William M. Briggs

Statistician to the Stars!

People’s Climate March: The Face Of True Belief #PeoplesClimate

Note the muumuu.

Nice people

Ready for a surprise? I liked everybody I met. I mean it. I liked them so much I hated what I had to write below.

I liked the group which wore real cabbages for headpieces, some of which had cabbage horns. I liked like the anarchists from West Virginia University who were sure the capitalist system which allowed them to go to school and come to this march had failed. I liked the old lady from Miami who flirted with me and told me to be nice in what I wrote “Or I will find you”. Everybody liked the healthy topless women with mariposa stickers on her pertinents.

I liked the guy who said he had home-built his own electric car which could go 100 MPH for 100 miles, built from lithium batteries scavenged, somehow, from Chinese submarines. I liked the Sikh who darted out from under his “Sikhs 4 Climate Justice” sign to flirt industriously but in vain with a pretty Polish girl in a revealing red dress, and who, while managing to get his picture with her, said, “In future, we’ll be able to tell people this is when we first met.”

I liked the young lady who said she had played in orchestras for major movies and who gave me her CD Plastic Bag (one song features what sounds like one being opened) and who very sweetly asked if I would like to cover her musical career.

Remarkably, I saw separately (and without foreknowledge) three of my former students, all of whom I like—and still like.

I even liked the young man from Deep Green Resistance who was advocating, but vaguely promising not to himself participate in, but would, he said, support wholeheartedly if it occurred, “industrial sabotage” and other forms of “militant action” against “nodes” which when taken out would set off “chain-reaction events” to destroy the country.

I liked that absolutely everybody was sincere, absolutely everybody was concerned, absolutely everybody was kind, open, and eager to talk. It was a party and people were of good cheer. I enjoyed myself.

Belief

Absolutely everybody believed. They believed a lot of things. Everybody believed that the world was in deep kimchee, and they believed it was far past the time to do anything about it, which is why they believed something should be done now. Namely eliminate capitalism, which everybody disliked. Everybody believed that all the Arctic ice was melting, or already had melted, and everybody believed that climate change was already killing people—30,000 a year murdered by climate change was the figure often repeated.

Many carried signs stating what they believed. “CO22 dumping is morally wrong”, “Fracking = Death”, “Promote gender equality and empower women”, “Combat HIV/AIDS Malaria and Other Diseases”, “Limit Temperature Increase by 1.5 Degrees”, “Free Tibet. Save the 3rd Pole”. A mother pushing a stroller had, “Do you have Feelings about climate change? Let’s Talk.” A group boasted, “We can end climate change.” Climate change could be stopped? Another group thought so and chanted they had to power to stop it.

A man had the sign, “From Gaza to Detroit, clean drinking water is a right.” A lady had “If you like drinking water, stop ozone slaughter.” Another: “1 child per family. (Or adopt) (Domestically)”. The “domestically” was added as an afterthought, a caret in between “or” and “adopt”. A young lady had “We have a right to snow and ice.” One young man wore a t-shirt which said, “Ask me, I’m the expert on the solution.” I asked him what the solution was. He only giggled. Well, they do say that laughter is the best medicine—and is therefore a universal solution.

More: “Carbon DIEoxide” and “End CO2lonization” brought back the laughter theme. More than one marcher wore, unsurprisingly, an “Ithaca is Gorgeous ” t-shirt. Another had a t-shirt which advised, in all capitals, “Disobey.” I asked if I should disobey his shirt, but if I did, I further asked, wouldn’t that make me an obeyer? He looked puzzled, thought for a moment, smiled, and said, “Yes it would.” He kept marching.

A set of marchers carried the sign: “Climate Change is real. Teach Science.” I asked one holder, “Don’t all teachers teach about global warming? Do you know any who aren’t?” This made him pause. He said, “Oh, I just got the sign today. It’s probably happening, though. Some teachers don’t want to teach about evolution.”

One older gentleman carried a double-sided sign which read “The moral equivalent of” on one side, and on the other, “tearing down Penn Station.” I asked what was the moral equivalent. He said, “Everything that is happening.” He didn’t elaborate, but we agreed, the both of us and in detail, that the current Penn Station is awful.

There weren’t only signs. There were puppets, too. The largest was meant to be, I was told, Mother Nature, but it looked more like one of those frowsy fiftyish women in muumuus who are always holding a bottle as the gumshoe grills them in a 1940s film noir. Another crew held aloft a stretchy, block-long shiny silver tube, at the end of which were hanging objects which looked like the dreadlocks from Arnold Schwarzenegger’s Predator. A smiling young woman told me it represented a mop. “Domestic workers are cleaning up climate change,” she told me.

A group of about a dozen marchers wielded giant white paper birds on sticks, all “soaring” above a paper mâché nest, which was pulled along separately. I couldn’t stop anybody long enough to discover its meaning. Some befeathered native shamans capered about a paper mâché god. I was told they were offering it prayers. It was a popular display because the shamans were dressed in loin clothes and dancing. There was also a drum which beat out a repetitive tune.

On the south side of the park, not too far from Columbus Circle, on a grassy knoll just at the park’s edge, sat about forty yoga people. They all crouched in that cross-legged with pinched-fingers, hands-on-their-knees pose. They had a sign which read “Earth Vigil”. Now I don’t want to detract from these earnest young, almost entirely white, people, who were obviously dedicated. But more than a few would open their eyes to peek at the crowds and smile.

The crowd in the parade went nuts over the yoga people. Every marching contingent came to the edge of the police fence to take snapshots (there were vastly more marchers than spectators at any rate). One lady shouted happily, “Oh look! They’re meditating!” The Hare Krishnas who Hare-Krishna’d by looked down their noses at the yoga people.

A young man came up to me when I was noticing this and said he was happy the parade was inter-faith. He was excited about inter-faith, and noted especially that, to his understanding, Buddhism “was very sex positive, unlike Christianity” and that a lot of people came to Buddhist meetings “to meet girls.” But though he didn’t believe in labels, he often attended a Unitarian Universalist service. He also attended all the good marches, including Occupy Wall Street. To pass the time he took out his soccer ball and bounced it on his knee.

Just about that time some women religious from the Sisters of Mercy of the Americas passed by, all coiffed LCWR regulation style, carrying signs demanding justice. I asked one sister what justice meant. She wasn’t sure, and neither was her sign-mate, but she told me to talk to the sister in charge who, said said, might confirm that “justice” meant “acting in harmony with all creation.”

