Sunday, July 29, 2018

(Sd3) Mr.GOP don't buy Jim Steele's Fraud - Steele debate #3

My upcoming column at the Four Corners Free Press is a response to a Letter to the Editor that complained about my "one-sided" approach to telling the climate science story.  The writer, whom I’ll refer to as Mr. GOP, then steps into a steaming pile when his suggested alternative expert turned out to be my old pal Jim Steele.  
As it happens I’ll bet I’m as familiar with Jim Steele’s LandscapesandCycles fantasy as anyone.  Having spent easily a couple hundred hours studying his words and working on nearly fifty posts unraveling and exposing Jim’s many malicious deceptions regarding honest competent wildlife biologists the world over.   

My FourCornersFreePress column wasn’t the place for a line by line response, but I did want to write one up to help me gather my thoughts before composing my column.  I’m sharing it here, because this version gives me another opportunity to share all sorts of valuable supporting evidence.  I’ll be posting the FCFP column itself in a week or so.

Climate Science isn’t Settled, by Mr. GOP 
Four Corners Free Press - Letters to the Editor, March, 2018 

Mr.GOP takes issue with “We need real dialogue about climate” by Peter Miesler. 
  1. It seems that the "science" is settled.  
Damned straight, the fundamentals are as settled as the promise of tomorrow morning's sunrise!   I wonder what the scare-quotes are for?

The fundamentals of our global heat and moisture distribution engine and society’s influence are well understood!  The explainable known physical certainties far outweigh the remaining uncertainties!  

Tragically the well understood certainties are constantly being deliberately ignored or lied about by contrarian types, thus our Mr. GOP winds up profoundly ignorant of down to Earth physical processes. Here’s a sampling of that climate science.

‘Climate models are unproven’ ?    
Actually, GCM’s (Global Circulation Models) have many confirmed successes under their belts.  
By Coby Beck on Nov 20, 2006

In 1988, James Hansen of NASA GISS fame predicted [PDF] that temperature would climb over the next 12 years, with a possible brief episode of cooling in the event of a large volcanic eruption. He made this prediction in a landmark paper and before a Senate hearing, which marked the official “coming out” to the general public of anthropogenic global warming. 

Twelve years later, he was proven remarkably correct, requiring adjustment only for the timing difference between the simulated future volcanic eruption and the actual eruption of Mount Pinatubo. …
Putting global surface temperatures aside, there are some other significant model predictions made and confirmed:

 •  models predict that surface warming should be accompanied by cooling of the stratosphere, and this has indeed been observed;

 •  models have long predicted warming of the lower, mid, and upper troposphere, even while satellite readings seemed to disagree — but it turns out the satellite analysis was full of errors and on correction, this warming has been observed;

 •  models predict warming of ocean surface waters, as is now observed;

 •  models predict an energy imbalance between incoming sunlight and outgoing infrared radiation, which has been detected;

 •  models predict sharp and short-lived cooling of a few tenths of a degree in the event of large volcanic eruptions, and Mount Pinatubo confirmed this;

 •  models predict an amplification of warming trends in the Arctic region, and this is indeed happening;

 •  and finally, to get back to where we started, models predict continuing and accelerating warming of the surface, and so far they are correct. …    (Read the full article for the details)

For yet more information and links to further authoritative article to real science check out:

JULY 2, 2018
Uncertain about Climate Models? Why? Can you Explain???

JANUARY 1, 2018
Climate Models - Pruitt look at Red team deceptions

2)  The author has used one pro-global warming expert.

This is pure political nonsense.  

To say Dr. Trenberth’s talk, or my column, is one person’s opinion denies the truth that we are sharing the collective understanding of a global community of experts.

Dr. Trenberth was describing the distillation of the combined work of many generations and tens of thousand of scientists world wide.

“Pro” global warming?  Mr. GOP’s unhinged politics is showing.  Please GOP, get real!  Nobody with any appreciation for this climate monster we have unleashed is “Pro warming.”  

Dr. Trenberth and the community of scientists are Pro Science!  Science is about Pro Truth and Pro Learning by assessing the data to the best of their understanding and abilities.

Published on Aug 24, 2015
Prof Alley discusses the motivation of scientists.
Climate change is real, so why the controversy and debate?

3)  Here’s my expert for rebuttal: *Landscape & Cycles: An Environmentalist’s Journey to Climate Skepticism, by Jim Steele.

