James Delingpole

I’m putting my money where my mouth is and betting against climate change

I’ve invested in a fund that will aim to short-sell overvalued renewable energy stocks

30 January 2016

9:00 AM

30 January 2016

9:00 AM

‘As oil crashes, is it time to short solar stocks?’ Gosh, I wish I’d read that headline a year ago. The solar stock it tipped for doom in January 2015 has since plummeted from $19 to $2.65.

Yes, hindsight can be a wonderful thing. But what if there were an area of the markets which you knew to be grotesquely overvalued as a result of ignorance, dishonesty, and false sentiment? You’d be mad not to bet against it, wouldn’t you? It would hardly be gambling: more like plain common sense.

This is how I’ve felt for quite some time about the climate change industry. Very often when I read the expert commentators writing on the subject in the City pages, I’m shocked by how much more I know than they do. Invariably — and the same goes for financiers and big corporates — their opinions rest on assumptions that man-made global warming is real, that renewables are a viable alternative to fossil fuels, that the data hasn’t been fiddled, and so on. But if all these premises are false, what then?

Well that’s where my new hedge fund comes in. When I say ‘my’ hedge fund, I mean the start-up to which I’ve just ‘donated’ on the internet. It cost me $75 for a single share in its management company, which I don’t think is going to make me rich. But it’s the principle that matters. This, as far as I know, is the first investment vehicle explicitly to bet against the climate change ‘consensus’. And it’s about time — on the Big Short principle — that the good guys called this rigged market’s bluff.

Up until now the bad guys have made all the running. The annual climate change industry is worth roughly the same as the online shopping industry: $1.5 trillion. But where one performs a valuable service, giving people more of what they want, more cheaply and efficiently, the other does the exact opposite. It’s a racket, a form of state-sanctioned organised crime. Given the choice, no one — save perhaps the odd, bearded poi enthusiast — would spend a penny of their income on wind turbines, solar panels, research grants for dubious climate science projects, local council sustainability officers, et al.

[Alt-Text]


Climate change is a Potemkin industry; it’s the very emblem of crony capitalism — entirely dependent for its existence on favours granted to rent-seeking troughers by the political class. As Warren Buffett famously said: ‘We get a tax credit if we build wind farms. That’s the only reason to build them.’

At the height of the scare, three main reasons were advanced to justify this outrageous scam. First, that the world appeared to be warming at an unprecedented and potentially catastrophic rate due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Secondly, that fossil fuels needed replacing anyway so as to give future generations a viable energy alternative. Thirdly — more on this in another column — that there was a phenomenon called ‘ocean acidification’ whereby carbon dioxide was apparently killing our seas.

Not one of these rationales holds up any more. There has been no global warming since 1998 (making a nonsense of all the computer models predicting there would be). The oil glut has shown that fossil fuels aren’t running out any time soon. Ocean acidification appears to be yet another alarmist junk science meme. What this means is that we have a $1.5 trillion global industry predicated on an entirely spurious proposition: that the harmless trace gas carbon dioxide is a menace that needs regulating out of existence.

If carbon dioxide is not a threat — and it isn’t — the implications are enormous. For one thing, it means all the (heavily CO2-weighted) computer models predicting what global climate is going to do next are fatally flawed. For another, it means the taxpaying public are going to grow increasingly impatient with green taxes, regulations and subsidies being hurled at a problem they can see is imaginary. Meanwhile, ‘developing’ nations like China and India are going to go on burning fossil fuels like there’s no tomorrow.

How then, if you were a canny investor, would you take advantage? Well I’m personally not qualified to make any recommendations. But here, as I understand it, is the fund’s strategy.

Part of it will be to take long positions in undervalued fossil-fuel stocks and short positions in overvalued renewable energy stocks whose price — in theory anyway — ought to plummet as the subsidies dry up. The fate of Solyndra — the US company which Obama subsidised to the tune of $500 million and which then collapsed — offers some encouraging precedent here. As does that of its Spanish near-equivalent, Abengoa.

Another, more complicated part will be based on enforcing due diligence through judicial review. Suppose — on the basis of demonstrably flawed science — a local council has declared a coastal area a no-build zone because of rising sea levels. Well clearly there’s a lot of hidden value there which could be realised if a court were to overturn the council’s decision.

Finally, there’s global cooling. If, as the Cool Futures Fund’s in-house experts believe, we’re entering a period of low solar activity akin to the Little Ice Age, then we’re in all manner of trouble: it will affect everything from the latitudes at which wheat can be grown to the kind of places we’ll wish to live in or go on holiday. But there will, of course, be opportunities amid the gloom: farmland will become more valuable; land reclamation in temperate zones will become a lucrative prospect; agricultural technology will become more pressing; and so on.

Look, it all may come a spectacular cropper, as so many hedge funds do. But if it does succeed, it will represent a massive triumph for the little man, not to mention honest science and free markets, over the dark forces of Enron-style post-capitalism. Check out their website and judge for yourself — it’s at www.coolfuturesfundsmanagement.com.

Subscribe to The Spectator today for a quality of argument not found in any other publication. Get more Spectator for less – just £12 for 12 issues.


Show comments
  • polidorisghost

    “I’ve invested in a fund that will aim to short-sell overvalued renewable energy stocks”

    Careful dude, timing is everything: I shorted the EU and the corrupt b@stards are still there.

    • http://www.competentme.com Adetoz

      yeah you cannot underestimate enough the rugged steadfastness of corrupt people.

      • CB

        “you cannot underestimate enough the rugged steadfastness of corrupt people.”

        lol!

        …and you cannot over estimate the rugged steadfastness of the laws of physics.

        They really are extremely reliable…

        “The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century”

        climate.nasa.gov/evidence

  • James Morgan

    Hmmm. On the web-site you give at the end it states on one of the pages – the ‘facts’ page:

    “96% of annual carbon dioxide emissions are produced by nature, with human emissions only contributing 4%. Trees and plants produce more!”

    What? Trees and plants produce C02? Huh? Come again? Plants USE C02 – photosynthesis. Am I being stupid or has that web-site got its facts completely wrong?

    • http://romangovernor.org/ kentgeordie

      They take in it when alive, and give it back when they die – have I got it right?

      But the point is that man-made CO2 has a negligible impact on the weather/climate. Delingpole is right. The climate scam more than a hoax, a mistake, a lie. It’s an indictment of the integrity, rationality and humanity of western civilisation.

      • abrogard

        Very convincing videos against anthropogenic global warming right there on Youtube where arguments to the contrary don’t seem to appear any more. Go here and view it and then select more from the sidebar: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCy_UOjEir0

        Then if you’ve got Kafkaesque tendencies come live in Australia and see what’s doing here about it all, courtesy of our intelligentsia and world class (carefully coiffed) politicians.

        • Mobius Loop

          I’m sorry to see a Nobel Laureate embarrass themselves with these lazy and error filled ramblings.

  • FrankS2

    What is a “position” and in what way is it “short” or “long”?
    And why do writers – even ones like Delingpole – lapse into jargon when writing about stocks and money matters?

    • jamesdelingpole

      Einstein reputedly said: “Make things as simple as possible, but not simpler.” Are “long” and “short” really concepts so abstruse as to be beyond most Spectator readers? In a 1000 word column you have to keep things tight. If you think there’s a way I could have put it more clearly and equally succinctly then do please tell.

      • FrankS2

        True, I hadn’t considered the 1,000 word constraints of print. I don’t suppose the concepts are beyond the wit of Spectator readers, it’s just that the words “short”, “long” etc don’t seem to have any obvious connection with what they refer to.
        Still, helps to separate the bears from the bulls – and there’s another one!

        • http://ecclesandbosco.blogspot.com/ ecclesiam

          There’s a program called Google, which not many people know about, that can take you to all sorts of interesting websites.

          It took me about 10 seconds to find this explanation.
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_(finance)

          • Bluesman_1

            Was using Google taxing? ;-))

          • Todd Unctious

            Not taxing at all. They were not taxed.

          • abrogard

            Ah, but you’re smart and witty and the rest of us are dumb. Some of us even believe an article should be comprehensible without having to make web searches in order to understand it. We need more like you. Guides for the rest of us. Pathfinders. Leaders. Oh, but, wait a bit…..

      • abrogard

        What about ‘buy’ and ‘promise to sell’ ? What about Butler’s graphs up there. I’m on your side of the argument but I like to see every single issue addressed and knocked down, if I can.

  • Swarm of Drones

    Excuse me, you didn’t short solar stock whilst shorting oil multi stock at the same time?

  • Chris Hobson

    Claptrap , Solar will power the Earth by the middle of this century 60 GW is going in this year alone.

    • itdoesntaddup

      Global electricity generation was 23.5 PWh in 2014. Based on typical global average solar outputs, 60GW will produce about 60TWh per annum. That is, about 1/400th of global electricity consumption, or less than 1/2500th of global energy consumption.

      Get real.

      • animec

        Nice calculation but it’s predicated on the assumption that 60GW is what we’ll have btw the middle of this century. Please revise and take into account probability of increased capacity by the middle of the century as well as whatever trends you foresee wrt demand.

      • exdent11

        Solar has doubled in a little over every 2 years from about .01 % of electricity production in early 2000 to about 1% now. That’s 7 doublings . 7 more doubles over the next 15 years would reach 100% of the electricity needs of the planet.. now that is not going to happen but show a little respect for the Kurzweil effect. It worked out for the human genome mapping.

        • itdoesntaddup

          Show a little respect for engineering and economic realities. There are reasons why solar companies are going broke all over the world, most notably in China, where the bulk of panels are made. Spain and the UK have cut off subsidies. Germany is building coal/lignite fired power stations to cope when the sun doesn’t shine, and its neighbours are taking steps to block German exports of midsummer solar surpluses.

          The EU (with its insane energy policies) accounts for about half of world capacity, with a further 40% covered by China, Japan and the USA. It’s still tiny – even in solar leader Germany, it accounts for just over 5% of electricity generation, which is enough to cause major problems with grid integration.

          • exdent11

            ,I don’t see what companies going broke has to do with the success of the industry; large numbers of bankruptcies are part of every major disruptive change in technologies [ex: early car industry ]. In the U.K. the Tories took Majority control and cut subsidies even though wind and solar are very popular; even they announced all coal burning plants will be closed by 2025.
            Spain got into financial trouble but is showing signs of renewing their efforts with renewables. Germany is treating coal burning as a short term coverage as they also close nuclear plants at the same time. Energiewende is very popular in Germany from what I gather.
            Your statement that even 5% clean energy causes grid integration problems is directly contradicted by the CEO of 50 Hertz Company , Boris Schucht. He manages a large transmission company in eastern and Northern Germany. His company is currently getting 42% of its electricity input from wind and solar and has not had any outages for decades. He says the first 10% renewables is not any problem; after that, accurate weather forecasting is very important.
            You don’t really answer my basic premise that solar and, to a lesser degree , wind are in an exponential growth curve which is the result of prices [ without subsidies ] dropping below the levelized cost of fossil fuels in more and more places in the world every year. That is without factoring the health, and pollution, and global warming costs. For example, India is on course to have 200 gigawatt hr of solar and wind by 2022 from a base of almost zero less than 6 years ago. Cleantechnica.com provides an update on contracts for wind and solar all over the globe. WARNING,WARNING, THIS SITE MIGHT BE A HAZARD TO A RIGHT WING BRAIN.

          • itdoesntaddup

            220GWh is tiny. It’s the output from Drax in just over three days. You seem to suffer from innumeracy that is common in Greens.

          • exdent11

            Sorry, misspoke. That was 200 gigawatts by 2022. I believe that would equate to 40 to 50 one gigawatt nuclear plants. India is taxing coal for the first time to pay for these clean energy plants. The trend is what is important. China spent twice what the U.S. did in 2015 on clean energy; Vietnam is saying it is going to rethink coal; the trend…the trend.

          • logdon

            Correct me if I’m wrong but a German friend of a friend told him that Germany in a fit of what they seem generally good at these days, removed it’s nuclear power stations only to buy nuclear produced energy from aging plant in the Czech Republic.

            If this is true what is the point, apart from this growing phenomena of virtue signalling?

    • Allen Starr

      Deluded much.

    • http://www.competentme.com Adetoz

      hahahahahaha…ahem

    • Philip Haddad

      I agree: regardless of all the chit chat renewables are gaining steam and ultimately will put an end to the arguments concerning the viability of renewables.

  • http://www.durangobill.com/ Bill Butler

    The claim
    “There has been no global warming since 1998”
    is absurd and illustrates the mindless parroting of denier falsehoods.

    Temperature anomalies at all 4 primary temperature databases, the RSS and UAH satellite
    observations, and Berkeley Earth Temperature Results are setting new all-time warmth records.

    Graph: http://www.durangobill.com/TempPictures/NOAAanomalies.png
    NOAA Graphics: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global
    Data: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/anomalies.php
    Graph: http://www.durangobill.com/TempPictures/GISSanomalies.png
    GISS Graphics: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/
    Data: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
    Graph: http://www.durangobill.com/TempPictures/HadCrut4anomalies.png
    HadCRUT4 Graphics: https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/
    Data: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadCRUT4-gl.dat
    JMA Graph: http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/ann_wld.html
    (Graph shows annual data)
    Graph: http://www.durangobill.com/TempPictures/UAHanomalies.png
    Data source: http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc_lt_5.6.txt (“Globe” column)
    Alternate Data Source: “UAH: Lower troposphere”
    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/msu/overview
    Excel Graph: http://www.durangobill.com/TempPictures/RSSanomalies.png
    RSS Graph: http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html
    Data source:
    ftp://ftp.remss.com/msu/graphics/tlt/time_series/rss_ts_channel_tlt_global_land_and_sea_v03_3.txt
    Alternate Data Source: “RSS: Lower troposphere”
    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/msu/overview
    Berkeley Earth Temperature Results
    2015 Unambiguously the Hottest Year on Record
    http://berkeleyearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2015-Hottest-Year-BE-Press-Release-v1.0.pdf

    • http://ecclesandbosco.blogspot.com/ ecclesiam

      We prefer the term “realist”, as opposed to “alarmist”, “scammer” and “fraud”.

      Even the Met Office admits that the game is over for you lot.
      http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/news/recent-pause-in-warming

      • http://www.durangobill.com/ Bill Butler

        You should try to actually read what is printed on your reference pages.

        “The first paper shows that a wide range of observed climate indicators continue to show changes that are consistent with a globally warming world, and our understanding of how the climate system works.”

        • Allen Starr

          Now, there’s a lot of words that say nothing.

        • Goinlike Billio

          They admit there has been a pause in the warming which shows that the models on which their evidence is based are wrong.
          It is the pause which is significant not the absence in warming.

          • cmflynn

            The word ‘pause’ is interesting. If a curve on a graph stops going in a certain direction it is said to have reached an inflection point. It may continue up or go down. ‘Pause’ implies the user knows it will go up. This is not science, it is religious prophesy.

      • Swivel-eyed loon

        Love the 3rd paper. Just because there hasn’t been any warming doesn’t mean there won’t be any warming.

        So there’s hope for me with Charllize Theron yet.

      • Eric Jennings

        Jeez, of all the dumb Alarmist comments here, this one takes the cake. The Met Office, in case you’ve forgotten, is the one that said future British children would never see snow. So, what happens? The next two winters are almost record-setting in the amount of fallen snow, and it hasn’t gotten much better since.

        Put another way, “Realist” is the LAST word you should be called.

    • cmflynn

      ‘All time? ‘ But your graphs only begin in 1975. Graphs can be constructed for the past 2000 years and some for the past 10000 years. Try looking at them and then have a little think.

  • Philip Haddad

    There is no doubt (in my mind) that global warming is caused by the heat emitted by the burning of fossil fuels and given off by the nuclear power industry. The heat emissions are more than four times that which can be attributed to the rise in air temperature and is enough, when combined with the fact that the higher temperatures have prevented the normal dissipation of the 44 TW of geothermal heat flow, to explain almost all the problems that have been blamed on CO2.

    • Bernd Felsche

      Only where the reporting thermometers are near those heat sources.

      But with the extinction of many surface reporting stations in remote areas at the end of the Cold War, a rise in averages reported depended on nothing more than the removal of those remote stations unafflicted by urban heat island effects; other than perhaps a mid-summer BBQ around midnight.

