Various Direct Links

18 February 2012

FollowUp 9: Republican Denial of Climate Change

In the seventh follow up of this series, I discussed how the Wall Street Journal had published an error-filled denial of climate change by sixteen scientists, an article that was called "dismal science" by two hundred and fifty-five scientists who are in the field of climate change.  Science Magazine published the truth when the Wall Street Journal, a subsidiary of News Corp., refused to do so.

Yesterday another subsidiary of News Corp., Fox News, published an Opinion piece by Matt Patterson, a commentator for the anti-environment Competitive Enterprise Institute, that relies on the discredited article from the Wall Street Journal.
[R]ecently in the Wall Street Journal 16 prominent scientists, including physicists, meteorologists and climatologists, came forward to express solidarity with Giaever, writing:
“…large numbers of scientists, many very prominent, share the opinions of Dr. Giaever. And the number of scientific “heretics” is growing with each passing year. The reason is a collection of stubborn scientific facts. Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 “Climategate” email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: ‘The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.’”
So why do so many still cling to the hope of climate change catastrophe? The scientists offer their own view in the Journal: 
“Alarmism over climate is of great benefit to many, providing government funding for academic research and a reason for government bureaucracies to grow.”
Fortunately this strange fever is breaking, and voters are becoming ever more suspicious of government-mandated schemes to control their “carbon emissions,” which is just a bureaucrat’s way of curbing productivity, and therefore liberty.
In centuries hence the global warming boogeyman will be seen for exactly what it is – The Great Delusion. Future generations will wonder how so many people could have believed something so suicidally ridiculous.
The more times a lie is told, the more it is likely to be believed.  News Corp. keeps telling this lie.  The Republican contenders for President have all picked up the lie and run with it.  The proof is readily available, including from scientists who once doubted whether climate change was real.

1 October 2011, Original Pedantic Political Ponderings post.
10 October 2011, FollowUp 1.
11 October 2011, FollowUp 2.
17 October 2011, FollowUp 3.
21 October 2011, FollowUp 4.
27 October 2011, FollowUp 5.
30 November 2011, FollowUp 6.
29 January 2012, FollowUp 7.
15 February 2012, FollowUp 8.

2 March 2012, FollowUp 10.
11 March 2012, FollowUp 11.
4 June 2012, FollowUp 12.


  1. A simple equation calculates the entire temperature trajectory (since accurately measured) with an accuracy of 88%. When calibrated to measurements prior to 1990, it has predicted temperatures since then with a standard deviation of less than 0.1C. Google “Verification of Natural Climate Change” to discover what works.

  2. You have me a bit confused, Mr. Pangburn. When I did your suggested search, the first entries do not include the equation you refer to in an obvious place. There are some interesting links that claim verification of climate change, well worth reading. Could you be more specific, please?

  3. Some,

    Sorry about that. Google's web crawler is fast ...

    See the pdf made public 11/24/11 at

    1. A few points that I need to clarify. First, polite disagreement is always welcome here. Mr. Pangburn is doing that.

      Second, despite having two degrees with the word "science" in the title, I am not a climate change scientist. I have worked in the sciences and taught sciences, but that does not give me expertise in this field.

      Third, Mr. Pangburn, from what he has said on many other websites, is not a climate change scientist either. Rather, he says that he is an engineer. So far, so good.

      Finally, I don't believe the information as Mr. Pangburn presents it. He has presented this to a number of different websites and there is an interesting refutation that can be found at

      The ball is back in your court, Mr. Pangburn.

    2. Belief is for religion. This is science and all data sources are provided so you can figure it out for yourself.

    3. I have provided the reference for the proof that you are wrong, Mr. Pangburn. As you say, this is not about faith. Do you have a response to the above link?

  4. Some Teacher,
    Read my responses at that link to his assertions. His mistakes are obvious.

    The graph of temperature anomalies is merely a graph of data published by NOAA, GISS, UAH, Hadley Center, and RSS. Links to their data are provided in the pdf made public 3/10/11. These are all government agencies. Are you calling them wrong?

    You apparently didn't check anything.

    The pdf made public 11/24/11 shows anomaly updates through September, 2011 and the graph through 2011 does not look noticeably different.

    The equation calculates average global temperatures since 1895 with an accuracy of 88%. It predicted temperatures for over 20 years with a standard deviation of less than 0.1C. Its predictive ability demonstrates that it is not wrong.

    1. Data that I trust shows that global warming is continuing at approximately 2.84 degrees Celsius per century. It is from the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST)

      No, I didn't take the time to wade through all of your papers. Dr. Muller, who started BEST, was among the skeptics. The real data (not your little graphs) has changed his mind. That's good enough for me.

