Facebook > Email > More Pinterest Print Twitter

Unfriendly Climate

Texas Tech’s Katharine Hayhoe is one of the most respected experts on global warming in the country. She’s also an evangelical Christian who is trying to connect with the very people who most doubt her research. Too bad the temperature keeps rising.

By May 2016Comments

Photograph by Randal Ford

One clear day last spring, Katharine Hayhoe walked into the limestone chambers of the Austin City Council to brief the members during a special meeting on how prepared the city was to deal with disasters and extreme weather. A respected atmospheric scientist at Texas Tech University, the 43-year-old had been invited to discuss climate change, and she breezed through her PowerPoint slides, delivering stark news in an upbeat manner: unless carbon emissions were swiftly curbed, in the coming decades Texas would see stronger heat waves, harsher summers, and torrential rainfall separated by longer periods of drought.

“Why do we care about all of this stuff?” Hayhoe asked. “Because it has huge financial impacts.” The number of billion-dollar weather disasters in the United States had ballooned from one or two per year in the eighties to eight to twelve today, Hayhoe explained as she pulled up a slide with a map of the country. “Texas is in the crosshairs of those events, because we get it all, don’t we? We get the floods and the droughts, the hailstorms and the ice storms, and even the snow and the extreme heat. And we get the tornadoes, the hurricanes, and the sea-level rise. There isn’t much that we don’t get.”

Soon afterward, Don Zimmerman, a conservative councilman who, before being elected, regularly sued the city over tax increases, declared from his seat on the dais that climate change was a “nebulous” and “foolish” field of study. Zimmerman, wearing a banker’s collar and projecting an officious air into the room, continued, “We have maybe thirty years of satellite data, and the world is maybe millions of years old. I have a really visceral reaction against the climate-change argument, for the simple reason that when you look back in time, there have been dramatic climate changes before humanity ever existed.

“The worst thing that can be done to humanity is put government bureaucrats in charge of carbon dioxide emissions,” he said as Hayhoe listened politely. “You don’t have to be as smart as a fifth grader to know that what causes the climate is the sun. I have people tell me, ‘Carbon dioxide warms the earth.’ No, it doesn’t. The sun warms the earth, and there is more energy in our sun than humanity can comprehend.” Zimmerman then insisted that the sun didn’t need “a permit from the EPA” to emit solar flares.

An uncomfortable silence settled over the chamber for a moment before Hayhoe joked, “I think if the EPA could be in charge of the sun, that could create bigger problems than we have today.” She then proceeded to gut Zimmerman’s arguments. “A thermometer is not Democrat or Republican, and when we look around this world, it’s not about trusting what our thirty-year-old satellites say. It’s about looking at 26,500 indicators of a warming planet, many of them we can see in our own backyards,” she said. The climate was not changing because of orbital cycles, which bring about ice ages, Hayhoe maintained. “The Earth’s temperature peaked eight thousand years ago and was in a long, slow slide into the next ice age until the Industrial Revolution,” she said. Instead of being in this cooling period, the planet had seen its average temperature steadily rise. The sun was also not the culprit: “If the climate were changing because of the sun, we’d be getting cooler, because energy from the sun has been going down over the last forty years,” she said.

But Zimmerman, it seemed, had no use for facts, and after the meeting he continued to harangue Hayhoe. The encounter, however, came as no surprise. In fact, it was depressingly familiar to Hayhoe, who has auburn hair, hazel eyes, and a calm, affable nature that is reminiscent of an excellent physician’s bedside manner. And she often likens herself to a doctor, but her patient is the planet. After taking its temperature, she feels compelled to report her diagnosis: because of man-made carbon emissions, the earth is running a fever. She knows that this message doesn’t always find a receptive audience. Over the past fifteen years, climate change has emerged as one of the most polarizing issues in the country, ahead of guns, the death penalty, and abortion. And there is no group that is more unconvinced of climate change’s reality than evangelical Christians, who primarily identify as conservative Republicans. As Brian Webb, the founder of the faith-based Climate Caretakers, recently told Religion News Service: “The United States is the only industrialized country in the world where denial of climate change has become inextricably linked to a dominant political party.”

All of which puts Hayhoe in a unique position. A co-author of the last two National Climate Assessments and a reviewer on the Nobel Prize–winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Hayhoe—the daughter of missionaries and the wife of a pastor—is herself an evangelical Christian. In her talks, she uses the Bible to explain to Christians why they should care about climate change and how it affects other people, from a poor family on the island nation of Kiribati who will be displaced by rising sea levels to an elderly couple in Beaumont who can’t afford to pay for air-conditioning in Texas’s increasingly sweltering summers. As she puts it, “The poor, the disenfranchised, those already living on the edge, and those who contributed least to this problem are also those at greatest risk to be harmed by it. That’s not a scientific issue; that’s a moral issue.”