Amazing, “here’s my expert,” Jim Steele.  Seriously?  Jim?  Expert?  Boy would I like to hear GOP’s definition of what an expert is.  Anyone who says what one wants to hear is an expert?  Is that how it is?

Lets do an experiment, Go ahead and Google Jim Steele and see what comes up, then try Dr. Kevin Trenberth.  Ah ha, right at the top,

Kevin Trenberth’s education:
Sc.D Atmospheric Science/Meteorology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1972
B.Sc HONS First Class Mathematics, University of Canterbury, 1966

Research topics include:
  • Interannual variability of climate and El Niño
  • Climate change and global warming
  • The heat and energy cycles
  • The water cycle and atmospheric moisture budget
  • The mass of the atmosphere
  • Datasets and reanalysis
  • The global climate observing system
  • Hurricanes and climate change
One area of greatest impact has been in resolving outstanding issues concerning the global heat and energy budget of planet Earth. He has improved estimates of heat, energy and water transports within the atmosphere to a point where, when combined with top-of-atmosphere observed radiation, they now provide estimates of ocean heat transports as a residual that agree well with directly observed values. …

Kevin Trenberth’s Publications:
The total from November 2016 is 62 books or book chapters, 257 journal articles published, 4 submitted, 23 technical notes, 120 proceedings or preprints, and 81 other articles, plus 4 videos, for a total of 543 publications plus 4 videos and many blogs. 

On the Web of Science, there are over 29,160 citations and an H index of 78 (78 publications have 78 or more citations). On Google Scholar, there are over 61,255 citations and an H index of 103 ( or 68 since 2012) …

Now try “Jim Steele - scientist", hmmm, nothing.  Jim Steele the wrestler, no, the British Officer, no, at Wiki, nothing.  Oh wait, here we go.  

Jim Steele, the ex-camp director for the San Francisco State College’s Sierra Nevada Field Camp, bingo.  A trail guide for college students, a bird watcher of some local repute, a general biology education, nothing of distinction. 

Repeated searches at Google Scholar for Jim Steele show nothing, that’s because it seems he’s never done real science, though I know he’s read a bunch, as have I, but than I don’t claim to be smarter than the experts.  

If anyone claims Jim has a peer reviewed paper in a real science journal, please do share a citation in the comments.  

So my question: By what sort of standard does Mr. GOP equivocate this scientific nothing Steele, with Dr. Trenberth, a man of proven extraordinary intelligence who’s accomplished outstanding pioneering science in an incredibly complex scientific field?

{Incidentally  "Landscape & Cycles" was GOP's spelling, a simple but revealing oversight.  From his other words I suspect Mr. GOP's appreciation for our planet's complex biosphere doesn't get any deeper than the film on a soap bubble, so that "Landscape", "Landscapes", makes no difference.  Tragic.}

4)  Excellent book with ample references to support his arguments.

Hmmm, considering “expert” means nothing to Mr. GOP, it’s no surprise “excellent” is equally misused.  Jim does weave many good yarns, I’ll give him that.  It’s the disregard for truth and hiding the complete story that I find contemptible.

In a nutshell, Jim Steele proposes that landscapes and natural cycles are more powerful drivers of global warming than our insulating atmosphere and humanity’s profligate fossil fuels burning that continues adding extra GHG insulation at a frightening rate. 

Jim’s intellectual underpinning is his self-certain, yet never explained opinion rejecting CO2 science. He maintains it's a hoax with political underpinnings. Something his Republican audiences want to hear, so he never needs to explain his super-natural assertion.

Steele has parlayed his general environmental studies background to travel around the world learning about various wildlife studies with an eye towards finding errors to exploit.

5)  Long story short, the science is not settled. 

Please think about what a nonsensical sentence that is.  
Of course the science is not settled.  

Uncertainties definitely exist.  Get real GOP, nothing in our lives has ever, or will ever, be “settled” - we do the best we can with what we know.  That's why our only smart choice is to HONESTLY learn about the learned expert opinion.

Before his untimely passing, Dr. Stephen Schneider give an excellent talk, it’s quite different from the shrill denunciations of the GOP crowd and as timely today as the day it was given.

Climate Change: Is the Science “Settled”?

(February 4, 2010) Stephen Schneider, professor of biology at Stanford and senior fellow at the Woods Institute for the Environment, unpacks the political and scientific debates surrounding climate change.
Science is about learning, its about gathering and processing evidence.  
Resolving scientific puzzles has always resulted in understanding more details, even as those details also reveal a whole new suite of questions worth asking.

