Prominent global warming doubter says there was a “hit list” apparently targeting climate scientists

By Tom Yulsman | August 8, 2016 11:10 am
hit list

Patrick Michaels, Director of the Center for the Study of Science at the Cato Institute. (Photo courtesy Cato Institute)

In a comment on an August 3rd post at the Wattsupwiththat website, Patrick J. Michaels of the conservative Cato Institute said that there has been a “hit list” apparently targeting climate scientists, and that he had influence over who was on it.

At this point, it is unclear exactly what this list was about. But from what Michaels said, it looks like it consisted of scientists being targeted for termination from their jobs.

|Note: See the update below about an effort by ExxonMobil in 2001 to get the Bush Administration to oust Robert T. Watson as chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change |

Considering the salience of global warming in the presidential election, and the unsettling nature of these comments, I decided to depart from my usual coverage of the science of our planet here at ImaGeo and try to shine a light on this.

Michaels, past president of the American Association of State Climatologists, and current Director of Cato’s Center for the Study of Science, is one of the most highly quoted doubters of mainstream science on climate change.

The Wattsupwiththat post to which Michaels responded concerned an announcement that Thomas Karl, director of the National Centers for Environmental Information, was retiring. NCEI is the part of NOAA that releases monthly updates on the global climate.

The post by Anthony Watts at the Wattsupwiththat website did little more than reproduce a copy of the press release announcing Karl’s retirement. Then, on Aug. 4th, Michaels wrote his response in the comments section of the post. Rhetorically addressing Karl, Michaels said:

I saved your job in 2000. You were on a hit list and I had you taken off because I thought you were a straight shooter. Seven months later what is detailed above happened.

Hit list screenshot

Screenshot of Patrick Michaels’ “hit list” comment on Wattsupwiththat

Click on the image at right to see a screenshot of Michaels’ entire comment, including what he says convinced him that Karl was not a “straight shooter.” In those comments, Michaels alleges that Thomas Karl engaged in unethical scientific behavior.

I called the Cato Institute earlier this morning to ask for elaboration from Michaels on this. I have not received a response from him yet; if and when I do, I will update this story.

I have also contacted several prominent climate scientists to get their responses.

Given that Michaels says he “saved” Karl’s job by taking him off “a hit list” in the year 2000, this could have had something to do with the incoming George W. Bush administration. Bush, a Republican, took office on Jan. 20, 2001.

In response to a National Academy of Sciences study finding that global warming was occurring due to human activities, President Bush said not long after taking office:

We do not know how much our climate could or will change in the future. We do not know how fast change will occur, or even how some of our actions could impact it.

My goal in writing this post is to get to the bottom of a number of important questions raised by Patrick Michaels’ comments: Did this “hit list” consist of names of government climate scientists that Michaels and others were recommending for termination? If so, on what grounds were people included on the list? Who compiled the list? Who asked that it be compiled? Was it politically motivated? Were people fired as a result of the list?

|Update, Aug. 8: Since I wrote this post, a colleague reminded me of an effort by ExxonMobil in 2001 to get the Bush Administration to oust Robert T. Watson as chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Watson, a prominent and highly regarded atmospheric chemist, was chief scientist of the World Bank. In a memo sent to the White House on Feb. 6, 2001, Arthur G. Randol III, senior environmental adviser for ExxonMobil, asked: ”Can Watson be replaced now at the request of the U.S.?” The administration did not wind up supporting Watson for the IPCC chairmanship. Instead, it supported Rajendra K. Pachauri, who went on to become chairman.

Does this episode have any connection to the hit list described by Michaels? Both occurred toward the start of the Bush Administration. But there is no real evidence for any connection right now. All we have is what Michaels wrote on the Wattsupwiththat website. Even so, this episode does provide a glimpse at an effort by an industry that has supported Michaels (see below) to have a prominent climate scientist ousted from his position — and a positive response from the administration at the time. |

hit list

This graph was compiled by the National Centers for Environmental Information, which has been directed by Thomas Karl. It shows how annual global temperatures have varied from the long-term average since 1880. (Source: NOAA)

Given the upcoming presidential election, another important question comes to mind: Is such a “hit list” being prepared in the event that Donald Trump wins? The Republican candidate has said that global warming is a concept invented by the Chinese to make the United State uncompetitive. He also decried spending money on what he called ‘the global warming hoax.”

Patrick Michaels actually does not deny that the Earth is warming and the climate changing, thanks in part to human influence. The title of his most recent book, an e-book co-authored Paul C. Knappenberger and published in October of 2015, sums up his position on the subject: “Lukewarming: The New Climate Science that Changes Everything.”

According to the blurb for the book on the Cato Institute website, Michaels and Knappenberger argue that global warming “is real, and partially man-made,” but that it “is more lukewarm than hot.”

Michaels has admitted that a large portion of his support has come from industry. During a segment on CNN in 2010, he was asked how much of his research funding came from the fossil fuel industry. His answer: “I don’t know, 40 percent, I don’ t know.”

He also has argued that climate scientists whose research is supported by government grants may be corrupted by their funding source. Here’s an excerpt from a column he wrote for National Review about a conference convened by Pope Francis to explore the moral dimensions of climate change:

The conference also has a moral duty to examine the corruption of science that can be caused by massive amounts of money. The United States has disbursed tens of billions of dollars to climate scientists who would not have received those funds had their research shown climate change to be beneficial or even modest in its effects. Are these scientists being tempted by money? And are the very, very few climate scientists whose research is supported by industry somehow less virtuous?

Michaels is arguing that government-funded scientists may be corrupted by the source of their support. If he believes this, wouldn’t that also mean that he is potentially corruptible by the funds he receives from industry?

And what does his comments about the “hit list” suggest about his virtuousness?

Right now, I have more questions than answers. I’ll do my best to change that, and I’ll present the answers I come up with when I get them.

Note: I’ve seen only one other published piece about this. It’s at the Rabett Run blog. You can find it here.

  • since68

    This is a moot point. Laws and mandates will not slow CO2 emissions, only cost effective alternative power will.

    Root for nuclear energy and tesla.

    • tony smith


      • Mike Richardson

        It’s an interesting prospect, which India and China seem to be pursuing more vigorously than the U.S. at this point. Does appear to be a safer form of fission power, from what I’ve read.

        • BillStewart2012

          The big problem with thorium is that thorium reactors aren’t useful for making nuclear weapons, so the US government funded development of uranium and plutonium reactors instead. Building thorium reactors will require a whole lot of development, which will be hard to fund because the government isn’t doing it, oil and natural gas are cheap, and people still worry about nuclear waste even if thorium reactors don’t explode.

          • Mike Richardson

            Good points, though I’d definitely consider the inability to create nuclear weapons as a byproduct to be a good thing. Nuclear waste is a concern, regardless of what form of fission you’re using, but much of the public’s fears about nuclear power are due to meltdowns, which are much less likely in thorium reactors than in the current generation of active-cooling fission reactors. Regardless of political or environmental concerns, oil and gas are only currently cheap, and market forces can always quickly change that equation. I wouldn’t mind seeing the U.S. do more research into thorium as an alternative nuclear power source in the meantime.

          • BillStewart2012

            Oh, I agree with you that thorium not being useful for weapons is a good thing, but the US government organizations that funded lots of reactor design didn’t. Meltdowns aren’t a major risk with modern reactors, but they still have government subsidies in the form of limitations on liability if any major accident happens.