    2. Some teacher,
      You have been deceived.

      Since 2001 the atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased by 24% of the total increase from 1800 to 2001 while the average global temperature has not increased. I wonder how much wider the separation will need to get between the rising CO2 and not rising temperature for you to realize that maybe they missed something.

    3. Mr. Pangburn,

      In areas outside of my field, I turn to scientists who are knowledgeable and actively working in the field. Dr. Muller is a good example. It is my opinion that you are endeavoring to deceive people into thinking that humans are not changing our environment with our overpopulation. We are affecting the planet and our atmosphere is changing. It affects our climate. The details of exactly to what degree are still being determined, but it is happening.

    4. Some teacher,

      You have been deceived by people, many of whose paychecks depend on continuing to deceive you. Many others are politically motivated.

      Are you unaware of the findings of Lindzen at MIT, Christy and Spencer at UAH, Willy Soon at Harvard and many others who are “…scientists who are knowledgeable actively working in the field.”? They have found that human activity has had no significant influence on climate.

      I am not endeavoring to deceive anyone. Instead I provide links to all of the data that I use and provide detailed descriptions of how I use it. The data that I use, in the equation that has demonstrated its ability to calculate average global temperatures since 1895 with 88% accuracy and accurately predict the average global temperatures since 1990, consists of only the International sunspot numbers.

      There are five agencies that report temperature anomalies (they are on line and I provide the links in the pdf made public 3/10/11 so you can check them). I graph them all and average them to avoid bias. The average shows that there has been no average global temperature increase for more than a decade. They are graphed through August, 2011 in the pdf made public 9/24/11.

      As the level of atmospheric CO2 continues to increase and the average global temperature does not, more and more people are beginning to realize that they have been deceived. How large will this separation between rising CO2 and not rising temperature need to get for you to realize that maybe you missed something?

    5. No, Dan. You are mistaken on several levels. I have provided the links and continue to do so with my tenth follow up on this topic, posted yesterday, to scientists who I trust. The science is clear that you are wrong.

  5. Some Teacher,
    The science is very clear. A few actually understand it.

    Change to the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide has had no significant influence on average global temperature. A cooling trend has started and will continue for at least two decades.

    1. Mr. Pangburn,
      You are outside of your area of expertise. Most of the scientists who study climate change say that you are wrong. The cooling trend that you claim is not in evidence.

    2. The determination of average global temperature is a simple problem in thermodynamics and radiation heat transfer. I have a Master’s Degree in Mechanical Engineering and in my graduate work specialized in thermodynamics and heat transfer. I have discovered an equation that, using sunspot numbers as the only input, has calculated average global temperatures for well over a century with an accuracy of 88%. No one else has done that.

      Using this same equation, calibrated with data prior to 1990, I have accurately (standard deviation less than 0.1C) predicted temperatures since then. No one else has done that either.

      That equation predicts that the temperature trend, since about 2005, will be down.

      I looked at the Berkley report. It is a statistical evaluation of historical data. A curve fit. Curve fits can tell you a lot about history but they can tell you nothing about the future. Did you get that? The Berkley report can tell you nothing about the future.

      Knowledge of feedback control tells that there can not be changes in temperature trend direction if there is significant positive feedback. Global climate models do not predict global warming without the assumption of high positive feedback.

      The planet plunged into the Andean-Saharan ice age 440 million years ago when the carbon dioxide level was over ten times higher than now.

      The type of computer program that Climate Scientists use (GCMs and AOGCMs) can not predict for more than a few days. Uncertainty increases the longer the program runs so after a few days the results become increasingly nothing but mathematical noise.

      The process by which electromagnetic energy becomes thermal energy in the atmosphere is called thermalization. Thermalization is not mentioned in Trenberth’s bogus chart or the IPCC’s latest report.

      The science is known. Many Climate Scientists are apparently not knowledgeable of much relevant science and are unaware of their lack of knowledge.

    3. Mr. Pangburn, you are repeating yourself and you are still wrong. You are no more of a climate change expert than I am.

      One of the common mistakes of those who are in denial is to equate "climate change" with "global warming". Do some reading without your visible prejudice, I have provided links throughout this series of posts to real evidence from real scientists who do study this (who Mr. Pangburn thinks are "not knowledgeable of much relevant science", but Mr. Pangburn is wrong), and the trends are quite real.

      Repeating your bad information, Mr. Pangburn, does not change that it is bad.

  6. Note: Because Dan Pangburn's last comment included insults, I have chosen to delete it.


No longer open for freely commenting.