The Relativity of Wrong
By Isaac Asimov, 
The Skeptical Inquirer, Fall 1989, Vol. 14, No. 1, Pp. 35-44

Incidentally, it turns out, scientists have been very very conservative and restrained, the remaining fringe uncertainties hide spectacular threats to human society and none contain any upside for future humans, or most other living organisms for that matter.  

What Are the “Unknown Unknowns” of Global Warming
The 5 Big Climate Unknowns
Joe Romm , October 1, 2011 - Climate State, YouTube Jul 26, 2018

0:04   #1 Ozone Loss
4:00   #2 Rate of Sea Level Rise
7:32   #3 Gulf Stream Slowdown
11:18 #4 Earth's Response (earthquakes and volcanoes)
17:40 #5 Methane Hydrates

For more details visit: 

6a)  Consensus is a political term 

Politicizing is precisely what Mr. GOP is doing when he claims scientific consensus is a political term.  

Every branch of our complex society relies on the considered learned expert opinion as the most trustworthy level of understanding, not perfect, not unchanging, just the best we can do with what we have - that’s what “consensus’ is all about.

The Astrophysicist Ethan Siegel wrote an excellent inquiry “What Does 'Scientific Consensus' Mean?” at 6/24/16 and I borrow his final sentences: 

“If you want to construct an accurate picture of what governs the Universe, you need to build on all that we’ve learned up to this point. 

When we say “scientific consensus,” that’s what we’re talking about: things we’ve already learned, and the solid foundation for where we go from here. And if there really is a problem with the consensus, it’s going to be the internal community of experts within that sub-field that’s going to find it. 

Believe me: as a scientist, there’s nothing we like more than learning something surprising and new.”   (source,, 6/24/16)

You see scientists are truly curious and skeptical, always looking for flaws that might hide new revelations. There’s a good a reason these people became scientists, the quest to be the first to understand something new. 

Fact is, that scientists simply don’t think like politicians, promotors or evangelicals, even if those people love projecting their own habits onto scientists. 

Earlier Ethan explained that when scientists talk about “science being settled", they aren’t talking about “scientific consensus” as the final answer, but rather as the starting point that everyone agrees on.  

6b)   and to say that global-warming skeptics are driven by religious and political inclinations is disingenuous at best.

Disingenuous?  What disingenuous?  

How Fossil Fuel Money Made Climate Change Denial the Word of God

By Paul B. Farrell, April 22, 2015,
Opinion: Inhofe says God’s in charge on climate, but what if he’s wrong?
By Chris Mooney, March 14, 2012, DeSmogBlog
Is James Inhofe Shilling For God, or Oil? The Correct Answer is “Both”
By Joseph Romm, October 1, 2009,
Inhofe on why global warming isn’t real: “God’s still up there.”
Rep. Joe Barton:  "You can't regulate God. 
Not even the Democratic majority in the U.S. Congress can regulate God.”
By Mahita Gajanan May 31, 2017, TIME
Republican Congressman Says God Will 'Take Care Of' Climate Change
By Chelsea Kiene, April 10, 2013, Huffington Post
Joe Barton Cites Great Flood To Disprove Human Role In Climate Change
By Kate Sheppard,  April 20, 2009, GRIST
House Republicans bring strange theories and wacky witnesses to climate hearings
Shimkus cites Genesis on climate
By Darren Samuelsohn , November 10, 2010

Illinois Republican Rep. John Shimkus is standing by a controversial comment that global warming isn't something to worry about because God said he wouldn't destroy the Earth after Noah's flood.

The Illinois Republican running for the powerful perch atop the House Energy and Commerce Committee told POLITICO on Wednesday that his understanding of the Bible reaffirms his belief that government shouldn't be in the business of trying to address rising greenhouse gas emissions.
On Fire For God's Work': How Scott Pruitt's Faith Drives His Politics
By Rebecca Leber, Feb 26, 2018, GRIST
Scott Pruitt’s job is to protect the environment. God has other plans for him.
By Emily Atkin, February 27, 2018, The New Republic
Scott Pruitt vs. The Pope
The EPA administrator has become the de facto spokesperson for a fringe version of Christian environmentalism.
Niina Heikkinen, July 14, 2017, E&E News reporter Climatewire
Scott Pruitt, Christ follower
By Phil Plait, July 31, 2017,

Framing the Environment: The Cornwall Alliance, Laissez-faire Environmentalism, and the Green Dragon

Citation - Journal of the sociology and theory of religion, 2014, N.1, pags.null-null

Abstract - Religious discourse plays an important role in U.S. public debates on environmental policy. In this paper, we examine an aspect of this discourse, focusing on the discursive frame adopted by conservative evangelical elites as they promote religious interpretations of the environment distinct from more pro-environmental factions. 