      • fundamentallyflawed

        I have just read an interesting article on the rise and fall of ecological economics.. of course its not fallen anywhere and is vigorously pushed by our overlords.
        However the article dismantles the premise, the method and the results neatly and concisely. I imagine in 10 years “ecological economics” will be substituted for “climate change”

      • Philip Haddad

        Bernd: The whole world is heating up, or are you denying that global warming is real?

        • Bernd Felsche

          Satellite and balloon data show no warming for over 18 years. That’s longer than the previous period of warming.

          You seem to be alarmed at minor fluctuations of temperature in some places.

          I know that CAGW is total bunkum. You would know as well if you sat down and did the fundamental thermodynamics and fluid mechanics; starting with the boundary condition of no “greenhouse” gases at all to determine the (N2-O2) atmospheric (not radiative surface) temperature due to diurnal insolation.

      • nosmokewithout

        Hardly, the highest rises in temperature are recorded in the Arctic. From recollection, I would say there are not many heat sources there. In fact, it’s a barren, relatively unpopulated wilderness. That would suggest you are totally incorrect in your assertion.

        • Bernd Felsche

          That’s not how the global average (a nonsense; but nonetheless useful for alarmists) is calculated. Look at the algorithms.

          Besides; how many surface stations are there in the Arctic?

          Are a number of them not within the perimeter of airports that’ve been expanded (runways sealed with black stuff) to support more traffic by jet aircraft that have exhaust temperatures approaching 1000°C?

          Further, Arctic stations tend to be near the coast so the cahnge in currents; oceanic oscillation; needs to be taken into account.

          In the ANTarctic, “newly discovered” geothermal activity has yet to be taken into account. Yet the ice there is still expanding.

          • nosmokewithout

            Analysis of recording station trends shows no difference between rural sited recording stations and urban stations. UHI is a myth! Arctic stations show the same trend, wherever they are cited.

            As for the citing of the stations, it is the trend that is important, and that is revealed independently of location.

            And the geothermal activity is in one regional and does not account for the majority of ice loss, and at best accelerates the effect of ice loss through ocean erosion at glacial edges.

            The causes of ice expansion is not down to any increase in cooling, and this year has not seen the extent of ice extension from previous years. There is a lot more to this than your post suggests.

          • David S

            There is a lot more to this than your post suggests, as well.
            UHI is absolutely not a myth! When I drive into London from the country the temperature goes up by about 2C. The serious question is to what extent this effect has influenced the global land temperature dataset, and the BEST analysis, to which I guess you are referring, had the fatal flaw of taking too crude an approach to the issue of rural versus urban stations, thus erasing the effect in its conclusion that rural temperatures are increasing as fast as urban ones. It only takes quite a small percentage of previously rural stations to be encroached upon by development for a big dollop of UHI to be added to the overall dataset; meanwhile the urban stations show less warming as the UHI is already established there and only increases incrementally as people use more AC and fuel.

          • nosmokewithout

            …and do the Met office position their stations in the centre of tarmac road where there is heavy traffic. The Met office have very few London based recording stations. I know of a couple. That would make their effect not great quite frankly, if, as I suspect, they are cited sensibly in open areas as recommended.

            The serious question has been reported on, and the conclusion is that UHI has very little effect, if any, on the temperature data.

            You only have to observe nature to know that the data trend revealed by the thermometers is generally correct. You have to rely upon the people in the know to judge this issue. They judge it no to be a problem.

          • Bernd Felsche

            Keep waving those anonymous hands to avoid answering any of my questions.

            The trend isn’t important because there is no physical model that supports the continuation of the “trend” in the arbitrarily constructed index based on a few surface temperature records.

            Read e.g. http://www.uoguelph.ca/%7Ermckitri/research/globaltemp/GlobTemp.JNET.pdf

            The CAGW “problem” is imaginary. A political construct.

          • nosmokewithout

            Your link is a ridiculous exercise in obfuscation. The arithmetic mean is the perfect means to incorporate all the readings globally and ideally suited to highlight how that data is changing over time.

            The arithmetic mean is a perfectly good tool, used by scientists on all sides.

          • Bernd Felsche

            “obfustaction”? It’s a peer-reviewed paper http://www.degruyter.de/rs/272_3122_ENU_h.htm

            As it was explained in great detail; the arithmetic mean of global temperature extremes means nothing in the physical world. It is meaningless. It’s not of any practical use. It’s only a rhetorical tool; one of politics; not science.

            That’s not obfuscation; it’s an appreciation of the utility of statistics.

            Averages of temperature have and always will be thermodynamic nonsense. https://contrary2belief.wordpress.com/2011/10/22/global-warming/

            Science has only two sides; what is thought and what is observed.

            Your continued denial of science is astonishing.

  • centefire

    I covered international finance in a business degree course, but I need to brush up on it. Strangely one can bet on the value of commodities to rise, but what goes up must come down so one can bet of the value of a commodity to fall. This is what Paul Paulson did with the sub prime mortgage racket. As far as I know, Paul was the only one to spot how to benefit from the impending collapse. As ordinary people don’t have enough money to invest, the idea of pooling resources comes to mind. 1.5 trillion is a lot of bread.

    • mulp

      Was Paulson betting that there was too much housing and that the need for housing was dropping for the long term and he bet against building new housing for the next hundred years?

      Or was Paulson betting that with all the housing being built, it was absurd to use borrowed money to pay 50% more for a new house than the labor cost to built it?

      Perhaps you can explain the logic of Apple stock being priced on the basis of selling phones for twice the labor cost to make them at a growth rate that in 10 years everyone on the planet will be buying a new $800 Apple phone every year, because no one will pay $300 for a cheaper Android phone that does everything you need.

  • Fraser Magee

    Carbon dioxide can’t be dismissed on the basis of being a trace gas. Inhaled nitric oxide is regularly given to patients with respiratory failure at concentrations of 800 parts per million, with profound effects on the pulmonary circulation. I’m not a climate scientist but presumably an insulating gas could have similar effects on the global temperature.

    • allbuss84

      What’s your point? At the right pressure, oxygen becomes toxic and you need to breath an atmosphere made primarily of helium. All of that is irrelevant.

      • Fraser Magee

        Delingpole seems to dismiss CO2 on the basis that it’s a “trace element”, as though this meant that it couldn’t have an effect on global temperatures. This is nonsense, as is his claim that temperatures haven’t increased since 1998.

        • nosmokewithout

          If poley bothered, he could conduct an easy experiment in his own kitchen to discover CO2 is a greenhouse gas. He is a waste of space.

          • David S

            You mean the daft video that has been exposed as a fraud?

          • nosmokewithout

            Are you saying CO2 doesn’t cause warming?

    • Angus21

      A couple of drops of blue ink, in a bucket of water, will turn the water blue, in spite of the ink only being a few ppm

  • Tickertapeguy

    The oceans are the biggest absorber of Carbon Dioxide and the largest producer of oxygen. As for Global warming, If it does occur, then one also has to consider factors outside of the reach of man, including fluctuations of our Sun.

    • mulp

      All those factors have been considered, and as one example, the sun is on average moving further from the earth during the Oct-Mar period which cools the climate leading toward an ice age. The sun had been moving closer since the end of the ice age until the 20th century, but that has begun to reverse, yet temperatures continue to rise.

      The sun getting hotter has been excluded by monitoring the sun from space for decades and seeing no increase in output, yet the warming has continued.

      You must think scientists are stupid to not have wild imaginations to justify doing more research which leads to papers published to get phds or tenure or grants from foundations, including the Kochs.

      • Tickertapeguy

        Start from the bottom of your comment. The age of Scientists does not make them Gods. High priests or their word infallible. Please keep that in mind.

        Scientists are human and often make big mistakes. They call their “mistakes” a “lesson” not to do it that way. Scientists are biased. They are not objective
        example. Steven Hawkins believes in a one world government. The problem with that concept is that the power will still remain with the wealthy nations. The banks will still control the decision process.
        The UN is the closest to a world government system and it leans heavily towards the most powerful and wealthy nations of the world. That is one of so many example of your so called “infallible” scientists

        NO! it has not been considered. Never have I heard solar issues being brought up with Global warming
        Nor have I heard the effect of the “rim of fire” along the Atlantic ocean of a long line of undersea volcanoes who have been spewing noxious fumes for centuries .
        When St. Helena erupted she spewed our enough noxious fumes to surpass the Industrial age.
        I am not saying the human race is innocent but we are not solely guilty for Climate Change.
        During the 1940’s we went through a mini ice age. One of the reasons Operation Barbarossa launched by the Axis forces against Russia failed They faced on the the most bitter winters in Russia’s written history. There are massive things that happen that are not under our control and they do change the earth’s climate.

    • nosmokewithout

      These fluctuations are factored in. Where CO2 concentrations are greatest, so is the warming. The Arctic continues to warm at 1.22 C per decade. We destroy the Arctic at a risk to all the 90% of humanity who inhabit the northern hemisphere.

      It is clear there are problems with the satellite data, apart from it not being able to reflect surface temperature. And it is in the satellite data where the flat earthers such as Delingpole out their faith. Meanwhile all the physical signs from the planet are that the earth continues to heat up. When will these fools realise their narrative is the emperors new clothes.

      • Tickertapeguy

        Could you tell me that if the we warm up wouldn’t more water also dry up?
        If more water drys from the heat, wouldn’t that cause more rain?
        if there is more rain wouldn’t a good deal of the CO2 be washed with it?
        wouldn’t more cloud cover, more rain cause the temperature to cool down?

        • Nivek Ecyoj

          so its self regulating – yes

          • Tickertapeguy

            That is one conclusion
            It took the earth (I believe) around 450 million years for its atmosphere to change from a nitrogen and C02 based atmosphere to an Oxygen nitrogen :C02 based one. Nitrogen feeding algae which emitted Oxygen did that.
            Earth is complex
            gravitational belts
            Ozone layer
            distance of the earth to the sun
            Earth’s gravity large enough to hold her atmosphere
            Presence of massive amounts of water
            and a dozen other aspects allow life to thrive
            Do you know that the Gulf Stream allows England to have the weather that it does. If that stream is disrupted England will be as cold as the Arctic.

          • nosmokewithout

            It is clear from what you say that atmospheric change which changed the climate of our planet took a very long time in the past.

            It is also clear that re-engineering the atmosphere affects climate.

            Do humans doing it in less that 250 years is remarkable quick.

            Why not think about this article, one far more informed that Delingpole can muster.

            http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/imageo/2016/01/30/an-icebreaker-with-no-ice-to-break-in-blue-arctic/#.Vq42Kn2LTC0

            It would be good for enough humans to raise their curiosity levels to the point where they show some interest in the planet they live on rather than just what’s in it for them.

          • Tickertapeguy

            Also if Climate change is occurring be it the act of humans or not, then only humans can change that. No other species can consciously make the effort to manage our climate except humans.

          • nosmokewithout

            Correct!

          • Tickertapeguy

            Also that little bug that environmentalists protest and want the land cordoned off must now keep in mind that we can bring back that bug with genetics. we are already doing that with extinct species.
            However that bug cannot consciously do a darn thing to save the human race

          • nosmokewithout

            Time for your meds!

          • Tickertapeguy

            Wondered when the personal insults would start and you were right on que

        • nosmokewithout

          You’ll find it’s not so simple. There is more water in the atmosphere due to warming. The evidence is that the intensity of extreme rainfall is increasing. Cloud though has an insulating effect. Clear nights are colder that cloudy nights.

          As for CO2 being “washed out of the atmosphere”, CO2 concentration continues to rise, despite the increased water vapour. We are changing the balance of our atmosphere, with significant consequences resulting.

          • Tickertapeguy

            Fine. I will continue to live my life as normal as can be and avoid the political correctness that forces some to drive electric cars in an economy run on Coal.
            Where I live I can burn my back yard leaves in the open and no one really cares. thank God.

      • http://www.labour25.com/ Bollinger Bolshevik

        Not only does the 0.012% of human CO2 in the atmosphere control the temperature of 99.988% of the other molecules in the atmosphere….

        this one cubic mile of benign, mandatory for life, CO2 also controls the temperature of 310 million cubic miles of ocean,,,,and 259 billion cubic miles of mostly molten rock….

        and our one cubic mile of CO2 overrides the effects of the elliptical orbit of the Earth and the variable output of the Sun which has 99% of the mass of the solar system and 99.9% of the energy in the solar system.

        So there you have it, human CO2 is the most powerful force in the solar system and we can control it with a tax; according to environmentalists.

        • nosmokewithout

          We wouldn’t survive without it!

      • David S

        There are barely any temperature stations in the Arctic. The difference between the satellites – which agree with the balloon measurements – and the land based records is that the land based records are subject to constant adjustment, mostly cooling past data, with no consistent rationale or audit trail, by people with a vociferous commitment to the idea of catastrophic global warming – see RealClimate and look who runs it.
        I know which dataset I would bet on.

        • Dano2

          Why would you bring in satellite and balloon measurements when the topic is surface temps in the Arctic? Weird.

          Best,

          D

  • mulp

    Betting against climate change would be raising cash as capital for a property insurance company that provided complete property insurance in Florida to seaside properties with renewal at fixed premiums for the next 100 years based on the weather average of the past 100 years, with so much capital assets that 100% of the property could be flooded requiring a 100% payout without going insolvent. Given current interest rates of 2%, a 5% return on capital plus the loss rate of the past century would yield a generous return, with zero risk, if you are correct that there is no climate change and the oceans will not rise an flood the developed Florida shore properties.

    Betting that people will happily kill jobs in energy based on job loses will always miss you so you get cheap stuff while getting paid high wages by the unemployed paying high prices for whatever you produce, and that you will be dead before your job or wages are cut or climate change destroys your property is not “betting against climate change”! That is betting that you will die by your own actions, driving too fast, eating too much, playing with a loaded gun, before mother nature can kill you.

  • exdent11

    if you really had balls you would put all your money in going long on coal.

  • http://libertygibbert.wordpress.com/ ozboy

    The trick will be in timing the end of subsidies. Only inside knowledge could help you there, and that knowledge is generally only held by the bad guys. Maybe one of them is so bad you could convince them to come over to the dark side with a few of their own beanies? But hey, I would never suggest anyone commit a crime…

    The other point is that short selling often creates its own momentum, if a critical mass of investment follows it. All the Wall Street journalists talk about it. And given that the majority of investors aren’t buying Global Warming – figuratively or literally – that critical mass might be easier to achieve than even the fund’s creators might believe. Just get that timing right.

  • macrol

    I wouldn’t give you a nickle.

  • macrol

    coal , oil and gas are heavily subsidized and have been heavily subsidized for decades . Remove all subsidies and watch them fade.

    • http://www.labour25.com/ Bollinger Bolshevik

      So why are all the oil states rich? Where are all the wind revenues? If wind is free why do they need subsidies? Have you taken your medication today?

      • Angus21

        The cost of solar is halving every ~5 years, and wind power is making significant improvements too. Guess where this tend in technology is going?

        • lindzen4pm

          Back to the 11th century. Get a fire going, the cave’s chilly.

        • I A Reid

          Angus,

          nonsense, see how many problems Germany have with all their wind, their grid is in parilous situation and requires computer control to keep it stable, it can only get worse the more wind generation there is.

          • LG

            Might be better if you knew anything about what you are posting.

            “….requires computer control to keep it stable…”
            So does my toaster. Do you know any grid system that doesn’t have computer control?

            What an eejit.

    • I A Reid

      Macrol,

      don’t be silly, they are essential unless you want to go back to the stone age. Renewable generation of electricity just does not work, and fossil fuel generation worldwide is by far the biggest and most reliable of electrical generation. In the U.K. we have given away the nuclear industry expertise we had, a form of generation that is both CO2 favourable and reliable, unlike wind and the toy solar.

  • nosmokewithout

    Well, Delingpole is the man not to know. He can construct a sentence, but not make sense. He is not gambling against climate change. That is a straight forward bet. Does it exist or not. He is just playing the markets. A very different thing.

