More Unsettled Science on Climate Change

By | 2017-06-02T18:30:05+00:00 September 23, 2017|
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Call it another dispute about the “settled science” of climate change.

According to a report published in Nature Geosciences last week, we have more time than we thought to stop the predicted meltdown of the planet. Not only are climate models way off—“running hot” by overestimating temperature increases—but the warming we were supposed to experience this century hasn’t happened as most climate models anticipated. What’s even more alarming to the climate tribe is that this study, “Emission budgets and pathways consistent with limiting warming to 1.5 [degrees Celsius],” is authored by several prominent climate scientists,, many of whom have warned of planetary doom if we don’t cap global warming within the 1.5 C range.

First, some background: Most climate agencies report the world has warmed by about 0.9 C since the late-1800s; climate scientists insist we need dramatic decreases in  carbon dioxide  emissions to keep the overall temperature increase to 1.5 C (or 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) by the end of this century. This means Mother Earth has about 0.6 C left in her global warming thermometer before we break the glass. The entire raison d’etre for the Paris Climate Accord is to oblige  nations immediately to cut carbon emissions so we can keep warming “well below” a 2 C rise over pre-industrial levels.

There have been varying, desperate pleas about how much time we have left to stop global warming. Some scientists lament that we are already past the point of no return. Others, including the former United Nations climate chief, warned in a paper published in June that we only have three years left to stop human-caused global warming and if “emissions continue to rise beyond 2020, or even remain level, the temperature goals set in Paris become almost unattainable.”

But this new paper suggests we have about 20 years until we will need a mass conversion to using solar panels and Teslas in order to bring total CO2 emissions to zero (a wholly punitive, unnecessary, and impossible goal.) The conclusion is based on a complicated calculation of how much of a “carbon budget” (total CO2) we have left to burn before we get into the danger zone; according to an editorial that accompanied the paper, “the amount of carbon that humans could emit before Earth warms to that 1.5 C threshold is larger than previously estimated.” Despite howls from the media, Democrats, and climate pimps like Neil DeGrasse Tyson, who last week said it was already too late to recover from man-made climate change, the key goal of the Paris Climate Accord is “not yet a geophysical impossibility . . . we have more breathing space than previously thought.”

And that appears to be the main thrust of the Nature paper: to give more scientific cover to the Trump Administration should it choose to stay in the climate pact, even though the president announced on June 1 the United States would withdraw from the Obama-era agreement. There’s been some (alarming) noise in the media recently that the Trump White House might remain in the accord under the right terms: “It provides an important incentive to work to enhance the Paris pledges further, at the first opportunity, if governments are serious about the 1.5 C ambition,” wrote Richard Millar, one of the study’s authors.

But the political motive of the paper took a backseat to its acknowledgement that climate models have been faulty and the much-disputed “pause” in global warming between 2000-2015 actually did occur (this is a highly contentious debate in the climate tribe.) Comments in the media by a few of the study’s authors emboldened the climate-skeptics’ camp. Myles Allen, a University of Oxford geosystems science professor, admitted “we haven’t seen that rapid acceleration in warming that we see in the models. We haven’t seen that in observations.” University College London professor Michael Grubb really twisted the knife, confessing “when the facts change, I change my mind, as Keyes said.” (Some of the coverage prompted this criticism from two of the scientists, claiming their paper was misrepresented.)

 The climate tribe also went into spin mode. Zeke Hausfather, a climate researcher with Berkeley Earth, tweeted out a graph the next day to insist models and observations “agree quite well”:

 

It is clear in the graph, however, that recorded temperatures from about 2000 to 2015 fall below —and sometimes well below—the models’ midline. The chart also supports a negligible temperature increase during that same timescale. Keep in mind this time period is crucial, as it coincided with the international push to prove anthropogenic global warming and scare us into costly policies to avert a climate crisis. Overreaching climate models were props in that campaign.

Someone may have told Hausfather that his chart wasn’t exactly helping the cause, so he created another chart 12 hours later to show a more garbled version of climate models vs. observed temps:

 

Hausfather changed the Y-axis in order to show much less discrepancy between the range of climate model projections and temperatures. The first graph has a range of 1.5 C and the second has a range of 4 C. (When I asked him why he changed it, he said it was a “simplified” version of the first graph.) He also extended the timeline from 2020 to 2100 in an effort to justify the Y-axis change, even though the longer timeline is irrelevant to the Nature paper.

Of course, no media coverage of a consequential climate study is complete without a quote from Michael Mann, the ubiquitous and controversial climate scientist from Penn State University. Mann said he is “rather skeptical” of the study and claimed “most studies have underestimated how much carbon was building up in the atmosphere” since the 1880s. Mann insists we need negative emissions technology (the next climate scam and federal subsidy mooch) to avert a 2 C rise by 2100.

It will be interesting to see how this all plays out over the next year. The International Panel on Climate Change will issue its “Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 C” in October 2018. A draft is under expert review right now, so the IPCC refused to comment on the Nature study.

In the interim, the Trump Administration and so-called climate deniers have plenty of reason to continue to challenge the still-unsettled science of human-caused global warming.

 

About the Author:

Julie Kelly
Julie Kelly is a senior contributor to American Greatness.
Loading...

120 Comments

  1. jsdozcn9 September 23, 2017 at 7:29 pm

    “According to a report published in Nature Geosciences last week, we have more time than we thought to stop the predicted meltdown of the planet. ”

    The previous doomsday deadline passed without incident. This new report is another hoax to set up another doomsday in another attempt to scare people into obedience.