The sister in charge didn’t answer that, but lamented that it was difficult to attend marches like this because all women religious had to raise their own funds, “which is now harder, since we’re all getting older.” I asked if they had any new recruits. She said “only twenty-five”—and that was from all over America (or maybe it was the Americas). None of the sisters mentioned Jesus or anything like that, incidentally.

The two keys

It might not seem like it, but the two confused sign-carrying sisters were the key to the parade. Rather, one of the two keys. Your reporter lost count of the number of times he asked somebody what the poster they were carrying meant, or asked why they had come, but who couldn’t answer except to point and say something like, “You should ask her. I don’t really know too much about it. I just came with my friends.”

This lack of curiosity was especially found in the union marchers, who always like a public event, anything to further their cause. The people wanted to like what their friends and colleagues liked, and to be friendly, they joined in on the fun. Union members thought their appearance would help increase jobs and pay, and the regular people felt it was an excuse to have a good time. It’s not that all these folks didn’t believe in “the cause”, but that they couldn’t or didn’t want to articulate it. Marching was just the thing to do.

The second and larger key was more depressing, best illustrated by the group representing Physicians for Social Responsibility (I coincidentally knew one of the contingent: New York is really a large small town), a group which had initially been against nuclear weapons, they being a “public health threat”, but seeing as that threat dwindled, and that the docs were unwilling to disband, a job well done, they cast their eye towards global warming.

This was a group of scientists, so surely they would understand how science worked. I asked them how did they answer critics who showed that global temperatures for the last eighteen or so years bounced around a little, but showed no increase. Didn’t that mean global warming wasn’t true?

“It’s a temporary blip” said one. Another said, “A lot of the heat is in the ocean.” I reminded this doctor that the global climate models claimed to incorporate ocean circulation, and so if the models the IPCC relied on missed saying the heat was in the oceans, the models must be wrong. So why did he still believe? He considered but didn’t answer.

And then I asked him, as I asked many people during the parade, “Actually, for more than two decades, the models have been saying the temperatures would be way up here, but they haven’t increased at all, or only by a little. Doesn’t this mean we shouldn’t believe the models? That they are in error? Isn’t that the scientific way?”

The spokes-doctor narrowed his eyes, now full of suspicion, concentrated on chewing his gum, and considered who I might be. He said nothing, even after a follow-up question. I thanked him and left.

I never from anybody received an answer to any of these science questions. If anybody ever understood me, and most did not, the questions were beside the point. It didn’t matter what the science really said. These people believed.

63 Comments

  1. Solid gold – made me giggle 🙂 Was funny in Perth – hottest September day for ages on Saturday (32C) … climate march was on Sunday – cold (15C) and wettest September day for ages. Monsoon-like even. Gore effect strikes again.
    I agree with you totally – my observation is the same, it’s belief. And it usually lines up in the same way – justice for something/ unions/poor/soak the rich = good. capitalism(what pays the rich to fund the poor) = bad. Always tweeted from the latest iphones wearing Nike and Gap. Genius.

  2. What’s not to like about a farcical granfalloon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Granfalloon)?
    This from my local newspaper:

    For Mara Freilich, 22, a senior at Brown University, the most powerful moment came when the throngs of excited marchers fell silent at 1 p.m. in a tribute to the victims of climate change. Protesters said the moment was meant to honor those who have died in natural disasters such as floods and hurricanes. “It was pretty powerful to be in a crowded street full of people who are all completely silent,” Freilich said. “And then after the silence there was so much noise to sound the alarm on climate change.”

    Oblivious to the irony, Julian Rodriguez-Drix, a co-director of the Environmental Justice League of Rhode Island, called the day inspiring and emotional and said, “This is the first step. We’re seeing the power. Now what we need to see is drastic changes, systemic change.”

  3. I’ll repeat the G.K. Chesterton quote from a comment on yesterday’s post:

    When a man ceases to believe in God, he will then believe in anything”

  4. The young man’s comment “set off “chain-reaction events” to destroy the country.”
    This is reminiscent of the jailed individual who sets their bed on fire. In the old days (before PC), jailers just hosed the bed down and called it good. So the inmate “showed them” by setting ending up in a soggy cell with a wet, stinky mattress. Even back then, some did it more than once.
    One must ask of said young man “Where then are you going to live?”

    Honestly, if you look at the world today, we are no further ahead with our understanding and embracing of reality than we were when toothpaste had radioactivity to make your teeth sparkle (had virtually no radiation, by the way), people bought “tonics” from traveling gypsy wagons and the ancients who sacrificed virgins to their gods (virgins are in too short a supply now 🙂 ). People live how they “feel” without ever engaging the rational part of their brains and thinking. At this point, it may even be painful to try. Best solution: Hack the net and send out indoctrinating message to the masses via the iPhones. Or, try shutting down the power grid, gas stations, etc for 24 hours. Sometimes reality can bite.

    Very enjoyable write-up. You make an excellent observer and reporter!

  5. Ye Olde Statisician

    September 22, 2014 at 9:05 am

    Jacques Barzun noted in The House of Intellect that already in the 1950s the phrase “I feel that….” was replacing “I think that….” in common discourse.

  6. It all reminds me of the marches for unilateral disarmament and pacifists dressed as skeletons carrying coffins, both in the US and Western Europe. Pershing missiles into the UK. Carl Sagan making fun of Star Wars. Reagan was going to incinerate the planet. We’re doomed.

    Then the East collapsed, the Wall fell, and nobody ever asked these same people for a closing quote.

    When I see this, I feel now it really is the death throes of their game. I hope this time however there is some accountability for why we spent $Bs, and “scientists” were allowed to make random adjustments to raw data and present it as fact. Probably too much to ask, the end is good enough.

  7. Gary

    Just so nobody looses the ice-nine…
    (or at least wait until temperatures rise above the IPCC predicted catastrophe)

    Loved Vonnegut although I was always suspicious of his politics.

    Now Heinlein, I knew where he stood

  8. Great tip…but don’t tell ISIS/ISIL this recruiting tactic: “Buddhism “was very sex positive, unlike Christianity” and that a lot of people came to Buddhist meetings “to meet girls.””

