Fighting AGW is a ‘mad obsession’ – New 195-Page White Paper by French Scientists Declare: ‘The battle against global warming is an absurd, costly & pointless crusade’

By: - Climate DepotOctober 23, 2015 4:08 PM with 120 comments

Selected Excerpts by the Mathematical Calculation Society, SA, a group that does mathematical modeling for the French government and others and touts its mission as providing “mathematical tools for fraud detection.” The group was founded by mathematician Dr. Bernard Beauzamy, former professor at the University of Lyon in France. 

Dr. Bernard Beauzamy

Excerpts from the September 2015 white Paper: 

The battle against global warming: an absurd, costly and pointless crusade. White Paper drawn up by SCM SA. | English summary.

Part 1: The facts

Chapter 1: The crusade is absurd

There is not a single fact, figure or observation that leads us to conclude that the world‘s climate is in any way =disturbed‘. It is variable, as it has always been, but rather less so now than during certain periods or geological eras. Modern methods are far from being able to accurately measure the planet‘s global temperature even today, so measurements made 50  or 100 years ago are even less reliable. Concentrations of CO2 vary, as they always have done; the figures that are being released are biased and dishonest. Rising sea levels are a normal phenomenon linked to upthrust
buoyancy; they are nothing to do with so-called global warming. As for extreme weather events – they are no more frequent now than they have been in the past. We ourselves have processed the raw data on hurricanes.  We are being told that =a temperature increase of more than 2ºC by comparison with the beginning of the industrial age would have dramatic consequences, and absolutely has to be prevented‘. When they hear this, people worry: hasn‘t there already been an increase of 1.9ºC? Actually, no: the figures for the period 1995-2015 show an upward trend of about 1ºC
every hundred years! Of course, these figures, which contradict public policies, are never brought to public attention.
Chapter 2: The crusade is costly

Direct aid for industries that are completely unviable (such as photovoltaics and wind turbines) but presented as =virtuous‘ runs into billions of euros, according to recent reports published by the Cour des Comptes (French Audit Office) in 2013. But the highest cost lies in the principle of =energy saving‘, which is presented as especially virtuous. Since no civilization can develop when it is saving energy, ours has stopped developing: France now has more than three million people unemployed – it is the price we have to pay for our virtue. We want to cut our CO2 emissions at any cost: it is a way of displaying our virtue for all to see. To achieve these reductions, we have significantly cut industrial activity and lost jobs.
But at least we have achieved our aim of cutting CO2 emissions, haven‘t we? The answer is laughable: apparently not. Global emissions of CO2 have continued to rise, including those generated by France in designing and manufacturing its own products, as the Cour des Comptes clearly states. Quite simply, manufacturing that is held to be environmentally damaging has been relocated. So the same products are now being manufactured in
countries that are far less respectful of the environment, and we have lost all the associated jobs. As Baudelaire says, =Nature‘s irony combines with our insanity‘.

SCM SA White paper “Global Warming”, 2015/09
Chapter 3: The crusade is pointless

Human beings cannot, in any event, change the climate. If we in France were to stop all industrial activity (let‘s not talk about our intellectual activity, which ceased long ago), if we were to eradicate all trace of animal life, the composition of the atmosphere would not alter in any measurable, perceptible way. To explain this, let us make a comparison with the rotation of the planet: it is slowing down. To address that, we might be tempted to ask the entire population of China to run in an easterly direction. But, no matter how big China and its population are, this would have no measurable impact on the Earth‘s rotation. French policy on CO2 emissions is particularly stupid, since we are one of the countries with
the cleanest industrial sector. International agreements on the subject began with the Kyoto Protocol, but the number of countries signing up to this agreement and its descendants are becoming fewer and fewer, now representing just 15% of emissions of greenhouse gases. This just goes to show the truth of the matter: we are fighting for a cause (reducing CO2 emissions) that serves absolutely no purpose, in which we alone believe, and which we can do nothing about. You would probably have to go quite a long way back in human history to find such a mad obsession.

End Excertps:

Full 195-page white paper available here:

Mad Obsession 1955


  • Sam Pyeatte

    The climate crusaders are the new Salem witch-burners. The same mentality, different era.

  • Don55Clifford

    This is very encouraging coming from France of all places.

    • Judy Cross

      Just in time to get word around before Paris.

      • Don55Clifford

        Yes, this is sweet irony!

  • Clambaked22

    So what is the ONE MAJOR thing that HAS HAPPENED ALREADY due to “GLOBAL WARMING” Name ONE THING that has been absolutely devastating to humans. I mean something that has happened that has taken millions of lives, OR ONE?

    NOTHING!!! I’m talking about something in the magnitude of dropping a nuke on
    Hiroshima. Even there, over 2100 NUKES have been exploded and climate change alarmists say nothing but are afraid of,,, WHAT???

    IN the meantime Their squad, Obama, Just gave the bomb, NUKES to IRAN,,

    Good thinking… DEMOCRATS and Progressives honestly think IRAN having a NUKE isn’t more dangerous to humanity than “Climate Change” ??? What could go wrong? That’s liberal thinking for you… Chicken littles who believe corrupt socialists have their backs, and feel good about their stand…

    Don’t come to me when the crap really hits the fan.

    • lancemh

      And you wanted to stop Iran from having a nuke, HOW?
      By bombing them? Starting another endless war? Or have Israel bomb them which then drags us into another regional war in an area of the world that Republicans already “broke” by invading Iraq with lies about the danger to the U.S.? Saddam was not a threat to us. He was 10,000 miles away. Also, where is the long range threat to the U.S. from Iran? NONE! No ICBM missile systems. No long range bombers. Nothing.
      Just another Boogie Man under the bed for you all. War, war, and more war. Military-Industrial Complex! The phrase was coined by President and Former Commander of Allied Forces in Europe in WWI Dwight D. Eisenhower in his farewell speech to Congress in 1960. He was also a Republican. He warned our country of the threat of a runaway Defense Industry and Pentagon spending us into bankruptcy with all their saber-rattling. I think Ike knew far more about war and military strategy than 99% of Republicans who have ever served in Congress since 1960. And people like yourself. Armchair Generals.
      But North Korea DOES have nukes, and the capability and WILL to deliver one to the West Coast. That guy is stark raving mad. Just like his father. However, nary a word from Conservatives about that very real threat for the past 15 years despite numerous detonations, missile tests, firing on S. Korea (where we have U.S. troops stationed), etc. Why?
      Must be because N. Korea has no oil or Muslims . . . what other rational explanation is there for such an irrational and schizophrenic Republican Foreign Policy?!?
      P.S. I have degrees in Political Science, Economics, and Law. I took 18 hours of Foreign Policy in undergraduate during the early 1980’s (The height of the Cold War). Pull you head out of the clam-bake – you might think clearer.

      • rongjon

        If possible, please put your head back up your own backside or that of the nearest left wing lunatic. You’ll feel warm and safe there.

        • lancemh

          Sorry, it’s not possible. I have a spine. I stand up to gutless sabre-rattlers who twist and contort themselves to whatever direction the political wind is blowing at the moment. That’s why it’s so easy for you all to get your heads up your own or another’s backsides. You have no spines.
          Rule One in Foreign Policy: Don’t do stupid #$%&. Or step in it. Or stick your neck up in a place where it gives you @#$%-for-brains.
          That’s how we survived the Cold War. I grew up during that era. Thank God the GOP had men back then who understand that weapons systems were to be used as “tools of persuasion”. Not detonated . . . contrary to what NORAD/SAC Air Force General Curtis Lemay believed in 1962 – JFK had enough of a spine during the Cuban Missile Crisis to tell Lemay he had his head up where the sun never shines. Otherwise, none of us are here to have this conversation.
          Obama has had such a weapon system for six years – it’s a new generation “bunker-buster” bomb. Even the Iranians are aware of it – it’s what brought them back to the table. And kept Israel from pulling the trigger.
          But if you haven’t read or watched anything but Faux News since 2009, you wouldn’t know or understand that . . .

          • rongjon

            What is it with you guys and Fox News? Anytime someone has an opinion different than your left wing lunatic group think, you play the Fox News card. Of course We can all be certain that you are getting your news from Comedy Central ( or is it the Cartoon Network?). Both are equally bereft of intelectual value.

          • lancemh

            No, I don’t watch The Daily Show or Colbert Report anymore. But frankly, even though it was purely political satire, those two programs conveyed more accurate information in the first minute they aired each evening than Fox News does in a single 24-hour cycle.

            There is a vast difference between “listening to news” versus acquiring knowledge, as well as assessing the accuracy of facts and information. As Malcom Forbes, Jr. posted in his monthly personal observation segment of Forbes Magazine when he was alive, “Of all thy getting, get understanding.”