  • Christopher Johnson

    Given that climate “scientists” are unable to posit hypotheses and then test them, let alone make predictions that can be verified within human time limits, and that climate “scientists” are determined to see their work used politically, it seems reasonable to me that politics should play a big role in deciding who gets to be a climate “scientist”

    • badly_drawn_girl

      What makes you believe that no hypotheses have been tested, that no predictions have been verified? Do you hang around with enough scientists and engineers to have a good grasp on their motivations as a whole? Are you a scientist? Keep in mind that climate science transcends the United States. I hope you mean to say that you believe these scientists are motivated by politics all over the world. Then I’d respond, that is laughable, and makes me believe that you are not a scientist.

    • NiCuCo

      “Given that climate “scientists” are unable to posit hypotheses and then test them”

      First Direct Observation of Carbon Dioxide’s Increasing Greenhouse Effect at the Earth’s Surface

      Berkeley Lab researchers link rising CO2 levels from fossil fuels to an upward trend in radiative forcing at two locations

      Scientists have observed an increase in carbon dioxide’s greenhouse effect at the Earth’s surface for the first time. The researchers, led by scientists from the US Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab), measured atmospheric carbon dioxide’s increasing capacity to absorb thermal radiation emitted from the Earth’s surface over an eleven-year period at two locations in North America. They attributed this upward trend to rising CO2 levels from fossil fuel emissions.

      The influence of atmospheric CO2 on the balance between incoming energy from the Sun and outgoing heat from the Earth (also called the planet’s energy balance) is well established. But this effect has not been experimentally confirmed outside the laboratory until now. The research is reported Wednesday, Feb. 25, in the advance online publication of the journal Nature.

      The results agree with theoretical predictions of the greenhouse effect due to human activity. The research also provides further confirmation that the calculations used in today’s climate models are on track when it comes to representing the impact of CO2.

      The scientists measured atmospheric carbon dioxide’s contribution to radiative forcing at two sites, one in Oklahoma and one on the North Slope of Alaska, from 2000 to the end of 2010. Radiative forcing is a measure of how much the planet’s energy balance is perturbed by atmospheric changes. Positive radiative forcing occurs when the Earth absorbs more energy from solar radiation than it emits as thermal radiation back to space. It can be measured at the Earth’s surface or high in the atmosphere. In this research, the scientists focused on the surface.

      They found that CO2 was responsible for a significant uptick in radiative forcing at both locations, about two-tenths of a Watt per square meter per decade. They linked this trend to the 22 parts-per-million increase in atmospheric CO2 between 2000 and 2010. Much of this CO2 is from the burning of fossil fuels, according to a modeling system that tracks CO2 sources around the world.


  • Mark Richardson

    How about we arrest people like this who make hit lists, just as we arrest children who make hit lists of their fellow school students?

    • Cain Abel

      What about arresting the fake scientist who make up fake warmist “science”?

      • matchrocket

        Yeah, how about it. When we find one.

        • John C

          Let’s start with the frauds pushing climate catastrophism, easily identifiable by their overheated predictions the past few decades that fell well short of reality.

          • OWilson

            It should be illegal to continually shout “Fire” in a crowded planet. :)

          • okiejoe

            Not if there is actually a fire.

          • OWilson

            So. when’s the fire?

          • Jpio

            Frog in a pot of boiling water is a better analogy. At the moment the water is only warm but denier frogs are too dumb to notice that temperature is increasing …until it’s too late.

          • OWilson

            That contrived analogy has no relevance to real life.

            A better analogy are the age old stories handed down by wise tribal elders about Chicken Little, and The Boy Who Cried Wolf!

          • Mike Richardson

            And thanks for providing that example of conservative hypocrisy, claiming to be victims of persecution by “warmists” while at the same time advocating imprisonment of those who are trying to communicate the seriousness of the problem facing humanity. That ol’ irony detector must be shot again. :)

          • OWilson

            According to PEW Polling, 93% don’t rate your Chicken Little antics as a “serious” problem.

            You guys are big on consensus, right?


          • Jpio

            A consensus of clueless deniers who don’t understand the science is not the equivalent of a consensus of climate scientists.

            Deniers reaching a consensus is akin to a herd of unthinking cattle uncritically accepting what their leaders tell them. By contrast, those who study the science reach a consensus through a process where they independently study the literature and the data and satisfy themselves of the soundness of the science.

          • OWilson

            Their models don’t work.

            A consensus that produces junk is still junk!

          • Mike Richardson

            Must be those “low info” folks you keep lamenting, yet happily taking advantage of. Not much of an environmental advocate, there. :)

          • OWilson

            Go terraform your ghettos, Mr, Trekkie!

            They are Democratics voters, I hear.

        • Cain Abel

          See Climategate, denier!

          • Rolf Jander

            Yah right climategate, thanks for stopping by.

  • nidan841g

    Right. Scientists, with their $70k/yr salaries, are corrupted. And the fossil fuel conglomerates, with their multi-billion dollar profits and private armies, are the good guys looking out for the public welfare. Makes sense.

    • Cain Abel

      “Scientists” (the fake ones working for the corrupt gov), with their unlimited budgets, are the parasites.

      • Constant Gardener

        Well, sure. Scientists doing actual research, in a field where the whole point is to make your name by showing other scientists to be wrong, don’t want notoriety or money. They don’t want to disprove AGW and be famous and wealthy. They don’t want to be carried through the halls of NASA and showered with riches by Exxon. None of them do. Not for themselves, not for their families. Of tens of thousands of individuals working all over the world, not one wants fame and wealth. Sure.

        We have a winner of the Koo Koo for Cocoa Puffs award.

        • Cain Abel

          Do you deny the complete control of the “science” by politics, denier?

          • Constant Gardener

            I would deny that you have the brainpower of an Oderous House Ant, but no one seems willing to suggest you have.

          • CB

            “I would deny that you have the brainpower of an Oderous House Ant, but no one seems willing to suggest you have.”


            I will!

            Cain is not stupid.

            He’s mentally ill.

            One would have to be to believe in a conspiracy that’s persisted so long without detection.

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


          • cobten

            I want proof either way. Anyone got that?

      • BillStewart2012

        If you’re saying that scientists (real or fake) have unlimited budgets, you obviously know nothing about actual science.

        • Cain Abel

          Do you deny the BILLIONS spent on climate pseudo-science, doofus?

          • BillStewart2012

            You mean the climate pseudo-science that the oil and coal companies have been pushing and have been encouraging Republican politicians to push? I didn’t know they were up to BILLIONS spent yet, because politicians can usually be rented fairly cheaply, but they’ve certainly spent a lot.

          • Cain Abel

            Are you still trying to “hide the decline”, doofus?

      • krabapple

        LOL @ ‘unlimited budgets’. You don’t know any scientists (climate or otherwise) do you, sparky?

        • Cain Abel

          More than you, DENIER!

          • krabapple


          • Cain Abel


      • diogeneslamp0

        Scientists with “Unlimited budgets”? Psycho has never been in a real lab.

        • Cain Abel

          Hundred of billions spent on climate “science”.

          • krabapple

            Most of it on satellites, Cletus. Not salaries.

          • Cain Abel

            I am fine with money spent on collecting REAL data, when they are PUBLISHED.

            Where is the CO2 data?

        • Cain Abel

          I know about REAL science, cretin!

    • John C

      Let’s see. If a scientist pursues a career path that supports global warming theory he will be welcomed with open arms and wallets. If he pursues a career path that casts doubt on the “settled science” he will receive no funding, no career advancement, no tenure, and be publically villified as morally comparable to a Holocaust denier. Oh, and possibly be targeted by the Attorneys General of the United States and various local jurisdictions. Tough choice.