    Possibly the most important observation–the magical self-beating drum exists, “There was also a drum which beat out a repetitive tune.” …because, if someone was beating the drum Briggs would have said, ‘someone was beating out a repetitive tune on a drum.’

    Examples of the people-pattern described:

    P&T show how many people will go along with anything: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi3erdgVVTw

    And this classic illustration [a warning to us all] of how humans are pathetically dismal at fact-checking to avoid Confirmation Bias: http://www.theonion.com/video/study-alzheimers-patients-say-they-do-not-have-alz,14141/

  9. Briggs aren’t you a self-proclaimed believer too? Care to explain the difference between the Vatican and the IPCC?

  10. Hans, if you need an explanation of the difference between the Vatican and the IPCC…well..

  11. Hans – While we’re waiting on Briggs (I wouldn’t stop breathing while you wait) – maybe you could explain to us the difference between scrambled eggs and Highway 61? . . . makes as much sense as your question . . .

  12. Hans—Did I miss the press release that said the Vatican is a science research facility now and that science rules the world, not God?

  13. I always laugh when they say their aim is to destroy capitalism. Do they understand that capital is simply tools used to produce wealth? Capitalists are just people that use tools to produce goods and services. Capitalism is tool use.

  14. @Hans Erren,

    “Care to explain the difference between the Vatican and the IPCC?”

    The Vatican openly admits that it is a religion.

  15. John B,
    Or becomes unstuck in time… Vonnegut may not have had the right solutions, but he sure could identify the problems. I love his short stories the best. Heinlein has a grasp on the solutions, or at least their cold reality.

    Ray,
    I laugh too because “capitalism” is just natural activity — utilizing resources to enhance survival. And capitalism’s corruption is just sinful human nature. Let’s see anybody stop those … not that it hasn’t been tried, resulting in the death and suffering of hundreds of millions.

    Hans,
    You may have a minor point in your unstated premise that both institutions operate the same way — the sacred texts of both have been peer-reviewed. 😉

  16. @Psalmon
    $Ts. Unfortunately.

  17. A million people marched in 1982 in NYC for……no nukes. A bit ironic as no doubt the same people showed up this time.

    I’m getting a feeling the the world will never be “just right” for the environmentalists. In the US and Europe they are a victim of their own success. When you can’t point to polluted waterways and smokestacks and the EPA has become a huge monstrosity, it is hard to see them as the rebel underdogs anymore. They are looking a lot more like the oppressing force they seems to despise.

    It would have been curious to see how they would treat groups standing on the sidewalk with a “We are Republicans and Proud of It!” and “AGW is a Hoax!”signs. My guess is the Republicans we get the most venom.

  18. Some of the marchers come across as unthinking. Is this worse than being irrational? I think so. It suggests a complete abandonment of any effort to make sense of things for oneself. Was this 300,000 drifters? And somewhere perhaps a handful of people, alive and dead, directing the current in which they flow. Horrible.

  19. Indeed the face of true belief, I could not have expected differently.

  20. Gary and Hans

    What passes for peer review

    Of course God has no peer…
    And neither does Mann…

  21. In global warming climatology, the term “model” is polysemic (has more than one meaning). Thus, the argument that results in the conclusion that we shouldn’t believe the climate models is an example of an equivocation. By logical rule, no conclusion may be drawn from an equivocation including this one. Details are at http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=7923 .

  22. An excellent and enjoyable essay! Particularly your conclusion: “the questions were beside the point. It didn’t matter what the science really said. These people believed.”

    But as I was reading, I couldn’t help thinking back to the pre-ubiquitous-iPhone days of almost 5 years ago when – in the aftermath of Climategate 1.0 – the “jewel in the crown” (aka the U.K. Met Office) succeeded in marshalling oodles of virtual names (supposedly all from academia, but – strangely enough – none from the University of East Anglia!) endorsing (now Dame) Julia Slingo’s “Statement” to the effect that “the science” is just fine! And I wondered to myself how many of those who signed had actually conducted any due diligence of their own?!

    And I also couldn’t help thinking back to an even more old-fashioned earlier (i.e. pre-Kyoto, 1997) chain-mail “campaign”, on the part of old-hands Mike Hulme, Rob Swart and Joe Alcamo (the latter of whom was recently recycled appointed as “Special Science Advisor” to UNFCCC Chair, Christiana Figueres):

    [Alcamo to Hulme and Swart:]

    “Distribution for Endorsements –
    I am very strongly in favor of as wide and rapid a distribution as possible for endorsements. I think the only thing that counts is numbers. The media is going to say “1000 scientists signed” or “1500 signed”. No one is going to check if it is 600 with PhDs versus 2000 without. They will mention the prominent ones, but that is a different story.

    Conclusion — Forget the screening, forget asking them about their last publication (most will ignore you.) Get those names!”

    [See: The climate consensus coordinators’ cookbook for source and other details]

    So, in the good old days, it was simply a matter of “get those names”. These days, it would seem, it’s simply a matter of “get those bodies”.

  23. John B,
    Peer-reviewed in the sense that official councils established the canon. And I suppose the Apocrypha might be considered “gray literature” by some. 😉

  24. Very heartwarming to see how these folks cleaned up after themselves. Mom told me that actions speak louder than words, so I’m sold.

  25. I regret parroting the ‘300,000’ number in my earlier comment. A politically-extreme blogger has claimed to have done some sample counts and estimated 106,500 which he fudge-factored upwards to 125,000 in order to be, I presume , conservative. The rest of his blog seems to be anything but.
    http://www.firemtn.blogspot.ca/2014/09/once-more-on-counting-crowds-at-demos.html?m=1

  26. Mr Shade,

    That PC-Progressive blog critiquing the fake crowd numbers is a great find!

    A revolutionary who can count!

    His demand for real crowd numbers, so that organizers can have “an accurate estimate of the strength of our own forces,” betrays more than a little burnt-out 60s hippie revolutionary envy of the latest version of Normal-America haters.

    But the most hilarious part of the toasted counter’s (he goes by the blog name Felix Dzerzhinsky, in case you wondered) diatribe was his explanation of why good crowd numbers are needed:

    ” But I think that whoever is pumping this number is doing the movement a real disservice. I have written before about why I think inflated demo counts are such a bad thing, including this rather passionate short piece here at FotM. You may think that it’s harmless, a “little white lie,” but consider that this whole movement bases itself on the accuracy of numbers, numbers about global warming. It behooves us to be extra-careful about this.”