            I listen to and read many varying opinions. I learned to use logic and reason by reading and studying Aristotle. I give credence only to those who do not resort in argument ad hominem to make their case by labeling someone (example: “left wing Liberal”).
            There is an old adage in the law: “When you don’t have a case, abuse the witness” (call them a name). You lost your case the moment you resorted to argument ad hominem; you have reduced it to an absurd art-form. Like so many others. It clearly demonstrates a futile attempt to gloss over some lack of understanding or facts to back up your case . . .

          • rongjon

            Ah. The good old ad hominem. It’s the alinskyite lib stock in trade. In reality, Fox News offers an objective coverage of current news as well as commentary that covers the political spectrum. You would not know this because your mind does not reside in the real world. You I’m sure are much more comfortable with the Marxist group think propaganda that 95% of the media labels news. If you ever took the time to watch and listen to objective coverage and commentary on current events, you would probably have to kill yourself for being ideologically impure. Instead you take the tack of spewing hatred for anyone who dares to disagree with you. Carry on my brother. I hope you will find peace.

  • August 21, 2015 Study: German Scientists Conclude 20th Century Warming “Nothing Unusual” …Foresee “Global Cooling Until 2080″!

    They carefully examined climate changes of the past and have found that the recent changes (of the last 40 years are nothing out of the ordinary and that we need to worry about a global cooling that will persist until 2080.

    CO2 makes up .036% of the atmosphere. Tiny, miniscule, practically unnoticeable. Got to be a Religion if you believe it makes the other 99.964% warmer!

    • Well, i can think of some gases that you REALLY don’t want, even at the 0.036% (360 ppm) level 😉 But yes, the hysteria about man-made CO2 ignores all sorts of things the models don’t/can’t/won’t account for.

  • Overlap

    How to identify a climate zealot: Ask them, “What is the % of CO2 in the atmosphere to the nearest tenth of 1%?” I’ll give you a clue, it starts with the letter “z”! Any rational unbiased person will just give you a straight answer… but to a CAGW zealot that “z” word will stick in his throat. He will evade and obfuscate because, for him, the preservation of his (climate) religious faith is more important than the uncovering of the truth!

    • “What is the % of CO2 in the atmosphere to the nearest tenth of 1%?”

      Ooh, aren’t you the clever little fellow! With word games like that, there’s obviously nothing to worry about. “What is the % of the population of the USA that died in the Vietnam War to the nearest tenth of 1%?” See, wars are harmless.

      • Overlap

        As I said above, evasion and obfuscation!

        • evasion and obfuscation!

          Don’t be so hard on yourself; you almost certainly thought it was clever when you wrote it.

          The EPA upper limit for nitrogen dioxide (NO₂) in the air is 53 ppb (parts per billion) or 0.0000053%. A level a thousand times higher than that would still come out zero using your little numeric trick. Would you be willing to breathe air with 53,000 ppb nitrogen dioxide? Or is it your trick that is obfuscation? An attempt to deceive.

          • Overlap

            I think you’ve been identified!

          • you’ve been identified!

            Ah, more cleverness. You managed to figure out what my real name is from the fact that I post under my real name.

          • Overlap

            you’ve been identified as a climate zealot!

          • climate zealot!

            Computer scientist and former physicist, actually. But don’t let my grasp on reality spoil your fantasies.

          • Centurion13

            And with all that going for you, still an alarmist?

          • still an alarmist?

            I’m GW Deniers’ worst nightmare: someone who understands the physics, statistical analysis, and computer modeling and knows that GW is real and is caused by humans.

            I see you were Navy. Ever run into the AN/UYS-2 EMSP sonar system? That was my baby. Also I wrote SDEX/M, the OS for the AN/UYK-20, AYK-44, and the following generations. The 2-star who ran NAVELEX gave me an award for saving the Navy $350 million.

          • PhD

            Well your problem is that AGW is a complete hoax on the public and is complete and utter scientific nonsense.
            Playing with all the Navy systems in the world will not change that simple fact.

          • AGW is a complete hoax

            You’ve failed to convince anybody of that other than a handful of the science illiterate, the paid stooges of the energy companies, and and a few doddering professors emeriti.

          • PhD

            Yes, “they” also thought Einstein was past his time (Bohr et al). I would suggest that anyone who cannot follow basic physics 101 in thermodynamics is a scientific illiterate. And the “paid stooges of the energy companies” is a truly worn out phrase from the left that really needs to be retired….. you conveniently (as always) forget that the largest company that pays its people to toe the AGW line is the United States government with over $60B+ in funding so far….. there is NO private company that can even vaguely compete….. try leveling the playing field. AGW is a complete and utter nonsense.

          • Yes, “they” also thought Einstein was past his time (Bohr et al).

            But he was; Aspect’s work in entanglement showed that, and there have been many experiments since then confirming and extending it. Einstein’s last major work, in 1935, was in error and he was only 56 at the time.

            And the “paid stooges of the energy companies” … really needs to be retired.

            Not as long as it remains true and as new evidence of it continues to come to light.

            you … forget that the largest company that pays its people to toe the AGW line is the United States government

            There are an awful lot of climate scientists in the rest of the world.

            AGW is a complete and utter nonsense.

            And yet you’ve convinced no one of that.

          • PhD

            I have read all of Aspect’s work …… QM has not led to an real breakthroughs in GUT. String theory …. Nope. In fact under today’s Physics we have stalled out. Hardly a stunning record of achievement.
            Climate science has more to do with astrology than real science.
            And I absolutely know AGW is nonsense, I am not trying to convince you Muncky ….. Your knowledge is too parochial and limited.

          • I am not trying to convince you

            That’s good, because you’ve yet to mount a single coherent argument. In fact, your arguments consist of ad hominems and disparagements, another characteristic of those posting as anonymous cowards.

          • PhD

            HA HA HA you are just pissed that you were a big enough fool to post your real name Muncky….. why would anyone with a brain post their opinion with their name on the WORLDWIDE internet HA HA HA

            As a degreed, practicing physicist, I repeat AGW is complete and utter nonsense …. you make the mistake (constantly) of assuming that this type of forum is anything but a statement of opinion…. it is FAR from a forum for discussing serious Physics with your real name.

            Ciao Muncky.

          • you were a big enough fool to post your real name Muncky

            I’ve been doing so since 1972 on ARPANet, but you’re right, it does inhibit me from lying. You obviously have no such constraint.

            As a degreed, practicing physicist, I repeat AGW is complete and utter nonsense

            Case in point.

          • PhD

            Nonsense Muncky, politicians lie all the time using their real names. There is no inhibition from lying by using your real name. Strange that you would think so. I don’t think you are lying….. I think you are just guilty of not understanding the Physics.

          • PhD

            Er, Bob….. let me remind you that you never really made it in Physics as we have previously discussed.
            To be a great computer scientist is wonderful, so congrats on that.

          • you never really made it in Physics

            And I’ve never claimed otherwise. Note that I’m not the one hiding behind a pseudonym probably intended to mislead and a locked profile.

          • colin ashby

            well i dont think 53ppb is very much . do you think 53ppb cyanide in a glass of water will affect you. probably not because it will be found in another glass close by.

            Now it seems that we are breathing air with 53ppb NO₂ already , as you so correctly answered and then promtly asked if we would breathe air with % NO₂. so i still dont see any death of population by global warrming , NO₂ or even CO₂ yet.wont happen.

          • well i dont think 53ppb is very much .

            You don’t seem to have understood the point of my comment.

            do you think 53ppb cyanide in a glass of water will affect you.

            The EPA limit for water is 200 ppb; you take in more air than water. That level in your water supply has a 50% chance of causing thyroid problems, miscarriages, and severe weight loss. 53,000 ppb will kill you pretty quickly.

            Try reading my comment again, and those preceding it in the thread.

          • PhD

            Bob, you are not a “Denier’s worst nightmare” because no one cares about your poor grasp of the issues. Your opinion just simply doesn’t count like every other liberal for whom this is religion and not science.

          • Deep down you know that science and scientists know a great deal more than you do, and it frightens you. That’s why you hide behind anonymity and that’s why you couldn’t stop yourself from writing that comment.

          • PhD

            Love the psych analysis….. Like everything you write, full of holes Muncky

  • Tell the Truth

    Instead of throwing around insults and ad-hominem attacks, the commenters would do well to open their minds to all scientific analysis of the situation, as I and many others have. It’s important to read papers like this one, but it’s also important to put them in an overall context of the thinking about climate. An easier start for folks might be to explore some simple questions for themselves … Is the climate getting warmer — ask someone from Alaska or northern latitude countries and you’ll see credibility to the scientific studies that it is. Is the sea level rising anywhere? Ask anyone from the south pacific island nations if it is.