Speaking at the United Nations climate summit in Paris in 2015.
Speaking at the United Nations climate summit in Paris in 2015.

Photograph by Clint Spaulding/Patrick McMullan/Sipa USA (Sipa via AP Images) (Gala)

Hayhoe maintains a dizzying schedule. In the past year, she has attended the historic United Nations climate summit in Paris, traveled to the edge of Hudson Bay, in Canada, to witness the annual polar bear migration, curated a special Good Housekeeping issue on climate change, and appeared onstage in New York with Gloria Steinem at a talk at the Rubin Museum of Art. That’s in addition to teaching her graduate-level seminars, serving as a co-director of Texas Tech’s Climate Science Center, and publishing seventeen scientific papers. (Travel is essential for Hayhoe’s job but to do her part—and perhaps head off criticism about her carbon footprint—Hayhoe buys carbon offsets to reduce the impact of her trips.) One warm afternoon in October, on a day spent in Lubbock between visits to Colorado and Houston, Hayhoe spoke at a Phi Beta Kappa ice cream social inside Texas Tech’s Hall of Nations, a room draped with the flags of 190 countries and featuring a glossy terrazzo map of the world on the floor. The crowd, mostly professors from across the university’s departments and a smattering of students, dug into Styrofoam bowls of vanilla and cookies and cream as Hayhoe, who was wearing a red top and flowing linen pants, began her speech.

“I’m a professor here at Tech, and what I’m going to talk about today is not my research. I’m going to talk about the experience that I have talking about my research. Now, most of you are not going to have the same experience I do. If you study literature, you don’t have to spend a lot of time convincing people that books are real. If you study engineering, most people will agree that engineering is real and it’s an important part of our society. But I study something that about half of the country and much more than half of Texas thinks is a complete hoax,” she said. “Many people view having climate science at Texas Tech as similar to having a Department of Astrology. But we don’t use crystal balls, we use supercomputers; we rely on physics, not brain waves.”

The study of climate science dates to 1824, when French physicist Joseph Fourier discovered what would become known as the greenhouse effect, in which gases trapped in the atmosphere absorb heat and raise the temperature of the planet. It took 35 more years for John Tyndall, an Irish chemist, to pinpoint carbon dioxide as one of the heat-trapping gases in the earth’s atmosphere. And in 1896, a Swedish chemist named Svante Arrhenius declared that burning coal contributed to the greenhouse effect, after spending almost 2 years calculating (by hand!) how increasing carbon dioxide concentrations raised the earth’s temperature. So the basic science, as Hayhoe often points out, has been settled since before the start of the twentieth century. Today, there is robust scientific consensus that global warming is “real, caused by humans, and dangerous”; a study found that 97 percent of climate scientists agree that anthropogenic climate change is happening, and many scientific organizations have issued statements that it is a threat.* The Department of Defense calls climate change a “threat multiplier,” because it exacerbates existing problems. And the year 2015 was the warmest on record, breaking the previous mark, which was set in 2014.

So why is climate science greeted with so much skepticism? Part of the reason can be attributed to the way the topic is often handled in the media. On cable news, two people from opposite sides of the debate are typically paired to argue about the subject, but that can lead to a false equivalency between scientists on the one hand and paid spokesmen on the other. As historians Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway chronicled in the book Merchants of Doubt, some of the most prominent climate-change skeptics are the same politically conservative scientists who were previously funded by Big Tobacco to spread falsehoods about cigarettes. Their employer this time around? The fossil-fuel industry.

And part of the reason is the suspicions that conservatives have of government intervention. Hayhoe has found that some people don’t reject the reality of climate change because they disagree with the science but because they fear that the solutions will upend their lives. This seems to be the case for U.S. senator James Inhofe, a Republican from Oklahoma, who once told journalist Rachel Maddow, “I thought it must be true until I found out what it would cost.” That day at Tech, Hayhoe recounted an anecdote about an experience she’d had speaking to a group of water managers for the Brazos River a few months back. At the end of that talk, an older man stood up and said, “Everything you said makes sense, but I don’t want the government telling me where to set my thermostat.”

Some critics feel so threatened that they resort to ad hominem attacks on climate scientists. Hayhoe receives a steady stream of hate mail, which she files away in a special folder. When I asked her when this started, she replied, “The first time I was ever quoted in a newspaper article.” The ugliness reached its height in 2012, during the presidential race. At the time, Hayhoe was writing a chapter on global warming for a book Republican hopeful Newt Gingrich was co-authoring about the environment. Rush Limbaugh mentioned it on his radio program, dismissively referring to Hayhoe as a “climate babe.” A few days later, an Iowa voter buttonholed Gingrich on camera to ask him about it, and Gingrich swiftly replied, “That’s not going to be in the book. We didn’t know that they were doing that—we told them to kill it.” Hayhoe took to Twitter to respond: “What an ungracious way to find out, eh? Nice to hear that Gingrich is tossing my #climate chapter in the trash. 100+ unpaid hrs I cd’ve spent playing w my baby.”