    Yeah, the whole movement is based on the “accuracy of numbers.”

    Ironic, delicious, pitiful.

  27. Good insights, Kent Clizbe.
    I should have hat-tipped Robin Guenier for alerting me to the link I mentioned. He posted a comment with it today at 12:57 PM on the Unthreaded post at Bishop Hill (http://www.bishop-hill.net/unthreaded/).

  28. John Shade: I sincerely hope he’s wrong about South Dakota Quakers being there or my respect for Quakers just dived off a cliff. Supporting the climate movement whose champion John Kerry called North Korea a shining example of saving the planet and climate change the biggest threat to the globe would indicate these people have lost their minds.

    Most interesting is that these groups are protesting “capitalism” yet China is the largest contributor to CO2 on the planet. I am thinking maybe someone got the terms confused and they meant to say “communism” but it came out wrong. What they really mean is dictatorships like North Korea that are violent, anti-human and just utopias for the planet but the worst possible world for people. Of course, if they phrased it accurately, people would start realizing it’s a movement to destroy humanity, not to save the planet. (Actually, to destroy others since these people somehow think they are exempt from the consequences of their actions. They never see angry, freezing, starving people mobbing the homes of those who caused this and anyone with lights still on and a car that has gasoline—but if they succeed, it most certainly will happen. They will have a huge target painted on them—by them.

  29. “Peer-reviewed in the sense that official councils established the canon”

    Yup, exactly how the IPCC concensus was constructed: create a close knitted oligarchy of like minded thinkers, and eliminate the heretics.

  30. Sheri: (Actually, to destroy others since these people somehow think they are exempt from the consequences of their actions.)

    You hit the nail on the head. If memory serves me correctly, didn’t the great and benevolent dictator Joseph Stalin let his underlings lead the charge, the prosecutions against those that Stalin fingered were dealt with by his underlings who all looked up to Stalin for his approval at how dedicated they were to do his dirty work and then other underlings of Stalin then arrested and prosecuted the original underlings. So in the end, all the underlings who enacted Stalin’s wishes were rewarded with a bullet to the back of the head.

  31. Don, Sheri, Bob, et al: Dr. Briggs was subtly poking fun at the marchers, NOT at the IPCC. He was discussing their belief in (what he believes to be) the absence of evidence. Thus, Hans’ comparison was perfectly reasonable. Dr. Briggs is not the Vatican, believes in the tenets of the Catholic doctrine in the absence of evidence just as the marchers are not the IPCC and (per Dr. Briggs and most commenters) believe in the absence of evidence. I don’t know whether y’all were genuinely unclear on this or were just being obtuse.

    Full disclosure even at the risk of being deemed a tone troll: I was raised as and still am a Christian, though not of the Catholic faith. But I can clearly distinguish between my BELIEF in God, Jesus, and salvation and my UNDERSTANDING (albeit at the “taken a lot of college physics, gotten a degree in math, enrolled in a M.Sc. program in applied mathematics and done a lot of reading” level) of the evidence of the geophysical effects of increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

    This is not the post or even the blog to debate that, my point is that Hans made a valid comparison.

  32. “It didn’t matter what the science really said. These people believed”.
    What about the people who don’t believe?

  33. Rob: We can argue all anyone want that there is “some” evidence to support global warming, and nearly every scientist (short of a few lone holdouts) agrees that CO2 can act as a warming agent on the earth, but the science falls far short of the faith. Which I believe was the point. When the science faltered, the faith took over and the followers still believed no matter what the evidence. When you read or listen to what the followers say, it’s often a cookie cutter answer that shows no understanding of the actual subject. They believe because they believe, nothing more.

    jamspid: I suppose they weren’t going to tell Briggs that. I did read some were paid to show up and carry signs, so there may have been climate agnostics and atheists and those just looking for money or a party.

  34. Ye Olde Statisician

    September 24, 2014 at 9:46 am

    CO2 can act as a warming agent on the earth

    Sure. Without it, our planet would be an iceball. As it is, we are perilously close to the levels at which plant life shuts down.

    Problem is: the relationship is logarithmic. Thus, while increases in CO2 will always increase temperature, successive increases will raise temperature by less and less. That’s why the need for all the models to incorporate feedback looks — which are not as incontrovertible or straightforward as the Arrhenius equation.

  35. YOS: I agree. I was merely stating that CO2 potential for warming is pretty much agreed upon in science. The actual amount of warming and interactions needed to account for the amount of some claimed effects are where the disagreements occur. It’s not “simple physics”, as if often the claim. (Don’t you love that it’s simple physics sometimes and sometimes so complex only a person with a PhD and years of experience can possibly grasp the implications?)

  36. Yes Sheri, undoubtedly you’re correct. Dr. Briggs’ evidence shows this clearly. Hans’ point is the parallel to Dr. Briggs (and my) belief in the Abrahamic God and salvation in Jesus’ sacrifice. While I’ve seen lots of arguments, I’ve seen nothing that would constitute hard evidence of the existence of God. I know why I believe, and I’ve given it a lot of thought because I didn’t find “because my parents to me to Church” to be satisfactory. Nevertheless, it’s a belief in the absence of evidence (of the tangible sort).

    Dr. Briggs pokes fun at the marchers for their belief in the absence (as he sees it) of evidence. As I drove to work, I went over a whole litany of parallels. Nonetheless, I will go along with criticizing them on the basis of laziness. Evidence IS presented, some criticize the evidence itself, some criticize its interpretation, etc. Nevertheless, there are bodies of evidence.

    It’s highly doubtful that many of the marchers have the ability to interpret much of the evidence, heck, I’ve studied lots of math and physics and there’s much that I wouldn’t be able to interpret. That doesn’t let them off the hook though. I can at least assess the credibility, read summaries, etc. and decide whom I think is correct. If they haven’t done so, they should go home and get on with their lives.

    On that basis I’m happy to criticize. On the basis of “no one should believe in the absence of evidence,” not so much. Neither should Dr. Briggs be.

  37. Ye Olde Statisician

    September 24, 2014 at 3:14 pm

    I’ve seen nothing that would constitute hard evidence of the existence of God.