    • Duke Silver

      Perhaps you should ask someone from maine if it’s getting warmer. I’m from southern Franklin county, ME where NOAA has been caught systematically lowering old temps and elevating more recent temps. NOAAs explanation – they felt southern quebec (cooler and to the north) offered better older data and Massachusetts (warmer and to the south) offered more accurate newer data. Is maine getting hotter – NO. But NOAA is allowed to say it is because they changed the data. IIRC they have inserted data streams from as much as 1200 miles distant into the previous (painstakingly measured) raw data.
      As for SL rise – the measurement and correction for land subsidence (due to ground water use, etc) seems to have been abandoned in favor of attributing all SL elevation change to SL rise and thermal expansion. Apparently land no longer subsides under use like it used to. When known subsidence is factored in it turns out there is no greater increase in SL than has been seen before. Another hint is that SL rise under CAGW is more noticeable in urban areas than unpopulated. Unfortunately it’s hard to run headlines and extort hard-earned tax dollars with the word “unremarkable”.
      It’s amusing that you guys keep pointing to studies by NOAA, NASA IPCC etal as the gold standard when these are precisely the organizations which are on the hotseat for data fraud. It’s as if you’re saying that obviously OJ had to be innocent of murder because OJ said he was innocent of murder.

    • Denis Ables

      okay, let’s look at some FACTS:

      President Obama, on his recent trip to Alaska, referred to two receding glaciers as examples of “climate change”. (His (and
      his cohort’s) use of the term “climate change” means significant global warming due to human activity, mostly involving fossil fuel usage.) However, one of those glaciers, “Exit”, has been receding since 1750, a century before co2 began increasing and two centuries before co2 could have had any noticeable impact on temperature. Neither he nor the major news media mentioned several other Alaskan glaciers, including “Hubbard” and “Taku”, which have been advancing. Obviously both phenomenon cannot be attributed to global warming. (it is true that some alarmists seriously claim that co2 increase can simultaneously bring on both warming and cooling events!)

      Consider the serious implication if no glaciers were receding. That would imply that our current warm period has ended and the next ice age was underway! The average duration over the past 1.3 million years for ice ages is 90,000 years.
      The warmer intervals between ice ages (interglacial periods, one of which we are now enjoying) average just 10,000 years. Instead of worrying about some water in NY City, try wrapping your mind around what actually happened not very long ago,
      on a geologic basis – a mile high glacier parked on the Big Apple!

      The claims of a “97% consensus” have been thoroughly debunked. Among other problems these unprofessional “surveys” counted many skeptics as part of their supposed consensus. These “surveyors” posed ambiguous questions and made no distinction between the IPCC cabal, which claims human activity is the PRINCIPLE cause of global warming, and other respondents (mostly skeptics) who merely acknowledged that increasing co2 MIGHT have SOME impact on global warming. Had those surveys been designed (and handled) by unbiased professionals the result may well have shown that skeptics were actually in the majority, but it matters not, since scientific truths are not dependent on vote counts.

      When you strike a match that action should have some impact on global warming (unlikely measurable). The Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect is well known, but also turns out to have no measurable impact on global temperature. That’s because urban areas represent only a very small portion of the earth’s surface area and even the rural areas immediately surrounding an UHI show no measurable temperature impact from that UHI. Nevertheless, no credible skeptic is likely to flatly declare that human activity is having NO impact on global warming. The issues are that the IPCC, and its supporters, claim that (1) co2 increase causes global warming and (2) human activity, which appears to be responsible for most of the co2 increase, is therefore the principle cause of the warming. There is no empirical evidence that co2 level has ever, even over geologic periods when it was much higher than now, had any impact on global temperature. This renders (1) questionable and makes (2) moot until (1) is resolved.

      The term “climate change”, until recently, referred to 4 billion years of natural climate events and included such things as ice ages. Now, and with full cooperation of the major news media, “climate change” instead means “catastrophic anthropogenic global warming” (CAGW), and skeptics are accused of being “climate change” deniers. (“catastrophic” because it seems clear that a steadily increasing co2 level at some point would likely lead to that outcome.) So, how much time do we have to resolve this issue? Will it be resolved “naturally” by our next ice age?

      Well, it turns out hat during most of our planet’s history the co2 level has been several times higher than now, and yet, even over geologic periods, there is no empirical evidence showing that co2 has EVER had any impact on the global temperature. In fact, over geologic periods there is a strong correlation showing the opposite – that temperature variation occurs FIRST and only 800 to 2800 years LATER do similar variations show up in the co2 level. This obviously rules out the possibility of a similar correlation satisfying the alarmist claims. There are also no claims that co2 level has any direct impact on climate other than via warming.

      Dr. Craig Idso ( states that a comparison of our current interglacial with the four immediately prior interglacials (a span of abouti340,000 years) shows that, while co2 level is now 40% higher, our current temperature is about two degrees cooler. Obviously co2, even at its now higher level, is having little, if any, impact on global temperature. Since both co2 level and UHI appear to be ruled out insofar as having any impact on global temperature, what is the basis
      for the IPCC claim that human activity is the PRINCIPLE cause of our warming?

      Our two weather satellites show no additional temperature increase for the past 18+ years and it is clear that the computer models did not expect, nor can they account for what happened to that missing heat. There is no physical basis for claiming
      that the “missing heat” could disappear into the ocean, sink unnoticed past 3,600 ARGO buoys, subsequently hide in the deep ocean, and somehow later re-surface and escape back into the atmosphere. Neither is the increase in recent ocean temperature sufficient to explain the “missing heat”. The speculation brought on by this hiatus in temperature increase has, in a relatively short period, evolved into dozens of different excuses, but the usual suspects continue to insist the science is “settled”.

      It’s also well known that the capability of co2 to influence warming diminishes as its level increases. A greenhouse is hardly an adequate model for our open atmosphere because there is no convection from within a real greenhouse, satellites detect heat escaping to space, and greenhouses are not subject to ocean or other planetary-level feedbacks. Also, computer
      models cannot deal with ongoing chaotic events (volcano eruptions, earthquakes, bombardment by asteroids and comets, plate tectonics, continental shift) all of which influence climate.

      The computer models have consistently projected higher temperature increases than were subsequently recorded, and this discrepancy has continued even after several rounds of revisions to the models. What’s more, the spread between actual temperature and computer projected temperatures has continued to WIDEN. Climate model results are not evidence of anything apart from the author(s) limited understanding and possible confirmation biases. All these models ASSUME that
      water vapor is the real culprit, creating 2 to 3 times the temperature increase as supposedly brought on directly by co2 increase. Feedbacks are not well understood, yet modelers assume not only that water vapor feedback is positive, but that its impact on temperature is 2 to 3 times that of the co2 impact (which itself is in question.) Cloud cover, one aspect of
      water vapor, clearly appears to have a cooling rather than a warming effect. Without the water vapor feedback
      assumption, the threat of co2 impact drops by 75%.

      Our current co2 level is 400 ppmv, (parts per million by volume) clearly a trace gas, which can also be stated as 4/100 of one percent of the atmosphere, by volume. (4/100 of one percent of a mile is about 2 feet). The annual rate of increase in co2 is about 2 ppmv, so co2 level is estimated to reach 600 ppmv by 2100. That is still represents a trace gas. A crowded gym with poor ventilation may reach 1,000 ppmv. Submarine crews survive for months in a 5,000 to 8,000 + ppmv
      environment. Plants, grow faster, healthier, produce more oxygen, and need less water in higher co2 environments.
      Our earth is greening even as this controversy continues.

      The proponents of CAGW base their entire hypothesis on less than 30 years of climate history. Even the most rabid CAGW scientists recognize that any temperature impact brought on by increasing co2 would have taken (at 2ppmv per year) until about 1950 before having any possible measurable impact on global temperature. While co2 began rising in the mid 1800s our current warming (such as it is) began, by definition, (Dr. David Evans, Aussie climatologist) at the bottom of the
      Little Ice Age, in the mid 1600s. That implies 300 years (1650 to 1950) of natural warming. There was also some serious warming during the 1930s, and a mild cooling from the 1940s to the 1970s, followed by THE warming, from the mid
      1970s to about 1998. Although it remains warm there has been no additional warming since about 1998 according to both
      weather satellites. (The satellite data also agrees well with weather balloon data.)