  • Jaria1

    Had an em the other day mocking those that follow the ‘green’ policy .
    It claimed the Icelandic volcano would have caused more pollution than humans would have caused for some years. Of course that hasn’t been the only eruption .
    Is someone making a lot of money out of us perhaps

    • Angus21

      Volcanoes only al account for 0.3 giga-tonnes of CO2 per year, whereas the burning of fossil fuels accounts for ~40 giga-tonnes. Mankind has increased atmospheric CO2 by 42% since 1880, by increasing atmospheric concentration from 280ppm to 400ppm

      • Jaria1

        Angus it’s clear the public are getting mixed information on this subject. This information comes from a respected Australasian scientist who like you provides detailed information to back up his assertions.
        I am just a member of the public with I hope a reasonable amount of intelligence.
        With such conflicting information coming from experts in the subject it’s very difficult to decide which opinion is correct

        • Angus21

          People have been critical of the science because they believe that, by addressing climate change, corporate regulation and taxation will be significantly increased. This is the position held by most conservative political parties, in Australia, Canada, the UK and the US.

          The dismissal, the misrepresentation and ridicule of the scientific evidence of climate change, has been very effective misleading the public about the level of agreement in the scientific community. There are many telltale signs that what contrarians claim to be skepticism, is merely denial.

          Every single established academy of science in the developed world, including the American Institute of Physics, accepts that the majority of recent warming is caused by the increase in atmospheric CO2, from the burning of fossil fuels. And 97% of scientists, who have published peer-reviewed research in established climate journals, support the consensus. If a scientist has not published peer-reviewed literature in one of those journals, then they cannot be deemed an expert on the subject.

          Even ExxonMobil’s research, from the late 1970s, arrived at the same conclusions. The science of the greenhouse effect, is almost 200 years old, and it’s rooted in basic physics and chemistry, and it’s so grounded on what science knows, that most physics and chemistry textbooks would need to be torn up in the science were wrong

          • Jaria1

            Forgive me until more time has elapsed. I’m. A bit suspicious of what scientists have to say

          • Angus21

            Due to the current levels of harm, and the increasing future risks of harm, we cannot wait around to ‘see what happens’; as that would be seriously unethical.

            That’s why all 195 governments are taking the threat of climate change seriously, and they aren’t going to wait for some people to stop denying incontrovertible science

          • Jaria1

            I didn’t think there was such a thing as incontrovertible science.
            Our situation is clear because you are convinced you expect that I should be.
            I would be telling lies if I said I agreed with you

          • Angus21

            Well, the American Physical Society disagree with you:
            “The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. ”

            And there is as much certainty that man-made global warming is real, as there is that smoking is harmful to health. If 97% of civil engineers told you that a bridge was unsafe to use, would you think it would be prudent to instead take the advice of the 3% skeptic civil engineers, and take your family across that bridge? Of course you wouldn’t take your family across that bridge, as that would’ve been utterly ridiculous.

            Similarly, there isn’t any ethical argument to avoid taking action on climate change. Thank goodness that the ethical decision doesn’t rest with people like you. You can call that harsh, but you have chosen to dismiss broad scientific evidence, in spite of climate change posing the great threat to the prosperity of all younger and future generations

          • Jaria1

            Well it seems there are those that disagree with you and as I said to m. loop I find it odd amongst highly qualified experts those that disagree are so convinced that they are right they become somewhat impolite to each other. I’m used to left wingers doing that.
            You ignored my statement that science opinions cannot in some cases be incontrovertible . There’s been many examples to prove that statement but so called experts cannot seem to accept that the remotest chance that their opinion could be incorrect.
            I don’t buy that line from either side of the argument.
            What I do know is that many millions are involved to those that insist that there is global warming.
            I take it you have read the ongoing exchanges between those that seem gender up on the subject.
            Meanwhile I’ll sit on the sidelines and see what happens

          • Angus21

            The greenhouse effect is rooted in the basics of physics and chemistry and experiments started on this almost 200 years ago. You might see some aspect of the science being questioned in the news, but that can’t affect the core, because the core is so grounded in what science knows, that science would have to tear up most chemistry and physics text books to be wrong.

            There is no known physical science basis on which the greenhouse could be rejected. It’s not impossible that science could be wrong, but it’s highly improbable, but then science cannot provide proofs of anything. Did you realise that?

            Since people’s lives are being placed at increasing risk, your rejection of the science is morally dubious. And the dictionary describes you as a ‘denialist’: “a person who refuses to admit the truth of a concept or proposition that is supported by the majority of scientific or historical evidence.”

          • Jaria1

            On the contrary it’s my mind that’s open and you are in denial.
            Because in your mind as you state anyone that disagrees with you cannot be correct and you have to start insulting those that don’t agree with you.
            I neither agree with you or disagree with you but remain unconvinced by either argument.
            We have seen many examples of the majority of scientific or historical evidence being proved wrong. If this is the case I’ll be interested to see if you feel able to apologise.

          • Mobius Loop

            With respect this is a deeply flawed line of thinking.

            I’m not fond of the term strawman argument, but you are building up a point that no sensible person supports then knocking it down.

            Paul Nurse explains the principle of scientific consensus, how it can be overturned and indeed the pressure to overturn it with admirable clarity in this clip:

            https://youtu.be/Q9J7PFAzrQs?t=153

  • http://batman-news.com stupidicus

    says one of the most discredited and dishonest flat earthers of today. http://climatecrocks.com/2013/04/08/james-delingpole-the-true-face-of-denialism/ and certainly more deserving of the death penalty for it than his betters in the AGW community that he’s suggested do…

    • Kaschner

      Only to congratulate this writer for having chosen such a perfectly fitting name.

      Credit where it is due . . .

      • http://batman-news.com stupidicus

        coming from an obvious impotent one that has no meaning or significance, other than the fact that you obviously lack a rebuttal to the charge presented, eh stupid?

        • Jaria1

          Not a happy bunny tonight stupidcus .
          Learn to listen to those that disagree with you. You can’t be right every time
          Or can you ?

    • I A Reid

      You do realise, of course, that in the day ‘flat earthers’ were the consensus, as are the current and wrong alarmists or pro AGW if you like. I bet on Mr. Delingpole

      • http://batman-news.com stupidicus

        thanks for conceding the validity of my observations and accompanying remarks regarding the idiot delingpole.

        That you can’t muster a defense to his well documented and irrefutable criminal stupidity on the subject of AGW is only indicative of your lack of intellectual heft and/or integrity, and likely both.

  • Jaria1

    I find it impossible to dismiss the multi national oil companies have not strangled at birth alternative fuels that could put them out of existence .
    We’ve all heard the rumours of inventors being bought out I wonder how much truth there could be in some of these rumours.

  • mikewaller

    It’s not “the principle that counts”, its the money, stupid. Put all the equity in your house into the fund and we will still think you an idiot, but a principled idiot. At $75, your just a puerile attention seeker.

  • Anthony

    There’s been no global cooling since 1998 either.

  • derekcolman

    Fossil fuel investment is really good at the moment. The shares are being depressed in value because of the divestment campaign, down to a low level that does not reflect their true worth. Eventually they will rise to their true value and those who bought them at a low price will make a killing. Is it really coincidence that many of the advocates of divestment are people from the world’s richest families and multi millionaire celebrities? As usual the useful idiots did their job by protesting at famous institutions. How easily the hot headed lefties are manipulated by the super rich to do their dirty work.

    • Gordon Fulks

      You are not the only one who views fossil fuels as a good investment. Since the Left has attacked these fuels and driven down the value of companies that deliver them to us, one of the well-known billionaires supporting the attack has picked up at least one bankrupt coal company with the intention of restarting it and charging a premium for its coal. How can he do that? By selling the coal with Green Indulgences that absolve the user of guilt when burning their “Premium Coal.” It is a neat, if less than honest, ruse.

      Similarly, the Sierra Club has been given tens of millions of dollars by Chesapeake Energy to malign coal, so that more electric power companies switch to the natural gas they have in abundance in the giant Marcellus Field. Again we have a neat, if less than honest, ruse.

      Gordon J. Fulks, PhD (Physics)
      Corbett, Oregon USA

      • Dano2

        You are not the only one who views fossil fuels as a good investment.

        The banks and investment houses don’t. So that leaves the grifters taking the gullible’s money.

        Best,

        D

        • derekcolman

          Ha, ha. And who owns the central banks that say that coal is a bad investment? Sorry I called you a usefull idiot, as that is probably a bit unfair to people who are just a bit too trusting. I will give you a little tip that might stand you in good stead in the future. If you want to know what is really going on, follow tghe money..

          • Dano2

            Thanks, LOLO.

            Best,

            D

      • derekcolman

        You have obviously understood the old maxim, follow the money. The whole idea of man made global warming originated from the Sierra Club. Coal obviously has a bright future because it is the cheapest way of generating electricity and there is plenty of it available for probably at least another 100 years. That means that developing countries see it as the best way to achieve rapid development. There is no prospect of renewable energy replacing fossil fuels even by the end of this century. If you calculate how many wind turbines and solar panels would be needed, it soon becomes obvious that it is not physically possible to instal that much in that short a time. The truth is totally unknown to the true believers, and they don’t believe it if you point it out. The facts are that wind and solar power combined currently account for only 0.4% of the world’s total energy usage, and it s expected to grow to 2.2% by 2030. However they get fed the misinformation that renewable energy is something like 20%. That figure is only for electricity generation, and it’s the installed capacity, not the amount they actually deliver. In addition it includes all forms of renewable energy, of which wind and solar represent only a small slice of the pie.

        • Gordon Fulks

          Dear Derek,

          You are certainly correct that the “true believers” have no capacity to understand this subject. That’s partly because it is a complex technical subject and partly because they don’t want to understand.

          As to “follow the money,” that maxim works well here, because there is sooo much money involved. Delingpole quotes the figure I have seen from the climate industry of $1.5 TRILLION per year. That is staggering. It has obviously purchased a lot of active support as well as complicity from many more.

          I never thought that scientists would sell out that easily, but I suppose that we are no different from any others where money is concerned. While scientists have provided the crucial cover for this scam, they are but a small part of the overall operation.

          Although the Sierra Club is now a high profile partner in the scam, I believe that their major involvement came after Al Gore and his allies like my fellow astrophysicist James Hansen took up the cause. Because of people like Gore who have no ability to understand the science and every ability to understand the political and business opportunities that go along with a scam, Global Warming became the monster that it is today.

          Thanks for your help explaining that the “solutions” offered for a non-problem are themselves expensive scams.

          Gordon J. Fulks, PhD (Physics)
          Corbett, Oregon USA

          • Jaria1

            As you see Angus just won’t accept the fact that I need a lot more proof before I could accept his position about global warming.. Clearly there is no money in denying the existence of global warming. Perhaps you might be able to tell me about the amount various volcanoes contribute to global warming . I received information by em that it was a major contributor to pollution but a poster sought to correct me that o.3% would be the maximum.
            The average man in the street is vulnerable to experts wishing us to believe them

        • Dano2

          The whole idea of man made global warming originated from the Sierra Club

          Whoa. Arrhenius was a Sierra Club member in the 1890s? Who knew?

          Best,

          D

          • derekcolman

            Obviously not. It was the Sierra Club that determined that the work of scientists like Arrhenius could be used to create an imaginary public enemy for their own political advantage. It obviously worked because they have persuaded a lot of people that the somewhat shaky work of Arrhenius was accurate. Note that in 1900 Angström determined that Arrhenius had calculated the absorption value of CO2 incorrectly, and concluded that the effect was already saturated. Arrhenius had made the assumption that CO2 absorbed all IR radiation, and it was Angström who demonstrated that it only absorbed IR in two narrow frequency bands. Sorry if this is getting too technical for you.

          • Dano2

            GLOBUL KINSPEERCY!

            Best,

            D

  • Gordon Fulks

    Again I have to commend James Delingpole for his superior knowledge of this subject. I’m so accustomed to journalists who cannot get to first base with anything related to Global Warming, and then along comes Delingpole who gets everything right. Amazing!

    What a treat to read something that makes sense for a change.

    Gordon J. Fulks, PhD (Physics)
    Corbett, Oregon USA

    • LG

      Yup, you might get really lucky and have the ‘rational’ Mr Trump as next POTUS.

    • Dano2

      his superior knowledge of this subject.

      I found four fabulously comical errors in 17.3 seconds. Aren’t you precious?

      Best,

      D

      • cmflynn

        So, what are these ‘fabulous comical errors’?

        • Dano2

          I detailed them on this thread already, thanks!

          Best,

          D

          • cmflynn

            Hmm, you’ve made a lot of posts Dano and included lots of charts. One thing worries me. All the charts seem to begin at dates ‘useful’ for the man made global warming agenda. 1975 is a favourite as is 1860. Why not post a chart showing global temperatures for the past 2000 years? Could it be that if people see a chart showing the little ice age 1400-1800 or the medieval warm period 400-1400 they might think the recent rise in temperature is entirely within the natural scheme of things?

          • Dano2

            Whatever gives you the good feels.

            Best,

            D

    • Mobius Loop

      The words “Delingpole” and “superior knowledge” appearing in a single sentence, a rare occurence unless the sentence goes something like …..

      …. for a superior knowledge of how inadequate a grasp Delingpole has of this subject anyone interested may find the following video relevant (not to mention funny):

      https://youtu.be/Q9J7PFAzrQs?t=153

      or if you want to see the whole clip:
      https://uk.search.yahoo.com/search?fr=mcafee&type=C211GB885D20151209&p=paul+nurse+and+delingpole

      Actually, watching it, for a moment I almost feel sorry for him, he looks uncomfortably close to tears, but then I remember its Delingpole.

      Mr Fulk’s endorsement is an unintentionally clear expression of just how low his own standards are in accepting anybody at all as long as they share his ideological worldview.

  • Dano2

    Seeing as how so many denialists and paid shills are losing money betting on the climate, I’ll go with the trend.

    I’ll bet Delingpole on some climate metric. What courage of your convictions do you have?

    Best,

    D

  • Dano2

    Delingpole Delingpoled:

    this outrageous scam.

    Clearly there is still a market among the Murdoch “News” faithful for claiming that:

    o Thousands of scientists;

    o across a century and a half;

    o in a wide range of specialties;

    o in dozens of countries;

    o on six continents;

    o speaking scores of languages;

    o having over ten thousand peer-reviewed papers;

    o are involved in a complex plot to ‘fake’ AGW…

    o but have been exposed by a few intrepid bloggers and fossil fuel billionaires.

    Has there ever been – ever – a less likely conspiracy theory ever than this one? In the history of the world?

    Best,

    D

    • putin

      > Thousands of scientists;

      Science should not operate by consensus.

      > across a century and a half;

      Climate models are new

      > in a wide range of specialties;

      Only one should be relevant. That of Climate Physicist.

      > in dozens of countries

      Irrelevant to the science.

      > on six continents;

      Irrelevant to the science.

      > speaking scores of languages

      Irrelevant to the science.

      > having over ten thousand peer-reviewed papers

      Appeal to consensus, prone to confirmation bias.

      > are involved in a complex plot to ‘fake’ AGW…

      Nobody claims it’s a conspiracy. Just human nature wanting to conform with peer groups.

      > but have been exposed by a few intrepid bloggers and fossil fuel billionaires.

      Misrepresentation.

      • Dano2

        Impressive lack of knowledge about science and the history of physics!

        Especially in the light you have zero science to support your beliefs or validate your self-identity. Zip. Zilch. Nothing. Nada. Nil. Null set. Squat. Jack. Bupkis.

        Best,

        D

        • putin

          As it happens I’m a PhD Theoretical Physicist with experience of the application of numerical methods to the solution of differential equations as required for computational models. Particularly with respect to the field of computational fluid dynamics which is relevant to current climate models. Also I have an excellent knowledge of the history of physics but I fail to see how that is relevant.

          • LG

            I very much doubt that your experience of fluid dynamics is anything more than filling up your car on a weekly basis.

          • putin

            I very much doubt that you know your ar_e from your elbow. Like you, I have nothing to base this statement on either.

          • LG

            Or your earlier one.

          • putin

            Or the one I was countering. (See how “climate science” works yet?)

          • LG

            Yes, I see how denialist “climate science” works – deny all the real climate science, all the data, all the empirical observations, etc, and then to validate yourself, make bogus claims to be a scientist.