      • NiCuCo

        ” If he pursues a career path that casts doubt on the “settled science” he will receive no funding, no career advancement, no tenure, and be publically villified as morally comparable to a Holocaust denier. ”

        Drs. John Christy, Judith Curry and Roy Spencer. They are all funded.

        • John C

          Try to get funding from the Obama administration, for starters. Let alone worrying about staying off Loretta Lynch’s hit list.

          • NiCuCo

            “Drs. John Christy, Judith Curry and Roy Spencer. They are all funded.”

            And within the last eight years.

          • I_Tichy

            should we be funding flat earthers and geocenterists as well?

        • OWilson

          Some big names in climatology there.

          So exactly which noted climatologists are predicted catastrophic man made global warming?

          Or is it just the usual suspects Al Gore, Obama, Lady Ga Ga and Leonardo di Caprio? :)

          • NiCuCo

            “So exactly which noted climatologists are predicting catastrophic man made global warming?”

            None. From RationalWiki, //rationalwiki[DOT]org/wiki/Global_warming#CAGW

            “CAGW”, for “catastrophic anthropogenic global warming”, is a snarl word (or snarl acronym) that global warming denialists use for the established science of climate change. A Google Scholar search indicates that the term is never used in the scientific literature on climate.[51]
            It’s not clear just when or how the denialists adopted CAGW over from the acronym AGW (anthropogenic global warming) used by normal folk. The term was used in blog comments at the New York Times[52] and ScienceBlogs as early as 2008,[53] and is likely to have been used earlier. By around 2011 CAGW had become commonplace in denialist blogs such as those of Anthony Watts or Judith Curry, and over the next year or two essentially replaced AGW in such esteemed venues. Despite the qualifier, denialists apply the term indiscriminately to anything approximating the mainstream scientific view on climate, regardless of whether or not “catastrophic” outcomes are implied.
            As for motivation, it’s an attempt to move the goalposts. Denialists realized they had lost the argument over plain old “anthropogenic global warming” — the basic physics of the problem have been known since the 19th century,[54] so that rejecting AGW outright paints oneself as a loon. Adding “catastrophic” gives plenty of wiggle room for denialism.[55] Sea level rises a foot? Just a few Pacific Islanders losing everything; no catastrophe. Sea level rises a few more feet? The Philippines get flooded out and we lose coastal cities like London and New York. But with a few trillion dollars we can move them inland; no catastrophe. And so on.
            Potholer54 has snarkily suggested renaming CAGW to EAGW, with the “E” standing for “Expensive.”[56]

          • OWilson

            Still waiting for some “noted climatologists” names.


      • badly_drawn_girl

        A scientist pursuing a career path in climatology, hydrogeology, oceanography, etc, or other field that sheds light on climate and water dynamics, could be either supporting or casting doubt on global warming. Depends on what the data suggests. Both denier-researchers and supporter-researchers are collecting the same types of data. It is the data that tells the story.

        Also there are still plenty of scientists pursuing careers as application research engineers and scientists in oil&gas, mining, etc. There is plenty of funding to go around in these fields. I benefitted from some of it.

      • Alfredo Louro

        Oh, I don’t know. Mr. Michaels, mentioned in the OP, for example, seems to be doing quite well for himself.

    • CB

      “Scientists, with their $70k/yr salaries, are corrupted. And the fossil fuel conglomerates, with their multi-billion dollar profits and private armies, are the good guys looking out for the public welfare.”

      There’s a reason why Climate Deniers give voice to their ridiculous conspiracy theories.

      They are trying to rid themselves of their culpability in aiding the fossil fuel industry’s actual conspiracy, and if you pay close attention to them, you can find out exactly how aware they are of what they are doing by turning their projection back on them.

      “Internal fossil fuel industry memos reveal decades of disinformation—a deliberate campaign to deceive the public that continues even today.”

  • OWilson

    Not to fear!

    The forces of good against evil are more than a match for the evil geniuses that would threaten the sci fi views of Obama, Hillary and Bernie.

    They have the power of your government behind them!

    To whit:

    “Attorney General Lynch Looks Into Prosecuting ‘Climate Change Deniers” (Not traitors who sell your secrets to Russia and China)’

    In news that should shock and anger Americans, U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch told the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday that not only has she discussed internally the possibility of pursuing civil actions against so-called “climate change deniers,” but she has “referred it to the FBI to consider whether or not it meets the criteria for which we could take action.”

    (She expressed no interest in charging government officials and political candidates who showed a blatant disregard for the nation’s security, and who had (according to the Washington Post) amassed $2,000,000,000.00 family fortunes while on the the government payroll)

    Here’s Bernie:

    “Climate change is the single greatest threat facing our planet,” the plan states. But it hasn’t been solved because “a small subsection of the one percent are hell-bent on doing everything in their power to block action.”

    Sanders’ plans says he will “bring climate deniers to justice.”

    See also: “16 Democrat AGs ‘ Begin Inquisition Against ‘Climate Change Deniers …

    Beginning in 1478, the Spanish Inquisition systematically silenced any citizen who held views that did not align with the King’s”.

    It was very successful!

    I wouldn’t worry about the odd skeptic (“denier”). He (we) are totally outgunned.

    But the question is what are they so scared of?

    And why?

    • Mike Richardson

      You’re a retired “environmental advocate?!” LMAO — alright, I’ve suspended disbelief and given you the benefit of a doubt on a lot of things, but this is stretching credulity just a bit far. Either you meant “environmental consultant” for a fossil fuel company, or you’ve pulled a complete 180 from “advocating” for environmental issues. You constantly minimize the damage to the environment from oil spills and other industry accidents, as well as run-of-the-mill pollution, reject the massive amount of data showing fossil fuels are warming the planet, and you expect folks to believe you were an environmental advocate? Wow, just wow. But don’t worry, I don’t imagine anyone’s going to bar your travel — your rants on a blog post aren’t too likely to result in any travel restrictions. Now if you rant the same thing in real life without wearing pants, or while waving around a gun, that might be a different matter — please don’t do that.

      • OWilson

        You need help.

        All that stuff in your head is delusional!

        • Mike Richardson

          Hey, I’m not claiming a history as an environmental advocate while doing the exact opposite every chance I get. That would be delusional.

          • OWilson

            There’s my troll.

            2 days late, but always reliable!

            Without me, nobody would talk to you!

            You’re welcome!

          • Mike Richardson

            Actually, I’ve been having a stimulating conversation or two, and unlike some folks, have a life away from the computer. And you’re back to calling folks trolls, again, I see. You really can’t keep your word to the moderator, can you? It’s okay, I think everyone reading these posts by now knows better than to expect reason or self control from you. Such as that tired old comparison to someone shouting fire in a theater as a lame excuse for silencing the opinions with which you disagree — feeds right into the topic of this post, yet you only seem to feel that deniers are the ones being persecuted. That complete lack of irony is at least consistent. But yes, it’s been a nice enough chat, as these things go. :)

          • OWilson

            Dealing with Chicken Littles like you hardly takes any time at all.

            Looking at your time stamp, I just hope, that as a government employee you are not using your government computer on the taxpayer dime!

            There are too many pigs at the government trough already!

          • Mike Richardson

            LOL… not much good at time zones, eh? Posted in the evening, from my private computer, as always. As a government employee, I actually have a strong sense of ethics and responsibility, unlike, say, climate change denier “environmental advocates.” LOL… have a good one.