    I’ve seen nothing that would constitute hard evidence of the irrationality of pi. In fact, every circular object ever measured will have a definite circumference and a definite diameter, and the ratio of the two will be by definition a rational number. So part of the problem is what exactly constitutes “evidence” and how one may estimate its Rockwell number.

    One may believe in increasing atmospheric temperature on any number of grounds, such as the testimony of trustworthy witnesses in fields like fluid dynamics, astrophysics, etc. It is quite another thing to believe in the face of declining temperatures.

  38. Wow YOS, I find that to be a surprising argument coming from you. No circles have ever been measured. Real world models (there’s the m-word again) of circles have been measured by imperfect measuring devices. I suppose that, somehow, that’s your point. If I follow it, you’re saying that, because no actual ideal circle exists, there’s no “hard” evidence that pi is irrational. Therefore, if I “believe” that pi is irrational, that belief is of the same nature as my belief in God.

    Of course, as I’m sure you well know, irrationality, in the context of discussing pi, means the ratio of two whole numbers. The ratio of an mathematical (Platonic?) circle’s circumference to its diameter is proven to be not merely irrational but transcendental (of course, all transcendentals are irrational, the converse is false; the set of algebraic numbers and even the set of rationals are everywhere dense in the reals but are of Lebesgue measure zero). This follows as a sequence of logical deductions from a set of well defined primitives (Peano axioms, ZFS set axioms).

    Anyway, are you really trying to answer Hans’ valid comparison of the marchers’ belief in the absence (as you see it and, strictly for the purposes of this argument discussion, as I’ll stipulate) of evidence with Dr. Briggs’ (and my) completely analogous (with respect to those marchers only) belief in God in the absence of evidence? It’s hard for me to imagine a weaker counter than that. So, in the now commonplace custom of naming logical fallacies, I’d categorize yours as red herring and moving the goalposts.

    Finally, on January 17, 18, and 19 of 1971, the high temperatures in Los Angeles were 90, 95, and 92 respectively. On August 4, 5, and 6 of 2006, the highest temperatures in Los Angeles were 71, 69, and 65 respectively. In fact, the highest temperature for every date in January is higher than the the lowest high temperature recorded for every day in August. May I thus conclude that, in Los Angeles, there’s insufficient evidence that August is a hotter month than January?

  39. Ye Olde Statisician

    September 25, 2014 at 3:28 pm

    @RobRyan re: pi

    No. Only pointing out that not all true statements are established by the scientific means of measurement of empirical facts. The demand for “empirical evidence” makes no sense in mathematics.

    PS. Round objects are not models for circles. The circle is the model for round objects. Unless one is a Platonist, of course.

  40. YOS,

    Yes, the demand for empirical evidence makes no sense in mathematics. I agree, of course. I’m not sure why it needed to be said.

    Nonetheless, Hans’ point is valid.

  41. Sheri,

    When the science faltered, the faith took over and the followers still believed no matter what the evidence.

    Aaargh!

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/25/fact-check-for-andrew-glickson-ocean-heat-has-paused-too/

    Three points to anyone who can tell me something wrong with that rebuttal.

    When you read or listen to what the followers say, it’s often a cookie cutter answer that shows no understanding of the actual subject.

    Well sure, there’s a lot to understand. I’ve done a fair share of calling out inaccurate sound-bites myself. (I’ve done my share of disseminating inaccuracies myself.) But the fact that uncritical regurgitation of inaccuracies happens isn’t troublesome in and of itself — it’s how people react to correction which provides the measurement of my respect or disdain.

  42. YOS,

    Without [CO2], our planet would be an iceball.

    Possibly. It’s disputed whether the equatorial oceans would entirely freeze over. A slushball earth is one hypothesis competing against the proposed snowball earth thought to have occurred < 650 Ma. And a CO2 depletion event as a primary cause is not the only running supposition. As well, at the time the continental landmasses were concentrated at the equator relative today. Land has a higher albedo than open ocean, so more land area in the tropics would tend to be more cooling.

    As it is, we are perilously close to the levels at which plant life shuts down.

    What? According to Vostock ice core data, in the last glacial maximum, CO2 bottomed out under 190 ppm (~21 ka). Plants in much of the tropics were more like what we’d associate with savannahs and forests of today’s temperate zones, but plant life decidedly did not globally shut down. The minimum CO2 level in the data I’m looking at in that record date to ~600 ka, in the neighborhood of 170 ppm.

  43. Ye Olde Statisician

    September 26, 2014 at 7:53 am

    Without [CO2], our planet would be an iceball.

    Possibly. It’s disputed whether the equatorial oceans would entirely freeze over.

    Oh, good. That is so much more comforting.

    a CO2 depletion event as a primary cause is not the only running supposition.

    Oh, good. That is so much more comforting.

    As it is, we are perilously close to the levels at which plant life shuts down.

    According to Vostock ice core data, in the last glacial maximum, CO2 bottomed out under 190 ppm (~21 ka). Plants in much of the tropics were more like what we’d associate with savannahs and forests of today’s temperate zones, but plant life decidedly did not globally shut down.

    Oh, good. That is so much more comforting.

  44. Brandon: In response to your Aaargh! ARGGGGGHHHH!!!!!

    Concering your link:
    It’s on WattsUpWithThat, Willis wrote the temperature segment linked to and it disagrees with SKS?
    Okay none of the above, but I don’t have time to evaluate at the moment.

    “Sure, there’s a lot to understand.” Would you accept that statement if it was used to say that’s why people reject religion or psychic phenomena or Bigfoot? Of course not. I do agree, though, that the response to correction and logical conclusions are what really matter.

    As for your exchange with YOS, the main claim in global warming science is that CO2 is why the earth is warm enough to support human life, which is the reason quoted to me most often for why we should worry about the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. Some also say increasing CO2 is why snowball earth ended and that there was a runaway greenhouse effect on Venus due to CO2 . CO2 balance is very perilous. These are mainstream claims made by many, many, many global warming scientists. So should I be trusting them or not?

  45. Three points to anyone who can tell me something wrong with that rebuttal.

    Five points if you can.

  46. Sheri,

    It’s on WattsUpWithThat, Willis wrote the temperature segment linked to and it disagrees with SKS?

    No, those would be ad hominem arguments.

    Okay none of the above, but I don’t have time to evaluate at the moment.