            One has to admire the irony, if not the stupidity.

          • putin

            I won’t argue about climate science with you for the same reasons I don’t discuss physics with bus drivers. I might be able to teach him a little physics but at great cost to myself and all he could teach me in return is how to drive a bus.

          • Dano2

            Impressive. Then you know the science of GHGs. Extant for a century and a half. Not done by them there scientist grubbing for Democrat money, cuz Tyndall and Arrhenius didn’t even know what a Democrat was.

            Good job! Good job recognizing the utter basics of climate and physics!

            Best,

            D

          • Gordon Fulks

            As it happens, I’m a PhD Experimental Astrophysicist, and I think we largely agree. You won’t be able to reason with those here who follow me around and try to obscure all attempts at rational discussion of this topic.

            Their tactic is bad behavior and their only expertise comes from an Internet search engine.

            Thanks for the help. And thanks for supporting James Delingpole, the one shining star among so many journalists who know so little.

            Gordon J. Fulks, PhD (Physics)
            Corbett, Oregon USA

          • Dano2

            the one shining star among so many journalists who know so little.

            Four transparent lies in one column makes one a shining star! Whoa. What is the moniker for six transparent lies? Supreme leader of Denierville?

            Best,

            D

          • putin

            Thanks. Yes, my concern is that it’s now become political and not scientific. The claims that “the science is settled” is a dead giveaway. I’m sure there is good science being done somewhere but the signal is lost in all the political noise.

          • Sue Smith

            But scientists, as a group, warned us many decades ago about the dangers of asbestos and smoking. Why where they right then and wrong now?

  • Dano2
  • Dano2
  • Dano2
  • Tom M

    One of your better articles Mr Delingpole. The detractors below have missed the object of the article I would suggest.
    You have placed a bet (I might join you in that ). Lets wait and see what happens.

    • Mobius Loop

      “One of your better articles Mr Delingpole.”

      In fairness this would not be hard.

      • Dano2

        The Delingpole bar is so low it might be in the Russian drilling hole trying to reach the Moho.

        Best,

        D

        • Mobius Loop

          😀

  • Gordon Fulks

    One very common ruse from Warmers is to present Climate Model output as reality. That is very dishonest, because the models do not do well when compared with reality. Here is a comparison from Dr. John Christy, a Fellow of the American Meteorological Society. It shows an average of many climate models compared with robust data from NASA satellites and radiosondes. The robust data agree well among themselves but very poorly with the models. That should lead every scientist to conclude that the models are expensive failures. Of course, the ‘true believers’ below much prefer the elaborate model nonsense.

    Another ruse is to present calculations of ocean pH rather than the robust data shown below. The second figure below shows that the Pacific Ocean from Hawaii to Alaska and from the surface to the bottom is nowhere acidic.

    Gordon J. Fulks , PhD (Physics)
    Corbett, Oregon USA

    • Dano2

      Ooper doopers!

      the models do not do well when compared with reality.

      Here’s the very latest on how the models are doing.

      Here’s how the models are doing.

      A different look at latest run.

      An interesting depiction of latest run.

      Here’s how some older models are doing.

      And some older ones.

      And some older ones.

      And some older ones.

      And some older ones all together.

      And what several scientist said in the 1980s that was surprisingly accurate about Arab Spring.

      Here is the the very first climate projection from 1981, constructed from this paper. Pretty dang good, no? Not what the disinfo sites tell you, is it?

      Here is something from the 1970s that is surprisingly accurate as well.

      Here is an early prediction from an early pioneer of climate science, from 1975, 50 years ago. Pretty darn good. (source, and original paper)

      Heck, even Exxon scientists were pretty durn close in the early 1980s!

      This is where we are now.

      ============================================

      For those not chart-driven:

      Global Climate Models have successfully predicted:

      That the troposphere would warm and the stratosphere would cool.

      That nighttime temperatures would increase more than daytime temperatures.

      That winter temperatures would increase more than summer temperatures.

      Polar amplification (greater temperature increase as you move toward the poles).

      That the Arctic would warm faster than the Antarctic.

      The magnitude (0.3 K) and duration (two years) of the cooling from the Mt. Pinatubo eruption.

      They made a retrodiction for Last Glacial Maximum sea surface temperatures which was inconsistent with the paleo evidence, and better paleo evidence showed the models were right.

      They predicted a trend significantly different and differently signed from UAH satellite temperatures, and then a bug was found in the satellite data.

      The amount of water vapor feedback due to ENSO.

      The response of southern ocean winds to the ozone hole.

      The expansion of the Hadley cells.

      The poleward movement of storm tracks.

      The rising of the tropopause and the effective radiating altitude.

      The clear sky super greenhouse effect from increased water vapor in the tropics.

      The near constancy of relative humidity on global average.

      That coastal upwelling of ocean water would increase.

      References**

      o Troposphere warms, stratosphere cools

      Manabe and Wetherald 1967

      Manabe and Stouffer 1980

      Ramaswamy et al. 1996, 2006

      De F. Forster et al. 1999

      Langematz et al. 2003

      Vinnikov and Grody 2003

      Fu et al. 2004

      Thompson and Solomon 2005

      o Nights warm more than days

      Arrhenius 1896

      Dai et al. 1999

      Sherwood et al. 2005

      o Winter warms more than summer

      Arrhenius 1896

      Manabe and Stouffer 1980

      Rind et al. 1989

      Balling et al. 1999

      Volodin and Galin 1999

      Crozier 2003

      o Polar amplification

      Arrhenius 1896

      Manabe and Stouffer 1980

      Polyakov et al. 2001

      Holland and Bitz 2003

      o Arctic warms more than Antarctic

      Arrhenius 1896

      Manabe and Stouffer 1980

      Doran et al. 2002

      Comisa 2003

      Turner et al. 2007

      o Pinatubo effects

      Hansen et al. 1992

      Hansen et al. 1996

      Soden et al. 2002

      o Last Glacial Maximum sea surface temperatures

      Rind and Peteet 1985

      Farreral et al. 1999

      Melanda et al. 2005

      o Temperature trend versus UAH results

      Christy et al. 2003

      Santer et al. 2003

      Mears and Wentz 2005

      Santer et al. 2005

      Sherwood et al. 2005

      o Water vapor feedback from ENSO

      Lau et al. 1996

      Soden 2000

      Dessler and Wong 2009

      o Ozone hole effect on southern ocean winds

      Fyfe et al. 1999

      Kushner et al. 2001

      Sexton 2001

      Thompson and Solomon 2002

      o Hadley Cells expand

      Quan et al. 2002

      Fu et al. 2006

      Hu and Fu 2007

      o Storm tracks move poleward

      Trenberth and Stepaniak 2003

      Yin 2005

      o Tropopause and radiating altitude rise

      Thuburn and Craig 1997

      Kushner et al. 2001

      Santer et al. 2003

      Seidel and Randel 2006

      o Tropical “super greenhouse effect”

      Vonder Haar 1986

      Lubin 1994

      o Constant average relative humidity

      Manabe and Wetherall 1967

      Minschwaner and Dessler 2004

      Soden et al. 2005

      Gettelman and Fu 2008

      ** Full citation list found here (plus much, much more).

      ============================================

      Just say derp!

      Best,

      D

    • Dano2

      The second figure below shows that the Pacific Ocean from Hawaii to Alaska and from the surface to the bottom is nowhere acidic.

      And yet, the oceans acidify.

      You aren’t telling big fibs on purpose to get attention, are you?

      Best,

      D

    • Dano2

      Clown chart from Christy, made up and dishonest, unable to be published. Precious.

      best,

      D

      • Gordon Fulks

        References to propaganda sites are not legitimate references. But thanks for telling us where you get your nonsense.

        • Dano2

          Says mendacious commenter who used a dishonest and unsupportable Christy chart from a blog.

          I’d have used something from the literature, but the chart you are so proud of isn’t in the literature, it’s a deceptive chart that could only be published on a blog.

          Best,

          D

          • Gordon Fulks

            Nonsense. Christy’s comparison is similar to other comparisons, such as that available from Santer et al., PNAS (2013). But Santer and his fellow alarmists hid their comparison in a table that had no visual appeal.

          • Dano2

            “Alarmists” gives shills away.

            And I already linked to analysis that found the purposeful flaws in the chart you like so much.

            Best,

            D

          • Jaria1

            I’d go quietly if I were you Dano2./

          • Dano2

            I’ll go when I’m done, thanks!

            Best,

            D

          • Jaria1

            Of course you will but you seem to have picked a heavyweight to argue the toss with. I hope Angus is reading the exchanges. They are very interesting.
            Apologise if I’ve offended you

          • Dano2

            you seem to have picked a heavyweight

            No worries. I’m not sure Fulks is a heavyweight denialist, but rather a welterweight or super lightweight. Equivalent to about middle school out in the real world.

            Best,

            D

          • Mobius Loop

            Mr Fulks is not a heavyweight. He is a think tank wonk posting ideological nonsense without letting others know that he is affiliated with the Cascade Policy Institute:

            http://cascadepolicy.org/more/about/academic-advisors/

          • Jaria1

            I have to admit it’s all well above my head but bringing it down to the lowest common denominator it’s people defending their personal ideas on which side they happen to believe in.
            Also you don’t find his degree certificates in your cornflakes

          • Mobius Loop

            On this issue every other issue depends. It is the most important concern we face today. If the scientists are right and we don’t act, we can face extraordinary damage …. kiss goodbye to Venice, New Orleans, much of Holland. Perhaps we can build a sea wall around London and Manhattan. Perhaps we may manage to raise the level of every port in the world?

            If the scientists are wrong and we act, then we risk inflicting severe damage on global economies by implementing inappropriate policies.

            As far as it being above your head, there are any number of sites which explain the issue in terms a child could understand.

            This one by NASA is a very good place to start:
            http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

            Or this from the UK Royal Society:
            https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-evidence-causes/

            Or the National Climate Assessment:
            http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/

            If you are interested in the issue and want to comment then don’t you think you should be informed?

          • Jaria1

            Not that much above me mr Loop.
            I am sure there are also sites explaining the opposite point of view.
            You are one of those that are convinced they are right and thinks everyone that disagrees is a cretin.
            I happen to be unconvinced by either sides opinions.

          • Mobius Loop

            I don’t for one second think you are a ‘cretin’.

            Your english is clear, and you have a clear strategy in making your points, gently sowing doubt with a veneer of politeness then moving on. Nor do I think that Mr Fulks is a ‘cretin’, but I do think that he is a highly politicized individual who has spent his most of his working life as a political think tank advisor:

            http://cascadepolicy.org/more/about/academic-advisors/

            I also have had several experiences of Fulks lying directly to me which does little for my trust in or opinion of the man.

            From my position I’ve been tracking this subject for 25 years now, during which time the scientific advice has been consistent and measured, changing only in the gradual increase of certainty and severity.

            Also during that time I have come across an endless parade of people like Fulks batting out endless technicalities and statements from which they have had to retreat as the world has continued to warm.

            http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/21/science/earth/2015-hottest-year-global-warming.html

            Regarding your own position a curious combination… stating that you lack the ability to make a judgement on this important issue… then (without presenting any supporting argument) making the firmest of all judgement.

            Stranger and stranger.

          • Jaria1

            Not really a neutral mind is more able to consider points from both sides of the discussion. The one I gave is probably due to different ‘ scientists’ obvious promotions of products which enlarges their bank accounts.
            You must realise that my opinion would be made up of the more simple examples of suggested global warming. Such as the ice caps melting even then we hear that some are ‘ thickening’ and there has been examples of the earth warming and cooling throughout its existence . This what prompted me to ask about the effects of volcanic action probably at times before man started polluting the planet.
            Anyhow there are obviously too many people who don’t know sufficient detail about the subject insisting that they are correct and will brook no argument .
            I do not wish to add my name to that list but you can see where I can understand what’s being said I’m very interestedMy life has been in commerce

          • Gordon Fulks

            Dear Jaria1,

            I don’t want to intrude in your conversation with ‘Loop’, but I should point out that he has no competence in this field, and of course, no relevant education. These are primary characteristics of “true believers.” His approach (and that of Dano) is to mock those of us who are real scientists, accuse of us conflicts of interest that we do not have, and completely misrepresent the relevant climate science.

            If you want a very competent summary of the relevant science, I suggest this review article by three well-known PhDs:

            http://www.petitionproject.org/gw_article/GWReview_OISM300.pdf

            That article is backed by 31,000 American scientists, 9,000 of us with PhDs. It was written to support the Petition Project that gathered more signatures of scientists than any other in history:

            http://www.petitionproject.org/

            Note the signature of Dr. Edward Teller and other famous scientists.

            If you are interested in where this battle for legitimate science is presently being fought, I suggest that you go here:

            http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/28/300-scientists-tell-chairman-of-the-house-science-committee-we-want-noaa-adhere-to-law-of-the-data-quality-act/

            where you can read a letter that 300 of us just sent to the US Congress urging them to require the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to adhere to the ‘Data Quality Act’ and stop cooking our surface station records to make it seem like the past was colder and the present warmer. Note the signature of Nobel Laureate in Physics Ivar Giaever and other very well-known scientists.

            Gordon J. Fulks, PhD (Physics)
            Corbett, Oregon USA

          • Dano2

            31,000 American scientists,

            HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

            This one is citing OISM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111one

            Instant loss of credibility forever!

            I LOLzed!

            Best,

            D

          • Jaria1

            No intrusion as I mentioned your name.
            I am of course in no position to make judgements on a subject I clearly know very much less than those that are disagreeing with each other.
            However I find that part which I do understand intriguing

          • Mobius Loop

            Mr Fulks, I and others that scribble opinions in on the comment boards of lay media exist along the line where science is exchanged with other aspects of life. What is required is sufficient competence of mind to read the executive summaries of scientists and take a position on them.

            You on the other hand are a pretender to greater competence than you actually possess.

            You have not been research active for 40 years and at no stage engaged in climate research. Had you any level of level of competence you would be fighting your case in the hard edged world of peer reviewed scientific journals instead of wandering round trying to intellectually punch those you believe to be the little kids.

            None of this would be of any concern but you condem the vast majority of scientists as frauds while endorsing the nonentity Delingpole:

            https://youtu.be/Q9J7PFAzrQs

            And WUWT, a propaganda site funded by right leaning political think tanks (yet again).

            The Oregon Petition that you cite, was accompanied by a letter from the chairman of another (yes another) right leaning think tank, and was presented in a manner that so closely mimicked the format used by the US National Academy of Sciences that that organization was prompted to write an open letter to clarify that it had nothing to do with them. The petition was open to anyone with no apparent validation process … as demonstrated by the initial inclusion of names of members of the Spice Girls and Star Wars characters.

            I’m also rather curious. What does a scientist is without a PhD actually do? Perhaps they include the many medical doctors who populate the list ….. which presumably though curiously you find competent.

            If you are putting all this weight on a petition where people are invited to simply sign their name, then I would think it more reasonable to put greater weight in the considered responses of major scientific academies with the resources to review the evidence which, with few if any exceptions, accept the mainstream scientific position on climate change:

            https://www.opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php

          • Mobius Loop

            “Not really a neutral mind is more able to consider points from both sides of the discussion.”

            I recognize that. It is was my starting point 25 years ago. During that time I’ve often thought of the ‘debate’ in terms of an analogy, that of a huge 100,000 piece jigsaw.

            80 years ago, a man named Callendar found one piece, lets say it had a little water and a little wood on it, and he suggested uncertainly that it might be part of a ship. Every year since then scientists have been working to add more pieces, and over time the image of a sailing ship has emerged, you can see a turbulent sky, the sea, the hull, masts, rigging, sailors.

            However not all the pieces are there, some are upside down and some in the wrong place, something freely admitted by the scientists as they work away.

            Along side the scientists are people like Mr Fulk who ignore the overall picture and point to those pieces that are incorrectly positioned or at the table.

            The scientists respond again that they know there are pieces missing or incorrectly positioned but there is enough here to say with near certainty that this is an image of a ship…..

            …… to be answered, its a no a ship its a table etc.

            This ‘debate has lasted decades, with the denial lobby essentially repeating the above in various forms but bringing no new evidence to support their position.

          • Mobius Loop

            I’m afraid that I don’t accept your stated neutrality.

