Rebutting the Warmists


I frequently get little challenges cropping up on Twitter, with Warmists posing what they obviously think are “killer questions”.  Frankly, I’ve largely given up responding, because (A) Warmism is a religion based on blind faith, and no amount of rational argument seems to get through; (B) I’m bored with typing the same words and phrases over and over; and (C) you can’t really make a rational argument on Twitter in 140 characters (though I often do my best).

I’ve noticed that recently the climate catastrophists have gone relatively quiet, as well they might, considering there’s been no warming for seventeen years.  Clearly their model has some serious flaws, because atmospheric CO2 levels continue to rise.  But then of course President Obama, no less, has made his big speech on the environment, and brought the issue back centre stage.

In parentheses, it’s worth noting that a Democrat President has had to resort to rather undemocratic means to get his way, as he knows full well that he can’t get his plans through Congress.  So he’s by-passing Congress and relying on Executive Orders and the EPA.  And his policy is likely to be mired in law-suits for years, so don’t expect any serious action in the US any time soon.

Nevertheless, it’s useful to have responses to the questions most often posed by warmists – or by members of the public who may have been spooked by the relentless catastrophist narrative in the media.

In this context, I have to commend the excellent work of Marc Morano and his Climate Depot (I think the Americans pronounce it “Dee-Poh”), a project of CFACT, and its main man Marc Morano (well worth following on Twitter, by the way @climatedepot).  They’ve produced some excellent resource and reference material that deals clearly and concisely with the issues that arise in the climate debate.

They cover Arctic Ice, polar bears, extreme weather events, the Hockey Stick graph, and the so-called “scientific consensus” behind anthropogenic global warming. 

Marc also has a very good piece on the recent claim that “97% of scientists agree with man-made global warming“. (What is it with this 97% figure?  It’s come up over the years in a number of studies purporting to show scientific support for AGW).  It turns out that the study – of scientific papers – took a generous, not to say biased, interpretation of what constituted support for the theory, and a number of distinguished scientists have turned out to ridicule the result, including UN IPCC Lead Author Richard Toll.

Yet no doubt that 97% figure will be quoted again and again by Roger Harrabin at the BBC and other media pundits.  Fortunately on the other side of the debate, we have, as Christopher Booker has remarked, two things on our side: the truth, and the weather.


This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to Rebutting the Warmists

  1. One of the “misclassified papers” was by Alan Carlin, who comments:-

    One possible explanation for this apparent pattern of misclassification into “more favorable” classifications in terms of supporting the AGW hypothesis is that Cook et al. may have reverse engineered their paper. That is, perhaps the authors started by deciding the “answer” they wanted (97 percent) based on previous alarmist studies on the subject.

    So in the end they may have concluded that they needed to reclassify enough skeptic papers into “more favorable” classifications in order to reach this possibly predetermined “answer” and hoped that these misclassifications would go unnoticed by the world’s press and governmental officials trumpeting their scientifically irrelevant conclusions

    Pretty damning!

  2. neilfutureboy says:

    Rather than give them an individual answer just give them a link to the most relevant article you have previously written.

    This is what alarmists regularly do with “your points have all been answered on …..”. Of course they never wrote the answer andit never rebuts successfully and quite often the replier seems not to have read it, so my suggestion would be an improvement on what they aspire to.

  3. PitPony says:

    What is a scientist?

    • According the Vice-Chancellor of the University of East Anglia, whom I met some time ago, it is someone who has published peer-reviewed papers. I would use the term of anyone who has studied a scientific discipline and has a clear understanding of it.

      • PitPony says:

        Clearly there is no agreed qualification unlike other professionals like solicitors ,doctors, accountants.
        Have the Warmists ever defined who they mean by the scientists who allegedly support their position.
        And do we know that their scientist supporters have any expertise in meteorology. For all we know
        they may be bona fide scientists in some other discipline.