    I do have a specific in mind, but the point of my asking is to see what others will come up with.

    Would you accept that statement if it was used to say that’s why people reject religion or psychic phenomena or Bigfoot? Of course not.

    You’re correct, of course. But that’s mainly because the popular reason for not belieiving in those things is for lack of sufficient evidence. Where have we heard that one before?

    I do agree, though, that the response to correction and logical conclusions are what really matter.

    One bugaboo here is whether an error is clear-cut or not. In scenarios where both parties recognize that there may be more than one correct answer, or that they both could be wrong, I think a really good response is, “Huh, interesting point, I’ll have to think about that.”

    As for your exchange with YOS, the main claim in global warming science is that CO2 is why the earth is warm enough to support human life, which is the reason quoted to me most often for why we should worry about the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.

    Any long-lived well-mixed GHG would have a similar effect. The special thing about CO2 is that it has been a prevalent gas prior to our arrival AND that it’s the one we are desequestering at an all but unheard of historical rate. It’s quite convenient that we know somewhat about its prevalence in the paleo record because that gives us a baseline for comparison.

    Fun fact of the day: 500 Ma, CO2 concentration is estimated at 7,000 +/- 3,000 ppm. (I’m eyeballing the error bars, the top end goes off scale.)

    Some also say increasing CO2 is why snowball earth ended …

    From a supervolcano erupting according to some. Some also say that a large eruption triggered the deep freeze. Have fun with that one.

    … and that there was a runaway greenhouse effect on Venus due to CO2.

    To me the significance of Venus is that it’s much hotter at the surface than it otherwise ought to be, and very cold at TOA just like we’d expect on a planet with 3.5% N2 and 96.5% CO2 in the atmosphere. How it got there isn’t as important to me … those kinds of cross-planet comparisons have a level of uncertainty in them that just doesn’t make it worth it for me to read up on.

    CO2 balance is very perilous.

    Meh. I wrote a long reply to that statement, decided against it. Short answer; my opinion is “not really”. The system has abosorbed a 100 ppm increase in the last 200 years and not come completely unhinged. I think you’re talking about Hansen’s runaway speech here, and AFAIK that scenario is currently off the table.

    These are mainstream claims made by many, many, many global warming scientists. So should I be trusting them or not?

    For the basic questions of is it happening and are we driving most of it, I’ve been at cautious acceptance since the late ’90s and confident belief for about ten years. The bulk of my skepticism centers around the questions, “how bad is it going to be, and can are you really in the ballpark on that estimate?” I think they’re in the park, but I see a lot of foul balls and dribblers. I trust them because on the whole the literature is completly up front about the uncertainties and issues and lots of papers reach different conclusions which then becomes the subject of much open debate. That looks like a healthy scientific process to me. YMMV.

  47. DAV,

    Five points if you can.

    Sheri wants a crack at it, so I’ll hold off with my answer.

    The problems with the underlying research being addressed in that post are all the usual suspects: wonky instrumentation with low spatial and temporal coverage, merging together noisy data with known errors from several different series of wonky instruments, models chasing observations chasing models — all of which adds up to big fat error bars which are quite possibly not fat enough.

    Add to that at least 10 different answers on what’s driving the cooler atmospheric temps over the past 17 years down — which are highly technical, therefore often nearly incomprehensible to me — and believe me, I find myself saying WTF on a frequent basis.

    For my money, I pick the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC) as my horse for the single most influential mechanism. Since spreadsheet forecast models are all the rage these days I’m working up my own. I’ll share when I’m done. What I can tell you now is that 15-20 more years of “pause” — even a bit of a decline — wouldn’t surprise me.

  48. I do have a specific in mind, but the point of my asking is to see what others will come up with.

    Presumably it’s something better than the PMEL graph seemingly confusing Zeta-Jones with zettajoules. If you really have a point make it and stop trolling for things to argue around without saying anything.

  49. I guess your 12:08 am comment was held up in moderation. My apologies.

    The post was showing:
    1) the slopes in the SkS graph are much larger than those in the PMEL graph;
    2) the SkS graph has a LOT more heat in the ocean above the 700m depth than the PMEL graph. At 2003, the PMEL data is around 30ZJ while the SkS graph is around 150ZJ and at 2010, the PMEL data is around 50ZJ while the SkS graph is around 200ZJ. — a factor of five.

    Even if the error bars in the PMEL graph are out of whack they are unlikely that far out.

  50. Hmmm, bad edit. 2003 is 5x while 2010 is 4x.

  51. DAV,

    Yep, the blog ate my homework, no worries. The difference in the slopes bothered me at first but then I realized that the SkS figure is a stacked graph. That’s also why it appears that the 0-700 m heat content is off by a factor of 4-5x. I don’t like stacked graphs for that reason — if I have two or more series of data I plot them separately and then add a third series with the net sum for the very reason that it preserves the slopes and magnitudes of the individual series. That’s the main thing I’d thwack SkS for here.

    There are two recent studies on OHC in play here. The PMEL graph cited is based on data from Lyman et al. (2010). The other paper is Levitus et al. (2012). If you go to the link Watts provided for the SkS graph, you’ll see that both papers are cited in the references:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/Comment_on_DK12.pdf

    So the claim that the SkS graph is using “old data” doesn’t wash. But that was not the problem I first noticed, and document Watts links to explains it in the first paragraph: “DK12 only consider the ocean heat content (OHC) increase from 0 to 700 meters, neglecting the OHC increase at greater depths.”

    Anthony then commits the exact same error that the document he’s linking to says “don’t do”. Bizarre.

  52. Brandon,
    The difference in the slopes bothered me at first but then I realized that the SkS figure is a stacked graph.

    That’s what made you feel better? The SkS 2010 0 -700m is 150ZJ greater than the PMEL value. It shows an increase of 500-600ZJ from 2003 to 2010 where the PMEL graph has an increase of 1-2ZJ for the same period, How does stacking explain this?

    The SkS graph is flat out wrong. But then for some reason maybe you think the ARGO buoy measurements are completely wrong.