      There are 5 global temperature datasets, 3 terrestrial and 2 satellite. However, according to Phil Jones (2003) the three terrestrial datasets all utilize 90 to 95% of the same raw data. There are three sets of terrestrial temperature datasets only because three separate organizations are involved and each makes its own revisions to the raw data. With regard to
      satellites, as of September 2015, UAH shows no additional warming for the past 18 years and 5 months and RSS shows no additional warming for the past 18 years and 8 months. (However, this could change because the upcoming el Nino, a natural warming event, may bring on some additional temporary warming.) Neither is this 18+ year duration of no additional warming cherry picked. That result depends solely on the data and answers a relevant question, namely – for how long has there been no additional warming? If the same analysis used on the two satellites is instead applied to the mean of all 5 datasets, there has been no additional warming for the past 13+ years. (However, since all three terrestrial datasets are basically derived from the same raw data, the 3/5 weighting for terrestrial data in that calculation is overly generous. Acknowledgement of that would further increase the 13 years.)

      The three terrestrial datasets have other problems. Even the current raw data must be continually revised because many stations are located within or near UHIs and that effect, which often changes over time, must be re-ESTIMATED and eliminated. (Why the historic terrestrial data continues to also be revised, and invariably involve changes which imply more warming is not so obvious.) The distance between some land stations may be as much as 1200km, and there are even fewer stations in remote (jungles, mountains, deserts, plains, grasslands, etc.) areas. Finally, many land based temperature stations do not satisfy even the basic requirements laid down by the government. (Why have NOAA and NASA not at least included a separate analysis, for comparison purposes, using only raw data from rural locations? This subset should not require many, if any revisions. Both NASA and NOAA strictly base their claims on the terrestrial data. Why? And never bother to mention that in their public declarations. Why?)

      Some alarmists, and that also includes many liberal politicians, continue even now to claim severe weather events and sea level rise as “evidence” of CAGW. Sea level has been rising for the past 15,000 years, ever since the last ice age BEGAN melting, and sea level is now up 400+ feet. The overall rate of sea level increase has been steadily dropping for the past several thousand years. Sea level rise is now at a miniscule 1 to 2 mm per YEAR, (1 mm = 4/100 of one inch. In 25 years, the level would be up one inch, probably less because the rate continues to drop.) A graph showing sea level over
      the past 12-15 thousand years should be sufficient to assuage any rational person about what is happening. In the
      case of severe weather events various statistical analysis have demonstrated conclusively that, for the past several decades, these events have all remained within natural climate variation (so no measurable effect attributable to co2
      level or warming). Hurricanes, typhoons, tornados, floods, rain, and droughts have been no more severe nor more frequent
      during the past several decades.

      At least one well known member of the IPCC cabal, Phil Jones, stated that if the Medieval Warming Period (MWP) was global and as warm as now, then “that’s another ballgame”. The Climate Gate email conversations showed concern about the MWP. (In fact, at least one email made clear that they had to get rid of the MWP !) The IPCC and its cohort also continue to insist that the MWP was only a regional phenomenon, and not as warm as now. This completely unjustifiable claim is apparently an attempt to avoid having to deal with the following embarrassing question — “If the MWP, a natural event 1,000 years ago, was as warm (probably warmer) than now, why do you think humans are the cause of our current warming?” Certainly any credible scientist who was a proponent of CAGW should have demanded that a global investigation be undertaken to confirm whether the MWP was global. But this alarmist group chose instead to ignore the evidence and cling to their belief. They instead demand that the skeptics provide evidence that the MWP was global and as warm or warmer than now. Think about that. If even one region remote from Europe shows the same warming trend, their hypothesis begins to crumble. As it turns out, the higher temperatures and the MWP trend show up in numerous remote locations.

      Ironically, there were numerous peer-reviewed studies available showing the MWP to be global and as warm, likely warmer, long before the alarmist position became public, even before their cries reverted from claims of oncoming ice age to global warming. (Holdren, science adviser to Obama, was an alarmist for cooling before becoming an alarmist for warming.) The alarmist denials continue even now, in spite of new confirming studies continuing to show up regularly, as often as weekly. The website has links to all the MWP peer reviewed studies. These confirming studies have employed
      various temperature proxies, including some newer methods not available during earlier studies. And then there are the
      results from 6,000 boreholes around the globe which independently confirm that the MWP trend was indeed global.

      The Alaskan Mendenhall Glacier, recently retreated sufficiently to expose some splintered tree trunks (dated 1000+ years old) preserved in their original upright positions. Receding Swiss glaciers have revealed 4,000 year-old trees which
      show that latitude area to have been forested at one point. Antique vineyards dating back to the MWP have also been exposed in Scandinavia and the Alps at latitudes where grapes cannot be grown even today. Burial sites have been found
      beneath the permafrost. Attempts to brush off that aggregation of information as “anecdotal evidence” is ludicrous.
      Claiming that the dating of these recently exposed splintered tree trunks may be inaccurate is also ludicrous because it’s not relevant. That in no way eliminates the fact that there were warmer durations than now, and these took place at latitudes where trees no longer grow and when co2 level was still 280ppmv.

      In fact, there were several earlier warm durations during this interglacial before the MWP, all warmer than the MWP. Even the IPCC only claims that our current warming is a record for the past 800 years, and with less likelihood, (but no justification provided) for the past 1200 years. Lord Monckton points out that while the IPCC has finally admitted in its latest report that the current RATE of warming is now lower than published earlier, their committee (which reviews every word of their public report multiple times) has still somehow managed to avoid correcting their erroneous out-years high temperature estimate.

      In late 2014 both NASA and NOAA claimed that 2014 was the “hottest” year, but both backed down after skeptics pointed out that, if their same analysis had been applied to satellite data, then 2014 ranking would have been either 3rd or 6th hottest. (Both results imply at least a short term cooling is underway.) Also, neither agency felt the need to include in their initial press release that the difference amongst recent annual global temperatures was miniscule, (a few hundredths of one degree) so well within the uncertainty error, which renders their contrived comparison across recent years meaningless. The major news media, as usual, jumped on their original news (2014 “hottest”) release, but overlooked the NOAA/NASA subsequent retreat. These two agencies are apparently still at it, recently claiming that June 2015 was the “hottest” month. There has also been no accompanying acknowledgement that sea ice extent in the Arctic recently increased considerably and sea ice extent in the southern hemisphere continues to break records. Neither was it noted that new weather trends begin at the two poles. Has everyone forgotten that in summers of 1959-1962 the North Pole was visited by the Coast Guard cutter Storis, (along with submarines and other ships) in open water?

      Quite recently the two agencies (now evidently desperate) decided to revise the sea surface temperatures in an apparent effort to do away with the temperature “hiatus”. But, as CFACT points out “…NOAA “adjusted” sea-surface temperature (SST) data from buoys upward by .12 degrees C, to make them ‘homogeneous’ with lengthier records from past engine intake systems in ships. However, engine intake data are ‘clearly contaminated by heat conduction from the ships, and that data were never intended for scientific use – whereas the global buoy network was designed for environmental monitoring”. These agencies also recently declared that their three terrestrial datasets are “independent”, which, as explained earlier, is dubious, at best.

      Then there is our government’s “solution” for this doubtful problem. Obama wants to reduce electrical power emissions by 32% by 2030. The following is quoted directly from Joanne Nova’ website which merely confirms what the EPA administrator, Gina McCarthy, recently admitted:

      This “ambitious” goal is purely symbolic. Here’s why. Electrical power plants make 37% of US emissions, which are
      about one-fifth of global human emissions, which are 4% of total CO2 emissions globally. So a 32% cut in US electrical emissions will result in a 0.1% cut in total global CO2 emissions (at best)*. If the Obama/EPA plan is “successful” and if the IPCC are right, Paul Knappenberger and Pat Michaels estimate that Obama’s new plan will cool the world by an unmeasurable 0.02°C by 2100.

      The mission of the UN’s well-funded IPCC was to identify human impact on climate. Would anyone expect the IPCC (or any such bureaucracy) to report back to its funding sources that “it’s apparently just Mother Nature at work?” Large western governments all view this issue as an opportunity, to (among other things) have more control over the fossil fuel industry, and to introduce new taxes. Small countries are onboard because they have been promised remuneration for the “climate change” pain supposedly imposed on them by the larger countries. (You can be sure any UN document on the subject
      will include issues related to “remuneration”.) While we do need to be concerned about energy consumption, it will take centuries before co2 attains levels comparable to earlier periods, so there appears to be sufficient time to discover and implement the needed technology. Certainly the current larger threat is politicians’ rush to implement costly “solutions”.

      Whether these alarmists are “useful idiots”, or willing to lie because they believe in some higher principle (one-world government, abhor the fossil fuel industry, or want to transfer western resources to third world countries) hardly matters. The road to hell is paved with “good” intentions. 10/24

      • cardigan

        A masterpiece of summation and refutation of all the stuff and nonsense we have been fed for 25 years.