      • neilfutureboy says:

        There is need for an agreement on what is or is not science. The VC’s position would be reasonable if it did not simply push back the question to when is the peer review doing science. If the “peers” of those doing the “sciences” of homeopathy, astrology and social science don’t adhere to the scientific method of observation – theory – experiment – new observation – continued, then how can they be scientific peers? The VC should read Feynman’s Cargo Cult Science lecture.

      • DougS says:

        I have pioneered an alternative, and I think superior, method of having my (truly brilliant) climate research papers checked.

        It’s called the ‘Beer Review’ system, where a couple of my pals down at The Dog and Duck give my papers a quick once over and, hey presto, we’re ready for publication in the prestigious scientific press!

        Come to think of it, it’s not that dissimilar to the method used by the current AGW alarmist Climastrologers!

      • David H. Walker says:


        In the warmist world a climate scientist is most often a self-appointed expert from the UN, World Bank, IMF, NGO or a compensated underling, who also happens to be a financial expert. After all, the global warming context really has nothing to do with the climate, but all about determining who gets rich and powerful (the establishment, the political class and the aligned) and who pays (the taxpayer/consumer, the productive class, and the poor) by government force.

        Fascism never met greater ally than the modern environMENTAList.

  4. Me_Again says:

    The Brussels Broadcasting Corporation came out with a nice news bite at either 1 or 2 o’clock this PM. In essence they claimed that 9 out 10 of the hottest years recorded were in the decade 2001-2010. This from some world meteorological group.

    How does that mesh with no warming for between 15 and 20 years? How are they allowed to publish/ broadcast stuff like that?

    Are they using different data to everyone else? Where does their info come from if what they say is true?

    Why can’t ordinary people ever get a straight answer?

    • Jacques says:

      Yes, I just stumbled on the BBC’s article by Roger Harrabin:
      It is a stuff of nonsenses and disinformations coming straight from the IPCC.
      However, cautiously, no comments were allowed. Probably bcs they knew that a lot of learned climatoskeptics would have protested.
      But ignorant people will swallow this easily.
      Who is this Harrabin? Is he truly living on the planet Earth?

  5. John Hancon says:

    I should like to quote the following from a lecture by Dr Richard Feynman, Cornell Physicist explaining how theories that failed the test of data or experiment are falsified (“wrong”) and must be discarded. One of the best rebuttals I have seen.


    (1) Warming not ‘global’. It is shown in satellite data to be northern hemisphere only

    (2) It is now not warming. Warming (global mean and northern hemisphere) stopped in the late 1990s

    (3) Models suggest atmosphere should warm 20% faster than the surface, but surface warming was 33% faster during the time satellites and surface observations were used. This suggests GHG theory is wrong, and surface temperature records are contaminated.

    (4) Temperatures longer term have been modified to enhance warming trend and minimise cyclical appearance. Station dropout, missing data, change of local siting, urbanisation, instrumentation all contaminate the record, producing exaggerated warming. In the USA a government watchdog scolded NOAA for poor compliance with siting standards.

    (5) Those who create the temperature records have been shown in analysis and emails to take steps to eliminate inconvenient temperature trends like the Medieval Warm Period, the 1940s warm blip and cooling since 1998. Steps have included removal of the urban heat island adjustment and as Wigley suggested in a climategate email, introduce 0.15C of artificial cooling of global ocean temperatures near 1940.

    (6) Forecast models have failed with temperature trends below even the assumed zero emission control scenarios, published from 1988.

    (7) Climate models all have a strong hot spot in the mid to high troposphere in the tropical regions. Weather balloons and satellite show no warming in this region in the last 30 years.

    (8) Ocean heat content was forecast to increase and was said to be the “canary in the coal mine”. It too has stalled according to NOAA. The warming was to be strongest in the tropics where the models were warming the atmosphere the most. No warming has been shown in the top 300 meters in the tropical Pacific back to the 1950s.

    (9) Alarmists had predicted permanent El Nino but the last decade has featured seven La Nina and just three El Nino years. This is related to the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and was predicted by those who look at natural factors.