            True neutrality suggests a balance that is all but absent from your posts.

            On science you say….

            “We have seen many examples of the majority of scientific or historical evidence being proved wrong…”

            On scientists you say….

            I’m a bit suspicious of what scientists have to say

            ….. elsewhere making generalized and unsupported accusations of fraud ….

            What I do know is that many millions are involved to those that insist that there is global warming.

            Clearly there is no money in denying the existence of global warming

            …… except for scientists making a counter case who are treated with respect…..

            “Angus it’s clear the public are getting mixed information on this subject. This information comes from a respected Australasian scientist who like you provides detailed information to back up his assertions.”

            …… or even a degree of fawning as in the case of Fulks……

            “Of course you will but you seem to have picked a heavyweight to argue the toss with…..I’d go quietly if I were you Dano2…..Also you don’t find his degree certificates in your cornflakes”

            …… and perhaps I wasn’t surprised to see you throw in a wee touch of right leaning poilitics…..

            “I’m used to left wingers doing that”

            There is no balance or neutrality in any of this, these are a series of biased statements with no attempt to examine the overall picture.

            Earlier on I posted a series of questions that would have provoked a thoughtful response from any genuinely neutral person. You immediately tried to change the subject, then ignored the questions.

            So again with the deserved level of respect, dress it up in as much politeness as you want, you are far from a neutral poster.

          • Jaria1

            But you have already given the case for global warning which there is no need for me to repeat i am simply giving you some of my reasons that make it difficult for me to accept them as wholeheartedly as you do.
            I am sure you have seen examples of endorsement of products which are connected to particular companies or suppliers of course those that do are selling their knowledge or good name. Obviously this would not apply to all scientists or experts in their field.
            By having a contra opinion should not be taken as disrespect and of course that would apply to both sides including your attitude to Faulks who with a PhD should command some respect. You must realise I am not sufficiently qualified in the subject to make judgements and I have offered my respect, I don’t appreciate the word fawning which I see as I sign of petulance and would not be used if you knew me.
            I don’t agree with your conclusions of not being a neutral poster maybe it’s due to me not fawning to your train if thoughts.
            If Socialism were to be represented as I see it and not by a far left cabal who would not dare to tell us of their real intentions I would willing support the right group of people. The Tories seem to be better managers of our economy but they have policies that would make me vote elsewhere if there were a viable alternative in the meantime they are the only ones able to keep out those that have taken over the Labour Party I could accept.
            I’m no different to many that wish there were an alternative on offer as voters both here and in the US. Have demonstrated

          • Mobius Loop

            No, this is not correct.

            The article is framed as an attack piece by Delingpole, one of numerous ideologically driven puff pieces. You can get an idea of the man and abilities from this clip:

            https://youtu.be/Q9J7PFAzrQs?t=153

            As well as our exchange you also exchange posts with the “heavyweight” Fulks without feeling any need to provide balance to his nonsense.

            Finally there is a marked imbalance in your suspicion of the actual research scientists and your approval of scientists who argue against the mainstream scientific position.

            I don’t disrespect a counterpoint, as long as it is honest and well argued. Being frank, your posts make my hackles rise somewhat, because you assert a position that is not borne out by your actions.

            On fawning, all I can do is describe what I see. If you want to genuinely demonstrate neutrality, trying asking Fulks a difficult question that may also address some of your own suspicions.

            in 2012 the oil rich Koch brothers hired Professor Richard Muller (who they thought to be a sympathetic scientist) and his team to re-run the core principles of climate science from a skeptical position (as if all science were not skeptical).

            The results of fossil fuel funded research ….. embarrassingly that the core science supporting AGW is sound.

            http://www.businessinsider.com/koch-brothers-funded-study-proves-climate-change-2012-7?IR=T

            If you want to demonstrate genuine neutrality, try putting that to Mr Fulks and see what he says!

          • Jaria1

            Look I’m not out to win any debates on something I am far from being an expert on.
            I certainly don’t want be involved in a spat between you an Mr Faulks so please count me out and understand that I remain unconvinced by any sides opinions.

          • Mobius Loop

            Not surprised, but fine with that.

            Tend to think that if you are going to post on a subject, (particularly an important one) then you should have at least a base level of knowledge of the subject.

          • Jaria1

            No doubt you think the same of posters with more than a basic knowledge of the subject that don’t agree with you.
            Frankly I became disenchanted when it started to descend into insults and name calling. Previously I was unaware that academics or those that call themselves such were above that type of thing

          • Mobius Loop

            The core?

            I don’t want AGW to exist.

            If someone were to provide me with a convincing evidence, I would happily shake their hand, but I’ve been waiting for 20 years for that to come, and instead have endured the same old lies as they cycle round and around.

            When someone like Fulks tells what I know to be a lie I will challenge them robustly, without apology, and will back up what I say with evidence.

            This is an important subject and all you can do is stand in the way shouting “look at me! I know nothing, and don’t want to know anything.”

            You have nothing to say and I have nothing left to say to you.

          • Jaria1

            That’s a relief you may or not be an expert in your field but like many academics know little about what happens outside your subject. A sure case of baby throwing the toys out of the pram when he can’t get his own way

          • Robert

            Well said!

          • Mobius Loop

            Dano2 is grounding his posts in fact, he is more than a match for the ideological ramblings of Mr Fulks.

          • Jaria1

            It’s obvious people are defending their own view points.its far over my head but it’s a shame that there is no qualified judge to explain to us members of the jury what really are the true facts of the case

          • Mobius Loop

            A few questions:

            Do you own shoes?
            Do you know how to cut, glue & stitch them so they don’t fall apart?
            If you don’t know these things how can shoes exist?

            Do you drive a car?
            Are you an engineer? Do you know how engines work? Do you know how to make a braking mechanism that will stop you hitting a wall, etc. etc. etc.?
            If you don’t know these things how can cars exist?

            Have you ever flown?
            Are you an aeronautical engineer, do you understand fluid dynamics, have you a sound grasp of navigational electronics etc. etc. etc.
            If you don’t know these things how can planes exist?

            Have you ever taken a lift to the top of a tall building?
            Are you a structural engineer, do you understand shear forces and bending moments etc. etc. etc?
            If you don’t know these things how can tall buildings exist?

            What about illness, ever been ill and gone to a doctor for medical advice?
            Your knowledge of the cardiovascular system, nervous system etc. etc. etc. – is it extensive?
            without your detailed knowledge how can medical science possibly exist?

            Who are the qualified judges for all these things and the many others that have allowed us to develop a complex, technically advanced society? Why out of all the many branches of expertise are climate scientists singled out for such distrust…….?

            Simple. There has been an orchestrated campaign lasting decades to sow the seeds of mistrust, paid for by vested interests such as the fossil fuel industries who stand to lose a great deal if we act on the advice of climate scientists.

          • Jaria1

            I’ve pondered on how it is now necessary for both husband and wife to work to be able to earn a living wage. It wasn’t that long ago when the husbands wage alone enabled him to support his family.
            Could it possibly due to multi nationals and big businesses engineering such a situation to increase the purchasing power of the public.

          • Mobius Loop

            That is an interesting question in its own right, but is a whole other discussion and doesn’t address any of the questions I raised in my post.

            You might want to start your own channel.

          • Jaria1

            It was merely a passing thought adding another dimension to the main theme. There are times when I do allow my mind to have free rein . Occasionally it has served me well.
            I accept the admonition.

          • Mobius Loop

            Not in any way an admonition, it is a thought provoking question.

          • Robert

            This needs to be read far and wide! Should be repeated often!

          • Dano2

            Stealing.

            Best,

            D

          • Mobius Loop

            Sorry didn’t get what you mean Dano.

          • Dano2

            I’m stealing that.

            Best,

            D

          • Mobius Loop

            Doh! Friday night thought failure.

            You are very welcome to anything that helps you make a case!

            Best in return.

            ML

          • Dano2

            :o)

          • Robert

            It is a great post !

          • Scott

            What if the cobbler couldn’t make me a pair of shoes that don’t fall apart? And the car company couldn’t make me a car that would drive down the street? Etc. Etc. to all the questions you raised above. Dr. Christy’s chart that Mr. Fulks provided above shows the predictions that the IPCC (Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change) made (red line) along with weather balloon data and satellite data. They don’t match. The Climate scientists predictions are wrong. What isn’t shown is the chart is the land and sea based temperature readings. They show more warming than the satellite readings but are still only about half the warming rate of the IPCC predictions. It is a useful thought experiment to describe what would be necessary for the climate scientists to be exactly right. For them to be exactly right, according to THEIR theory, the land based temperature readings would have to exactly match the red line and the satellite and balloon data should be higher than the red line, not much lower as is now the case. The reason for this is something the climate scientists call the “Mid Tropospheric Tropical Hot Spot” which all theory predicts but measurements do not confirm.

          • Dano2

            The Climate scientists predictions are wrong.

            You were duped (willingly?).

            best,

            D

          • Scott

            Yes, I have always found that saying something makes it so, Einstein!

          • Dano2

            Seeing as Christy’s chart is made up (and not published), and your comedy about “hotspot” adding to the skit, I’d say that the joke is on you, smartie boots.

            Best,

            D

          • Mobius Loop

            A few questions:

            -How many pairs of shoes have you owned? How many immediately fell apart?

            – How many new cars have you bought? How many didn’t go?

            – How many times have you flown? How many times did the aircraft fall from the sky?

            – How many times have you gone to the top of a tall building? How many times did the building fall down?

            – How many times have you visited a doctor? How many times did the doctor make you feel sicker?

            Your post is a perfect example of the denial lobbies standard tactic for distorting a discussion i.e. take the unusual, the atypical, the rarely encountered, the partial picture, pretend that its the standard and that it represents everything…, then construct a deeply stupid and dishonest argument from your spurious starting point.

            Unsurprisingly you then defend Mr Fulks when he uses the same dishonest approach,

            First he is using out of date projections, and reducing them to a single line without showing the range or allowing for the margins of error that actual climate scientists build in and clearly explain when presenting their results.

            Then he just ignores any of the temperature records that he doesn’t like, i.e. the ones that humans have been using now since 1880.

            For a lay person to present information this way would be bad enough, but for Fulks, a scientists (though one that does not engage in scientific research) it is an inexcusable act of deception.

          • Gordon Fulks

            Is it any surprise that political junkies, like Dano, who know nothing about science keep accusing those of us with advanced degrees of dishonesty?

            Isn’t it fundamentally dishonest to pretend knowledge when you have none?

            Here is one of the places that the now famous chart from Professor John Christy was published:

            https://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/HHRG-114-SY-WState-JChristy-20160202.pdf

            Dr. John Christy is a Fellow of the American Meteorological Society and a Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science, Alabama State Climatologist, and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. His testimony to Congress is first rate.

            Gordon J. Fulks, PhD (Physics)
            Corbett, Oregon USA

          • Dano2

            Not published anywhere. Got it. And making up sh– about what I know and don’t know. Not surprising that someone who brings up the inane OISM would write such pap.

            Best,

            D

          • Gordon Fulks

            If you have ANY relevant education or knowledge, please let us know.

            As to the OISM, how is that relevant? Their chemists do research on such important subjects as ‘biological clocks.’ Do you belittle all scientific research?

            Gordon J. Fulks, PhD (Physics)

          • Dano2

            Your ebullient praise of this OISM “list” of “scientists” that “disagree” with AGW is a joke. Joke is on you, and make you instantly not credible.

            Best,

            D

        • Sue Smith

          I don’t understand what conclusions/point you’re trying to make from the information you’ve provided. I guess I’m obtuse, but could you please explain in layperson’s terms? I don’t want to be malicious or propagandistic, just tying to understand.

        • Mobius Loop


          “References to propaganda sites are not legitimate references. But thanks for telling us where you get your nonsense.”

          And yet you have referred to and even praised WUWT in the past.

          More dishonesty from Mr Fulks?

          • Scott

            The cite linked above is not WUWT. It is HOT WHOPPER.

          • Mobius Loop

            What an irrelevant thing to say.

          • Dano2

            …AND praised OISM.

            Hypocrite.

            Best,

            D

          • Gordon Fulks

            WUWT is a top notch website that features a great deal of credible climate information and original essays from respected scientists. They also reprint articles from others to make them readily available. These have included two of our US Supreme Court amicus briefs that provided sworn testimony on this subject. Sworn testimony is highly unusual, because it says that those of us who take that step are very certain that our logic and evidence will stand up in a court of law.

            WUWT also reprinted the letter that 300 scientists (myself included) sent recently to the House Committee on Science urging them to enforce the ‘Data Quality Act’ to stop NOAA and others from ‘cooking’ the climate data. Many famous scientists signed including a Nobel Laureate in Physics.

            http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/28/300-scientists-tell-chairman-of-the-house-science-committee-we-want-noaa-adhere-to-law-of-the-data-quality-act/

            Gordon J. Fulks, PhD (Physics)
            Corbett, Oregon USA

          • Dano2

            WUWT is a top notch website that features a great deal of credible climate information and original essays from respected scientists

            HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

            That’s good comedy! I LOLzed!

            Best,

            D

          • Dano2

            the letter that 300 scientists (myself included) sent recently to the House Committee on Science urging them to enforce the ‘Data Quality Act’ to stop NOAA and others from ‘cooking’ the climate data.

            A Buffoon’s Who of Yesterday’s Men.

            Of course you’re on it, even though Smith was given the data personally, twice, even after finding out it was available publicly all along from day one.

            Aren’t you precious?

            Best,

            D

          • Gordon Fulks

            Yes, we know that you have no respect for science or scientists, not even for a Nobel Laureate in Physics.

          • Dano2

            we know that you have no respect for science or scientists

            Another fib from the guy who ebulliently praises the OISM and LoWatts. That letter is unsupportable in the Reality-Based Community.

            Best,

            D

          • Gordon Fulks

            Yes, we know that you can do no better than slander. The letter to the US House of Representatives from 300 accomplished scientists (including a Nobel Laureate) asked for the enforcement of a law already on the books: the “Data Quality Act.” It requires government agencies to use ROBUST scientific data, not just that which they create themselves. The ramifications for this go far beyond climate science, because the problems with politicized (faked) science go far beyond climate.

          • Dano2

            Yesterday’s men whining about something that already happened, twice, from a paper’s conclusions resulting in something that negates your ideology and self-identities. We get it.

            And your ululating hyperbole gives you away.

            Best,

            D

          • Mobius Loop

            “WUWT also reprinted the letter that 300 scientists (myself included) sent recently to the House Committee on Science urging them to enforce the ‘Data Quality Act’ to stop NOAA and others from ‘cooking’ the climate data. Many famous scientists signed including a Nobel Laureate in Physics.”

            Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!

            My core point, is that the denial lobby is primarily driven by vested interests who will use anyone and any method of distortion to sow confusion on this issue.

            We can use your list as a test. Lets start with your own entry:

            “FULKS, Gordon J, PhD Physics, The Laboratory for Astrophysics and Space Research at the University of Chicago. Five decades of experience studying physical, astrophysical,and geophysical phenomena for universities, government agencies, and private clients.”

            This suggests that you work for The Laboratory for Astrophysics and Space Research at the University of Chicago, but the last published research you carried out for them was 40 years ago. Don’t you think your entry is a bit misleading?

            Anyway some other “scientists(?)” on that letter. I see that one of the signatories was Christopher Monckton whose scientific qualification is a degree in classics. This is a man with a very slight grasp on reality. He is the only person I’ve ever heard of that one of the UK Houses of Parliament has written to demanding that he stop lying about being a member.

            http://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2011/july/letter-to-viscount-monckton/

            For anyone wanting to see the kind of person you think of as credible here is a clip showing Monckton claiming to have cured HIV, Graves Disease and malaria. As a bonus, the clip also includes another dodgy character who you have endorsed for his great grasp of this subject:

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWVm0U68xVA

            But Hey, I made some serious allegations about how the denial lobby is driven by vested interests, so lets take another example from the list of signatories:

            O’KEEFE, William O’Keefe, President, Solutions Consulting, former CEO George C Marshall Institute, and for Executive Vice President, American Petroleum Institute.

            So two things that immediately stand out here, this particular scientific signatory lists no scientific qualifications (nor does an internet research reveal any), but he was the Executive Vice President of the American Petroleum Institute.