  53. Durn typo. Should have said The SkS 2010 0 -700m is 1500ZJ greater than the PMEL value.

  54. Did it again! SkS is 130ZJ greater. I’m going to stop correcting this now while I’m still ahead

  55. DAV,

    SkS are getting their data from here:

    http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content700m2000myr.png

    The parent page for that image is:

    http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/index.html

    NODC uses the Levitus 2012 analysis. PMEL uses Lyman 2010. Differences and adjustments abound, but the SkS graph is not “wrong”, it lines up exactly to the image I just posted above — I scaled and rotated it in GIMP to take out the stacking portion due to the land+ice accumulation portion at the bottom and overlaid it on the NODC image and the fit is perfect.

    Yes the ARGO data are “wrong” in the sense that there are ongoing calibration and quality-control issues. The XBTs are worse. “Reanalysis” is a word you’ll see a lot. I don’t trust these data to the same extent that I do the surface temperature records because the people who do the work tell me that it’s a far more difficult task fraught with error.

    None of that, zip, nada, has anything whatsoever to do with the issue I raised, which is that Watts cherry-picked 0-700 m and declared victory all the while ignoring 1.3 km of ocean below that layer for which observations and analyses (plural) exist.

  56. DAV,

    Addendum: I got tired of eyeballing charts so I grabbed the data for the relevant time series and charted them. The results are here: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1C2T0pQeiaSX3NNeFV5aWVDNTg/edit

    What many charts do not show are the heat content anomalies for the 700-2000 m layer, so I calculated that for the NODC pendatal series and plotted it as its own series. I think it’s quite essential to do so because it’s worth noting that the estimated heat content is not rising as quickly as the upper oceans over the long term, BUT that as slope of upper ocean curves have flattened out over the past decade the slope of the 700-2000 m curve has increased.

    As well, my chart clearly shows that there are differences between the PMEL and NODC 0-700 m annual data. But since they’re on the same plot at the same scale and same baseline it’s much easier to tell where the discrepancies are — the biggest ones are prior to 2000, which prior to the period Watts is highlighting in his post.

    In sum, it’s important to look at as much of the available data as are available and to present it in a manner that doesn’t have a tendency to trick one’s eyeballs. Putting everything I can lay hands on in one chart on the same scale and not using stacked graphs is the best way I know to do that.

    ————————————————————–

    Data sources:

    NODC Basin time series heat content: http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/basin_data.html

    0-700 m annual: http://data.nodc.noaa.gov/woa/DATA_ANALYSIS/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/DATA/basin/yearly/h22-w0-700m.dat
    0-2000 m annual: http://data.nodc.noaa.gov/woa/DATA_ANALYSIS/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/DATA/basin/yearly/h22-w0-2000m.dat
    0-700 m pendatal: http://data.nodc.noaa.gov/woa/DATA_ANALYSIS/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/DATA/basin/pentad/pent_h22-w0-700m.dat
    0-2000 m pendatal: http://data.nodc.noaa.gov/woa/DATA_ANALYSIS/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/DATA/basin/pentad/pent_h22-w0-2000m.dat

    PMEL: http://oceans.pmel.noaa.gov/Data/OHCA_700.txt

    Note: I added 7.0062×10^22 J to each value the PMEL time series for baseline adjustment.

  57. Note that the PMEL data are shown in zettajoules (ZJ) and the OC5 0-700m units are 10ZJ — a factor of 10 in units. The OC5 has a change of 30ZJ from 2003-2014 while PMEL is showing less than 5ZJ change for the same period.

    Both are from NOAA and both claim to be using Argo data. One of them must be wrong unless they are displaying two different things.

    Watts cherry-picked

    Hardly. You only need to show one thing wrong. After that it’s overkill.

    ongoing calibration and quality-control issues.

    As with all on-going measurements of anything. So what? Anyway, according to this: http://data.nodc.noaa.gov/woa/PUBLICATIONS/grlheat12.pdf “Argo profiling float data that have been corrected for systematic errors provide data through a nominal depth of 1750-2000 m for the post-2004 period … Unlike salinity data from profiling floats, temperature data do not appear to have significant drift problems associated with them.” So unless the salinity values are used in the heat calculation, there aren’t any significant problems with the Argo data with respect to OHC.

  58. DAV,

    The following link is an image I prepared by superimposing the NODC pentadal graph over the SkS graph: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1C2T0pQeiaSSlVhRFRNOXBhYnc

    Where’s the problem?

    One of them must be wrong unless they are displaying two different things.

    The SkS graph is using pentadal data which has a smoothing effect. The graph I prepared and posted last night allows a direct comparison between the NODC pentadal and annual data (both the 0-700 m and 0-2000 m curves), as well as the PMEL 0-700 m annual data Watts is highlighting. The differences are minimal.

    You only need to show one thing wrong.

    What’s wrong here is that Watts ignores a 1.3 km deep layer of ocean for which there are estimates from ARGO observations.

    As with all on-going measurements of anything. So what?

    I have less confidence in these data than I do the the surface temperature records.

  59. What’s wrong here is that Watts ignores a 1.3 km deep layer of ocean for which there are estimates from ARGO observations.

    You seem to have missed this:

    Hmmm, if “…ocean heat level reflects global warming more accurately than land and atmosphere warming…” I wonder what he and the SkS team will have to say about this graph from NOAA Pacific Marine Environment Laboratory

    Oddly you seem to be agreeing with him when you say: I don’t trust these data to the same extent that I do the surface temperature records because the people who do the work tell me that it’s a far more difficult task fraught with error. Yet you still complain.

    Where’s the problem?

    The OC5 and PMEL graphs do not agree and they are both from the same organization. How many times does it need to be said before it sinks in?

    As for: I have less confidence in these data than I do the the surface temperature records.

    Too bad. The ocean is where most of the relevant heat should be and not the atmosphere. So because you don’t trust the thermometer in your living room you instead want to rely only on the more accurate one in the attic? OK.

  60. DAV,

    The OC5 and PMEL graphs do not agree and they are both from the same organization. How many times does it need to be said before it sinks in?

    Here are both the PMEL and OC5 annual 0-700 m curves overlaid on the OC5 pentadal 0-700 m / 0-2000 m graph: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1C2T0pQeiaSaXJ1bl9lQnBoX0k

    The PMEL and OC5 0-700 m curves are in rough agreement since 2003, which is the period of time Watts highlighted in his post. Since you obviously don’t believe me, go get the data as I have done and plot it yourself. I’ve posted all the relevant data links previously on this thread.