    (10) Alarmists had predicted much lower frequency of the negative modes of the Arctic Oscillation (AO) and North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) due to warming. The trend has been the opposite with a record negative AO/NAO in 2009/10 and mainly negative in the winter of 2012/13.

    (11) Alarmists predicted an increase in hurricane frequency and strength globally but the global activity had diminished after 2005 to a 30+ year low. The U.S. has gone seven consecutive years without a landfalling major hurricane, the longest period since the 1860s.

    (12) Extremes of rainfall and drought were predicted to increase but except during periods of strong El Nino and La Nina, no trends are seen.

    (13) Alarmists indicated winter would become warmer and short. The last 15 years has seen a decline in winter temperatures in all regions. In places winters have been the coldest and longest in decades and even centuries.

    (14) In the year 2000 the UK Met Office / Hadley centre forecast that by 2010 children in the UK would experienced snow on the ground, very rarely or not at all. Since 2008 there has been significant snow every year, on the ground for two weeks or more in the English Midlands (50 metres above sea level). N.B. This point was not in the original lecture, but has been added to make it more relevant to the U.K.

    (15) Alarmists had indicated snow would become increasingly rare in middle latitudes especially in the big cities where warming would be greatest. All time snow records were set in virtually all the major US cities and northern hemisphere snow coverage in winter has increased with 4 of the top 5 years since 2007/08. In the US also, among the east coast high impact snowstorms tracked by NOAA (NESIS), 11 of the 46 have occurred since 2009.

    (16) Alarmists had indicated a decline of Antarctic ice due to warming. The upward trends since 1979 continues.

    (17) Alarmists had indicated Greenland and arctic ice melt would accelerate. The arctic ice tracks with the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation and the IARC shows the ice cover was similarly reduced in the 1950s when the Atlantic was last in a similar warm mode. In Greenland, the warmth of the 1930s and 1940s still dominates the records and longer term temperatures have declined.

    (18) Sea level rise was to accelerate upward due to melting ice and warming. Sea level rise actually slowed in the late 20th century and has declined or flattened the last few years. Manipulation of data (adjustment for land rises following the last glaciation) has been applied to hide this from the public.

    (19) Alarmists claimed that, in the US drought would intensify, western snowpack would diminish and forest fires would increase in summer. Snowpack and water equivalent were at or near record levels in recent winters from Alaska to the Pacific Northwest and Northern Rockies. Glaciers are advancing. Fires have declined.

    (20) Alaska was said to be warming with retreating glaciers. But that warming is tied intimately to the PDO and the North Pacific pattern NP and happens instantly with the flips from cold to warm and warm to cold. Two of the coldest and snowiest winters on records occurred since the PDO/NP flipped cold again (2007/08 and 2011/12). January 2012 was the coldest on record in many towns and cities and snowfall was running 160 inches above normal in parts of the south. Anchorage Alaska set an all time record for seasonal snow in 2011/12. In 2007/08, glaciers all advanced for the first time since the Little Ice Age. In 2011/12, the Bering Sea ice set a new high in the satellite era. Latest ever ice out date records were set in May 2013.

    (21) Mt. Kilimanjaro glacier was to disappear due to global warming. Temperatures show no warming in recent decades. The reduction in glacial ice was due to deforestation near the base and the state of the AMO. The glaciers have advanced again in recent years

    (22) Polar bears were claimed to be threatened. Polar bear populations instead have increased to record levels and threaten the populace.

    (23) Australian drought was forecast to become permanent. Steps to protect against floods especially around Brisbane were defunded. Major flooding did massive damage and rainfall has been abundant in recent years, tied to the PDO and La Nina as predicted by honest scientists in Australia. All years with La Nina and cold PDO composited show this rainfall. Drought was associated with El Ninos and warm PDO from 1977 to 1998.

    (24) The office of the Inspector General report found that the EPA cut corners and short-circuited the required peer review process for its December 2009 endangerment finding, which is the foundation for EPA’s plan to regulate greenhouse gases. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) report confirmed that EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) program-which EPA acknowledges is the “scientific foundation for decisions” – is flawed, echoing previous concerns from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) that the agency is basing its decisions on shoddy scientific work.