          • OWilson

            You should tell somebody at the IRS and State Depts, how excellent you are!

            IRS have “lost” their hard drives, their Director Pleaded The Fifth, and State say it will take 75 years to deliver FOI requested emails.

            You could be a local hero! :)

            Or at least get a bonus!

  • TomHarrisICSC

    It is a mistake (or was it intentional) to say that The Republican candidate has said that global warming is a concept invented by the Chinese to make the United State uncompetitive when, in fact, he later said he was joking.

    • matchrocket

      Trump has made many incendiary remarks and then later said he was joking. Do you really want a comedian for a president? Either that or he doesn’t really mean what he says. Or he says things he later regrets. Is that the kind of man we want in the White House? I think not.

      • TomHarrisICSC

        That is beside the point. The point is that Mr. Yulsman deceived reader when he wrote what he did.

        • Dano2

          That’s what you are hanging your hat on? He said he was joking?!


          You’re going with that?




          • cunudiun

            I’m still waiting for the announcement that Tom Harris has been joking. (It’s the only reasonable explanation.)

          • DrRaeMD

            More likely a crack addict.

        • krabapple

          No, he didn’t. Trump deceived *you* when he said he was joking.

      • John C

        Yes, we might miss out on the honesty and integrity of Hillary Clinton.

        • jmac

          “In American history, we’ve never had a major presidential candidate who fabricated facts with the regularity of Donald Trump,” said Douglas Brinkley, a history professor at Rice University. “He just simply makes up things.”

          In the span of a few days last week, Trump falsely claimed that the NFL had sent him a letter complaining about this autumn’s debate schedule, when in fact it had not.

          He claimed that the Koch brothers had tried to meet with him about offering their support, when in reality they had no interest in doing so.

          And, most astonishingly, he claimed he had seen a video showing hundreds of millions of dollars being unloaded from a plane in Iran, fabricating embellishments about the video’s provenance, even after his campaign conceded that no such video existed.

          • OWilson

            Is that the candidate that claims she was chased around Mt. Everest, by a guy named Sir Edmund and his Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, dodging sniper fire, because she tried to join the Marines and bring politically correct YouTube posters to justice?

            Or is it the one with the long list of past associates dead or in jail?

            Or is it the guy who helped build one of the greatest cities, the World has ever seen?

            I don’t watch your TV, so it gets a little confusing for this Canadian :)

          • jmac

            “I don’t watch your TV, so it gets a little confusing for this Canadian “

            LOL, apparently. But if you did watch American TV, you would probably be even more confused.

          • jmac

            And don’t forget how Pres. Obama invaded Afghanistan and how he and Hillary founded ISIS.

          • OWilson

            Osama Bin Laden declared war on the U.S. in 1994, and had his 9/11 hijackers in training under Clinton/Gore, long before anybody had heard of G.W. Bush.

            And was I mistaken or did Hillary vote for the Iraq Invasion?

            Wasn’t it she who made that tough speech against Saddam’s Weapons of Mass Destruction, on the eve of the Invasion?

            As I say, it is hard to relate the events the rest of the world lived through, by reading your headlines :)

          • jmac

            More evidence of what you don’t know and attempts to provide cover for Trumps pathological lying.

            The Iraq war resolution did not give Pres. G. W. Bush “carte blanche” power to pursue war against Saddam Hussein.

            While that Resolution did indeed authorize Bush, under strict requirements of the 1973 War Powers Act, to use force, Section 3(b) of the Act also required that sanctions or diplomacy be fully employed before force was used, i.e. force was to be used only as “necessary and appropriate in order to defend national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq,” and do so only upon the President certifying to Congress that “diplomatic or other peaceful means” would be insufficient to defang Saddam.

            Despite those legal conditions, the following year we were at war – and million of us were astonished that the Bush Admin, running roughshod over Congress’s requirements, hadn’t given more time for U.N. inspectors to complete their job of searching for weapons of mass destruction.

            Given the Resolution’s several prerequisites to waging war, Clinton’s vote was for a Resolution that was also supposed to restrain the President’s ability to wage war, and her 2002 floor speech leading up to consideration of the Resolution made that quite clear.

            “My vote is not a vote for any new doctrine of preemption of for unilateralism or for the arrogance of American power or purpose, all of which carry grave dangers for our Nation, the rule of international law, and the peace and security of people throughout the world.

            In 2002, Clinton was willing to trust a leader who at the time was only in his 2nd year of his presidency. While it was already well known that Bush had neocon advisers like Cheney and Wolfowitz, the true extent of their influence had not yet been manifested. (Colin Powell was also an important adviser and W. was, after all, G. H. W. Bush’s son.)

            So, no, Hillary’s vote for the Iraq Resolution was not a vote for the President to go off willy-nilly, waging war on Iraq.

          • Anaussieinswitzerland
          • jmac

            Thanks for sharing that. I am at a loss as to how to communicate with right wing people that believe BS without evidence and a conspiracy theory over scientists and their evidence.

            I would have liked to have seen the audience reaction to that, and I would have liked to have heard more from the science minister. Sadly scientists are not really good at communicating to lay people about technical subjects (although it worked for me). And any BS artist (Sen. Roberts) can make more erroneous claims (without evidence) in a short amount of time than a scientist can refute – because the scientist will offer evidence and the probabilities. The lay people get lost in the details – especially the uneducated.

            On a sad note, to illustrate what we are dealing with in America at this time, and you may have already seen this, here is a guy questioning Trump supporters about possible campaign ads.
            Triumph The Insult Comic Dog Trolls A Trump Supporter Focus Group

          • OWilson

            So your a Hillary voter. :) I get it!

            But you never mentioned Saddam’s breaking all the U.N. Cease Fire conditions imposed on him.

            Which technically meant the U.N. Coalition war against him was still in effect.

            (The U.N. itself undermined this point when it undertook the infamous Oil for Food program that merely succeeded in making U.N Secretary General Kofi Annan and his family, along with Saddam sympathizers in the West, very, very rich, and more money for Saddam to spend on his palaces.

            Look up “Oil for Food Program”.

            Worth a read, for anyone interested in actual history!

          • jmac

            #facepalm Gish Gallop and a time waster.

            “In American history, we’ve never had a major presidential candidate who fabricated facts with the regularity of Donald Trump,” said Douglas Brinkley, a history professor at Rice University. “He just simply makes up things.”

            In the span of a few days last week, Trump falsely claimed that the NFL had sent him a letter complaining about this autumn’s debate schedule, when in fact it had not.

            He claimed that the Koch brothers had tried to meet with him about offering their support, when in reality they had no interest in doing so.

            And, most astonishingly, he claimed he had seen a video showing hundreds of millions of dollars being unloaded from a plane in Iran, fabricating embellishments about the video’s provenance, even after his campaign conceded that no such video existed.

            Republican Party is dead and moldering, whatever ideology it once had is now replaced by nothing more than a motley collection of xenophobia and conspiracy theories.

          • OWilson

            I assume you got bored with the history lesson? :)

            You are dismissed!

          • jmac
          • Atomsk

            “In American history, we’ve never had a major presidential candidate who fabricated facts with the regularity of Donald Trump,” said Douglas Brinkley, a history professor at Rice University. “He just simply makes up things.”

            The “regularity” and “fabricated” (by himself) part may easily be true, but every single American president I know of lied about things of much larger importance than Trump. From Tonkin through WMDs in Iraq to chemical weapons used by the government in Syria, every single American president has used lies to murder people they didn’t like.