Using qualitative document analysis of the Resisting the Green Dragon lecture series, sponsored by the Cornwall Alliance, we identify four key themes to this frame: 
  1. environmentalism is not science, 
  2. but a religion, 
  3. which threatens Christianity, and 
  4. personal and political freedom. 
These interrelated themes focus on denying or neutralizing scientific claims of environmental degradation, but also, and perhaps more importantly, counter moral claims advanced by more pro-environmental factions by linking a religious form of laissez-faire environmentalism to ethical considerations salient among evangelicals.

Bottomline there’s nothing disingenuous about accusing the GOP of mistaking their own EGOs for God.  Sad fact is ME FIRST religious "shepherds" and political predators, facilitated by equally predatorial oligarchs are driving climate science stupification.

On its 100th birthday in 1959, 
Edward Teller warned the oil industry about global warming

… And so, at its hundredth birthday party, American oil was warned of its civilization-destroying potential.  Talk about a buzzkill.”

Let’s talk disingenuous,

Merchants of Doubt 
by historians of Science Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway

The U.S. scientific community has long led the world in research on public health, environmental science, and other issues affecting the quality of life. Our scientists have produced landmark studies on the dangers of DDT, tobacco smoke, acid rain, and global warming. But at the same time, a small yet potent subset of this community leads the world in vehement denial of these dangers.

In their new book, Merchants of Doubt, historians Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway explain how a loose–knit group of high-level scientists, with extensive political connections, ran effective campaigns to mislead the public and deny well-established scientific knowledge over four decades. In seven compelling chapters addressing tobacco, acid rain, the ozone hole, global warming, and DDT, Oreskes and Conway roll back the rug on this dark corner of the American scientific community, showing how the ideology of free market fundamentalism, aided by a too-compliant media, has skewed public understanding of some of the most pressing issues of our era. ...

The Republican War On Science
by Chris Mooney

Science has never been more crucial to deciding the political issues facing the country. Yet science and scientists have less influence with the federal government than at any time since the Eisenhower administration.

In The Republican War on Science, Chris Mooney tied together the disparate strands of the attack on science into a compelling and frightening account of our government’s increasing unwillingness to distinguish between legitimate research and ideologically driven pseudoscience. ...
DARK MONEY the voter manipulation vehicle of the ultra-rich.

U.S. Treasury moves to protect identities of 'dark money' political donors

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Treasury said on Monday that it will no longer require certain tax-exempt organizations including politically active nonprofit groups, such as the National Rifle Association and Planned Parenthood, to identify their financial donors to U.S. tax authorities.

… But the move frees labor unions, issue advocacy organizations, veterans groups and other nonprofits that do not receive tax-exempt money from meeting confidential disclosure requirements set in place decades ago. …
GOP wants to flood politics with dark money using hidden “policy riders”
Arn Pearson , MARCH 20, 2018

The rising tide of political spending that has swamped Washington in the wake of Citizens United and other controversial Supreme Court rulings may have lifted Republican fortunes across the country and in Washington, but apparently it isn’t enough. Now they are coming back for more.

Congressional Republicans are expected to hide five “policy riders” in the fiscal year 2018 omnibus appropriations bill due for a vote this month that would let churches and charities pour their coffers into partisan pockets, allow parties to spend unlimited funds on ads coordinated with candidates, and make sure the rest of us can’t see what’s going on. …
Shining the Light on Dark Money: Political Spending by Nonprofits
RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, 2(7), 51–68 (2016). 
Not Just the Koch Brothers: New Drexel Study Reveals Funders Behind the Climate Change Denial Effort
Alex McKechnie, December 20, 2013

A new study conducted by Drexel University environmental sociologist Robert J. Brulle, PhD, exposes the organizational underpinnings and funding behind the powerful climate change countermovement. This study marks the first peer-reviewed, comprehensive analysis ever conducted of the sources of funding that maintain the denial effort.