      • DFDalton

        I agree with Cardigan – a masterful summation. If you researched and wrote it yourself, bravo. If you copied and pasted it though, please cite the source and credit the author.

        • Denis Ables

          That’s my research. However, lots of the information has been gathered so long ago and has also shown up subsequently in many places, so I have no clue as to how to attribute that back to some single source. The comments about the two weather satellites comes mostly if not exclusively, from Monckton’s analysis. If readers think I’ve overlooked crediting anyone, let me know.
          I have no formal education nor work experience in climatology, so safe to say that ALL of the information should be credited to the hard work of others.

          I have added anything about the alarmist theory that a necessary (but not sufficient condition) hypothesis is that the troposphere above the equator should show some warming – but it has not. I recall a concise summary of that long ago on Joanne Nova’s site, but haven’t seen much commentary on it recently.

          • DFDalton

            Thanks for the clarification. Your original post was so detailed, so well-written and so persuasive, and seems to have taken far too much effort to write simply as a reply in a comments section, that it had the appearance of a “cut and paste” job. I just wanted to know where you got it. I hope you took my concern as more of a compliment than an accusation.

          • Denis Ables

            I’ve accrued that rebuttal, over a long time, and did indeed paste it from my Word file as the response. Many websites only accept a few hundred words (or less), so all one can hope to do is wing out something on the fly, hardly helpful, particularly with this subject matter, if you really want to make a point..

          • Dale

            Denis. Continue to paste your explanation whenever and wherever you get the opportunity. You’ll never change the deranged minds of the alarmists but for those earnestly trying to learn and understand, your write-up is a terrific starting place.

      • Squidly2112

        I have a further FACT for you … the so-called “greenhouse effect”, as is described by the IPCC and more accurately described as the “radiative greenhouse effect” is NOT POSSIBLE in this Universe! … The so-called “greenhouse effect” is a direct violation of universal physical LAW, for which no amount of sophistry can circumvent.

        The fact of the matter is, in order for molecule (A) to increase the energy state (increase temperature) of molecule (B), molecule (A) MUST be of GREATER energy state than molecule (B) .. This has been known for centuries and proven by Fourier centuries ago. Simply put, a cooler object (the atmosphere) CANNOT make a warmer object (the surface) warmer still! …. an object (the surface) cannot heat itself, and certainly cannot do so by simply re-radiating its own energy from the atmosphere. The so-called “greenhouse effect” is a huge LIE! … and this is a hard cold FACT! .. (pardon the pun).

        • Denis Ables

          I don’t take issue with that. But once you open that door, it permits the alarmists to “rebute” via obfuscation, and most readers don’t have enough science background to feel comfortable in that debate, so close their eyes and “leave it to the experts”. Not necessary. I’m hoping to reach those readers who can understand , if not scientific method, at least common sense.

          • PhD

            Of course Squidly2112 is absolutely correct. The incorrect term “greenhouse” is applied heavily all over the literature. Clearly you (maybe wisely) suggest to “keep it simple stupid “……. unfortunately this does propagate the false notion of how a real greenhouse works. And these atmospheric gases being discussed are simply gases and not “greenhouse” gases. But I see your overall point of wishing to convince most non-scientific people with common sense. If they simply read the “easy” parts of this French paper, they should see the “light” …… our fellow mathematicians do a wonderful job of clarifying many of the points in your discussion above. Sadly most who comment never read the paper but merely wish to opine.

          • Denis Ables

            It’s easy to understand that folks are not going to want to deal with it when it gets too technical. I’ve watched two folks, both claiming to have PhDs in related areas, argue about climate in terms thermodynamic principles. Unless the reader is comfortable enough with those theories to have felt really confident. it’s a definitely turn-off…. leave it to the “experts”. As it turns out, it doesn’t take an expert to figure out that something is REALLY wrong.

      • Dale

        Absolutely excellent explanation well worthy of a read by everyone interested in our ongoing climate change and governments’ attempt to avail themselves of more of our hard-earned money.

      • GogogoStopSTOP

        Well Done! Well Done! An absolute treatise on every aspect of our current climatic scientific and political situation!

        May God love you and your work, now and in the future!

      • Isandhlwana79

        Denis, well done. Thank you!!

    • cardigan

      You say: “the commenters would do well to open their minds to all scientific analysis of the situation, as I and many others have.” You have clearly been a little restricted in your searches. You say: “Is the sea level rising anywhere? Ask anyone from the south pacific island nations if it is.”

      They will say that it is, because they have been told that it is and their politicians see the prospect of easy money in “climate reparations.” The facts are somewhat different.

      it is claimed sea level rise in Tuvalu is 5 mm per year. In fact, during the 1997/1998 El Niño, sea level fell 35 cm below average, the trend actually went negative, and remained so for the next three years. Recovery from that is counted in the short-term trend, giving the deceptive figure of 5 mm. Current sea level is still below that of 1995.

      The longer, 21 year record, shows only 0.9mm per year. Fifty year records show a fall in sea level, in spite of many of the Pacific Islands actually sinking because they are in the tectonic subduction zone.

      The Australian BOM has been monitoring sea level for many years and says:

      “Sea level in the Pacific Forum region undergoes large inter-annual and decadal variations due to dynamic oceanographic and climatic effects such as El Niño, and this ‘noise’ affects estimates of the underlying long-term trend. In general, sea level trend estimates are more precise and accurate from longer sea level records.

      Sea level records of less than 25 years are thought to be too short for obtaining reliable sea level trend estimates. A confidence interval or precision of 1 mm/year should be obtainable at most stations with 50-60 years of data on average, providing there is no acceleration in sea level change, vertical motion of the tide gauge, or abrupt shifts due to seismic events.

      The mean trend for datasets that span more than 25 years is 1.3 mm/yr. (Data from JASL as at March 2011).”

      That is 5 inches over a hundred years were it to be maintained. It could easily reverse again as before.

      There is no long term trend of accelerating sea level rise, yet in spite of this, the claims of rapidly rising sea levels are made and blamed on CO2 emissions. It is fraudulent and downright criminal.

    • gbrecke

      Look! It’s a ‘cut and paste’ from the Lefty play book! You missed the point truther…, we all note the variables, we note them now and in the past.

    • klem

      “Is the climate getting warmer — ask someone from Alaska or northern latitude countries and you’ll see credibility to the scientific studies that it is.”

      Its been getting warmer since the end of the last glaciation, that’s 20,000 years of uneven non-linear warming. No wonder scientific studies say that it is.

      “Is the sea level rising anywhere? Ask anyone from the south pacific island nations if it is.”

      Oceans have been rising an average of two feet per century since the end of the last glaciation, that’s 20,000 years of uneven ocean rise. You don’t need to ask south pacific island nations about it, read the science literature. Or better yet, ask a geologist.

    • Please look at this from a wider perspective. I believe Governments to act they should have a reasonable expectation of creating a better situation than doing nothing, or of doing an alternative policy. The warming that occurred from 1975-2000 is trivial, and not too different from in magnitude and extent from a similar warming from 1910-1944. The incremental difference of all the extra emissions is zero to minuscule.

      Sea levels are rising at the rate of 20-30cm a century. In Southern Britain there has recently been discovered the remains of a community from 6,000 years ago 6 meters below the water, indicating such rates of sea level rise are nothing unusual. Again the incremental difference of all the extra emissions is zero to minuscule.

    • Carbonicus

      Fool. Those are not the right questions. The right questions are simple:

      1) is the warming dangerous?
      2) how much does human emission of CO2 from fossil fuel burning contribute.


      1) no
      2) nothing that can be distinguished from natural variability

    • Andy G

      “Is the sea level rising anywhere? Ask anyone from the south pacific island nations if it is.”
      Or you could look at some actual data.!

      • Tell the Truth

        Looking at data is a good idea .. just don’t be selective by only looking at data that validates your point of view.

    • PhD

      Did you really read this paper ?? Quantities like sea level rise are literally meaningless. So many factors (other than so called AGW) affect sea level.
      I strongly suggest that you actually read the paper …… and by the way, this is not a beauty contest. There are absolute right and wrong arguments.
      Let me assure you that AGW is complete and utter rubbish.

      • Tell the Truth

        Yes. I read the paper. I’m sure if you are really a PhD you have read the papers pointing to AGW being validated by a barrage of data.

        • PhD

          What no 99% quote ? Just a “barrage”….. I think the word is sewage.
          I have read the 195 pages and agree with their objective findings and disagree with your subjective comment.