            Not in an unrefined and rude manner, like Trump, of course. They were usually (apart from Bush) a lot more sophisticated with their lies. But I don’t think that really matters. What matters is how many people died. And Clinton has already used such lies to support the overthrow of the Libyan government. And let’s not forget her “sniper fire” landing in Yugoslavia. Or “welfare queens”, The primary job of the president seems to be lying about stuff in the interests of big money/the military/the “deep state” etc.

            So sadly, this isn’t really an acceptable reason for, errr, anything. In fact, having a liar towards whom the establishment and the “deep state” is unfriendly and so whose lies aren’t backed by huge amounts of propaganda and aren’t as refined is not even a bad thing.

          • jmac

            Parts are accurate and parts I can’t go there with you Atomsk.

          • Atomsk

            Regardless of disagreements, when you’re saying that “parts are accurate”, it kind of implies that some aren’t and I’d like to at least know which. My main point is basically that Clinton is so messed up that even Trump may be a better choice, and that his level of dumb nonsense is something that she actually needs – as she’d probably have no chance against any Republican who was only 30% insane.

            The largest issue now is war with Russia (and probably China), which would impact Eastern Europe a lot. So I don’t take kindly to the disgusting Russia-smearing of the establishment press and I dislike how this idiot region is messed up even more. AGW is pretty bad, of course (not that Clinton would do anything significant about it), but this is an even worse and even shorter term problem.

            If the establishment press didn’t handle Trump’s sympathy towards Putin the way it does, if there was less aggressive enmity towards it, I wouldn’t really care, but this situation is really, really scary.

          • jmac

            Hey friend, you are getting into a long drawn out conversation, of which I don’t have the time nor desire to debate nor discuss. As I am trying to release a new product.
            But there is simply no freaking way Trump is a better choice than Hillary!

            It’s rather interesting that so many of those who are so critical of Mrs. Clinton’s accuracy have turned to one to lead the GOP whom I think that we can pretty nearly describe as a pathological liar, who is obviously ignorant about policy as well as unhinged and incoherent.

            Donald Trump’s file
            Hillary Clinton’s file

          • Atomsk

            I’d actually say that if I believed his friendliness towards Russia was principled, which I don’t; or if I believed that he’d be a hindrance for how the establishment worked, but I’m reasonably sure that if he actually got into power, he’d be led down the same path of warmongering as Clinton. I’m not sure if he’s better or worse mostly because he’s so unpredictable. Clinton is just really, really bad though, certainly on the Russia issue.

            Hey friend, you are getting into a long drawn out conversation, of which I don’t have the time nor desire to debate nor discuss. As I am trying to release a new product.

            Good luck with your work :-)

          • jmac

            I simply do not believe Clinton to be a bad choice at all. I think your views on Clinton lack research. Thanks. :)

          • Robert

            I think the “…if he undermined and hindered establishment politics, to give time for a new…” puts a big hunk of “if” on the assumptions/wishes after the comma. No real evidence of that happening.

          • Atomsk

            This is exactly why the next sentence is “I do not think it’s possible though.” 😀

          • Robert

            I’ve been slogging through Wilentz’ The Rise of American Democracy and a main point is how our political dichotomy and general lack of viable 3rd parties is due to the efforts during our Constitution forming era to not have parties……

          • Two Americas

            I finally got around to posting on that thread where you are talking about “GMOs” only to get a “this thread has been closed” message.

          • Atomsk

            Damn I would have liked to read it :-( Mine wasn’t exactly a very good post, I feel I’m getting stupider by the day.

          • kuji

            The internet seems to be making me stupider. Before I used to read books, entire paragraphs, entire thought trains. Now I read disconnected thoughts and incomplete sentences, interspersed with books.
            It’s a conspiracy. :>)

          • Elizabeth Hayes
          • kuji

            So more google-ized “pancake people” and fewer people experiencing their inner resonant cathedral of dense cultural inheritance. Stacking pancake people, the business of busyness.

          • Two Americas

            I don’t know if I am getting stupider, but I am definitely becoming more stupefied.

          • kuji

            I tried to upvote there and even that was not allowed. I seem to remember that one used to be able to upvote a post after a thread was closed but now no more.

          • Two Americas

            I think that loophole has been closed. It was a way for us to communicate back and forth (such as it was) without interference from mods.

    • Constant Gardener

      The execrable Tom Harris believes every one of Trump’s utterances, serially. Tom also forgives Trump for fomenting racism, religious bigotry and xenophobia because Trump says he has muslim friends and Mexicans and Blacks love him.

      The fact is,Trump said the Chinese made up AGW in November, 2012 and didn’t try to cover his tracks by calling it a joke until January 2016. Talk about letting the joke land! Similarly, Trump has referred to AGW as a “hoax’ repeatedly, demonstrating scientific facility second only to Jim Inhofe. But as soon as Trump says he was just joking, Tom “any argument at hand” Harris will be right with him. The execrable, credulous, Tom Harris.

      • Dano2

        Tom Harris is a comedian, making comedy sketches for our amusement. I popped some popcorn.



        • cunudiun

          With Tim Ball, Harris is only one Stooge short.

      • Jpio

        “execrable, credulous,” and dangerous purveyor of disinformation. ISIS is not the biggest danger to the planet; dishonest neo-con AGW deniers are.

      • okiejoe

        For a pretty good description of Donald Trump just look up the term “Sociopath.”

    • coreyspowell

      He later claimed he was joking that it was invented by China, but Tump has repeatedly and vehemently said that global warming is a hoax and that he will rescind government efforts to deal with it. The statement in this story is 100% correct, and Tom Yulsman even included a link to a story discussing the “joke” issue.

      You’ve got nothing, unless you are arguing that every statement Trump has ever made about the environment and regulation is also part of an elaborate joke.

      • okiejoe

        Trump exhibits virtually all the symptoms of being a Sociopath.

    • Dave James

      Coworkers of Tom Harris link him and the ICSC to Donald Trump.

      Last month founding chairman of ICSC wrote, “After all, Donald Trump is now saying what groups like ours have been saying for years so anti-Trump forces must do anything in their power to disgrace the messenger…”

  • Erik Bosma

    Destination: Hell; Mode of Transport: Handbasket.

  • Mike Richardson

    I’d certainly be interested in seeing a follow-up on this, particularly with the frequent lamentations from climate change deniers on sites like this who are always so quick to play victim when someone counters their arguments with facts. It’s no secret that the Bush administration actively worked to downplay the study of climate change, but an actual “hit list” for terminating professional careers shows just how hypocritical so many of these “skeptics” are when they advocate for a free exchange of ideas while supporting efforts to punish those ideas with which they disagree.

  • David Rice

    Nothing the Cato Institute Church says is correct; they do not study science, obviously.

  • stargene

    There is a sector of commenters which insists that it has (1) uncovered a plot of thousands of actual scientists, all around the world, who have real degrees, years of hard won, actual experience and training in their fields, surviving sharp critiques by fellow scientists, and have built up a healthy understanding and respect for the possibilities
    of self-delusion and its antidote, the scientific method…

    …and yet (2) that all of these same scientists have entered their fields of research under the delusion
    that one should gain great fame, riches and notoriety,
    if one conducts oneself with a mendacity and in an illegal and morally repugnant manner that normally associated with Nixon, Trump, Clinton and most of Wall Street.

    That said, I have a natural question for you. Since
    you honestly believe that you are being scientific,
    what minimal kinds of evidence would you, as
    honest scientists, require in order to consider that
    you might possibly be wrong, and that global climate change might be quite real? Just minimally.