Through an analysis of the financial structure of the organizations that constitute the core of the countermovement and their sources of monetary support, Brulle found that, while the largest and most consistent funders behind the countermovement are a number of well-known conservative foundations, the majority of donations are “dark money,” or concealed funding. …
The rise of dark money is a threat to judicial independence
By Alicia Bannon, July 5, 2018,

It is this conservative ascendancy that Jane Mayer chronicles in “Dark Money.” The book is written in straightforward and largely unemotional prose, but it reads as if conceived in quiet anger. Mayer believes that the Koch brothers and a small number of allied plutocrats have essentially hijacked American democracy, using their money not just to compete with their political adversaries, but to drown them out. …
"Dark Money" Funds Climate Change Denial Effort
By Douglas Fischer, The Daily Climate on December 23, 2013

The largest, most-consistent money fueling the climate denial movement are a number of well-funded conservative foundations built with so-called "dark money," or concealed donations, according to an analysis released Friday afternoon.

The study, by Drexel University environmental sociologist Robert Brulle, is the first academic effort to probe the organizational underpinnings and funding behind the climate denial movement.

It found that the amount of money flowing through third-party, pass-through foundations like DonorsTrust and Donors Capital, whose funding cannot be traced, has risen dramatically over the past five years.
By Shannon Hall on October 26, 2015
Exxon Knew about Climate Change almost 40 years ago
A new investigation shows the oil company understood the science before it became a public issue and spent millions to promote misinformation

September 16, 2015, InsideClimateNews,org

Top executives were warned of possible catastrophe from greenhouse effect, then led efforts to block solutions.

7)  Just look up examples of skeptical global-warming articles suppressed from peer reviewed journals and the suppression of emails by skeptics by the global warming elites.

Boy oh boy would I love for Mr. GOP to offer some solid examples of this supposed “suppressed evidence,” always big with the insinuations, but never showing up with objective evidence.  

Lets be serious Scientific journals are dedicated to sharing important scientific papers with scientists who are expert and very busy.  Peer review is all about ensuring that serious constructive papers make it into professional journals and that sub-par papers get sent back for reworking.    

Science isn’t a democracy, it’s fact based, evidence based, quality demanding.  Jilted quacks and losers are a dime a dozen, I'll trust the successful experts.

Science is humanity’s recipe for learning about the physical world and its processes as honestly as possible.

*Learning is the goal, fidelity to physical facts is the gold standard. 
*Science is a world where Free Speech doesn’t mean it’s okay to misrepresent, lie and slander with malicious intent.  
*Informed constructive skepticism is the rule.   
*Mistakes are a learning tool.
*Dishonest bluster and bullying is a crime!

Having said that, it’s important to point out that there is no contrarian argument that hasn’t undergone extensive serious discussion, even inspiring some papers within the community of scientists.  Go visit, to find some of those discussions.  At the end of this article I reproduce the SkS list of nearly 200 contrarian linked claims so that with a click you can see details for yourself.

8)  They don’t want debate!

Oh the irony.  Jim Steele has been dodging my efforts to engage him in a serious fact-based constructive debate for years.

The problem is Jim and the others aren’t interested in a serious debate.  They are after theater, learning doesn’t even enter into it, winning a PR dog fight for their political agenda is their goal.

I’m a serious kind of guy and I’m pursuing a serious constructive debate.

A debate where both sides honestly represent their opponent’s positions and evidence, where fidelity to the truth is the gold standard; one where learning is the prime objective.

Jim has dodged all my entreaties, but that didn’t stop me from engaging his crazy-making words in many virtual debates, see my July 22nd post for an index.  

9)  This is the big voluminous argument, no doubt, and you notice I did not use the word “denier.”

What “big voluminous argument”?  It’s our Atmospheric Insulation Sweetie!
Everything else flows from that, rather straightforward, if complex.

Incidentally, Unidirectional skepticism equals denial.

Climate science is a big voluminous topic that’s been well studied and explained by experts who have dedicated their lives to serious research and they deserve to be trusted.

The Discovery of Global Warming 
Spencer Weart and the American Institute of Physics

A Website created by Spencer Weart supplements his much shorter book, which tells the history of climate change research as a single story. On this Website you will find a more complete history in dozens of essays on separate topics, updated annually.

Learn from what the real experts have learned.