    • NancyRDiaz September 24, 2017 at 4:02 am

      Google is paying 97$ per hour,with weekly payouts.You can also avail this.
      On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $11752 this last four weeks..with-out any doubt it’s the most-comfortable job I have ever done .. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
      !dw231d:
      ➽➽
      ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleCashSalesCareerPartTimeJobs/get/hourly ★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫:::::!dw231l..,

    • GloriaEDesimone September 25, 2017 at 5:10 am

      Google is paying 97$ per hour,with weekly payouts.You can also avail this.
      On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $11752 this last four weeks..with-out any doubt it’s the most-comfortable job I have ever done .. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
      !dw373d:
      ➽➽
      ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleDailyConsumerCareJournalsJobsReport1/easy/jobs ★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫:::::!dw373l..,…

    • SS Trumptanic September 27, 2017 at 4:44 am

      They are ignored because FREEEEEEEEDUMD!!

      • JimBob777 September 27, 2017 at 8:53 am

        They are ignored because the studies are created by witless morons- just like you.

      • dirk gently September 27, 2017 at 5:36 pm

        Continue bleating about a harmless trace gas which is essential for all living plants ( which is WHY it’s a trace gas — plants snag it as quickly as possible.), and ignore the pollution going into your local drinking water source, you retard.

  2. Sam McGowan September 25, 2017 at 9:35 am

    There is a problem with temperature records and models, and that is that temperature can vary by several degrees over just a few feet. This is something I learned as a pilot when the SAT temperature gauge in my airplane would indicate a much higher temperature than the reported temperature. This was because the airplane was sitting on pavement and the SAT was recording temperature of heat from pavement while the official temperature was taken at a point surrounded by grass in many cases. That’s the problem. Most recorded temperatures seem to be taken on college campuses in urban areas where temperatures run higher for a number of reasons than they are just a few miles away over pastures and corn fields. This is also variation between temperature recorded by oceanic buoys and temperatures recorded by ships. Bear in mind that prior to World War II and the spread of aviation, there were few weather observation stations anywhere except universities. In short, the whole thing is a scam because the real records don’t exist.

    • BrendaPThrift September 26, 2017 at 6:01 am

      Google is paying 97$ per hour,with weekly payouts.You can also avail this.
      On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $11752 this last four weeks..with-out any doubt it’s the most-comfortable job I have ever done .. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
      !dw334d:
      ➽➽
      ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleNewNetJobsZenOpportunities/earn/hourly ★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫:::::!dw334l..,…..

    • CrazyHungarian September 27, 2017 at 4:58 am

      There are only two sets of temp records that were built to be scientifically credible from the start: NASA satellite records and NOAAs Climate Reference Network. Both show no/minimal temperature variations over their recording history. All other record sets need to be “adjusted’, or in other words faked.

    • docdave88 September 27, 2017 at 9:46 am

      Also, as a history major, I understand just how those records were derived. Remember, for MOST of the time such records were kept the readings were taken from columns of mercury or colored alcohol contained in hand blown glass tubes mounted on hand painted wooden boards by old men in the days before bifocals were invented. And they were invariably written in whole numbers. As for the oceans, wooden buckets were tossed overboard and drawn up and another of those hand blown glass tubes dropped into the water thus obtained with results written in whole numbers.

      Rather than shrieking about the “hottest year on record,” the honest headline for the 21st Century would be “Temperatures This Year Have Been Pretty Much What They Were Last Year.”

    • Joe McGee September 27, 2017 at 1:31 pm

      The scientific method does not consider something proven simply because a mathematical model predicts it. You have to be able to test a hypothesis (global warming as a result of human activity is a hypothesis), and you have to be able to reproduce results in a laboratory, and you have to be able to control for all the other factors that might affect the outcome. Since that is not possible, global warming is only a theory, and will never be anything more than a theory. IF there is global warming, it could be cused by a lot of things. If you want to start in the early 1800s, you have a problem because the northern hemisphere was still comming out of the Little Ice Age, and that will skew the results. If you want to start in the 1950s, you have the short frame of reference problem. You could start in 2000, but the world has cooled since then. So, as you correctly state the entire theory is unproven and un-provable.

      • lichau September 27, 2017 at 5:08 pm

        The “scientific method”, as typically described, simply doesn’t apply to so-called “climate science”. We can’t crank up the CO2 content by, say, 100ppm, measure global temps, crank it down by 100ppm, etc. You can’t run experiments.
        Legitimate study of climate would be more appropriately called “Climate History”. What is going on right now is “Climate Religion”.

      • dirk gently September 27, 2017 at 5:31 pm

        Since their global warming models are not testable, they aren’t even theories. An untestable idea is, at most, a hypothesis.

    • lichau September 27, 2017 at 5:11 pm

      I go for a run every morning. Usually about sun up. There is a cold spot about half a mile from my house where it feels like you just ran into a swimming pool. A drop of 5 degrees F, at least. In about 50 yards, maybe 10 ft in elevation.

      Put the thermometer there, vs at my house, and you get very different results.

      Also a pilot.

  3. Altalena September 26, 2017 at 4:03 pm

    People should just stop exhaling. Problem solved.

    • Don Jong Trump September 27, 2017 at 8:27 am

      You go first. Stop inhaling too.

      • Altalena September 27, 2017 at 8:44 am

        If it’s good enough for Slick Willie, it’s good enough for me…

  4. SS Trumptanic September 27, 2017 at 4:44 am

    Hey Dummy, we are in the Paris Climate Accord until 2019 either way. Also, many states and cities said they are still participating in the pact anyway.
    Trumps hollow win for hollow heads.

    • rockyspoon September 27, 2017 at 7:09 am

      Do you have any idea how stupid and even counterproductive the “Paris Climate Accord” is?

      It would be more applicable to selling a particular brand of Honda that actually doing something about the climate.