    Notice that I’m not asking for an absolutely maximal and final avalanche of data.

    • Mo Fei Chen

      Some people are convinced that scientists enmasse have dedicated their lives to a hoax claim because they will somehow cash in on all the Sierra Club money. Meanwhile, the oil industry hands out checks like the tobacco companies used to… #smh

  • mememine

    My grade 9 class is somewhat divided on a CO2 Armageddon but most now have said they will choose to be deniers until climate change science says unstoppable warming is as real as science says smoking causes cancer.
    They say they are sick of fearing for our planet instead of loving our planet and more importantly; wanting science to be certain of a CO2 end of days is heartless fear mongering and must stop if we are to have peace on the planet.

    • krabapple

      You can tell *your* children that you don’t know what you’re talking about. That would be true, at least.

    • Constant Gardener

      The Paul Merrifield gibberish generator strikes again. But why?

  • Diogenes60025

    Scientists who are paid directly or indirectly by public funds should not have the right to use their jobs as sinecures from which to engage in political activity aimed at compelling major changes in Americans’ lives.

    They may be political OR continue to suck on the public tit–but not both.

    • DrRaeMD

      Are you suggesting that the scientists who discovered lead in gasoline was harmful should not have told the world? For example Dr. Needleman has been credited with having played the key role in triggering environmental safety measures that have reduced average blood lead levels by an estimated 78 percent between 1976 and 1991.
      Should he and the others have kept quiet?
      When science shows a public health issue, it is immoral to not speak up. We do it all the time. We talk about asbestos, lead, alcohol, obesity, food additives, mercury, flame retardants, tobacco, sodium, soot/smog, radon… and so forth. These “major changes in American’s lives” help lower the rates of irreversible brain damage, cancer, diabetes, asthma, hypertension…
      Get it? No communication of science means no progress.

    • Douglas Goodin

      Climate change research isn’t political, it’s science. That the results are threatening to those with a certain political agenda is a comment on those with the agenda, not those doing the science.

      • Diogenes60025

        Could you cite the science, please? I haven’t been able to find it.

        • Douglas Goodin

          I suspect you haven’t been able to find the science because you don’t want to.

          • Diogenes60025

            I have no interest in a circular debate with a liberal arts slacker. I have looked for the science, and its not there.

            If you can point me in the right direction, I’ll follow up. Otherwise, don’t bother.

          • Douglas Goodin

            Well, you’re right, I did slack my way through an undergraduate degree in earth science and two graduate degrees (including the PhD) that emphasized climatology, all of which are considered liberal arts. Lately, I’ve been involved in research on the effects of microclimatic processes on the distribution of disease vectors. Now, to answer to be pointed toward the science, you can start your search for the science here: The IPCC is the leading repository for climate research internationally. Of course, the usual response in the deniasphere is that this site is somehow biased, but in fact it’s just a clearing house of information. From there, you’ll find a wealth of information to help you understand the current science situation. You could probably spend months reading all the evidence that is referred to at the IPCC site. If you live near a university or college, go to its library and check out the following journals: Climatic Change, International Journal of Climatology, International Journal of Geophysical Research, Agricultural Meteorology, Journal of Climate, Climate. I would also look through Science and Nature, the two leading science journals; they quite often publish articles on climate change. If you do all this with an open mind, you will better understand the issues and you’ll have scratched the surface of contemporary climate thought. You’ll also find literally dozens of other journals which publish climate research. Dig into those, to. Since basic science knowledge is crucial to following the arguments in these journals, you should also bone up on your physics (at least through thermodynamics and Newtonian mechanics), chemistry (especially physical chem) and math (calculus and differential equations, and maybe even some linear algebra). A little biology wouldn’t hurt, either. Those of us who slacked our way through these classes benefited from them enormously in our desire to understand nature. I would also strongly recommend the on-line course Making Sense of Climate Change Denial, offered through EdX. I have used it as a the basis of a seminar on climate change. It’s quite good. So, now that I’ve lived up to my end of the bargain, by pointing you in the direction of the science, it’s your turn to do the same. My challenge to you is to explain any other mechanism, other than enhanced warming due to increases in atmospheric greenhouse gases, that can explain current trends in the vertical temperature profiles, specifically the simultaneous warming of the troposphere and cooling of the stratosphere, because right now there is no way to explain this without invoking changes in the composition of the atmosphere, which we know is caused by human activities. This, or course, is just one of a number of interrelated signatures of change that right now simply cannot be explained by any other mechanism than human caused change. When the deniers are able to answer this challenge, I’ll give some credence to their arguments. Until then they have simply lost the argument, based on the strength of the science, even if they’re winning it politically, So, with that, I’ll go back to my usual liberal arts slacking. The ten minutes I’ve spent replying to you is far longer than I intended, but you’ve (more or less) been a gentleman in your responses so it seemed worth the trouble, I doubt if any of this will persuade you, but i sincerely hope it will make you think.

          • Diogenes60025

            So you’re telling me to rely on IPCC (a political body), or go and do my own research, while you stick your rent-seeking snout even deeper into the public trough?

          • Douglas Goodin

            Yes, that’s exactly what I’m telling you to do. I responded in good faith to your request to be “pointed” toward the science. Now it’s your turn to get off your lazy duff and do critical work and thought. Perhaps when you have some basic knowledge, you can argue from it, instead of relying on ad hominems. Let me know when you’re ready.

          • OWilson
          • Douglas Goodin

            You might want to take a quick look at the following sources, which address the accuracy of modeling predictions. One of them was published just this past month.



          • OWilson

            No I don’t.

            I’m pointing out that your first source the IPCC got it totally wrong.

            I’m not about to follow you on your journey to the bottom of the pond!


          • Douglas Goodin

            Those sources indicate that the models are actually very accurate. You’re operating from obsolete information. Also, I appreciate you not following me, although it’s a little weird that you even bring it up.


          • OWilson

            I should have known better than to follow you down to the bottom of the pond. :)

            But I did check your cites for interest.

            Your first is a paper on OCEAN? temperatures that covers the period, and I quote, “1970–2005 and 1992–2005, respectively, with a 5 to 95 % confidence interval of the median”

            Your second cite is behind a pay wall!

            And the one thing both cites have in common is is the name “Union”

            And both do absolutely NOT deal with the failure of the 1990 IPCC FAR report to predict today’s temperatures, which was the subject at hand.

            Now stop being silly! :)

            Or is it just trolling?

          • Douglas Goodin

            The one you “checked” basically said that ensemble models are getting ocean temperatures correct, within a statistically significant range of error. Despite the paywall, you can still read the abstract of the second article, which should give you the gist of it. My point is that in referring to the 1990 IPCC report, you are using obsolete information. More up-to-date estimates are more accurate. I’m asking you to not be 26 years behind the times; a reasonable request, in my opinion. However, if you choose to continue to dwell in the past, I suggest you take a look at some additional assessments. I’m linking a site that evaluted the 1990 first assessment, as well as the second assessment (SAR), third assessment (TAR), and fourth assessment (AR4) in ’95, ’01, and ’07 respectively. You’ll note than one scenario from the SAR did lie within the range of uncertainty, contrary to your earlier statement. This was done using rather crude 1980s era models. For the SAR and TAR, all of the projections were within the uncertainty bounds. The AR4 assessment was not as good, as the previous two, but was still within the error bounds. Here’s the link:


            As to whether I’m trolling or not, the answer is no. I’m a scientist but also an educator, and this is what we call a “teaching moment.” Based on reading your posts here, I figure you’re probably beyond convincing, but there may be others reading this conversation who are genuinely unsure about the climate debate but are willing to learn. They are the ones I’m writing for. If I can illustrate the weaknesses in the denier arguments, I’m hoping I can persuade them to really look at the science. It’s a tactic that many of us in the research community have adopted, and I believe it is working, since popular acceptance of global climate change science is increasing. So, I guess I owe you some thanks for helping me with this. And now, I need to get back to my Unionized, public-trough sucking job, so I’ll leave you with the last word.