            You could not make this stuff up!

            Nor do you have to, its all there for anyone who looks.

            I could keep shoveling this stuff all night but its a bit nauseating.

        • jmac

          #facepalm

      • Scott

        The chart from Dr. Christy above came from his congressional testimony. And yes, it is published. The link you provided is a ridiculous website which contains nothing but ad hominem attacks. Since you called it a “Clown Chart” I guess birds of a feather…

  • Gordon Fulks

    Another very common tactic from Warmers is to compare the Climate Models against artificial global temperatures compiled from surface station measurements rather than the only true global temperatures we have from NASA satellites. This gives them the opportunity to ‘cook’ the compilations to match their predictions. They then blur their predictions with wide bands such that any data appears to be consistent.

    And of course all of the dishonest comparisons are readily available from propaganda sites on the Internet to be pasted into every comment section where ‘true believers’ want to create confusion. Since they cannot do better than cut and paste, you rarely see any of their own attempts at discussion.

    It is easy to spot these ruses by seeing if they come from credible sources or just from someone hiding behind a fake name. The other giveaway is the bad behavior from ‘true believers.’ They are forever demeaning and mocking the real science and those of us who practice it.

    The official lower troposphere Global Temperatures from NASA satellites
    (analyzed by the UAH group) are shown below. (The competing RSS analysis is very similar.) Note that 1998 was by far
    the warmest year in the satellite record and 2010 was second. Note also that the temperature trend from about 1998 to the present is flat. That means that there has been no net warming in almost two decades despite a slow steady rise in atmospheric CO2. Such a lack of warming is completely inconsistent with the assertion that CO2 is the global thermostat.

    If you know where to look, you can find comparisons from Alarmist scientists where they admit to the large disconnect between robust data and the Climate Models. But you have to look where they think that only other scientists will see their admissions. Santer et al (2013) writing in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences admitted on the very last page of their paper that model trends differ from the satellite data by a factor of almost two. That’s fatal. You can easily find the paper on the Internet but will have to spend a little time deciphering the table where the comparisons are presented. They certainly don’t make it easy to find their admission where it needs to be, in the summary and conclusions.

    Gordon J. Fulks, PhD (Physics)
    Corbett, Oregon USA

    • Dano2

      Dishonest characterization: artificial global temperatures compiled from surface station measurements

      Precious characterization: the only true global temperatures we have from NASA satellites

      Satellites that don’t even measure temp, so are highly manipulated and adjusted and calculated using a model. And diverging from sonde measurements. And each new version from UAH had to be corrected. And Roy himself asserts the sensors may be flawed.

      Adorable.

      Best,

      D

      • Gordon Fulks

        Satellites do measure temperature directly by measuring the thermal emissions from the atmosphere. And because this is a bulk measurement of temperature rather than a spot measurement, it is far more applicable to the CO2 question that thermometers or thermistors that measure temperature at a single spot where the surrounding city may bias the measurement upward.

        And satellites provide the ONLY true global temperature measurement, from pole to pole and from the surface to the Stratosphere. Surface compilations miss most of the 70% of this planet covered by water.

        As to the analysis from the (skeptical) University of Alabama versus the analysis from (alarmist) Remote Sensing Systems, they are now almost identical. So it is ludicrous for true believers to keep attacking UAH. The Alarmists at RSS produce virtually the same results. Over the years, both groups have competed to improve the data analysis, such that it now agrees internally between the two groups and with the very different radiosonde measurements, as shown below.

        Gordon J. Fulks, PhD (Physics)
        Corbett, Oregon USA

        • Dano2

          You made this up: And because this is a bulk measurement of temperature

          The AMSU sounders don’t measure temperature. They measure microwaves and go thru many processing steps – including algorithms involving models – to derive temperature. The flowchart to figger out temp is below.

          You made that up.

          You made this up too: the ONLY true global temperature measurement, from pole to pole and from the surface to the Stratosphere

          Aren’t you something?

          Best,

          D

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/4c1e944d0d33212a4e7a6678ca4b340965d0be7e68c2029488065abe5da893c0.png t t

          • Gordon Fulks

            You do need an education to able to function in science. Propaganda sites are no substitute.

            Air temperature is defined as the average kinetic energy of the air molecules. That can be measured in a number of ways, INCLUDING from their thermal emissions.

            And why are you unable to understand that it is impossible to take surface station measurements on land and generalize them to a temperature that is meaningful for the entire planet? Perhaps you do not want to understand?

          • Dano2

            Gish gallops and deflections, got it.

            Best,

            D

          • walker442

            Possibly the fastest I’ve ever seen anyone get out of their depth.

          • Dano2

            Weak bluffing is weak.

            Best,

            D

          • walker442

            Cool story bro.

          • Mobius Loop

            Having spent most of your life working with think tanks, you are not really the best person to lecture anyone on the scientific method.

          • Gordon Fulks

            Having no scientific background whatsoever, how would you know?

          • Mobius Loop

            You are right.

            I cannot know you or your abilities.

            What I can do if form an opinion based on your posts, which are filled with jaw dropping failures of logic, distrortions, crude insults, and unsubstantiated accusations.

            Curiously, the one thing which you seem unable to marshal is a convincing scientific argument or any evidence of fraud to support of your position.

            So on that basis I think I’m happy to stick with the real scientists.

        • Mobius Loop

          Mr Fulks brings his usual level of intellect to bear here by tying himself in woeful knots.

          On the one hand he would have us believe that satellite information is raw, unadulterated data, on the other he describes describes scientists who work with the data as ‘warmists’ and then further goes on to defend another group of scientists working with satellite data after they have revised their supposedly gold star finding.

          All of this would be unfathomable if Mr Fulks were not associated with an ideologically driven political think tank.

          http://cascadepolicy.org/more/about/academic-advisors/

          • Gordon Fulks

            As I have told you many times before, I have no financial relationship with the Cascade Policy Institute. Information about my background is carried by many websites, some with and some without my permission. That does not imply that I endorse the site or that I receive any money from the site.

            The Cascade Policy Institute is a free market think tank that deals with local issues here in the Portland, Oregon area, such as rapid transit and schools. When they have addressed climate issues in the past, I have provided them with assistance free of charge, as I have done with others of all political persuasions, including a US (Democratic Party) Senator, a Canadian (Liberal Party) Senator, a Canadian (Green Party) Member of Parliament and many others.

            Suggesting that I have conflicts of interest that I do not have is slander.

            Your dishonesty also extends to misrepresenting the science that I present. Satellite MSU measurements ARE a direct measurement of atmospheric temperature that are derived from atmospheric thermal emissions throughout the atmosphere. This is quite different from measurements at a single location using a thermometer or thermistor and then trying to generalize to a large surrounding area or even the globe.

            Both approaches require considerable analytical skill to produce a meaningful result. But in the end, only the satellite data contain enough information to be considered anywhere near a global measurement. And the satellite data are also far preferable because NASA wisely chose two competent groups to analyze the same data, one alarmist and one skeptical. That has avoided all the larceny from the groups compiling the surface station data. The two satellite analyses from UAH and RSS largely agree with one another.

            Gordon J. Fulks, PhD (Physics)
            Corbett, Oregon USA

          • Mobius Loop

            Strange that your much vaunted scientific mind did not register that I make no reference to any financial transaction, only that you are ‘affiliated with’ what you yourself describe as a ‘free market’ think tank. I would however observe that with very few exceptions the scientists who argue against AGW seem to be a handshake away from such organizations and that these organizations tend to be a dollar filled handshake away from fossil fuel interests.

            You may not think that being a poster boy for the Cascade Policy Institute is a conflict of interest, but this organization has recieved funding from the Donor Trust, a funding conduit for conservative billionaires to feed a wide array of similar think tanks.

            On satellite measurement, here is a very good explanation by scientists actually engaged in research including one of the RSS team which highlights pretty clearly how misleading your statement is:

            https://youtu.be/UVMsYXzmUYk

            .

          • Gordon Fulks

            Dear Loopy,

            You continue to charge that all who dare to stand up to your constant bullying are being paid by “billionaires” or “fossil fuel companies.” Yet you have no evidence, and I have told you many times that what you say is not true. I have no such conflicts of interest. And when I ask for a clear statement from you about your conflicts, you never provide one!

            As to the propaganda video featuring a Who’s Who of Alarmist scientists, that shows how low they have stooped to bolster their case. It is easy to understand why those with tremendous conflicts of interests on this subject want to discredit the NASA satellite global temperature data. They show very clearly that Alarmist calls for continued hysteria are dead wrong. But it is bizarre to have scientists who have worked on the satellite data analysis (like Mears) and know that it has addressed all challenges, maintain that it has not.

            Science requires a level of honesty and knowledge that you will never attain.

            Gordon J. Fulks, PhD (Physics)
            Corbett, Oregon USA

          • Dano2

            Recognized experts in the field who have published extensively and participate in interviews – a Who’s Who of Alarmist scientists.

            Says the guy who adoringly cites the OISM. Seems legit.

            Best,

            d

          • Gordon Fulks

            Can you say anything constructive? Science requires more than a political eduction.

          • Dano2

            It was constructive to point out your low-wattage and transparenty mendacity.

            Best,

            D

          • Mobius Loop

            OK, so the video is a straightforward explanation of how satellites work including issues that must be overcome such as:

            – Satellites measuring radiance and not temperature
            – Variations in the calibration of different satellites
            – Orbital decay and drift

            They also confirm that the only way of overcoming these issues is by applying extremely complex adjustments to the raw data, which completely contradicts your dishonest statement:

            “satellites provide the ONLY true global temperature measurement”

            Added to that dishonesty, you are also lying when you suggest that there is an attempt to discredit the satellite data. Why on Earth would Ray Mears be trying to discredit his own research? Even if you weren’t a scientist that suggestion would be beyond stupid.

            So, then we have your next lie, the one of misrepresentation that you share with Cruz, presenting a carefully edited partial picture designed to skew the overall picture by excluding the data sets that don’t support your argument, and even more outrageously ignoring the parts of the data sets you do use that don’t support your case. This is propaganda not science.

            When you look at the RSS data set in its entirety and compare it to the GISTEMP & HADCRUT 4 surface sets there is clearly variation but overall they all show a pattern of warming.

            http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1975/to:2016/mean:12/plot/rss/from:1975/to:2016/mean:12/offset:0.325/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1975/to:2016/mean:12/offset:0.15

            No one denies that the satellite data readings have been flatter for the last 18 years but this brings us to your biggest lie, using a part picture of part of the information based on a false explanation of how satellites work you then state that your spurious argument disproves the scientific consensus on AGW.

            The flat, crude, blunt statement of a pub bore, not a scientific mind that you would expect to explore the full range of possibilities instead of jumping straight to your ideological and emotional preference.

            As an example, one can look at the PDO and see a plausible reason why temperature rise is suppressed for extended periods of time.

      • jnv

        True to form, Dano2’s pervasive opinion is unmatched by his understanding. He knows even less about measuring temperature than he does about the climate.

        The alternatives to satellite measurements of temperature are weather thermometers. They too don’t measure temperature directly. Most measure another property (like electrical resistance), which, like the satellite measurements, has been calibrated against temperature.

        • Dano2

          You made all that up. Weak sockpuppet bluff.

          Sockpuppet deflecting away from Fulks fibs. Precious.

          Best,

          D

    • Mobius Loop

      Another very common tactic from Warmers is to compare the Climate Models against artificial global temperatures compiled from surface station measurements rather than the only true global temperatures we have from NASA satellites.

      The usual mix of arrogance and lies from Mr Fulks, describing the vast majority of scientists studying climate at ‘warmers’ then misrepresenting how satellites operate.

      Satellites do not measure temperature but take a reads of thermal radiance from the troposphere. In order for a reading to be consistent and usable a satellite must take it at the same location, altitude and time each day, and that reading would subsequently be converted to a temperature reading.

      However, satellites are subject a small amount of friction and gravity. Their speed and altitude changes by a small amount each day, and their ability to take readings from specific spatial points in the troposphere is affected by atmospheric conditions.

      In order to overcome all of these issues, the readings have to be modified using sophisticated calculations, then converted to temperature. If they did not temporarily support his spurious case, Mr Fulks and others of his ilk would be aggressively attacking the satellite records.

      While Mr Fulks constantly polishes his academic credentials, its noticeable that he does not highlight his affiliation with a right leaning political think thank funded in part by a network of anonymous conservative donors.

    • Scott

      I have not found that “Warmists” plot the land based temperatures against climate model projections because they still don’t match well (about half the warming rate of the climate models). They usually just use the land data to say that “it is still warming” and “this is the warmest year” (but they don’t emphasize by how much). But they don’t mention that according to their data, it is warming at only half the rate of the climate models.

      • Gordon Fulks

        Dear Scott,

        Warmers are desperate to keep the disparity between land-based temperatures and their models from proving that the models do not work. Hence, we continue to see upward adjustments of recent surface temperature data and cooling of the past. Then they present the Climate Model predictions as a very wide band that seems to include the surface measurements.

        Does this keep the hoax going? I don’t think so. The NASA satellite data, which is not subject to such tampering, have already proved that the Climate Models are far off from reality.

        Gordon J. Fulks, PhD (Physics)
        Corbett, Oregon USA

        • Dano2
        • Mobius Loop

          Ok so setting aside Fulks use of the insult and gross generalization “warmers” to describe research scientists (something he has had no experience of in 4 decades) doing their jobs, his daft accusation carries the usual colossal failure of logic.

          If climate scientists are perpetuating a vast fraud that includes every scientist from the lowliest lab assistant to the highest ranking professor, from the most recent idealistic grad, to the timeserver cynic approaching retirement……

          ….. if they are misusing billions of dollars of public money to generate self serving lies,

          ….. if they are presenting those lies to local and national governments and to organizations like the Pentagon and US Navy

          ….. then they are running a high risk strategy, that has the potential to destroy their entire branch of science and lead to some serious jail time for perpetrating fraud.

          If we (for just a moment) accept Fulk’s of nonsensical crank thinking, that people who train as scientist are happy to immediately jump into a lifetime of criminal activity, then then is one large, vast, glaring question arises.

          When there is a risk of individual prosecution and indeed of an entire scientific discipline collapsing, why would anyone, let alone a bunch of seriously intelligent scientists with rampant criminal tendencies for one second hesitate to doctor the satellite data to support their case?

          • Gordon Fulks

            Dear Loopy,

            You perpetually accuse legitimate scientists with advanced degrees and decades of experience of having none. That is obvious slander. Why do you continue to do it?

            Perhaps you think that no one will notice your complete ignorance of this subject and lack of education?

            Gordon J. Fulks, PhD (Physics)
            Corbett, Oregon USA

          • Mobius Loop

            Though it may be an unfamiliar concept concept to you, I’d like to go with the truth on this one.

            I have the highest respect for scientists and for anyone with the intellectual capacity and endurance to achieve a PhD level qualification. Although it may come as a surprise, this includes you, however….

            …. that does not give you a free pass to spread lies or act with gross hypocrisy i.e. I won’t be taking lessons on “slander” any time soon from someone who accuses an entire scientific discipline of fraud.

            My accusation as you describe it is more a simple statement of fact. You are not, and never were a climate scientist, and you haven’t carried out any peer reviewed research for around 40 years.

            If I’m wrong I apologize and am happy to retract that statement, just point us in the direction of you peer reviewed research.

            To finish, I’d like to observe that you make absolutely no attempt to respond to my challenge to the failed logic of your argument.

          • Gordon Fulks

            Dear Loopy,

            You specialize in endless personal attacks that have no merit. Is this because you have no ability to discuss this subject, yet are thoroughly sold on the politics? If qualifications are important to you, why not tell us yours? Do you have any education at all? I have been very open about mine.

            Gordon J. Fulks, PhD (Physics)

          • Mobius Loop

            OK, that seems fair.

            As you know, I am not a scientist, I am an Architect, I have two degrees BScArch & BArch, plus professional qualifications.

            In my working life I bridge between practice as an architect and teaching university students in both architecture and engineering.

            So no, I am not a scientist, but I do work in two demanding and highly technical disciplines that drive my interest in this subject.