      Besides, it has been calculated that from 15-25% of world-wide foodstuff production is now the result of increased atmospheric CO2 in the past 50 years. World-wide GDB is ~$70 Trillion, foodstuff accounts for $10 Trillion of that, and 15% of that is $1.5 Trillion per year benefit, which is about $200 per person on the earth. Without additional CO2, this planet would have greater difficulty feeding the world.

      Putting food in people’s stomachs is not a “hollow win”, SS.

      Vivia la CO2!

    • Joe McGee September 27, 2017 at 7:29 am

      Actually, the Paris Accord is non-binding, because Obama could never have gotten it through the Senate. It is basically just a political propaganda tool for the left. And even if it had been a real treaty, it would not have accomplished anything.

      • SS Trumptanic September 27, 2017 at 7:38 am

        In June 2017, U.S. President Donald Trump announced his intention to withdraw the United States from the agreement, causing widespread condemnation in the European Union and many sectors in the United States. Under the agreement, the earliest effective date of withdrawal for the U.S. is November 2020.

        • Miek D. September 27, 2017 at 8:22 am

          Our carbon footprint is is significantly decreasing due to the natural gas fracking revolution. With absolutely no action on the part of the federal government, we are the leading nation when it comes to reducing our carbon emissions. If that makes the greenies happy, I am ok with that, but we are not doing it to solve a non-existent environmental problem; we are doing it because it lowers the cost of electricity which makes us all wealthier.

          • SS Trumptanic September 27, 2017 at 8:23 am

            You need to venture out of your RW bubble.

          • JimBob777 September 27, 2017 at 8:56 am

            You need to labor mightily to extract your head from your Sigmoid Colon.

          • SS Trumptanic September 27, 2017 at 9:09 am

            Your trolling is feeble

          • Miek D. September 27, 2017 at 9:11 am

            It is clear that you are primarily concerned with patting yourself on the back by virtue signalling than rationally discussing the scientific facts at hand. That, in my opinion, makes unfit to participate as a voter in a democracy, but assuming you are a U.S. citizen over the age of 18 and not a felon, I guess you have the right. I just wish you would exercise you civic duty and agree to abstain from the voting booth.

          • SS Trumptanic September 27, 2017 at 9:14 am

            The fact I leave my bubble makes me more informed than you are which isn’t shocking.

        • RCPreader September 27, 2017 at 9:25 am

          Uh, the Paris “Accord” is not a treaty. (That’s why it is given the ambiguous name “accord.”) The U.S. isn’t “in” anything. In signing it, Obama was expressing his PERSONAL intent to follow it. The President does not possess the power to bind the United States to any international agreement, without either the ratification of a treaty by the Senate, or the passage of enabling legislation by Congress, neither of which occurred. There is zero issue of U.S. “withdrawal” and no real timeline for it — indeed, there isn’t really such a thing as “withdrawal” in the full sense, because, again, the U.S. is not an actual party to anything, only Obama was.

          And, besides the fact that it is not legally binding, most of what is in the Paris Accord is actually expressed in voluntary terms — as goals and things you’ll try to do, not firm commitments. The whole battle over it — from both sides — is a battle over symbolism.

          • SS Trumptanic September 27, 2017 at 9:30 am

            Who said it was a treaty?

          • RCPreader September 27, 2017 at 9:36 am

            You said that “the earliest effective date of withdrawal is November 2020.” That sentence has meaning only in the case of a treaty. The fact that Obama personally agreed to a document with such a claim means nothing, and everyone knows it. To the extent that Europeans are mad, it is simply because they don’t like the fact that Trump’s policies are different from Obama’s, not because of any violation of any agreements by the U.S. It is however a given that the Europeans will hate everything Trump does.

          • SS Trumptanic September 27, 2017 at 9:40 am

            Educate yourself. I’d highlight the parts you need to read but I want to see if you will actually read the article.

            https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/08/trump-and-the-paris-agreement-what-just-happened/536040/

          • RCPreader September 27, 2017 at 9:44 am

            Uh, that matches what I said. There is nothing legally binding on the U.S., which can pursue whatever policies it wants.

          • SS Trumptanic September 27, 2017 at 9:48 am

            You read that whole article in less then 5 minutes? No wonder you missed this

            “And that’s the secondary—albeit somewhat strange—bit of news in Friday’s announcement. Even as the United States ignores this first provision, cavalierly sending in its intention to depart two years early, it’s still going to honor the departure rule. An American delegation will attend all the Paris-related meetings between now and 2020.

            According to the State Department’s statement:

            The United States will continue to participate in international climate-change negotiations and meetings, including the 23rd Conference of the Parties of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, to protect U.S. interests and ensure all future policy options remain open to the administration.”

          • RCPreader September 27, 2017 at 9:51 am

            Yes I read the whole article (it’s not that long) including that. The US will continue to attend meetings as long as it is to its advantage. It is not bound by anything.

          • SS Trumptanic September 27, 2017 at 9:56 am

            And the US will continue attending meetings meaning they are still in the accord. Are you being obtuse on purpose?
            You read fast but can’t comprehend

        • Joe Blow September 27, 2017 at 11:02 am

          An international agreement that was never ratified by Congress does not have any force under American laws.
          We can withdraw any time we feel like it.

        • Joe McGee September 27, 2017 at 1:23 pm

          But, since the agreement itself is non-binding and unenforceable, and was never ratified by the Senate as a treaty of the United States, Trump is free to withdraw from it any time, which he did. Obama could have negotiated a real treaty, but knew the Senate would never have ratified it.

  5. inyouri September 27, 2017 at 4:44 am

    He should do his graphs in crayon, he’d have more credibility.

    • rockyspoon September 27, 2017 at 7:03 am

      And you should refrain from commenting because I’m betting you’re not a scientist at all.

      • JimBob777 September 27, 2017 at 8:54 am

        And your comments have less validity than inyouri has.

      • inyouri September 27, 2017 at 12:23 pm

        Who me or Hausfather?