          • OWilson

            God help your students!

          • Douglas Goodin

            Actually, 1990 was 27 years ago, not 37, and if you look at the linked sites, you’ll see that for elements of all of the assessments (first, second, third and fourth), the current predictions lie within the range of predicted values, at a level of statistical power that is considered significant for this type of work. Also, you’re simply ignoring the later assessments made with more advanced and accurate climate models, which match current trends even better.

            Gotta tell you, though, that I’m enjoying your comments immensely. It’s getting me in shape for the real debates I’m likely to get into soon.

          • OWilson

            You don’t give me any challenge at all!

            I’m done with you!

          • Douglas Goodin

            Very well. I accept your surrender.

          • Mike Richardson

            Very good. Use logic, reason, and good sources, and you’ll get him every time. :)

          • OWilson


            Mikey has a new friend.

            Hope this one stays a little longer! :)

          • Mike Richardson

            And Ol’ Wilson got owned, yet again. Always entertaining around here, yes sir. :)

          • OWilson

            Why do I feel sorry for your kids?

          • DrRaeMD

            Coo!Coo! Strutstrutstrut.

          • OWilson

            THAT juvenile school cafeteria stuff get high fives? :)

          • DrRaeMD

            Well played, Dr. Goodin, well played indeed. Now the pigeon will crap on the chessboard and strut around like he won, despite his surrender.

          • I am Hasbar
        • NiCuCo

          “Could you cite the science, please?”


  • vacmancan

    Trump thinks AGW is a Chinese, HOAX!!!!! WTF???? Now you know why we do our show!!!!!!

  • Jpio

    Poor desperate deniers. They can’t win with science because they can’t produce any, so the only solution is to get rid of the opposition, those who CAN do science.

  • Dr. Turi

    This article will make you think hard about weather predictions…

  • I am Hasbar

    While humans may be effecting the climate to some degree, just how severe remains in question. Before all of the blamed carbon burning of factories and automobiles, there was the Little Ice Age (500 year period between 1300 and 1870). What caused that period; was it man-made emissions? If so, what were those emissions?

    Is it possible that the Earth is passing through a portion of the galaxy or something in space where periodically the Earth experiences natural climate change?

    Admittedly I’m a layman on the science of the issue, but I would like to better understand what made the Earth’s climate experience the LIA.

    Maybe if we understand exactly what caused the LIA we can better understand the severity of the claimed climate change we’re experiencing.

    • Guest of Site

      Pointing out there were other periods of climate change and using it to cast doubt is untenable. It’s like saying there were naturally caused forest fires in the past, and maybe if we understood those better we could shed light on if it’s possible to have man cause forest fires.

      We know what’s causing it. Ghg emissions are the main driver. We measure decreased outgoing radiation (in space) at Ghg frequencies. We measure increased down welling radiation at the surface, again at Ghg frequencies. Less heat due to GHG leaving the planet + more heat due to GHG warming the surface is the same as finding gas jerry cans and matches at a forest fire start point, yet you’re still asking us “but what about naturally lit forest fires”.

      • I am Hasbar

        You’re ignoring the documented fact of the LIA. I guess whatever may have been the cause for the LIA CANNOT have ANYTHING to do with what is being reported today.

        And you know this how?

        IF the science you espouse is so obvious and clear, how can prominent scientist
        disagree with your assertions?

        It is imperative that we explore ALL facets before settling on a conclusion: especially one-single conclusion.

        Your flippant response still doesn’t provide insight into the cause of the LIA. However, the encyclopedia says that during the LIA (a period when glaciers expanded), some portions of the Earth experienced cooler temperatures while other portions were warmer. During the LIA there was drought, long winters, and “short, wet summers”. “For these reasons the Little Ice Age, though synonymous with cold temperatures, can
        also be characterized broadly as a period when there was an increase in temperature and precipitation variability across many parts of the globe.”

        Scientists still don’t understand what caused the LIA: “The cause of the Little Ice Age is not known for certain; however, climatologists contend that reduced solar output, changes in atmospheric
        circulation, and explosive volcanism may have
        played roles in bringing about and extending the phenomenon.”


        • Guest of Site

          I’m not ignoring the LIA. I’m pointing out you can’t use it against the established facts of AGW. You’re trying to determine the cause of the LIA doesn’t change the fact we have direct measureable proof of an increased greenhouse effect. When we can measure less heat escaping to space AT GHG frequencies, measure more heat at the ground level AT GHG frequencies, determine by carbon isotopes it’s FOSSIL FUEL CARBON in the increased GHG, and show the temperature rising as a result, I’m sorry but bringing up the LIA is just an uneducated person trying to distract.

          Again the analogy – we have gas jerry cans at the fire start, it was rainy when the fire started and there was no lightning, yet you’re arguing if we don’t know the cause of the Peshtigo fire in 1871 we can’t use the evidence to say this is man made. Just because something (forest fires, climate change) occurred naturally in the past, doesn’t mean it can’t be man made. Or do you deny man made forest fires as well?

          We have the bloody fingerprints. It’s man made through GHG emissions. We can directly measure it. The LIA doesn’t touch that.

          • zlop

            “Ghg emissions are the main driver” of the weather. Global average surface temperature is well determined by solar radiation and surface pressure, only.

            Extra radiators above the clouds, lower
            the clouds — resulting in a colder surface.

          • Guest of Site

            You’re welcome to pretend there is no such thing as a greenhouse effect, but you can’t claim that and ask to be taken seriously by anyone educated at even a high school physics level.

          • zlop

            “pretend there is no such thing as a greenhouse effect”

            “physical nature of the so-called GH effect is a Pressure-induced Thermal Enhancement (PTE), which is independent of the atmospheric chemical composition.”

            “Greenhouse gases cool planets: Volcanos warm them”

          • Guest of Site

            Watt’s up with that – hahahahaha. Thanks for the lols my day was pretty boring so far. Do you have any scientific bodies that back you rather than dime store conspiracy blogs? Oh wait. Conspiracies is all you have when you don’t have evidence.

            You really make my argument easier when you have to cite conspiracy websites to support you.

          • zlop

            Thermodynamics interacts with and dominates radiation.
            IPCC has it upside down. Near surface zone (net) loses heat
            gained from above

          • I am Hasbar

            And your education level is what?

          • I am Hasbar

            Clearly you refuse to education yourself on anything but rhetoric! Sad!

            I’m not saying that GHG does not have an effect. What I’m saying is that it doesn’t have as much of an effect as some (e.g., YOU!) are contending; GHG are not the alpha and omega of the matter.

            What do scientists know about the LIA: “The cause of the Little Ice Age is not known for certain; however, climatologists contend that reduced solar output, changes in atmospheric circulation, and explosive volcanism may have played roles in bringing about and extending the phenomenon.” Source: https://www[dot]britannica[dot]com/science/Little-Ice-Age

            Maybe the role volcanoes played during the LIA has been replaced by GHGs. But the volcanoes were not considered to be the ONLY CAUSE of the LIA (which exhibited the same symptoms we’re not laying 100% blame on GHG).