        • PhD

          If you really read the paper ( I know you did not) you would realize that the “barrage of data” is nonsense….. my PhD in Physics is very real…. based on long established physical laws, I can unequivocally say that AGW is complete and utter NONSENSE. It is always amusing to me that the first thing liberals like you always do is to try to trash the reputation of your opponent. You are so dreadfully boring and horribly predictable….. please return to your dark and foreboding sewer of a worldview and hold your breath for 10 minutes to rid the world of your definitely polluting CO2.

          • my PhD in Physics is very real..

            There is only one way you can make that claim plausible. Failing that, you’re just another ignorant denier with an empty head, no education, and a computer attached to the Internet

          • PhD

            Ha ha ha got through to you ha ha ha

          • got through to you

            In what way?

          • Tell the Truth

            Name calling is pretty childish as is drawing assumptions about political views based on scientific views. Do folks like Lindsay Graham fit your definition of “liberal” .. how about George Shultz?

  • GuarionexSandoval

    ‘We are fighting for a cause (reducing CO2 emissions) that serves absolutely no purpose, in which we alone believe, and which we can do nothing about. You would probably have to go quite a long way back in human history to find such a mad obsession.’

    Ha ha ha. Really? Try the mad obsession of socialist statism. It killed over 200,000,000 noncombatant citizens between 1917 and 1987 and burned up trillions of dollars and the current warmist delusion is just the latest socialist tack.

  • PhD

    Bravo new amis, we are in complete agreement. I am in Paris on business as I write to you….. It is very encouraging to hear intelligent trained scientists and mathematicians write so clearly banishing this left wing nonsense back to the ignorant HELL it came from

    • Gregson14

      What happened to the Progressive lie that has become known as the “Cook et al” Study?… I guess the so-called “97% Consensus” has been peer-reviewed by the (French) Mathematical Calculation Society, which has found “the consensus” to be grossly over-inflated by systemic data misrepresentations and Statistical errors.

      • PhD

        Cook is one of the most crooked academics in Australia

  • What is encouraging about these excerpts is that it shows both sides of the policy issue.

    On one side there is no evidence of a problem to solve. That is not evidence that the world is warming, but that as a consequence of that warming it will be strongly net harmful in such a way that it not possible to adapt.

    On the other side is having a policy solution that will have lower harms than the climate change being averted. The biggest harm is on economic growth. The IPCC AR5 SPM belatedly acknowledges this problem, but the estimate is near zero. In reality a fast growing developing country (e.g. India) would see economic growth drastically cut, and as the authors say, slowing growing developed countries like France could see growth halted. In both cases you will end up with permanent higher levels of unemployment. But even worse it will not cut emissions as they are emissions are global. As an example, I looked at the INDC COP21 submissions for just seven major fast-growing developing countries with 3300 million people comparing them with the major developed economies of Australia, Canada, EU, Japan and USA with 900 millions. Through to 2030, every ton of greenhouse gases proposed to be cut by the rich countries, at least three extra tons of emissions will be generated by the developing countries. Widen the group of countries and the problem gets worse. Extend the time frame and the problem gets worse.

  • Mervyn

    Unfortunately, to the people that matter – politicians – the science is totally irrelevant as the UN’s climate change agenda has become all about ideology, money and power … imposing the ideology of environmentalism; redistributing the wealth of rich nations to poor nations; and handing more power to the United Nations and its unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats.

    People should always remember, however, there is always hope that this climate change madness can be overcome and shown to be a massive deception. Let us not forget that in 1905 Albert Einstein stood against the entire classical physics world with his new ideas on relativity. A few years later, a high school biology teacher from Seattle (Harlen Bretz) stood against the entire geological profession with his explanations of Pacific Northwest geology. And not too long ago, Australians Barry Marshall and Robin Warren stood against the entire medical profession to explain the real cause of peptic ulcers.

    Good science can triumph over pseudo scientific agendas and consensus views. It will happen with the IPCC’s supposition that CO2 from human activity is causing catastrophic global warming and is the key driver of climate change.

  • So

    As the author has found and reports, there is no scientific basis to believe in (C)atastrophicAGW. By necessity, or lack of observational data if you prefer, the CAGW fraud has long since moved from the scientific arena to the political. And the fraudsters even created a name change to mark the occasion – Global Warming to Climate Change.
    Naturally, the battle front has changed as well. From the scientific to the political. The cure is to elect politicians that will make the necessary reforms to stop this fraud. A good start would be to pull funding from existing/future Solyndras, replace heads of agencies responsible for perpetuating the fraud with honest individuals (NOAA, NASA, etc.), placing honest jurists at The Department of Justice that will investigate and if necessary, bring charges against those engaged in the fraud – admitted fraudster Peter Gleick comes immediately to mind).
    A dream? The AGW scam, now firmly entrenched in the political arean can only be defeated at the ballot box and consequently in the courts. Considering most voters (at least in the US) are ill-informed, this commenter is not optimistic. Please prove me wrong….

    • CAGW has become a cross between a mass hysteria and a rent extraction mechanism. Too many people have made it their rice bowl.

  • Press GHG alarmists to the wall for their quantitative physical equations and experimental validation of those equations . Surely an effect which “traps” over 30 degrees over a distance of 100km can be demonstrated in a laboratory .

    But they can’t because it implies they can construct a perpetual heat engine .

    Gravity is the only asymmetric force which can ( and must to be in total energy balance ) “trap” heat causing the bottom of atmospheres to be warmer than their tops . And the easily derived equations match planetary atmospheric temperature profiles with convincing accuracy .

    The molecular weight of CO2 has more of an effect on our temperature than its spectrum .

    • DavidAppell

      As you were told before, gravity cannot explain climate, since it cannot account for the outgoing spectrum of the Earth:

      • So David , what is the equilibrium temperature calculated for the ToS spectrum you present ? You could use the array language expressions in my Heartland presentation — if you were capable of understanding them .

        Is that value within even 1% of our ~ 288K surface temperature ?
        Can you supply any calculation at all for Venus ? ( We know the answer to that is is a big bold no . )

        Anybody with a good foundation in basic physics should quickly realize that only the asymmetric centripetal force of gravity can “trap” heat and satisfy the requirement of the Divergence Theorem .

        To claim that some sequence of spectral filters can do it is to claim you can make a perpetual heat engine creating a higher energy density on the side away from the heat source than that supplied by the source .

        That’ s why in all these decades no quantitative equation or experimental demonstration of the supposed “greenhouse effect” which is supposed to be able to trap more than 30K in a distance of 100km has ever been presented . And nor will you present one here .

        In contrast , HockeySchtick’s easily derived calculations based on classical gravitational computations match planetary atmospheres with , to me , remarkable precision — eg : within 2% of Venus’s estimated 737K surface ,

        You can not even point us to a paper giving a quantitative computation of Venus’s atmospheric temperature profile based on GHG “theory” .

        As these basic classical physics considerations become more widely appreciated by those with even moderate physics educations , this whole house of cards will collapse with increasing rapidity and you will be remembered as one of its most accomplished court jesters .

        • DavidAppell

          Your calculation is a bunch of crap, that you cheated on to get some numbers you think are correct.

          It takes a full climate model to calculate the correct average surface temperature of the Earth, first done by Manabe and Wetherald in 1967 in a very famous paper.

          Go read.

    • DavidAppell

      “Press GHG alarmists to the wall for their quantitative physical equations and experimental validation of those equations .”

      “Thermal Equilibrium of the Atmosphere with a Given Distribution of Relative Humidity,” Syukuro Manabe and Richard T. Wetherald, Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, v24 n3 (May 1967) pp 241-259.

    • DavidAppell

      No, the greenhouse effect cannot be show in a laboratory — the scale are too large.

      This is a very very dumb complaint. There is lots of science that can’t be shown in a laboratory.

      • 33K over a distance of 100km in the case of the Earth , or in the case of Venus , 410K over about the same distance and you claim it can’t be scaled to a laboratory demonstration when other branches of physics are measuring phenomena to parts per billion or less !

        I think your claim shows the utter nonscience of this whole profound stupidity .

        And , of course , David NEVER can even present an equation at anything even as basic as calculating the temperature of a radiantly heated colored ball . All he can do is perseverate over some verbiage he doesn’t like in my presentation which boils down to : the equilibrium temperature for a colored ball is
        T such that
        dot[ sourceSpectrum ; objectSpectrum ] = dot[ objectSpectrum ; Planck[ T ] ]

        • DavidAppell

          No, it can’t be scaled into a laboratory.

        • DavidAppell

          Planet’s aren’t colored balls. What does it take to drill that into your vapid skull?

          • You are right . They are colored balls large enough to have significant gravity .

            Bye , David . That’s all my time for your determined stupidity this round .

          • DavidAppell

            Yes or no: Unlike croquet balls, do real planets have atmospheres?