  6. Name September 27, 2017 at 4:56 am

    Anyone who gets their science from oped articles and then argues about is a tool.

  7. HWJoy September 27, 2017 at 5:03 am

    First of all, a model only reflects its input, and the input is only what the modeler thinks it should be. These temperature predictions are model outputs, not measurement results. Of course they are way off, Second, the whole CO2 theory ignores waste heat, a much larger source of heat in the environment. Electricity generation is at most 40 percent thermally efficient, and usually more like 30% TO 35%. That means that about 655 TO 70% of the heat that foes into an electric generating plant is simply released to the environment. And that doesn’t count internal combustion engines, which are less efficient, or the heat generated by braking. The “war on CO2” is foolish and always was.

    • CrazyHungarian September 27, 2017 at 2:17 pm

      One interesting point about the models is that along with the emails that were released during “Claimategate”, there was a separate large set of files of modeling software. When others ran the software, they discovered that no matter what data that was used as an input set, the software always ended up drawing Mann’s hockey stick chart. I looked at the software listings and saw that it added a set of numbers to the inputs that forced the plot to come out as the hockey stick every time and used the input data to be the little bumps on the constantly rising big curve. That’s true fraud.

      • lichau September 27, 2017 at 5:17 pm

        In the more overtly political “science” of Economics, there are many models constructed. It has been observed that none produce a result in conflict with the author’s political convictions.

        • CrazyHungarian September 27, 2017 at 5:38 pm

          There is a significant overlap between the field of economics and political ideologies. For example communism, socialism and capitalism can each be seen as political systems and as economic systems.

    • lichau September 27, 2017 at 5:16 pm

      Back in a misspent youth, I did a fair amount of computer based modelling. PhD. While I claim no expertise to comment on the climate models that are being used, I recall having a hxll of a time getting decent results on systems vastly simpler than the earth’s climate.
      Reflexively, I discount the likelihood of them being anything close.

    • Jeffrey A Jones September 28, 2017 at 12:58 pm

      The models are all fantasy. They don’t even address water vapor which is is 97% of all ‘greenhouse gasses’. They just assume it as ‘background’ and use CO2 (less that 1% of all ‘greenhouse gasses’) as the only variable. Of course CO2 will look like the 8,000,000# gorilla if you lie with it like that.

  8. Stepan September 27, 2017 at 5:06 am

    It’s not so much a story about human-caused climate change as it is a story about human-caused climate data jiggering.

  9. davidhouston September 27, 2017 at 5:45 am

    The IPCC report will not be issued until after it has been modified to coincide with the “Summary for Politicians and Journalists” which will be written by politicians.

  10. swek September 27, 2017 at 5:50 am

    3 once-in-a-century hurricanes; California, Montana, and Wyoming are threatened with uncontrollable forest fires; and those in mid-state Texas may never recover from the most recent droughts

    But that doesn’t matter to the climate change luna-fukkin-tic deniers

    After all, the oil companies used to finance the Republican party; why should the “memory muscle” of the party not just stay the way it is.

    It took over 15 years from the release of the Surgeon General’s report for the Republicans to finally abandon support for the Tobacco industry; how many more disasters will it take to wake up to the need for reducing carbon emission

    • Enderby September 27, 2017 at 6:04 am

      There is no crisis, period. Since the end of the mini ice age in about 1840, the planet has indeed warmed gradually as it always does after long cold periods. The warming has produced greener, more fertile lands, and starvation is virtually a thing of the past, as famine zones have now been reduced to a small area of Eastern Africa and a small portion of Bengladesh. Again, there is no crisis and in fact the natural increase in atmospheric carbon has benefitted mankind. Don’t be afraid of the sun, the true and only source of our climate.

    • mike September 27, 2017 at 6:16 am

      Don’t be part of the problem. Don’t say silly things in attempts to scare people to your side of the argument or insult them. It does nothing but harden those who don’t share your view point. Surely you know the last three hurricanes are not “one-in-a-century hurricanes”? And if you truly believe that then you need to educate yourself. And what does forest fires have to do with climate change? If you don’t start the fire, there is no fire. And please don’t list or cite the articles that prove I’m wrong on forest fires. Many, many start with titles like Global Warming Fueling more Forest Fires. If there is no current increases in temps, the argument dies. Besides, I’m sure we can find some articles from the opposite view point.

      We all need to be better stewards of the planet, encourage the discovery of clean, cheap energy alternatives and leave the world a better place for our children and grandchildren. So many of the efforts to achieve these goals should be pursued. But taking a definitive position and calling people lunatics doesn’t help the cause.

    • Jeffrey A Jones September 27, 2017 at 7:09 am

      Do you drive a car? Do you heat and cool your home? Do you wear Rebok sneakers? Do you watch TV? Where do you work, are you so sure your company isn’t in business to make a profit? Have you ever carried on a conversation where you didn’t use profanity? Please explain the physical mechanism that CO2 supposedly uses run-away global warming.

  11. Attila September 27, 2017 at 5:58 am

    Who cares what the AGW luddites and loons bleat out?

  12. Mike September 27, 2017 at 6:18 am

    Hausfather’s graph mirrors my own level of ‘climate change (formerly global warming)’ fatigue.

  13. JAR September 27, 2017 at 6:38 am

    IPCC Third Assessment Report

    Chapter 14

    Section 14.2.2.2

    Last paragraph:

    “In sum, a strategy
    must recognize what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should
    recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and
    therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not
    possible.”

    This information was not included in the Summary Report for
    Policymakers given to the press and public.

    If the climate is indeed a coupled non-linear chaotic system
    (who can doubt the IPCC) then there is no rational or scientific basis to make
    a definitive statement about a future state of the climate.