            I’m not saying that reductions of GHG is not good for the planet. But I am saying that GHGs are not they only effect we’re seeing on the climate. Humans could reduce our GHG to zero, and 10-years later climatologists would still be blaming GHG or bovine flatulates.

            BOTTOM LIINE: We need to look at more than just GHGs! History could hold some key information on the matter!

  • Mr Bad Example

    According to internal correspondence, Exxon knew in 1977-78 that human-caused global warming was a consequence of burning fossil fuels. This means at the very least that Exxon’s CEO’s knew of threats to their future profitability and were lying when they filed SEC documents from that point on. Somebody needs a perp walk.

  • Dr. Turi

    Donald Trump’s wake up call he will not survive!

  • Nick Comer-Calder

    Could you say anything about Pat Michael’s claim that Thomas Karl had agreed with Pat’s criticism but then went ahead and published? I agree Pat’s reference to a ‘hit list’ is worrying but it would be good to know if there is any substance to his claim that Karl ignored a known flaw in a piece of work

    • zlop

      As Milo the insider said — IPCC data are fudged.
      He was instructed to fudge the data.

      • Dano2

        Justin Data!

        Will the right’s new heartthrob finally be the one to validate their self-identity?!?!?



  • Mo Fei Chen

    So, even a guy at the conservative Cato Institute now admits that global climate change is real but hedging it at lukewarm?

    Well I guess that’s a step up from outright denial.

    Then there was the ‘well climate change is real but it’s all natural’. Now, they’re copping to human influence.

    At this rate, they may finally agree with the community consensus once Manhattan is flooded.

    • OWilson

      Global warming has always been “real”.

      Where we differ is the slight warming, which is a natural function of the Interglacial Epoch we find ourselves in, 1 degree over the nest 84 years is rediculously called catastrophic and requires borrowing more money from the Chinese to add to your National Debt, and give it to nations like genocidal dictator Robert Mugabe ($50,000,000,000.00 he is asking for, and that’s only ONE third world country suffering from what the U.N. call climate “catastrophe”.

      • zlop

        All major cycles are past peak. In a single day,
        we could have a Willie the Woolly Mammoth
        event — when weather instantly turns to climate.
        It would take longer for New York to be under ice.

    • John C

      That already happened, a year ago.

      FLASHBACK: ABC’s ’08 Prediction: NYC Under Water from Climate Change By June 2015

  • zlop

    “Patrick J. Michaels … he had influence over who was on it.”

    How many careers were destroyed by the likes of this person?
    Will he be on a hit list — similar those who were nullified by Hillary?

  • E Knapp

    People who went through meteorology school at University of Virginia with Chip Knappenberger and Pat Michaels have consistently told me that they were both terrible to work with and corrupt. Having followed their careers (as a distant cousin of Chip Knappenberger) I can’t say that I am surprised that these two are getting caught in their shenanigans.

  • John C

    “Political Correctness Prevents Advancement of Science”

    “[W]hen hypotheses are regarded as supporting certain moral values or desirable political goals, scientists often refuse to abandon them in the light of empirical evidence.”

    Is he right? Absolutely, yes.

    Not only do intellectuals refuse to abandon politically correct beliefs in the face of contradictory evidence, but simply questioning them can ruin a person’s career. Lawrence Summers’ tenure as president of Harvard was cut short because he suggested that there are intellectual differences between men and women. As a result of such punitive pushback, some researchers are afraid to investigate differences between male and female brains, which certainly exist. Without a doubt, this reticence is holding back the field of neuroscience.

    A similar chilling effect can be seen in climatology. The only politically correct belief regarding the climate is that humans are 100% responsible for everything bad that happens and that the Four Horsemen are already marching toward Earth. Questioning that apocalyptic and unscientific belief has resulted in multiple researchers being labeled “climate deniers.” Climatology would greatly benefit from the more skeptical approach of so-called “lukewarmers,” but far too many are ostracized and demonized.

    • zlop

      Which group controls money? — “To learn who rules over
      you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize”

    • Anaussieinswitzerland

      If you doubt that humans are responsible for the ongoing warming of the planet that we are observing, could you please put forward an alternative hypothesis?

      Until then the only rational option is to accept the word of the thousands of scientists working in climate related disciplines who accept that the Earth is warming at a rate unprecedented during human civilisation, the cause of warming is anthropogenic CO2 and the only solution is to reduce our emissions.

      • OWilson

        “The ONLY rational option”? LOL

        Ever heard of an Interglacial Epoch?

        “Ice ages and warm periods have alternated fairly regularly in Earth’s history: Earth’s climate cools roughly every 100,000 years, with vast areas of North America, Europe and Asia being buried under thick ice sheets. Eventually, the pendulum swings back: it gets warmer and the ice masses melt. While geologists and climate physicists found solid evidence of this 100,000-year cycle in glacial moraines, marine sediments and arctic ice, until now they were unable to find a plausible explanation for it” – Science Daily.

        “An ice age is a period of long-term reduction in the temperature of Earth’s surface and atmosphere, resulting in the presence or expansion of continental and polar ice sheets and alpine glaciers. Within a long-term ice age, individual pulses of cold climate are termed “glacial periods” (or alternatively “glacials” or “glaciations” or colloquially as “ice age”), and intermittent warm periods are called “interglacials”. Glaciologically, ice age implies the presence of extensive ice sheets in both northern and southern hemispheres.[1] By this definition, we are in an interglacial period—the Holocene” – WIKI

        No “Big Oil” conspiracy theories needed :)

        • Anaussieinswitzerland

          So what do you posit is the cause of the late 20th century to current warming?

          There must be a cause, if it is not anthropogenic CO2 what is it?

          Solar radiation?
          Orbital wobble?
          Volcanic activity?

          You have obviously taken an interest in the subject, please give us the benefit of your expertise.

          • OWilson

            The “warming” you are discussing is hundredths of a degree (in spite of the totally scientifically and mathematically inappropriate scale of the chart that your favorite scientist literally threw at his questioner in your video)

            That arrogant dismissive unscientific and intellectually bankrupt (appeal to authority, appeal to consensus) behaviour so sickened me I didn’t feel like discussing it earlier.

            But that chart (and yes I am very familiar with it) shows a satellite era warming of 0.39 degrees, over 37 years.

            Using the totally exaggerated scale, it looks like the warming is going up off the chart. Just a cheap “trick” to me , who produces charts and graphs daily in my work.

            When in actual fact it is less that the margin of error in global temperature estimates, and is scientifically statistically insignificant!

            That’s where we are!

            What is your problem, again?

          • Fractious

            Calling in a rapekit for you ms anas

  • Anaussieinswitzerland

    British professor Vs Australian politician in front of a live audience.



ImaGeo is a visual blog focusing on the intersection of imagery, imagination and Earth. It focuses on spectacular visuals related to the science of our planet, with an emphasis (although not an exclusive one) on the unfolding Anthropocene Epoch.

About Tom Yulsman

Tom Yulsman is Director of the Center for Environmental Journalism and a Professor of Journalism at the University of Colorado, Boulder. He also continues to work as a science and environmental journalist with more than 30 years of experience producing content for major publications. His work has appeared in the New York Times, Washington Post, Audubon, Climate Central, Columbia Journalism Review, Discover, Nieman Reports, and many other publications. He has held a variety of editorial positions over the years, including a stint as editor-in-chief of Earth magazine. Yulsman has written one book: Origins: the Quest for Our Cosmic Roots, published by the Institute of Physics in 2003.


See More


Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

Collapse bottom bar