarding other measures ?

        The population of the united states 100 years ago was about 1/4 of what it is today. The population of the US in 1810 was 1/10th that of 1910. And there was no such thing as a photograph in 1810.

        Do you really think that the kind of records we keep today were kept by those a century or two ago ?

        I was alive in 1972 when Hurricane Agnes struck where I live.

        I remember the massive devastation, the bridges and buildings destroyed. Some of which have never been replaced.

        If you asked my 20 year old children their recollection fo the worst local weather would be entirely different,
        That is despite the fact that NOTHING like Agnes has happened where I live since.
        Nothing even close.

        The FACT is comparing the present to the past – especially the distant past is very nearly impossible.

        Small hurricanes that struck the right place 100 years ago killed dozens often hundreds of times the people that huge huricanes kill today.

        In fact generally and globally over the past 40+ years of moderately accurate measures of huricanes there is NO Trend reqarding the frequency or power of hurricanes and tropical storms globally.

        There are however vast differences in the damage caused by individual huricanes based on where they strike and whether huricane landfalls are common =lace in that area. Florida as an example is frequently hit and often by very large and powerful huricanes. In the past those were very destructive of life and property. Today deaths from huricanes in Florida are very very rare.
        And comparing property damage is muddy – more people live in FL than ever the likelyhood of a huiricane passing through large numbers of properties is much higher. But those properties are far better built, and finally when they are actually damaged – even small damage is much more expensive to repair.

        The bottom line is that comparisons to the distant past are difficult at best, and generally do NOT support your claims.

        Malthus was WRONG. And he was wise enough to correct himself.
        Every Malthusian since Malthus has been wrong.

        As to your core claim – pretty universally throughout the world – losses of human life due to “extreme weather” where higher as a percent of the population in the past. Why ? Because our standard of living was lower and it was necescary to live closer and with less protection from nature.

        Conversely I will predict with absolutely certainty of being correct that in the future – whatever happens regarding climate there will be fewer weather related deaths as a percent of the population. That will ALWAYS be true – so long as standard of living continues to rise.

  9. This is not even about economics – because the economics of Climate change are STRONGLY in favor of – Let it happen.

    That is totally false. The environmental services we receive from the earth are not easily replaced. RE and Storage is the best bargain you could ever ask for.

Leave a Reply