    At this point the coupled non-linear chaotic nature of the
    climate makes scientific observations academically interesting but individually
    they have no relevance in predicting the future state of the climate. The
    climate is a system which means the relationships among these
    observations are what is important not the observations themselves.

    All the public discourse regarding the future state of the
    climate has been based on the false premise that the current climate models are
    predicting the future state of the climate when in fact the models are merely
    projecting these states.

    Predictions are the purview of science. Model projections
    can only agree with predictions when the models duplicate the real world.

    To base public policy on an unknowable state of a system
    defies common sense. However, too much money and political power is at stake
    for the Central Planners to do otherwise.

    I would argue that the Climate Model True Believers are the
    ones taking an unscientific approach to the subject.

    In January 1961 President Eisenhower in his Farewell Address
    identified the situation in which we find ourselves today:

    “Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes
    in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution
    during recent decades.

    In this revolution, research has become central; it also
    becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is
    conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

    Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has
    been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing
    fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead
    of free ideas and scientific discovery has experienced a revolution in the
    conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government
    contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every
    old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

    The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by
    Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present
    and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and
    discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and
    opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a
    scientific-technological elite.

    It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to
    integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our
    democratic system — ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.”

    Other relevant publications from Eric Hoffer are: “The True
    Believer” and “The Temper of Our Times”

    From “The Temper of Our Times”: “Every great cause begins as
    a movement, becomes a business and eventually degenerates into a racket.”

    • Cjones1 September 27, 2017 at 6:48 am

      Thank you for the Eisenhower piece…great and wise Republican was he.

  14. Cjones1 September 27, 2017 at 6:39 am

    DeGrasse forgot his lessons on the sunspot cycle I fear. Many who study it note the there is a continued downward trend similar to Cycle # 5 that preceded the Maunder Minimum and the Little Ice Age. We should feel the chilling effect starting in late 2019, but that is far earlier than the AGW predictions. The Little Ice Age ended roughly around 1840 which the author notes as around the time of the current global warming trend. I have to check, but glaciers were retreating at a much more rapid rate in 1850…but I digress.
    Dr. Arthur Viterito has published a paper correlating seismic activity in high geothermal flux areas (HGFA) with el Nino events and global temperatures. This causes warm water generated by hot seismic areas to upwell and circulate in the oceans. The ocean temperatures drive atmospheric temperatures. This correlation is stronger than the CO2 correlation, especially if the seismic geothermal flux areas are combined with the North Magnetic Dip Pole movement (NMDP)…the current rapid movement of the North Magnetic pole.

    • Jeffrey A Jones September 27, 2017 at 7:03 am

      DeGrasse is an anti-American, anti-God huckster. I can’t stand to watch him, a consummate legend in his own mind.

    • lichau September 27, 2017 at 5:20 pm

      If you have your choice between warming and cooling, take warming , every time.
      An Ice Age, they come on quickly, can really spoil your day.

  15. Ezra Tank September 27, 2017 at 6:41 am

    You want to curb climate change … then we MUST tackle the over population issue first. In the past 50 years the number of people on this planet has more than doubled from 3.5 billion to over 7 billion! It took humans until the 1800’s to reach 1 billion and in just over 200 years we have added 6.5 billion more!

    I do not understand why this factor is never considered when climate changed is presented. There’s a reason people are now being affected by hurricanes and natural disasters in great numbers unlike we have have ever seen. Because there are MORE PEOPLE!

    • JDL September 27, 2017 at 6:44 am

      How many more doublings are possible? Is this imminent threat just less interesting to talk about than climate change? I have long shared your view.

      • odys September 27, 2017 at 8:11 am

        No one is stopping you from offing yourself.

        • Ezra Tank September 27, 2017 at 12:50 pm

          Once again, stupidity enters an interesting debate.

      • Miek D. September 27, 2017 at 8:16 am

        The planet will moderate how many people it can sustain when we get to the limit. Of course, the limit keeps increasing because of add CO2 and, more importantly, improved agricultural technology. The population of the planet never reached 7.0 billion if we were still using 19th century farming techniques.

      • Joe Blow September 27, 2017 at 10:38 am

        As countries reach a certain level of advancement, population growth slows and then reverses. The only reason the US and European populations are growing is because of immigration. Japan is rapidly aging and will soon have just a fraction of the population that it had in the 80s. Expect China and India to follow the same tend by the end of this century.
        Also, people are our greatest natural resource. Extra people solving problems = problems being solved quicker. This is one of the reasons for the accelerating advances in technology.

      • Joe Blow September 27, 2017 at 10:58 am

        Once countries get to a certain level of development, population growth slows and then reverses. The only reason the US and European populations are rising is because of immigration. Japan is aging, and will soon not have enough working age people to pay for pensions and social programs. Expect China and India to follow suit this century.
        AGW is just another attempt to install the right Top Men to oversee redistribution and the empoverishment of first world countries. It is Marxism mascarading as environmentalism, and is deeply misanthropic.

    • Jeffrey A Jones September 27, 2017 at 7:00 am

      Are you volunteering to die for the cause? Margret Sanger did what she could by starting Planned Parenthood to kill as many people as possible before they drew a breath but then her main stated purpose was to rid the planet of the black races so she wasn’t totally in sync with your stated purpose.

      • Ezra Tank September 27, 2017 at 12:48 pm

        Get counter argument. Because that’s what I said. Kill people especially black people. Are you a moron? I simply stated that we (ALL HUMANS) need to curb our population. If your tiny brain could understand mathematics you would know this could be achieved simply by couples only have ONE child for a few generations.

        But nope you instantly go to insane suggestions.