          • DavidAppell

            Croquet balls don’t have “significant gravity.”

          • DavidAppell

            And colored balls aren’t a model of a planet.

          • DavidAppell

            And you can’t apply blackbody equations to objects you define as not being blackbodies (because they do not absorb all radiation incident on them, like an actual blackbody does — because you assume some reflection.) For the same reason, reflected spectra is not a blackbody spectrum, because it doesn’t not span the Planck spectrum.

            A child can see this. Why can’t you?

        • DavidAppell

          Your woeful “presentation” gets everything completely wrong.

          Again, here is just one of many specific problems in your “science” you refuse to address, and have refused for over a year:

          On page 23 of your PowerPoint slides of your Heartland Institute talk, you divide A by E and get a unitless number.

          How did that happen, when the definitions of A and E given above on that page clearly show they do not have the same units?

          Whatever numbers you get are obviously wrong, because your math is obviously wrong.

          PPT slides:


        • DavidAppell

          What are the units of the quantity in your equation?

    • DavidAppell
  • Dlweld

    The deniers are so taken in by the misinformation and propaganda put out by the oil industry that they are now appearing ludicrous, out of it, and far behind the curve with their unassailable ignorance – very similar to the smokers who insisted to the
    end that the tobacco companies were right – “smoking is good for you!”. Most of those smoker denialists s are now dead so reality had a chance, and did finally set in.

    The AGW deniers are still with us, and I guess will spout “it ain’t happ’ning” even when presented with “in your face” evidence that it’s real and it is happ’ning and it’s big time serious.

    • Centurion13

      The alarmists have been so taken in by leftist ideology and worship of themselves that they will swallow just about any lie and repeat it ad nauseum in order to keep their illusionary world intact. That includes posting nonsense like Dlweld.

      • Dlweld

        There seems to be a strange conflating of “liberals” or “leftits” whatever they are, with views on climate change – I’m not in the States so I’m not sure what they are, sounds like some sort of artificial grouping (useful for demonizing differing views maybe?) – anyway, I’m afraid I just have to believe what I see first hand. I know from old family records (photos) of glaciers, and from years of work up North, that the exact effects predicted by AGW are there and I see them with my own eyes. I also know from the scientists I know that they are not some sort of evil money grubbing cabal – they are smart, responsible people – reporting on what they see

        I also see that pretty well every prediction of AGW is panning out – world-wide droughts, glaciers receding, sea level rise, thawing permafrost, high temperature records, huge forest fires, more extreme weather, receding sea ice – so AGW is usefully predictive (and being used as such by the US military, the oil companies, the shipping companies and the insurance industry) – so usefully predictive that you might as well say causal.

        So given all that, comments about the colour of Al Gore’s socks, or some fat headed conspiracy theory seem irrelevant – and, well, again, I just have to believe my eyes.

        • PhD

          Ah as I said above to “lancemh” you wish to believe those “lying eyes”. Well I know that magicians are grateful for your naivete. You also have clearly not read the article you are commenting on. There is no predictive quality to AGW. AGW is in fact complete and utter rubbish. You have bought into the fiction. Read the article.

          • Dlweld

            The problem is that I can see that the Columbia glacier (and others) have retreated, I can see the massive amount of smoke from huge wild fires these last summers, I can see the incredible swathes of beetle killed tree up here, I know the spectral transmission/absorption of CO2 – all first hand observations – all support AGW – I don’t go by what folks (with who knows what agenda) tell me. So if you , can give first hand observations that I can share and confirm that trump mine – well I just have to go with what I can see and confirm directly – not with what someone tells me to see and think. LOL on the concept of a magican making the Columbia Glacier appear to retreat.

  • lancemh

    Having read many of the comments below, there seems to be a number of writers who have very strong mathematical and science backgrounds – on both sides of the debate. There seems to be a great many arguments here that “backup” both the “alarmists” and “deniers”. I confess that I do not have a strong math background, but I have always had a very keen interest in science since I was growing up. In part, fostered by my mother. A woman who grew up in the Great Depression, with only a high school degree. But blessed with an innate intellect, as well as an insatiable curiosity. I inherited that gift.

    Nevertheless, the one report that has always bothered me was the recent revelation of Exxon’s own study back in the late 1970’s, in which their own scientists concluded at that time that the continued growth in burning fossil fuels was having an impact on our climate. Which thereafter, Exxon set out to undertake great measures in order to ensure that this information never came into the public eye because of the impact it would have on their business model. In fact, they started a PR campaign to quash the notion that human activity was having any impact. Interesting . . .

    I have personally seen the impact of human activity as far back as 1985 when I traveled through the Eastern Amazon basin in Ecuador. I witnessed the huge pools of oil sludge that Texaco was leaving all over the area, as well as the tons of air pollution being spewed out over the pristine jungle from burning off natural gas. The local natives once untouched land and air was tainted. Their environment forever altered. I saw tens of thousands of acres of jungle slashed and burned to make way for a Dutch palm oil plantation. The smoke hung over the basin for days because there was no wind to move it out. I even toured their brand new processing plant they built. That was in the early days before the devastation to the Amazon became more apparent, and a global issue.

    When I came back from my six month consulting stint there, my life and perspective changed dramatically. I had also seen the devastating effects of poverty, was well as the base exploitation of the poor by Ecuador’s wealthy and powerful minority. It was a very cold slap in the face to my conservative values. I realized that Capitalism was no longer serving the interests of the many (as I had learned in all of my years of studying Economics and Political Science at the university). I have watched the same slow process here in the U.S. And the sorted twisting of Capitalism into something that Adam Smith never intended when he wrote Wealth of Nations; he said greed needed to be bridled (regulated and harnessed). We have done just the opposite.
    So I take issue with the statement of this study in question when it states as follows: “There is not a single fact, figure or observation that leads us to conclude that the world‘s climate is in any way =disturbed‘.
    Really? Not even one thing? That is either hyperbole or an outright fabrication.

    It seems to me the scientific data used by both sides to make the argument one way or the other harkens back to a quote attributed to my favorite author, Mark Twain:

    “There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.”

    Which means you can garner any set of data and an expert to analyze it in order to “prove” anything you want. GIGO (garbage in, garbage out).

    For me? My eyes, ears, nose, and mind tell me something is not right with this world. To deny the devastating impact that human activity has had on Earth by saying “there is not one fact . . . ” stretches the bounds of credulity. Even my 86 year old mother who passed away almost three years ago commented that “something is wrong”. Pictures are worth a thousand words. We see it every day in the news.

    So you all argue over your numbers. But I sense “Nero is fiddling while Rome burns”.

    Big surprise. The movie The Matrix was right. We are a virus . . .

    • PhD

      Exxon is typical of everyone’s’ comments….. you will find people on both sides of the arguments. You seem to be confusing pollution with AGW. Then you draw the false conclusion (not meaning to be rude) that it is all capitalism’s fault ??? Mind you, because of today’s socialist governing bodies, there is (in fact) almost no capitalism present in today’s world. And may I also politely point out that magicians rely on those “lying eyes” and the power of suggestion in convincing you of a provably false observation. You must not have read this article. It is actually very well done and is soundly based on scientific method. The idea of a world temperature is nonsense….. AGW is complete and utter nonsense. By the way, it is also clear you are a Malthusian. The Matrix is scientific fantasy and we are definitely not a virus because we can actually think and change directions if we so choose.

      • lancemh

        I don’t confuse pollution and global warming. But I also don’t summarily dismiss dozens of studies done by thousands of highly respected and world renowned scientists and environmental experts, all done with accurate scientific methodology, and based on solid data.
        You, however, maintain that this study is the final arbiter of the debate, Mr. Phd.? A group of French Mathematicians have suddenly cornered the market on truth? Really? Shameful that you would use that moniker regardless of your background.
        Even Einstein and Hawking had to eat crow in regard to some of their theoretical propositions. Your arrogance is both palpable and unforgiveable. It’s magicians like you that give me pause with your “provably false observation” conclusion.
        Nobody has proven anything yet. PERIOD. Get over yourself. As for me? I will trust my senses for now . . . particularly since I cannot trust arrogant “scientists” like you who are a pox upon human inquiry.
        P.S. Even Malthus never accounted for technology and innovation to overcome his theoretical propositions. He was just another in a long line of scientists – like yourself – who was proven wrong in his conclusions. 1850 came and went without any end to human population growth.

        • PhD

          My PhD is in theoretical physics. My certificate is right in front of my desk. I have forgotten more than you will ever know about Thermodynamics, Fourier’s heat equations and the Stefan-Boltzman equation. In other words I see right through the AGW nonsense including their statistical models.