    (25) Of 18,531 citations in the 2007 IPCC Assessment Report, 5,587 or 30% were non-peer-reviewed material, including activist tracts, press releases, and in one amazing case, “Version One” of a Draft. In important instances, IPCC lead authors chose non-peer-reviewed material, or papers of low credibility, which favoured their argument, in the face of prolific peer-reviewed material to the contrary. Instances include alleged climate relevance to malaria, hurricanes, species extinction, and sea levels.

    Given the failures of global warming science, just a few mentioned here, the most disreputable alarmists have tried to convince the uniformed by using the consensus argument. It was also described by Forbes magazine.

    “Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had. Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics.” Michael Crichton 17 January 2003 speech at the California Institute of Technology.

    • Me_Again says:

      Yes but what data was the Beeb using yesterday when it reported 9 out of 10 of the warmest years ever recorded have occurred between 2001 and 2010?

      Surely they cannot just pump this shit out unchallenged? Come on Roger, do some digging the data had to come from somewhere the met people surely can’t make it all p, or can they?

      • neilfutureboy says:

        “Warmest years ever recorded” need not be untrue but sleight of hand. A bit like a political “cast iron promise” which turns out not to mean what it looks like.

        The official temperature records don’t go that far back (there is no serious question that the Middle Ages were warmer but the Met Office weren’t recording then. Furthermore this claim is not inconsistent with temperature flatlining or declining slightly from a peak in 1998. There is also the heat island effect which suggests it is the recordings that went up not the temperature.

        Even so this claim is normally made is 6 out of 10 or some similar number (the normal winner is 1933/4 during a hot decade) so the met office look like they are shading the figures as well as the language.

      • Me_Again says:

        But surely we have a right to know on what database they base their assertions/propaganda.
        Roger, you’re an MEP for heaven’s sake can’t you demand to know? O r what about a tame Tory MP?

        Somehow, someway we have to drill down to empirical data/know which criteria are used.

    • Cropstock says:

      Don’t think #11 is true. Also look at #19.. But otherwise interesting. Whose lecture/list is this. Surely not Mr Feynman’s.

  6. ex Expat Colin says:

    No doubt you seen’all?

    I’m being pointed at Mark Garnier from the link body, but I stopped voting in that direction 2 yrs back.

    Piles of turbines co missioned around London yesterday (i think?) …don’t care unless I can get them into my future scrap company.

  7. Richard111 says:

    Here is a question for warmists: “How does a transparent atmosphere cool down?”

    All global warming claims are based on the assumption that the oxygen, nitrogen and argon in the atmosphere are transparent to radiation and incoming sunlight is balanced by outgoing long wave IR such that the planet would have an unliveable temperature of -18C.

    Now look at some facts. When the sun shines on desert rocks the rocks get hot. The air in contact with the rock heats up and rises, cooling the rock. This is lucky for us because without the air the rock would get to about 121C. The fact that the rock only gets to about 50C is trumpeted as ‘proof’ of global warming.

    Whatever. The heat in the air spreads up through the atmosphere and gets added to every day. At night the rock cools by radiating through the transparent atmosphere. This does not cool the atmosphere. Hot air rises, cool air stays down. Eventually the whole planet would warm to unliveable temperatures.

    Now add some ‘greenhouse gases’, any gasses capable of radiating long wave IR from the upper regions of the atmosphere to space. This allows the upper atmosphere to cool.

    If it wasn’t for ‘greenhouse’ gases there would be no life on this planet.

    Insanity is rampant in this world. Build lots and lots of PV panels and lots and lots of windmill generators. Cover all the hills and dales. What ever is left cover with biofuel crops. Close all the coal mines, oil wells and gas fracking sites. Shut down all railways and shipping and airlines.

    After all that is achieved see how many people are left alive at the end of a real severe winter. The cold is coming faster than the warmists planned for. That will cause no end of problems.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s