        • Jeffrey A Jones September 28, 2017 at 8:46 am

          Yes I am a moron. Question stands, are you willing to die for the cause? That is the ultimate answer. And I have done the math all the humans on earth given a 10′ square space could easily fit in a space much smaller than the state of Texas. Give them all a quarter acre ranch and they still don’t fill the north western quarter of the United states. the world could support many times the current population if it weren’t for all the Marxist governments oppressing and killing them. there is a huge land area that could support the required ag to feed them all. Thank you for the response though; I know when I illicit ad hominem attacks I am on the right track.

    • rockyspoon September 27, 2017 at 7:11 am

      Yes, but because of advances in technology, far fewer people are being killed by such storms.

      Compare the Galveston Hurricane from early last century–from 6,000 to 12,000 dead!

      (They had no idea of the storm’s magnitude.)

      Now, a half dozen people die from such a storm and most are from driving into deep water.

      Tragic, yes! The consequence of a doubling of population? No!

  16. Jeffrey A Jones September 27, 2017 at 6:57 am

    Those graphs are both fraudulent. They represent nothing like the actual temperature record they claim to model. Temperatures have BEEN FALLING as documented by inarguable satellite data for 20 years. Global warming hucksters use fabricated surface data (90% of the earth’s land mass have NO temperature measurement stations, the hucksters just make up over half the ‘readings’ they depend on for their fantasies).

    • odys September 27, 2017 at 8:08 am

      You are correct. NOAA is reduced to hiring PhDs to manipulate thermometer readings to pretend gullible warming is occurring.

  17. Joe McGee September 27, 2017 at 7:25 am

    There are a number of factors allthe models don’t talk about. First is CO2 and plants. In 1900 CO2 was around 300 ppm. This is around the minimum needed to sustain life for a green plant. Starvation of animals results when plants are sparse. The fact that CO2 has increased slightly is a good thing for crop yields and hence the food supply for humans and animals. In fact, it is so good that (with the help of modern farming methods) we have progressed from a world where starvation was rampant to a world where being overweight has now surpassed starvation as the number one nutritional problem. This is especially true if one excludes Sub-Saharan Africa, where political and social upheaval, ignorance and oppresive governments are the main causes of the lack of progress. And who says the present climate is the best for all? Life has fourished in ages when the CO2 level and temperature were much higher. All of this just reflects the arrogance of those who think they know more than they possibly can.

  18. doug masnaghetti September 27, 2017 at 7:29 am

    I would like to see a purge of the climate politicians and a hiring of real scientists who at least are dedicated to the 1st principle of science: the truth at any price! Including your life!
    Today the climate priests don’t seem to understand what truth is. FREAKS!!!! They are a true embarrassment to all REAL scientists and should be shunned.

  19. Dan Wafford September 27, 2017 at 7:35 am

    Talk about tilting at windmills. Climate scientists have taken on the quest of overcoming all the forces of nature that have produced repeated cycles of ice ages followed by warming periods for the past several hundred thousand years. Instead of focusing on 50 or 200 years, Google charts that show temperatures over the past 500,000 years — we are tracking on the same path that has been repeated over and over.

    • Martin Forde October 8, 2017 at 6:28 pm

      citations needed

  20. eric james September 27, 2017 at 7:51 am

    Because the risk of error is so catastrophic with regard to climate change, the stupidest possible thing is to assume that the rosiest prediction is the correct one. But that’s what Conservatives do. Probably because they think Jesus will come and save them if they turn out to have made a bad bet. But he won’t.

    • odys September 27, 2017 at 8:06 am

      Truly silly post! We are 100% guaranteed to have a massive asteroid hit us… sometime. So using your logic we should starve the children to build a yuge space station in case it comes soon.

      • eric james September 27, 2017 at 9:11 am

        You think like a conservative. No one with an ounce of credibility is predicting a massive asteroid strike on Earth in the next 20 years. See the difference?

        • Padric September 27, 2017 at 10:05 am

          1.NASA admits that they can’t account for 80% of the asteriods near Earth in the range of 100m-1000m across and that’s after the WISE telescope did its survey 5 years go . You don’t even need something that big to result in massive damage. The one that exploded over Siberia in 1908 leveled 800 Sq. km of forest. That’s bigger than NYC and Chicago combined and that asteroid was only about 50m wide. NASA can’t even account for 10% of the ones bigger than 1000m. So tell me, when the vast majority of asteroids are unaccounted for, how exactly is anyone of credibility expected to even attempt to make a prediction one way or the other?

          2. Predicting an asteroid Armageddon is a one time event. One asteroid that’s an imminent threat. There is little to no money to be maid by people looking to capitalize on it.

          3. On the other hand, the man made climate change jihadists keep making the doom and gloom predictions using questionable at best data and then having to revise them when their predictions don’t occur.

          4. Climate change would be an ongoing thing that takes place over the course of many years. As such, there’s tons of cash to be made by people looking to capitalize on it.

          So the folks who deal with asteroids admit they don’t have the complete data, don’t make predictions about it and there’s no money to be made by hawking its dangers. The folks who deal with climate change don’t admit they have the complete data, do make predictions and there’s ridiculous amounts of cash to be made by them doing so. There’s your difference.

          • eric james September 27, 2017 at 10:12 am

            If there’s no actual threat from climate change, why don’t all those scientists and engineers presently capitalizing on it jsut capitalize on further fossil fuel exploitation instead?

      • Lock him up! September 27, 2017 at 9:12 am

        truly a silly post! nasa is developing ways to divert the massive asteroid from hitting us. luckily there are people a lot smarter than you working on this problem.

        so your logic with AGW is we should just let the disaster happen instead of doing anything to prevent it?

    • Padric September 27, 2017 at 9:29 am

      Which is kinda like saying someone should bankrupt themselves to buy an insurance policy that only pays out in the event they are hit by a farmer’s tractor while they live in the city. Is it possible to happen? Sure, anything is possible. Is it probable? No.