          The French Mathematical Society 195 page article blows away an suggestion of validity on the part of your “highly respected and world renowned scientists and environmental experts”. I bet you have not even read the French paper. Typical of a pompous liberal….. full of hate and anger.
          I would not put Hawking in the same class as Einstein. Einstein has not had to eat any crow. You clearly do not know anything about his work. I feel sorry for Hawking but he is not in the same league as Einstein. I suspect Hawking will have to eat a lot of crow in the future.

          AGW blatantly flies in the face of the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics. AGW is provably total and utter bilge from the sewer of the Left. PERIOD.

          You are a fool to always trust your senses. They are wrong a high percentage of the time. Magicians love people like you….. naive and accepting of what they “see” yet cant understand.

          I am one of 100’s of thousands of scientists that know AGW is total nonsense.

          • lancemh

            Ok genius.

            So Einstein has not had to eat any crow?

            One of your peers, Lawrence M. Krauss – guess you obviously never heard his name, has a thing or two or three to say about that. I have the pdf copy of the article sitting right here in front of me. It’s titled “What Einstein Got Wrong”.

            HMMMM . . . interesting title, don’t you think, Dr?

            Published August 15, 2015. You know. About seventy-five days ago. Do you keep up with peer reviews on matters of physics? Geez, I’m not even a scientist, but I follow things like this. Surprised you don’t given all of your braggadocio about your credentials. How about a few quotes from the article to help you choke down that hot, fat plate of crow you just got served?

            “In the case of gravitational lensing, Einstein’s crucial error was to downplay one of his most famous results: his prediction that light bends in a gravitational field. In December 1936 he published a short paper in the journal Science, with the title “Lens-Like Action of a Star by the Deviation of Light in the Gravitational Field.” It began with a kind of innocence that would be impossible to find in modern academic literature: “Some time ago, R. W. Mandl [a Czech engineer] paid me a visit and asked me to publish the results of a little calculation which I had made at his request. This note complies with his wish.”

            “After the 1936 article was published, Einstein wrote to the editor with a charmingly incorrect assessment of his research: “Let me also thank you for your cooperation with the little publication, which Mister Mandl squeezed out of me. It is of little value, but it makes the poor guy happy.”

            Hey Dr. Crow, seems you and Einstein suffered from the same affliction – pathological narcissism. But I digress . . .

            “What Einstein missed—as the irascible but brilliant California Institute of Technology astronomer Fritz Zwicky pointedly argued in a paper he submitted to the Physical Review within months of Einstein’s publication—was that stars combine to form galaxies. Individual stars might produce unobservably small lensing effects, Zwicky noted, but lensing by massive galaxies, containing perhaps 100 billion stars, might be observable . . . Zwicky’s one-page paper, published in 1937, was remarkable . . . It is hard to imagine a larger underestimation of the significance of any calculation in physics”
            And I was just getting started. But you can finish “eating” the rest of this long article that takes Einstein to task at Scientific American. So Dr. Crow, I will not waste one more moment of my time trying to persuade such a deeply pathologically arrogant scientist as yourself that I know more than you – after all, I’m just a little Liberal lawyer. That’s all.
            Have a nice dinner . . .
            P.S. I think most physicists around the world know Dr. Krauss by first name. As for you . . . not so much first, nor last. Just an educated guess. And YES, Krauss does believe in AGW theory. Case closed. For me.

          • PhD

            HA HA HA a lawyer ….. well you are not a good one. I just got back from a business trip to France with my attorney (his clients are mainly billionaires). I have been told that a good lawyer never asks a question that they dont already know the answer to.

            Firstly I met Dr Krauss at Case Western a while back when my son wanted to do Physics but had not yet decided on the university. Dr Krauss is an excellent physicist.

            Many people aim to knock Einstein’s reputation down. After all, he is one of the most famous of all physicists. The paper you refer to is a typical story about the winding paths Physicists make in finalizing theories. Of course to a lawyer, that’s eating crow. But to a physicist, it is merely showing that all of us are human and make mistakes. My point would be that Einstein’s FINAL result was correct and has stood the test of time.
            Dr Krauss has also been a loyal member of the Physics school at Case Western. It is a very bad “political” move (but admirable for guts) to not support AGW. AGW is funded by the Feds. They control all of the NSF funding. As a lawyer you have not had to kiss the Gov’s rear for funding.
            Any academic that goes against the corporate line (the Feds) gets booted out of their job. Most stay quiet.
            I am a free man and a physicist. I am not controlled by the massive tribe idiots in the Washington
            Swamp….. my Physics knowledge is certainly equal to Dr Krauss’s and not warped by any kowtowing to funding…… AGW is nonsense, will always be nonsense and is a hoax on the American public.

          • lancemh

            We only are only taught not ask a question we don’t know the answer to when cross-examining a witness. We are taught to constantly question everything when trying to learn and understand something. You don’t seem to understand the difference.

            I am a trial lawyer. I also have come to know that there are times even in trial – on very rare occasion – that it’s alright to ask a witness a question you don’t know the answer to; only when the answer cannot hurt you. I did it one time knowing the witness would never give the answer I wanted. So I just threw it out there for the jury to ponder knowing he would deny it. The whole courtroom was left in loud silence when he in fact gave the answer I wanted. I was as shocked as everyone else. So I just walked back to my seat and sat down. Nothing more needed to be asked. The damage was devastating. And I was widely praised by the judge, my peers, and many people in that federal courtroom for having recognized a brief and fleeting opportunity to ask that “open-ended” question.

            My curiosity has served me well most of my life. I ask lots of questions and don’t pretend I have all the answers. It’s about having an open mind and not being constrained by thinking in absolutes. That’s what my mother taught me.

            You on the other hand keep speaking in absolutes without even realizing that you contradict yourself later. As a trial lawyer, I have an uncanny ability to point these things out when cross-examining some one, to wit:

            Your unconditional opinion: “AGW is nonsense, will always be nonsense and is a hoax on the American public”

            Your poignant observation: “But to a physicist, it is merely showing that all of us are human and make mistakes”

            Seems you have a quandary here Dr. Crow. You say you are an expert physicist with an incontrovertible opinion. Yet, concede that even physicists make mistakes.

            Rather problematic . . .

          • PhD

            HA HA HA HA great !! …. physicists can and do make mistakes like all people. BUT and its an important but…… when a theory goes against basic time proven laws like the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics, it is not me who is denying AGW, it is hundreds of years of rock solid physics.
            Every AGW diagram (e.g. Trenberth’s energy diagram in one of the IPCC reports) blatantly duplicates the radiative heat energy given off by the Earth. What he (and sadly many physicists who are poorly trained) do not realize that it is TOTAL heat (you must use Fourier’s heat equations) that is to be considered (total heat ALREADY includes the radiative contribution in it) when there are two bodies in contact (the Earth’s surface and the lower atmosphere). So they double count the radiative energy. This is just ONE of many many basic errors made by your so-called famous experts.

          • PhD

            What is it with lawyers….. cant you say it more briefly…. you don’t have that much content Sheryl would take offense at the misuse of her good name.

          • lancemh

            I will be very succinct: You need to be right; I, on the other hand, just want to be happy.
            So long . . .

          • PhD

            Well thanks for conceding….. as a trained scientist, I am, of course, right !!! Good luck on being happy with your liberal, nightmarish vision of the world ….. Ciao…..

          • lancemh

            P.S. Are you suggesting that scientists who’s studies are funded by the Koch Brothers and Big Oil are not subject to influence?
            Now I would find that rather laughable given your implicit contention that money is the determining factor in academic science – or as you so accurately characterize it, “the corporate line”.

          • PhD

            Well I know that the Federal Government has now put north of $65 Billion into all things connected with AGW and still rising.
            Your liberal “Koch and Big Oil” standard “enemies cant even count that high. There is no question this whole agenda is being pushed by the Obama douche bags and his banana republic.

          • PhD

            Oh boring !!!! Thought you could come up with a better comment. Not the old Koch brothers and Big Oil leftie BS. Given that the Federal Government has passed $62B (yes Billion) about three years ago in support for all things associated with AGW and consequent green energy etc, I would suggest that there is no one in private industry who can even vaguely compete with this behemoth. It’s all coming from our very own brain dead Marxist sock puppet in the WH.

  • PhD

    Yes it is delightful to hear very intelligent mathematicians speak up loudly for what we know is true…… AGW is complete and utter nonsense.

  • VoiceofReason613

    Wondering why the leaders of 196 nations, all the world’s major science academies, at least 97% of climate experts, Pentagon military leaders, etc. all agree that climate change is a major threat to humanity. Can they all be wrong? And what about the evidence that 2015 broke 2014’s record for the warmest year, and polar ice caps and glaciers worldwide are rapidly melting, etc.?