            I design buildings that I hope will be around for decades and more importantly I have the privilege of teaching the some of the people who will be constructing the world for decades to come.

            In that capacity there is a duty to understand (to the best of my abilities) what they will be facing and also in that capacity I value candor, consistency and clarity.

            Regrettably the only thing that you bring to this discussion is consistency, in that you consistently lack clarity or candor.

          • Mobius Loop

            Oh, and you might want to actually answer the question.

            Have you ever carried out any climate research and when did you last publish a peer reviewed paper?

      • Dano2

        Sockpuppet made this up: because they still don’t match well (about half the warming rate of the climate models)

        Best,

        D

    • abrogard

      Thank you for this. One of the very rare calm and simple and believable statements on this subject.

      From either side.

      Which is a gross criticism of the scientific side isn’t it? (Giving the climate alarmists the privilege of being called ‘the scientific’ side, which will annoy many scientists who reject the idea greatly. Sorry. Just sort of going with the tide as manufactured by the media for the sake of my narrative here.)

      I am non scientist.

      This does not mean I am clinically stupid or abysmally ignorant or incapable of research, understanding, judgement.

      Seems to be there’s three parts to this whole mess, at least:

      . Is the planet warming up?
      . If it is was it/is it mainly the fault of our activities?
      . If it was/is can we do anything about it, really?

      I see them as three very different subjects of discussion that always get concatenated, mixed up, obscured, confused.

      By both sides. Which, again, is a very bad show for the ‘scientific’ side.

      So people like myself have to wade through a morass of chaotic ‘facts’, ‘suppositions’, ‘ínferences’ and – of course – personal insult and denigration flying around everywhere in our attempts to get to the truth.

      For myself I’m tentatively of the opinion that:

      . The globe may well be warming as in fact it is always throughout geological time either warming or cooling but clear unambiguous, unchallenged by those claiming equal scientific status, evidence of ‘dangerous’ or ‘critical’ warming right now is not easy to find.

      . Almost as a corollary of this it is difficult or impossible to find similar evidence for such warming being principally or significantly caused by our human activities.

      . There seems no evidence that we can do anything about it if it were true. All claims for mitigation seem to rely upon stopping our emission of CO2 and this then will let the warming come to a stop, having removed the supposed principal factor. This, of course, is completely without any evidence. We’ve never been able to see what happens to the planet when we stop emitting CO2.

      Hence the only mitigating policy is after the style of: Your temperature is rising because you are eating too many chillies. Stop eating chillies and it won’t rise any more.

      Scientific discussion and statement from either ‘side’ should come with clear indication as to which of these three things they are addressing. They virtually never do.

      Now we get the discussion being further confused by adding in the question of the economics of sustainable or green or CO2-less power generation.

      My non-scientist view of that discussion which is equally marred by all concerned chucking in all kinds of claims usually without provenance is that wind farms and solar power and tidal power are indeed overly expensive and in fact are often not as CO2 neutral as claimed.

      And so. Me. As your typical dumb voter standing in open mouth awe of all you pundits and know-alls and highly credentialed scientists. What have I decided? How will I vote when it comes to voting?

      I’ve decided I’m being scammed again. Or, rather, still. Ripped off by government in taxes for this stuff. Ripped off by private enterprise in costs for this stuff. Going to have to pay more for power where I already pay too much.

      I will vote for minimising my costs. Whoever offers me that. For all else is a blinding scam, first and foremost, a blinding scam, a welter of words and misinformation backed by vote seeking politicians, government grant seeking clever big business and money seeking hungry entrepeneurs.

      We the people, with nothing, are, as usual, the carcass everyone else feeds on. That’s mainly what’s happening.

  • ohforheavensake

    Delingpole’s going short.

    Everyone? Go long.

  • CalUKGR

    I was thinking about this stuff earlier today, wondering what, exactly, the countless £billions (globally) that have been thrown into the CAGW money pit have actually produced for all that public money? I mean, is there anything tangible we can say that the entire scam has actually produced of value to anyone, anywhere?

    The CAGW hypothesis remains no more than a vague idea – not even a theory yet – and yet everyone and his (publicly-funded) dog seems to have rushed to ‘consensus’ on a mere idea. 30+ years on from the inception of this idiocy (and snow, which was predicted by now to have become a thing of the past, continues to fall, Polar Bears are doing just fine, the world is actually ‘greening’ thanks to a slight uptick in CO2 globally and ‘peak oil’ is happily a by-word for bonkers), this politically-motivated mass delusion (it won’t be the first and probably not the last, but it it’s almost certainly one of the biggest yet) leaves me still waiting for any kind of proof that all of this has not, in fact (and continues to be) a truly colossal waste of time, money and far better choices.

  • Matt

    I wonder if James has looked at my analysis of arch-climate change skeptic (and brother of Jeremy) Piers Corbyn, at http://www.themaverickman.com and derived his confidence on this forthwith.

    Corbyn says the world is now cooling due to a Maunder Minimum, but that the sun affects the climate via solar magnetic particles as well as IR radiation so the effect of the solar minimum will be far greater than the models predict.

    Thing is, there is nothing in Corbyn’s method of long-range forecasting that actually requires you to be a climate change skeptic. His idea of the solar-magnetic particle effect quite obviously works but it’s perfectly possible to believe in global warming as well.

    • Denis Ables

      “believe in global warming” indeed. It’s religion (or political, either passion races the heart), but it’s definitely NOT science.

      Our current warming (such as it is) began at the bottom of the LIA, which was in mid 1600s. That’s 200 years BEFORE co2 began increasing. co2 has been rising since the later 1800s at about 2ppmv per year, on average. Even the rabid alarmist “scientists” (with a lick of sense) acknowledge that it would have taken another 100 years (until about 1950) before co2 level could have possibly had any impact on the global temperature (assuming it can EVER have a measurable impact). So, that’s 300 years of natural warming. From 1940s to 1970s was a mild cooling period. Then THE warming began (about 1975 to 1998). No additional warming since 1998 according to both weather satellites.

      And now the alarmists are claiming that 2015 was the “hottest”. (Last year they claimed 2014 was the hottest.) These “scientists” fail to acknowledge (? or understand) that the difference in global temp amongst recent years differs by a miniscule few one hundredths of one degree, whereas the uncertainty error is greater than a tenth of a degree, so the claim is ludicrous.

  • rolandfleming

    Whatever it is, if it’s taboo, but in demand, then its shares are undervalued and long term yield is higher. Tobacco industry, arms, oil, whatever. If your only goal is making money, best to pick something ‘unpopular’.

  • JonBW

    Perhaps (and it’s a big ‘perhaps’) you’re right about the science.

    And perhaps your 75$ will prove a great investment.

    But there is one very significant factor you’ve completely ignored, which is the vulnerability of fossil fuel supplies to geopolitical change.

    Remember the ’70s?

    Putin (or someone worse than Putin) can’t restrict the supply of sunshine to exert pressure on the West; regimes in Saudi Arabia and Iran can’t reduce the supply of wind because they want us to do their bidding in the Middle East.

    Even if you’re right about every other argument for renewables, the fact that they mean we cannot be held hostage by other states that don’t share our values makes the case for investment in them overwhelming.

    • Diogenes60025

      Foolish reasons indeed to spend $44 trillion…

      • JonBW

        I would have thought that freedom, security and democracy were the best reasons for spending money.

        And renewables arguably might do the job better than Trident….

  • Mike MacCormack

    The idea that all these scientists are working together in some sort of evil conspiracy to confuse the public is downright weird. What for? Academic scientists get their rocks off by proving each other wrong – that’s how science progresses – why would they all go into a huddle and tell the same story if even one or two of them could snaffle all the glory with a believable refutation of this so-called conspiratorial consensus? Delingpole is a bit too breezy with his assertions for my taste, a little bit of back up would be nice, even if it was a link to somewhere else. It seems to me that it’s the climate change deniers who are muddying the water here – and it’s all too easy to conjecture why the fossil fuel industries would get behind that sort of project.

    • m0b1us

      I think the oft quoted ‘scientific consensus’ meme is dramatically overblown which is
      revealed with only superficial investigation. There is too much religiosity in this debate –
      since when was science a consensus subject anyway?

      It beggars belief that in some circles you are termed a ‘denier’ if you even suggest that
      you are not satisfied that the null hypothesis has been invalidated by evidence.

      • Mike MacCormack

        A good point, which is why I called it a ‘so-called’ consensus.

        I like your idea that there is a strong religious element in this debate – I agree entirely, the ‘denier’ label is obnoxious.

        One of the less agreeable aspects of our new found ability to comment online on each others remarks has been a collapse of good manners; I suspect that the use of pseudonyms has encouraged this, which is why I choose to use my own name. The level of bitter acrimony in many of the comments here and below so many other articles is remarkable and it’s difficult to see why it is all so heated unless your point about beliefs is in fact the case – I think you are exactly right – and what we are seeing is fear of otherness expressed as anger.

        Our beliefs are precious to us because they help define us, or at least describe us, as discrete individuals, but they are rarely arrived at rationally – we spend a lot of time selectively filtering fresh data to support the beliefs we already hold; the psychology of belief formation is a rapidly growing area of study. The classic example is of the differences between those who support capital punishment and those who don’t; supporters believe it reduces crime and mistakes in sentencing are rare, opponents believe it has little impact on crime levels and mistakes are common.

        I think man-made climate change is one of these trigger issues and people should calm down a little with the name calling.

    • Canuck

      You don’t have a clue.

      Scientists aren’t telling us that manmade climate change is a problem. Activists, journalists, celebrities, politicians and environmental groups are telling us it’s a problem.

      How much statistically significant warming has there been since 1998?

      Answer: ZERO

      • Mike MacCormack

        I’m very interested in your claim. If you have a moment could you give me the references you have discovered that support this? Many thanks.

        • Canuck
          • Dano2
          • Gordon Fulks

            Yes, we know that you perpetually post the ‘cooked’ surface station data, here and below.

          • Dano2

            You can’t post legitimate evidence that data is “cooked”, we know you are big fibbin.

            Best,

            D

          • Canuck

            NOAA is run by Gavin Schmidt now… that’s why they’ve been ‘adjusting’ the data for years.

            The recent increases of 2015 are in “hundredths of a degree”… i.e. less than the margin of error.

            There’s been no substantial or statistically significant warming for close to two decades. Especially if you go by the RSS data.

            FACT.

          • Dano2

            You can support zero of these statements. Not one.

            best,

            D

          • Canuck

            Not to a zealot who can’t do the research themselves.. no.

            First off you can confirm easily that Gavin Schmidt is heading up NOAA ( he’s an acolyte of the head loon James Hansen)

            Second, NOAA has absolutely been fiddling with the data – promoting 2012 as hotter than 1934 by revising the historical temperature record

            And since you AGW alarmists like to say “2015” was the hottest year on record since measurement started… tell us BY HOW MUCH?

            EXACTLY BY HOW MUCH?

            It’s well reported that the “increase” is in hundredths of a degree and is meaningless because it’s within the margin of error of measurement and has been relying on “revisions”.

          • Dano2

            I don’t have to do the research. These are your claims to support, not mine. Your inability to support these claims lets us know you made them up.

            Best,

            D

          • Canuck

            No YOU GUYS are making the claim. We’re skeptics. The BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU.

            By exactly HOW MUCH was 2015 hotter than 2014, 2013, 2012 or 1998?

            Since the science is settled and all…

          • Dano2

            You made some claims upthread (that’s why they’ve been ‘adjusting’ the data for years…The recent increases of 2015 are in “hundredths of a degree”… less than the margin of error…There’s been no substantial or statistically significant warming for close to two decades…How much statistically significant warming has there been since 1998?… ZERO)

            You can’t back these claims. None of them are true in context. Zero. Zip. Zilch. Nada. Nothing. Nil. Null set. Squat. Jack. Bupkis.

            Best,

            D

          • Scott Sagan

            And the rest of the world’s scientists? Didn’t notice. And the whole “peer review” thing? Doesn’t exist? And scientific organizations outside of America? all a myth. Who but Americans could possibly do science?

            You guys are a hoot. You believe ANY claim made by a tabloid or blog.

            If you’re ever interested in the actual science, you can simply check with -and I do mean this quite literally- any major scientific organization in the world.

            The National Aeronautics and Space Administration,
            http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/
            …or the National Center for Atmospheric Research,
            http://eo.ucar.edu/basics/cc_1.html
            …or the Royal Society of England:
            https://royalsociety.org/policy/climate-change/
            …or the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
            http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
            …or the American Association for the Advancement of Science,
            http://whatweknow.aaas.org/
            …or the American Physical Society,
            http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/climate/index.cfm
            …or the American Meteorological Society,
            http://www.ametsoc.org/POLICY/2012climatechange.html
            …the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society,
            http://www.amos.org.au/documents/item/26
            …..the Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society,
            http://www.cmos.ca/site/ps_pos_statements?a=7
            ….the Royal Society of New Zealand,
            http://www.royalsociety.org.nz/organisation/panels/climate/climate-change-statement/

            Seriously. Pick any major scientific organization on Earth, see what they say.

            They all publish their data & methodologies in copious (and boring) detail in scientific journals, like all the sciences do.

            ANY scientific organization, any country, anywhere on the planet.

          • Canuck

            If you know enough to refute the claims, you should know enough to provide what you believe is the accurate answer. Of course you can’t.

            And what I’ve claimed is very easy to verify if you aren’t in denial.

            Even climate scientists acknowledge these claims because they have counter-arguments in some cases. They’ll say it’s “cherry picking” because the selected period starts with the 1998 el Nino. That is logically consistent with verifying the accuracy of the statement. They just believe it’s misleading in a wider context.

            I would argue that with them… respectfully but in your case – you can’t even acknowledge the actual facts.

          • Dano2

            Your claim, your burden of proof. Been that way for 2300 years. Now man up and take responsibility for your claims.

            Best,

            D

          • Canuck

            No sir… You’re the one with the prophecy of doom and impending catastrophe and extraordinary claims.

            You need to prove it. The fact that you’re incapable of grasping this simple fact does not change it’s truth.

            I’m just saying your doomsday, “Chicken Little, the sky is falling”, catastrophic hysteria is bunk and the burden of proof is on you. I’m for the status quo.

          • Dano2

            Man up. You made the claims – I even italicized your claims for anyone to understand…you DO grasp the English language and what a claim is, correct?

            Your claim, your burden of proof. Man up.

            Best,

            D

          • Dano2

            Man up. You made the claims – I even italicized your claims for anyone to understand…you DO grasp the English language and what a claim is, correct?

            Your claim, your burden of proof. Man up.

            Best,

            D

          • Mark B

            Get your own damn thermometer.

          • Canuck
          • Dano2

            Weak flail with your disinformation sites and disinformers.

            Best,

            D

          • Canuck

            Truth hurts doesn’t it? I figured you’d say that.

            You don’t have the integrity or objectivity to really evaluate the information.

            Like I said, I put it out there for others to follow up on.

            Who’s the ‘denier’?

          • Dano2

            Civil society doesn’t look at disinformation sites, thanks!

            Best,

            D

          • Canuck

            Anything that doesn’t fit your precious narrative is a “disinformation site”.

            If there was any rigour and objective verification in your AGW hysteria you wouldn’t have people questioning it.

            I asked you some basic questions on your “settled science” and you can’t answer them.

            Best

          • Dano2

            You have nothing to refute the science, you are having fever dreams.

            Best,

            D

          • Canuck

            You don’t speak for the Science. All you AGW zealots can do is repeat the same mantra
            “the Science is settled” ( it isn’t )
            or launch ad hominem attacks or beg the question (assuming as true that which is yet to be proven)

            The RSS Satellite feeds do NOT support your claims that there is a catastrophic increase in global warming. FACT.

          • Dano2

            Weak flail to hide the fact you have nothing to refute the science.

            Continued weakness from this Canuck.

            Best,

            D

          • Canuck
          • Dano2

            How cute! You are unable to link to a science site. Typical denialist.

            Best,

            D

          • Canuck

            How cute! You’re incapable of addressing actual facts and think that their truth, validity, and veracity depend on the source from which they are communicated.

            I’ve heard from many sources (I don’t peruse the primary journals, you probably don’t either, I don’t have time) that the TEMPERATURE INCREASE WAS MEASURED IN HUNDREDTHS OF A DEGREE and the actual margin of error is larger than the perceived/reported increase.