      Solar activity has more to do with our climate than anything man has or ever will do.

      • eric james September 27, 2017 at 9:34 am

        That’s the “conservative syndrome” in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary: “It’s not happening because I don’t want it to be happening.”

        • Ungullible September 27, 2017 at 9:41 am

          So where’s the evidence stuuuups? We’ve been waiting patiently for your supposed evidence which is non existent. The planet was around and surviving long before you leftists started on this totally unproven theory of globull warming.

        • Padric September 27, 2017 at 10:13 am

          No, it’s not happening because the data doesn’t support the hypothesis. That’s science. If it did, the climate change jihadists wouldn’t have to be revising their models, admitting numbers were wrong and pushing back their doomsday predictions. You’re showing signs of the “liberal syndrome”: “It’s true because I want it to be true.”

  21. Lee Holland September 27, 2017 at 7:57 am

    The only real solution to human caused climate change is the elimination of the human species. I would expect all the liberal/progressive/environmentalists to volunteer and be the first to go. I will wait until my name is called. :o)

    • The Man from Fair Oaks September 27, 2017 at 9:05 am

      Great I will go and dump some motor oil in the river to qualify to be last in that line.

    • Lock him up! September 27, 2017 at 9:08 am

      stupid and genocidal…

      are you one of those trump supporters who brought tiki torches to charlottesville?

      • SS Trumptanic September 27, 2017 at 9:15 am

        bet on it.

      • dirk gently September 27, 2017 at 5:33 pm

        Shut up, retard. Nobody likes you.

        • Lock him up! September 28, 2017 at 6:33 am

          I am sure you are the most popular guy in the trailer park

        • Martin Forde October 8, 2017 at 6:27 pm

          shouldn’t you be in a desert somewhere so that i can have $2.50 / gallon gas?

  22. odys September 27, 2017 at 8:05 am

    “Mann insists we need negative emissions technology…”

    Yes, it is called vegetation. professor Mann should read up on it. Vegetation has increased 35% since 1980, according to satellite measurements. Seems vegetation likes CO2, who’d a thunk it!

    • dirk gently September 27, 2017 at 5:32 pm

      Mann should also have his spleen removed using nothing more than a dull soon, before being burned at the stake.

  23. Dudi the Yehudi September 27, 2017 at 8:06 am

    Funny using the word pimp in referencing the only black person in the article. There has been a climate change in American politics and thanks to your President the political climate has gone from poisonous to despicably poisonous in less than a year.

    • odys September 27, 2017 at 8:09 am

      Did Trump write this article and therefore make that reference? I missed that. he is one busy guy, he is responsible for ALL your ills. Barry was a real piker compared to Trump.

    • JimBob777 September 27, 2017 at 8:57 am

      Were you asleep from Jan 2009 to Jan 2017?

  24. Marco64 September 27, 2017 at 8:36 am

    Of course, the problem with climate modeling is that it’s only as accurate as the information dropped into the model. We can’t accurately predict changes in global temperatures because we simply don’t have a good understanding of the earth’s climate sensitivity. There are many more climate factors at work than just CO2.

    • odys September 27, 2017 at 9:00 am

      Well, if you leave the biggest factor – the sun – out of your models they will always be wrong.

  25. Lock him up! September 27, 2017 at 9:02 am

    the author loses my interest in the first sentences due to this stupidity. when someone references “settled science” they are referring to the fact that the earth is warming and the cause of it.

    the rate of warming is not a settled science and is debated

  26. jimbino September 27, 2017 at 9:12 am

    acknowledgement that climate models have been faulty. Acknowledgment has no ‘e’ after ‘g’ in English.

  27. Roger Howard September 27, 2017 at 9:27 am

    When will we teach the real causes of climate change? Varying energy from the sun (from current to 70% of current). Variations in the eccentricity of the earth’s elliptical orbit,and variations in the Earth’s axial tilt and precession (See Miludin Malenkovich 1929). There have been at least 5 ice ages in the last 2.5B years, and within those the amount of glaciation has varied greatly. CO2 is necessary for all life; it is a trace gas and its varying atmospheric concentration is a result of varying global temperature not a cause: cold seas absorb more CO2 than warm seas (see Dalton Law of partial pressures 1830). See “Unstoppable Solar Cycles on YouTube by Drs. and David Legates. More CO2 results in more plant growth which results in more plentiful crops that will be greatly needed as the wrold’s population increases.

  28. docdave88 September 27, 2017 at 9:43 am

    Climate models are nothing more than giant spreadsheets linked to giant data bases.

    Give me control over the assumptions and I will give you any answer you want.

    And this is a VERY important observation since the ENTIRETY of the belief system of the Church of the Cranky Climate is based on NOTHING BUT models.

  29. tjoes September 27, 2017 at 9:57 am

    A combine just went by and made dust and bare ground where, in my state 17,000,000 acres of deciduous hardwoods used to stand. Now we have 9 months until the next corn or bean crop makes it green for a couple of months. Wonder why we are having climate extremes….loss of forest on 80% of my state might have something to do with it. Paris is a tax scheme?

  30. WASP and proud of it September 27, 2017 at 10:08 am

    Does all this remind anyone of the boy who cried wolf once to often?

  31. susansylvia September 27, 2017 at 11:18 am

    What Hausfather’s pathetic graphs show us is one thing, and one thing only: that it is warmer. Well, congratulations, we stipulate that it is warmer than, say, 1850. What the graphs do not show, as no warmist’s graphs EVER show, is proof that man has caused this warming. It’s simply not enough to beat us over the head with the fact that it’s warmer. The IPCC’s AR5 report is replete with this kind of manipulated BS, and none of it, in over 1,000 pages, shows causation. In fact, the only correlation they have is the period from the mid-1970s to the mid-1990s, where temperatures went up in tandem with CO2 levels. Before that period there was no correlation (aside from Hansen’s shameless manipulation of the data to disappear the 1930s heat wave), and after that period, CO2 continued on its merry way upwards, while temperatures have done their own thing, creeping slightly upward and then downward for the past 18 years or so.