The Physical Science Basis

IPCC Working Group I Fact Sheet

Report by Chapters

  1. Front Matter - 0.8MB
  2. Summary for Policymakers - 2.3MB
  3. Technical Summary - 18.1MB
  1. Introduction - 4.5MB
  2. Observations: Atmosphere and Surface - 38.3MB
  3. Observations: Ocean - 48.3MB
  4. Observations: Cryosphere - 12.8MB
  5. Information from Paleoclimate Archives - 10.8MB
  6. Carbon and Other Biogeochemical Cycles - 23.8MB
  7. Clouds and Aerosols - 19.2MB
  8. Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing - 18.9MB
  9. Evaluation of Climate Models - 24.6MB
  10. Detection and Attribution of Climate Change: from Global to Regional - 10.4MB
  11. Near-term Climate Change: Projections and Predictability - 14.1MB
  12. Long-term Climate Change: Projections, Commitments and Irreversibility - 36.6MB
  13. Sea Level Change - 32.9MB
  14. Climate Phenomena and their Relevance for Future Regional Climate Change - 10.6MB
  • Atlas of Global and Regional Climate Projections - 44.7MB
  • Climate System Scenario Tables - 1.5MB
  • Glossary - 0.4MB
  • Acronyms - 0.1MB
  • Contributors to the WGI Fifth Assessment Report - 0.2MB
  • Expert Reviewers of the WGI Fifth Assessment Report - 0.5MB 
  1. Index 0.2MB
  2. Errata 5.4MB (Updated 11/12/2015)

10)  We need to let science be science and get the politics out.

Then get the hell out of the way with your clueless nonsense Mr. GOP!  Allow us to listen and learn from real experts!  

Why are you recommending a political showman like Jim Steele, a man constantly screaming for debate, but who runs from it when challenged?  

11)  signed, MR. GOP, Kettering, Ohio

FYI - take a look.

United States National Science Academy report on climate realities.

… Researchers know that human activities including fossil fuel use, agriculture and land use have been the dominant causes of increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere over the past 250 years. …   _______________________________________________________