    You seem to have missed this:

    Hmmm, if “…ocean heat level reflects global warming more accurately than land and atmosphere warming…” I wonder what he and the SkS team will have to say about this graph from NOAA Pacific Marine Environment Laboratory

    No, I didn’t miss it which is why I bothered to go out and get the data for myself and posted the results last night. The difference between the PMEL and OC5 annual 0-700 m data are virtually nil, and would not materially affect the SkS graph, so there is nothing for them to say.

    I’ve mashed all three graphs together into one: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1C2T0pQeiaSNUd2aGlWdC1tems

    The 0-700 m and 700-2000 m series (the blue ones) less “Land + Ice + Atmosphere” (the orange series) in the SkS graph should stack up to the OC5 0-2000 m curve (the thick black line) … and what do you know, they match perfectly.

    Too bad. The ocean is where most of the relevant heat should be and not the atmosphere.

    Too bad? I’ve only been asking you what the largest heat sink in the system is for months now.

    So because you don’t trust the thermometer in your living room you instead want to rely only on the more accurate one in the attic?

    No, I meant exactly what I said — I have less confidence in the OHC estimates than I do the instrumental atmospheric temperature records. I want to rely on both — and I do — I just have differing levels of confidence in them. It’s NOT one or the other.

  61. the PMEL and OC5 0-700 m curves are in rough agreement since 2003,

    Hmmmm…. PMEL has a 5ZJ change 2003-2014 while OC5 has a 30ZJ change for the same period and you somehow think they are roughly the same? The difference between them is HUGE.

    And, no, in your first link, the PMEL numbers have been shifted upward. They have the roughly the same SHAPE if you insist on ignoring the monotonic upward trend of the NODC line vs. the relatively flat PMEL line but NOWHERE near the same values.The PMEL graph at 2010 is around 40ZJ while the link you provided has it at 115ZJ. This is not a small amount.

    I suppose you think a $30T debt is roughly the same as a $5T debt which is a MUCH SMALLER difference than that between than that between the SkS/OC5 graph and the PMEL graph. It’s the MAGNITUDES which are more important here; less so the SHAPE of the graph.

    And just so there is no mistake, I am referring to this: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1C2T0pQeiaSaXJ1bl9lQnBoX0k
    vs.
    this: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/noaa_upper_ocean_heat_content.png

    Sorry but I see little point in continuing. We don’t talk the same language. No wonder the IPCC leads you people by the nose.

    \

  62. DAV,

    PMEL has a 5ZJ change 2003-2014 while OC5 has a 30ZJ change for the same period and you somehow think they are roughly the same? The difference between them is HUGE.

    What on earth are you looking at? Here are the annual 0-700 m data for 2003-2013 from both PMEL and NODC:

    http://oceans.pmel.noaa.gov/Data/OHCA_700.txt

    Time(Years) OHCA(Joules 1e22) SE(Joules 1e22)
    2003.5 3.746 1.732
    2004.5 2.232 1.573
    2005.5 1.783 1.208
    2006.5 2.855 1.170
    2007.5 2.654 1.118
    2008.5 3.389 1.065
    2009.5 4.507 1.065
    2010.5 4.186 1.065
    2011.5 4.463 1.065
    2012.5 4.547 1.065

    2003-2012 change: 0.801×10^22 J (8.01 ZJ)

    http://data.nodc.noaa.gov/woa/DATA_ANALYSIS/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/DATA/basin/yearly/h22-w0-700m.dat

    YEAR WO WOse NH NHse SH SHse
    2003.500 9.952 0.622 5.656 0.262 4.295 0.479
    2004.500 10.240 0.283 6.286 0.159 3.955 0.429
    2005.500 8.412 0.317 5.218 0.113 3.194 0.350
    2006.500 10.430 0.199 5.892 0.261 4.538 0.355
    2007.500 9.478 0.233 5.661 0.226 3.818 0.232
    2008.500 10.052 0.464 6.072 0.326 3.980 0.162
    2009.500 10.126 0.357 5.463 0.235 4.663 0.449
    2010.500 10.367 0.366 5.402 0.111 4.965 0.474
    2011.500 10.869 0.445 4.726 0.209 6.144 0.280
    2012.500 10.941 0.361 5.024 0.173 5.917 0.260
    2013.500 12.601 0.602 6.217 0.100 6.384 0.625

    2003-2012 change: 0.989×10^22 J (9.89 ZJ)

    2003-2012 difference between the two series: 0.188×10^22 J (1.88 ZJ). So NODC is running ~2 ZJ higher than PMEL, not 25 ZJ as you allege above. But picking a starting and ending point then taking the difference of only those two points can fool you; much better to do a linear regression to figure the slope and compare them:

    NODC 2003-2012: 1.378×10^22 J/year, R^2 = 0.329.

    PMEL 2003-2012: 2.456×10^22 J/year, R^2 = 0.539.

    NODC has a slope not quite half of PMEL. 2004 and 2006 probably make most of the difference, and since NODC has 2013 data showing a large uptick, I added that point into the regression:

    NODC 2003-2013: 2.177×10^22 J/year, R^2 = 0.496.

    I’ve prepared three graphs and combined them into one image: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1C2T0pQeiaSTmdiTkRWZ1c0Qm8

    The top two graphs show the original data. The top one is the NODC 2003-2012 regression, the middle one is the NODC 2003-2013 regression. The bottom graph shows the NODC 2003-2013 regression with the PMEL data shifted up 7.0062×10^22 J as I’ve done in all my previous graphs as a baseline adjustment. Every year of the NODC data except 2009 are within the PMEL error bounds. Like I said, “roughly the same” — the SkS graph would not have been materially different using PMEL instead of NODC 0-700 m data.

    It’s the MAGNITUDES which are more important here; less so the SHAPE of the graph. And just so there is no mistake, I am referring to this: [links redacted to avoid going into moderation]

    With anomaly data, ONLY the CHANGES in value (slope, shape, whatever you want to call it) over equivalent periods of time matter. After 2003, both the PML and NODC 0-700 m annual curves lie right on top of the NODC 0-700 m pentadal curve (the thick red line) in my graph that you’ve re-linked to. Which was the whole point of preparing that image.

    No wonder the IPCC leads you people by the nose.

    ROFL! Well … I’m looking directly at the data, doing calculations, plotting results and showing my work. If you want to call that not speaking the “same language” be my guest.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

*

© 2016 William M. Briggs

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