    Alarmists in politics, media, and science have a great deal to lose, in terms of reputation, career, and funding, should temperatures head solidly south, which they will soon, with the coming solar grand minimum. And once the ice caps are back where they were decades ago, the jig will be up—no sugar-coating that evidence. So they have to get ahead of that trend, and we see the start of it here. This is the first significant backpeddling I’ve seen myself, aside from former NOAA whistleblower, Dr. John Bates, in his testimony to Congress earlier this year. But that was more of a defection, and this is an effort to kick-off the face-saving process, while simultaneously kicking the can 20 years down the road. We’ll see more of this conciliatory acknowledgement that—good news!—we’re not in as much danger as we thought, we thankfully have a few precious years before Armageddon.

    Then reporting will slowly dry up, fewer grant proposals will be written, older scientists will quietly retire while younger ones quietly find new catastrophies to use to get more funding, with no acknowledgment that there was ever any global fraud going on. Politicians will certainly do all they can to ignore the problem, once all is lost. Eventually, we will all forget about this latest crisis, which is what the Left is counting on. It will be interesting to see what crisis they next try to use to control our lives.

    We live in strange times, and this face-saving effort will be fun to watch in the coming decade. You’ll know the process is complete when you here the global wisdom from the Left that ‘even though it didn’t end up being a crisis, isn’t it good that we took all these steps to make the world a better place?’ Uh-huh. Tell that to the Third World, especially on the African continent. The Left has turned their backs on the poorest of the poor, because there was nothing to try to control–they have been pretty successful at quashing attempts to improve electrical service and other societal improvements across the continent.

    There is word that Trump might consider some alternative arrangement with the Paris climate frauds—I hope his team will see this report for what it is, and stand pat on pitching that deal.

    Don’t be fooled at all by this report—it’s contrived from beginning to end.

    • CrazyHungarian September 27, 2017 at 2:02 pm

      The alarmists will never give up. They will always say the next year will be the hottest ever. Who can argue with the future?

  32. keyster September 27, 2017 at 11:36 am

    The data being what it is, the models from that data being what they are and the observable evidence contradicting both for now – WE STILL HAVE TIME, BUT ONLY IF WE ACT NOW!!! HURRY BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE!!!

  33. realheadline September 27, 2017 at 11:38 am

    “… many of whom have warned of planetary doom if we don’t cap global warming within the 1.5 C range.”
    The whole notion that we can/could/would ‘cap’ the temperature is absurd. If you think moderating emissions from an odorless colorless trace atmospheric gas will change the temperature below some arbitrary cap — well, you don’t need a scientist — you need a psychiatrist!

    • dirk gently September 27, 2017 at 5:42 pm

      Most of them ARE mentally ill and should be locked up in a loony bin for the protection of the public.

  34. Birdfish September 27, 2017 at 11:40 am

    YES GLOBAL WARMING IS A FACT!
    THESE HURRICANS DO PROVE IT!
    AL GORE WAS 1000% CORRECT

    WE MUST BE OIL GAS COAL AND NUCLEAR
    SAFE WIND AND SAFE SOLAR ONLY
    BAN CARS AND USE THE BUS
    BAN UN NEEDED AIR PLANE TRAVEL

    THIS IS A PLANET RED ALERT AND WE MUST DO THIS NOW AND OBEY THE PARIS CLIMATE TREATY!!!!!!!

    NOTE: I HAVE A HATEFUL CYBER STALKER. HE WILL MOCK MY WEIGHT AND POVERTY AND IS VERY HATEFUL. HE CAN EVEN POST WITH MY VERY SAME NAME SOMEHOW. PLEASE IGNORE HIS HATEFUL MOCKINGS

  35. Arup_2 September 27, 2017 at 4:22 pm

    Yet another mercenary scribbler trying to write up something to attack climate change.

    First, there are always disputes in science. And the continual model refinement is a good thing!!

    Second, what is the essence of the report in Nature Geosciences ?

    First – a background.

    In 2016, President Obama & Secy Kerry more or less shepherded the world leaders to sign on the climate agreement. The original proposal was to limit the warming to 2c. But thanks to Our President’s insistence, the Paris proposal came down to 1.5 degrees Celsius,

    At that time, everyone laughed at this proposal and considered it dreamland.

    This article claims that under the current emission pledges and track record, their models predict that we would be successful in limiting the increase to 1.5c and thus keeping the Paris Pledge.

  36. Jeffrey A Jones September 28, 2017 at 3:11 pm

    Here is a map to go with my response to Esra Tank below. The yellow squares are scaled borders for; ‘People Zoo’ – every one of the 7 billion people on earth standing in a 10′ diameter circle; ‘People Ranchette’ – same group of people with a 1/4 acre ranchette would take up this space if grouped together, and ‘People Slick’ – my most creative depiction, it is the size of a slick created by putting all 7 billion people in a giant food processer and pureeing them into an emulsion then spreading this slime slick on the Pacific Ocean in a 1/10″ thick slick. It would be fish food for maybe a day. As you can see, if we could provide them all with food and energy, we could support many times more than the current population. the only hindrance to doing that is the horrid governments the majority of them live under. We don’t need to resort to genocide to survive.
    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e904c8908a2645a093eeec88202ea5fb8c82aa2cdcb1a375b9d6ed6ec479f38d.jpg

  37. Martin Forde October 8, 2017 at 6:26 pm

    julie … you are in no way qualified to offer your opinions on this… k thanks…

Comments are closed.