linkable list - Climate Myths sorted by taxonomy
courtesy of the team

Skeptic Arguments

This is a list of every skeptic argument encountered online as well as how often each argument is used. How this is calculated...
1Climate's changed before4.3%past
2It's the sun4.2%sun
3It's not bad3.9%impacts
4There is no consensus3.2%consensus
5It's cooling3.1%cooling
6Models are unreliable2.9%model
7Temp record is unreliable2.4%temp
8Animals and plants can adapt2.2%species
9It hasn't warmed since 19981.9%1998
10Antarctica is gaining ice1.8%antarctica
11CO2 lags temperature1.8%lag
12Ice age predicted in the 70s1.8%1970s
13Climate sensitivity is low1.7%sensitivity
14We're heading into an ice age1.7%iceage
15Ocean acidification isn't serious1.7%acid
16Hockey stick is broken1.6%hockey
17Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy1.6%climategate
18Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming1.5%hurricane
19Al Gore got it wrong1.5%gore
20Glaciers are growing1.5%glacier
21It's cosmic rays1.5%cosmic
221934 - hottest year on record1.4%1934
23It's freaking cold!1.3%cold
24Extreme weather isn't caused by global warming1.3%extreme
25Sea level rise is exaggerated1.3%sealevel
26It's Urban Heat Island effect1.2%uhi
27Medieval Warm Period was warmer1.1%mwp
28Mars is warming1.1%mars
29Arctic icemelt is a natural cycle1.1%arcticcycle
30Increasing CO2 has little to no effect1.0%greenhouse
31Oceans are cooling1.0%oceanheat
32Climate scientists are in it for the money1.0%money
33It's a 1500 year cycle1.0%1500cycle
34Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions0.9%co2
35IPCC is alarmist0.9%underestimat
36Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas0.9%vapor
37Polar bear numbers are increasing0.9%bear
38CO2 limits will harm the economy0.8%economy
39It's not happening0.8%warming
40Greenland was green0.8%green
41Greenland is gaining ice0.8%greenland
42CO2 is not a pollutant0.7%pollutant
43There's no empirical evidence0.7%evidence
44CO2 is plant food0.7%plant
45It's clouds0.7%
46Arctic sea ice has recovered0.7%arctic
47Other planets are warming0.7%planets
48There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature0.6%correlate
49We're coming out of the Little Ice Age0.6%lia
50It cooled mid-century0.6%midcentury
51Global warming stopped in 19981995200220072010, ????0.6%stopped
52CO2 was higher in the past0.6%pastco2
53It warmed before 1940 when CO2 was low0.6%pre1940
54Satellites show no warming in the troposphere0.6%troposphere
55It's aerosols0.5%aerosols
562009-2010 winter saw record cold spells0.5%winter
57It's a natural cycle0.5%cycle
58It's El Niño0.5%elnino
59Mt. Kilimanjaro's ice loss is due to land use0.5%kilimanjaro
60It's not us0.5%agw
61There's no tropospheric hot spot0.5%hotspot
62It's Pacific Decadal Oscillation0.5%pdo
63Scientists can't even predict weather0.4%weather
642nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory0.4%thermo
65IPCC were wrong about Himalayan glaciers0.4%himalaya
66Greenhouse effect has been falsified0.4%falsify
67Clouds provide negative feedback0.4%cloud
68CO2 limits will hurt the poor0.4%poor
69The science isn't settled0.4%settled
70Sea level rise predictions are exaggerated0.4%seapredict
71It's the ocean0.4%ocean
72IPCC were wrong about Amazon rainforests0.4%amazon
73Corals are resilient to bleaching0.4%bleach
74CO2 effect is saturated0.3%saturate
75Greenland ice sheet won't collapse0.3%icecollapse
76Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans0.3%volcano
77500 scientists refute the consensus0.3%500
78CO2 is just a trace gas0.3%trace
79It's methane0.3%methane
80CO2 has a short residence time0.3%residence
81Humidity is falling0.3%humidity
82CO2 measurements are suspect0.3%co2data
83Jupiter is warming0.3%jupiter
84Springs aren't advancing0.3%spring
85Neptune is warming0.3%neptune
86CO2 is not increasing0.3%co2up
87It's land use0.3%landuse
88Scientists tried to 'hide the decline' in global temperature0.3%decline
89Record snowfall disproves global warming0.3%snowfall
90They changed the name from 'global warming' to 'climate change'0.2%name
91Solar Cycle Length proves its the sun0.2%scl
92Pluto is warming0.2%pluto
93CO2 is coming from the ocean0.2%oceanco2
94CO2 is not the only driver of climate0.2%driver
95Peer review process was corrupted0.2%peerreview
96IPCC overestimate temperature rise0.2%overestimate
97Arctic was warmer in 19400.2%arctic1940
98Renewable energy is too expensive0.2%expensive
99Southern sea ice is increasing0.2%southice
100CO2 limits will make little difference0.2%limits
101Sea level rise is decelerating0.2%sealevelrise
102Humans are too insignificant to affect global climate0.2%significant
103Phil Jones says no global warming since 19950.2%1995
104Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity0.2%lindzenchoi
105It's microsite influences0.2%microsite
106Infrared Iris will reduce global warming0.2%iris
107Dropped stations introduce warming bias0.2%dropped
108It's too hard0.2%toohard
109It's not urgent0.2%urgent
110It's albedo0.2%albedo
111Tree-rings diverge from temperature after 19600.2%diverge
112It's soot0.2%soot
113Roy Spencer finds negative feedback0.2%negspencer
114Hansen's 1988 prediction was wrong0.2%hansen1988
115It's global brightening0.2%bright
116Earth hasn't warmed as much as expected0.2%inertia