            Can you handle that fact? If it’s a fact it doesn’t matter if you read it in the primary scientific journal, an article in “Skeptical Science” or the New York Times or any other source.

            A fact is a fact. Address it – is it true or not?

          • Dano2

            Still can’t link to a science site to support your statements. Typical denialist.

            Best,

            D

          • Canuck
          • Dano2

            What does this have to do with anything you’ve typed thus far, aside from the fact it doesn’t?

            Best,

            D

          • Canuck

            You’re not really paying any attention to what I’ve stated.

            I’m simply stating that the current state of Climate Science shows that there has been a marked drop in the rate of temperature increase since 1998 (commonly referred to as the ‘hiatus’ even in the IPPC and scientific journals) despite a continuing increase in C02 emissions which does not agree wiht the projected temperatures in the the current climate models and which there for demands an explanation.

            The RSS satellite data confirms this – you can call it “cherry picking” if you like but it’s not accounted for by the models and it doesn’t accord with the hysteria over supposed imminent and catastrophic runaway warming.

            https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-DET0qSuS6IA/VjpQSs2ZEeI/AAAAAAACa80/_YjAYbTqLfc/s720-Ic42/monckton2.png

          • Dano2

            Thank you for walking back your original erroneous statement upthread that couldn’t pass the laugh test: How much statistically significant warming has there been since 1998?… ZERO

            I’d walk it back too after all your comical flailing couldn’t hide it.

            Best,

            D

          • http://romangovernor.org/ kentgeordie
          • Canuck

            It’s not statistically significant you T W A T

            Look it up yourself. If you want to amuse yourself thinking you’ve been playing “cat and mouse” with a half witted “denier” I’ll leave you to it.

            The fact is nobody can properly address why the warming rate has dropped and it remains a significant problem for the catastrophic AGW alarmists.

          • Dano2

            Smartie-smart boots cannot show It’s not statistically significant you T W A T, especially thru 2015.

            You lack talent, capacity and integrity to show it.

            Best,

            D

          • Canuck

            Go and ask Phil Jones…

            You are not objective. You are a shill.

            Do your own research. There’s papers by Hansen admitting that there’s a slowdown as well.

            The ICCP recognizes the problem as well. If you want me to spoon feed you it’s not going to happen. The biggest issue in Climate Science today is the inability to explain the drop in the rate of warming. Deal with it.

          • Dano2

            That’s not showing.

            Can you back your assertion of It’s not statistically significant you T W A T or can’t you?

            Your flouncing and whining and ululating tells us you cannot support your assertion.

            Best,

            D

          • Canuck

            It’s not my assertion. It’s Phil Jones’ assertion.

            Disprove it. Tell us why he’s wrong. He’s a prominent climate scientist after all.

          • Dano2

            He’s not wrong. You are. Because you lack capacity to grasp the article you linked to.

            Best,

            D

          • Dano2

            Yet another comic flail for our amusement: The fact is nobody can properly address why the warming rate has dropped

            https://youtu.be/8aUysvVcebo

            You simply are not current.

            Best,

            D

          • Canuck
          • Dano2

            Thank you – the best you can do to hide your comical assertion and the need to walk it back is to link to an article that you do not comprehend.

            Me loves me some laughs you generate! Good comedy!

            Best,

            D

          • Canuck

            I comprehend it… one of the senior climate scientists (although disgraced by his collusion and conspiring to remove editors that don’t toe the AGW line per “climategate”) is saying there’s been a warming trend but it’s not been statistically significant.

            You’re the one with the comprehension problem.

            One of the other things you don’t comprehend is your sneering, facile and pedantic tone does nothing to advance the credibility of your argument – a common flaw among those who don’t have facts on their side.

          • Dano2

            If you had the ability to comprehend it, you wouldn’t link to it to support your false assertion. Because it doesn’t support your assertion.

            HTH

            Best,

            D

          • Canuck

            Prove it. Explain why not.

            No statistically significant warming since 1995. It’s right there.

            It also is well understood by others. Explain how a clear assertion that there’s been no statistically significant warming since the mid to late 90’s means anything other than what it clearly states smarty pants.

          • Dano2

            It is not right there. You can’t grasp the context of the paragraph, or dishonestly cherry-pick.

            Which is it?

            Best,

            D

          • Canuck

            Ah… the context. What context. I said no statistically significant warming since 1998 and you disputed that. A senior climate scientist has stated it quite plainly.

            I’m well aware that you or any other shill will claim the data is “cherry picked”. That’s not the issue.

            You disputed that there was any scientific corroboration of my statement regarding warming over that period. You got it. You are plainly wrong and are now twisting and equivocating to try and avoid your error. I took the time to spoon feed you the obvious and you are trying to wriggle out of it.

            Flailing on your part… but not that comical. Sad really.

          • Dano2

            1. You can’t grasp the issue extant at that time. Nor can you exhibit integrity and address the half-dozen papers that have been published on the topic since then.

            2. Man up and address your lack of integrity below. You made the claims – I even italicized your claims for anyone to understand…you DO grasp the English language and what a claim is, correct?

            Your claim, your burden of proof. Man up.

            Best,

            D

          • Dano2

            And Climategate! Drink!

            Best,

            D

          • Canuck

            Change the subject.. go ahead.

          • Dano2

            You can’t hide the fact you were duped by Climategate and now it embarrasses you.

            Best,

            D

          • Canuck

            Can’t address the statistical significance question can you? Thought so.

            So now you’re going to try and change the subject to the ClimateGage whitewash

          • Dano2

            Weak flail cuz lacking capacity. Your weak deflections are weak. Any half-wit can see you can’t comprehend the other reply to the comment and are using this as a puerile effort to hide your inability to cover up your inanities.

            Best,

            D

          • Canuck

            Another non reply.

          • Dano2

            You lack capacity to grasp the issue.

            You also lack capacity to be current and understand the scholarship since then.

            Weak all ’round. Typical denialist.

            best,

            D

          • Canuck

            You’re just babbling. You got caught out. Admit it.

          • Dano2

            So you can’t grasp what Jones says nor can you address the scholarship since then that refutes you, so you deflect.

            Aren’t you precious?

            Best,

            D

          • Canuck

            You seem to not grasp the fact that you are a prevaricating loon.

            He says right there what I said all along.

            And you can’t explain it. Or deny it.

            Who’s deflecting? Anybody reading this thread can see that you are a fatuous, condescending, prevaricating t w i t.

          • Dano2

            1. He says there is warming. Only because the time period is too short for a valid trend is it not significant. My seventh-grader gets it. You don’t. Or are purposely prevaricating. Either way.

            2. You continue to dishonestly fail to address your lack of integrity below. You made the claims – your burden of proof.

            Your claim, your burden of proof. Man up.

            Best,

            D

          • Canuck

            You don’t know what you’re talking about.

            The statistical significance or lack thereof under discussion isn’t based on the length of the time period it’s based on the magnitude of the increases within that time period.

            And if it were the length of the period as you claim – what would that do to you and your fellow alarmists constantly repeated refrain that “10 out of the 12 warmest years occured in the last 15 years” mantra?

            And by the way, why is a little warming always bad? There’s no net benefit to having a mild increase in global surface temperature?

            You guys and your little doomsday cult… thank goodness people have started to see it for the nonsense it is.

          • Dano2

            WOW!

            The statistical significance … isn’t based on the length of the time period it’s based on the magnitude of the increases within that time period.

            It’s both. Take a maths class, especially Stat.

            Get back to us afterward and explain how you embarrassed yourself here.

            best,

            D

          • Canuck

            Incorrect. You’re still twisting in the wind. The fact is that it is not statistically significant warming and you can’t change that.

            And for the record I took stats courses in university. Yes in general terms the period in question is obviously part of the equation as is the magnitude of the change. If somebody said there was no statistically significant warming in the last 2 weeks clearly that would not be a useful statement.

            18 years? Sorry but that’s a problem.

            Your response is basically trying to say that it’s “insignificantly insignificant”

            Fact is climate scientists have a problem explaining why the level of warming has been so flat over the last almost 20 years and no amount of sophistry, condescension or equivocation on your part is going to change that fact.

            Global temperatures actually cooled from 1940 to 1970 and rose from the 70’s onward. I’m sure you found that period from 1970 to 1995 very significant because it fits your warming hysteria narrative. There’s been very minimal increases in warming despite much larger C02 emissions. Fact.

          • Dano2

            The topic is your ignorance about statistical significance having both a time period and a deviation.

            And educate yourself on the latest literature. You’re clearly ignorant of it.

            Best,

            D

          • Canuck

            Incorrect. 18 years is the period. Actually 21 years if you go back to 1995. The warming increase is not statistically significant. Period.

          • Dano2

            We are discussing your ignorance of statistics, thanks!

            Best,

            D

          • Canuck

            Incorrect. Over 18 years ( the period ) there has been no statistically significant warming. 21 years actually if you start from 1995. Period.

            http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm

            B – Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

            Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

          • Dano2

            That’s over now. thanks! And you were wrong about statistics.

            best,

            D

          • Dano2

            Another weak flail to hide your inability to grasp your link doesn’t support your claim.

            Best,

            D

          • Canuck
          • Dano2

            Disinformation site! Drink!

            Clown Monckton chart! Drink!

            *hic*

            best,

            D

          • Canuck

            Is the RSS satellite data graph real or not?

            All you have is ad hominem nonsense.

            The facts are NOT on your side.

            So you cannot refute, you claim it’s “disinformation”

            Who cares who posted it? Either the graph is real or it isn’t.

          • Dano2

            The graph is dishonestly cherry-picked to dupe the weak-minded and the liars of the con world.

            Best,

            D

          • Canuck

            Prove it. It’s the RSS Satellite Record over the last 18 years.

            How is it “cherry picked”?

            You guys try to pretend the medieval warm period never existed and that “12 out of the hottest 13 years on record occurred in the last 18 years”. THAT’s cherry picking.

            Prove that the graph is not legit. You have nothing but bogus consensus claims and ad hominem insults… just like every other AGW alarmist.

            Thank goodness enough people see through this nonsense now.

          • Dano2
          • Canuck

            You’re not listing the RSS data set. That’s a bunch of different records, proxies, temperature sets, one of which is RSS

            Show me your version of the just the RSS satellite feed from the same period as the one I posted and demonstrate that your graph is different from the one I posted. Explain how it is misleading or cherry picked.

          • Dano2

            Learn how to read a graph.

            Those who can read a chart will see how the one chart the disinformation sites luuuuuurvs is cherry-picking.

            Best,

            D

          • Canuck

            Learn how to write a coherent sentence and answer a question properly without unwarranted smug condescension, ad hominem attacks or begging the question.

            Best,

            C

          • Dano2

            Your posing is a failure.

            Why is your posing a failure?

            Your posing is a failure cuz you claimed: You’re not listing the RSS data set.

            Any sixth-grader can see both of those links have the RSS dataset trends included in them. plus, your whiny-whining about Show me your version of the just the RSS satellite feed from the same period as the one I posted and demonstrate that your graph is different from the one I posted is hilarous, as you are asking me to show your cherry-picked starting point standing out from the graph I used that showed the cherry-picked starting point is cherry-picked. Aren’t you precious?

            I suspect your mewling and whining is simply a limp attempt to cover up your failure, yes?

            Best,

            D

          • Canuck

            Your snotty replies do nothing to advance your argument. They indicate a visceral reaction rather than an intellectually honest discussion and show that you are threatened by facts and are reacting based on emotional attachment.

            Fact is, there’s been no statistically significant warming in the last 18 years as demonstrated by the RSS satellite data and since C02 has moved from about 380ppm to 400ppm you need to explain that. You can’t.

          • Dano2

            Don’t have a sads because you were embarrassed. Learn from your mistakes and try harder next time. Turn that frown upside-down!

            <3

            Best,

            D

          • odin2

            I had a Believer claim that the RSS charts start at the peak of the 1998 El Nino and thus were cherry picked. The charts you linked to start before the peak of the 1998 El Nino. For example:

            https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/clip_image0021.jpg

            Those charts are not cherry picked. The starting point is calculated using the least-squares linear-regression trend on the RSS satellite monthly global mean lower-troposphere dataset for as far back as it is possible to go and still find a zero trend.

            If we use a starting point nearer the peak of the 1998 El Nino, we get this:

            http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1998/to/plot/rss/from:1998/trend

          • Dano2

            I asked you some basic questions on your “settled science” and you can’t answer them.

            No you didn’t. You made that up.

            You can’t hide your false assertions with a blizzard of bu—t.

            Best,

            D

          • Mark B

            THEY DON”T TAKE MEASUREMENTS – they just throw rocks at other people’s.

          • Mark B

            So he personally goes around and rewrites every temperature measurement. Joke.
            Do you even know what a thermometer is?

      • Dano2

        How much statistically significant warming has there been since 1998?… ZERO

        HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

        Good comedy! I LOLzed!

        Best,

        D

      • Mark B

        And you can even measure the temperature? Tell that to the people dying of heat stroke.

    • Canuck

      Doesn’t require a conspiracy… just a herd mentality. Or cowardice and complacency to go along with the others in order to get funding.

  • Frederick Colbourne

    James, well done. I don’t have much doubt that you will make money from this investment. There is no way at all that ordinary people in the industrialized world will allow their leaders to continue with their plans to dismantle our urban-industrial civilization.

    The Luddites cannot win the hearts and minds and wallets of the people.

  • Scott

    James D.
    Don’t you find is disconcerting that your government is taxing you in an effort to make sure that you loose money on this new investment of yours?

  • jjm

    Some of you (below) are feeding a TROLL of AGW threads…

    Even the “best” characterization of the poster is that he has “little/no phy-sci background, NO THERMODYNAMICS study at all! A train-wreck of bad info epoxied together in dogma, with years of posts in evidence of same. From his declarations elsewhere, he was “a weatherman in the USAF,” and “studied bioclimatology before switching to the plant side,” By his own admission, he is a little/no phy-sci (life-sci dominant), NO THERMODYNAMICS plant for GW zealots — a vegetable, ‘er, no he’s better or “best” characterized as a mushroom, rooted in the dark of his own bs.

    This thread is typical of his over 10 years of posts exhibiting his “best” mental ‘er um acuity on this subject — evidence consistent with my earlier characterization. Think about this; for more than a decade, he has posted vacuously (some might characterize, “ad nauseam”) on AGW threads, allowing all to observe his “best” ?competence? in this subject.

    It’s “best” if one concludes this post with, “please don’t feed the troll.”

  • http://www.facebook.com/nigelbryancook Nige Cook

    Solar is a con because (1) surges in demand in cold weather and at night correlate with no sunshine, and (2) in addition, silicon solar cells currently cost 30 cents per watt, compared to the normal grid residential electricity price of 12 cents per watt (from non-solar sources). It’s only fascist type taxpayer “solar subsidies” (stealing from the NHS, schools, social care) that makes solar appear attractive!

    • Dano2

      Good thing its installations are doubling every ~22 months then.

      Best,

      D

      • Fromafar

        How the mighty (subsidized) shall fall…..

        • Gordon Fulks

          The fall has already begun in many areas. From Europe to the USA solar companies keep imploding as governments get tired of all the money they waste.

          • Mark B

            I think you mean oil and gas drilling companies.

    • Mark B

      You are a real goofball. Solar cells cost less than a dollar a Watt. American power costs 12 cents a kWhr. Sorry that you are typical anti AGW that doesn’t know how to calculate anything. Wind and solar are also now competitive against all other power sources. They also don’t have an 80 billion pound clean up bill like one if the UK nuke plants in Dellingpole’s UK.

  • Robert Wagner

    Not to mention that when the UK and US are building 14th Century Technology Wind Farms, China and India are rapidly advancing on Nuclear Fusion. The opportunity cost of this Quixotic venture are astronomical.

  • ClimateLearner
  • Mark B

    Still churning out the same old baseless nonsense.

    • Australian Inquisitor

      His balloon is too high to let go of

  • Mnestheus

    At last, Bishop Hill and Matt Ridley have found an investment fit for their cartoonist!

    http://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2016/06/turboriddler-rightway-toll-snogger-was.html

Close