117Arctic sea ice loss is matched by Antarctic sea ice gain0.2%seaice
118It's a climate regime shift0.2%shift
119Solar cycles cause global warming0.2%solarcycle
120Less than half of published scientists endorse global warming0.1%schulte
121A drop in volcanic activity caused warming0.1%volcanodrop
122Plant stomata show higher and more variable CO2 levels0.1%stomata
123Over 31,000 scientists signed the OISM Petition Project0.1%oism
124Ice isn't melting0.1%icemelt
125IPCC ‘disappeared’ the Medieval Warm Period0.1%ipccmwp
126Sea level is not rising0.1%searise
127Climate is chaotic and cannot be predicted0.1%chaos
128It's ozone0.1%ozone
129Climate 'Skeptics' are like Galileo0.1%galileo
130The IPCC consensus is phoney0.1%hulme
131Freedom of Information (FOI) requests were ignored0.1%foi
132Tuvalu sea level isn't rising0.1%tuvalu
133Naomi Oreskes' study on consensus was flawed0.1%oreskes
134Renewables can't provide baseload power0.1%baseload
135Trenberth can't account for the lack of warming0.1%trenberth
136Ice Sheet losses are overestimated0.1%iceloss
137CRU tampered with temperature data0.1%tamper
138Melting ice isn't warming the Arctic0.1%amplify
139Breathing contributes to CO2 buildup0.1%breath
140Satellite error inflated Great Lakes temperatures0.1%greatlake
141Soares finds lack of correlation between CO2 and temperature0.1%soares
142We're heading into cooling0.1%futurecool
143Murry Salby finds CO2 rise is natural0.1%salby
144The sun is getting hotter0.1%acrim
145Most of the last 10,000 years were warmer0.1%10000
146It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-19400.1%trends
147Record high snow cover was set in winter 2008/20090.1%snowcover
148It's waste heat0.1%waste
149A grand solar minimum could trigger another ice age0.1%solarminimum
150Water vapor in the stratosphere stopped global warming0.1%stratosphere
151CO2 emissions do not correlate with CO2 concentration0.1%co2conc
152An exponential increase in CO2 will result in a linear increase in temperature0.1%linear
15397% consensus on human-caused global warming has been disproven0.1%robust97
154CERN CLOUD experiment proved cosmic rays are causing global warming0.1%CERN
155Mauna Loa is a volcano0.1%mauna
156Adapting to global warming is cheaper than preventing it0.1%adaptcheap
157Deniers are part of the 97%0.1%fringe
158Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect0.1%venus
159Skeptics were kept out of the IPCC?0.0%ipccskeptic
160Water levels correlate with sunspots0.0%watersun
161Positive feedback means runaway warming0.0%runaway
162It's planetary movements0.0%planetary
163Antarctica is too cold to lose ice0.0%toocold
164CO2 increase is natural, not human-caused0.0%co2increase
165No warming in 16 years0.0%16years
166Coral atolls grow as sea levels rise0.0%atoll
167It's internal variability0.0%variable
168CO2 was higher in the late Ordovician0.0%ordovician
169It's CFCs0.0%cfc
170Scientists retracted claim that sea levels are rising0.0%searetract
171Warming causes CO2 rise0.0%warmco2
172Renewable energy investment kills jobs0.0%jobs
173Schmittner finds low climate sensitivity0.0%schmittner
174Greenland has only lost a tiny fraction of its ice mass0.0%icefraction
175Ben Santer and the 1995 IPCC report0.0%santer
177DMI show cooling Arctic0.0%dmi
178It's a climate shift step function caused by natural cycles0.0%stepfunction
179CO2 limits won't cool the planet0.0%limitscool
180Royal Society embraces skepticism0.0%royalsoc
181It's only a few degrees0.0%fewdegrees
182Climate change isn't increasing extreme weather damage costs0.0%damagecosts
183CO2 only causes 35% of global warming0.0%35percent
184IPCC graph showing accelerating trends is misleading0.0%accelerate
185It's satellite microwave transmissions0.0%microwave
186Sea level fell in 20100.0%slr2010
187Arctic sea ice extent was lower in the past0.0%pastarctic
188Great Barrier Reef is in good shape0.0%gbr
189We didn't have global warming during the Industrial Revolution0.0%industrial
190Loehle and Scafetta find a 60 year cycle causing global warming0.0%loehle
191Ljungqvist broke the hockey stick0.0%ljungqvist
192Underground temperatures control climate0.0%underground
193Removing all CO2 would make little difference0.0%removeco2
194Humans survived past climate changes0.0%survived
195IPCC human-caused global warming attribution confidence is unfounded0.0%confidence
196UAH atmospheric temperatures prove climate models and/or surface temperature data sets are wrong0.0%uah
197Postma disproved the greenhouse effect0.0%postma
198Hansen predicted the West Side Highway would be underwater0.0%highway
199Heatwaves have happened before0.0%heatwave

© Copyright 2018 John Cook -

1 comment:

  1. 7/30/2018
    Next week's issue of The New York Times Magazine is an unusual one. It's dedicated to a single long story, by writer-at-large Nathaniel Rich, about the ten-year period from 1979 to 1989, the decisive decade when humanity settled the science of climate change and came surprisingly close to finding a solution. The world was ready to act. But we failed to do what was necessary to avoid a catastrophe. Rich's story is a gripping narrative that reads like a historical whodunit.

    Accompanied by a series of stunning photos from around the world by George Steinmetz, “Losing Earth” will forever alter the way you understand the history and the politics of climate change.