Most of the time, she laughs these incidents off. “I got one today that was exceptional,” she told me in late September, as we sat inside the Climate Science Center. “Most of the stuff is rambling, but this one was not. Someone wrote on Facebook, ‘She is a lying lunatic, and probably a witch.’ That was very concise,” she said with a grin. But sometimes the comments veer into violent territory. Hayhoe recalls one email that prompted her to call authorities. “You are a mass murderer and will be convicted at the Reality TV Grand Jury in Nuremberg, Pennsylvania,” the email began. “After the Grand Jury indicts you, I would like to see you convicted and beheaded by guillotine in the public square, to show women that if they are going to take a man’s job, they have to take the heat for mass murder.” But most of the time, Hayhoe doesn’t let such vitriol drive her to despair, though dealing with it can be exhausting. “What frustrates me the most, and what I find difficult not to take personally, is how much of the hate mail comes from so-called Christians.”

That bile is something Hayhoe never anticipated when she was applying to graduate school 22 years ago. A native of Toronto, she had double-majored in physics and astronomy at the University of Toronto and spent every clear night one summer gazing through the telescopes on top of the physics building. She found that the astronomer’s life appealed to her and planned to study that in graduate school. Then she took a climatology class her junior year. “Until I took that course, I did not realize that climate change is affecting everything, from poverty to biodiversity to health, and so you can’t fix any one of them if you leave climate change out of the picture,” she told me. She also realized that her background in physics had perfectly positioned her to study climate modeling.

If she was going to leave astronomy behind, Hayhoe wanted to do policy-relevant climate science. When she was considering graduate programs, she was thrilled to learn that Don Wuebbles, who had been instrumental in addressing the chlorofluorocarbon problem in the eighties, was the new head of the department of atmospheric science at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. He would serve as her adviser for both her master’s degree and her doctorate. Under Wuebbles’s guidance, Hayhoe eventually began focusing on statistical downscaling, which was still a relatively new field when she started graduate school, in 1995. “There was very little of this being done at the time,” Wuebbles recalled recently, “and the methods were not capturing the full extent of the science, so she set about to develop a new technique and very successfully did so. She’s brilliant.”

Statistical downscaling involves combining historical weather observations with global-climate models to better predict what the future could look like in a particular place. “The local environment, whether it’s hilly or flat, with crops or forest, urban or rural, modifies the weather patterns we get,” she said. “So, for example, if we had identical high-pressure systems over Lubbock and Houston, it would mean something different for the temperature, for the humidity, for the rainfall patterns.” Hayhoe also tries to see if the global models reflect real-world conditions on the ground. “When we get an El Niño, we see a very wet winter from here in Lubbock all the way across to Florida. Do the models pick that up or not? We need to know,” she explained.

Hayhoe runs simulations on a supercomputer, then she combs through the data to interpret the output. On a practical level, this means Hayhoe exists in a world of numbers, thousands upon thousands of lines of them. A single file dealing with one variable—say, temperature across the country over the next hundred years—can be almost five gigabytes in size. And she runs these simulations for multiple variables and scenarios on multiple climate models. (Some 42 global-climate models exist today, run by labs around the world.) These reams of data are shapeless until she translates them by writing code. “What a lot of people don’t realize is that the most important skill any climate scientist has is programming,” she told me over pizza in Lubbock one afternoon last fall.

Hayhoe has used downscaling in her consulting work for the cities of Washington, D.C.; Boulder; and Chicago, as well as federal entities, including the Department of Defense and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. She helps analyze problem areas, such as sewer overflow during heavy rain or warped train rails during heat waves, and tries to pinpoint how often those things will be a problem in the future, based on changing climate patterns. In 2004 Hayhoe was an author on a paper that examined California’s future from different angles, from water supply to agriculture to tourism. She was heartened when, a few months later, that research prompted Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to sign an executive order limiting greenhouse-gas emissions. He was the first governor to do so. “When Schwarzenegger signed that bill, he had the authors from California standing in a semicircle behind him. The reason why I left astrophysics is to do policy-relevant research, and when I saw that picture, I thought to myself, ‘I did it. This works.’ ”

Hayhoe’s scientific credentials are impeccable, but what has made her an international star are her skills as a communicator. John Abraham, an associate professor of thermal sciences at the University of St. Thomas, in Minnesota, has called her “one of the best climate communicators in the world.” Abraham told me, “She is extraordinary at relaying very complex topics into language that other people can understand, without speaking down to them. The other thing she’s good at is hearing questions. We all listen, but she has this innate ability to understand the perspective of the person making the inquiry,” he said. “She has this knack for honestly presenting the science but doing it in a disarming way for people who are often anti-science.”

Katharine Hayhoe addressing faculty and students at Hardin-Simmons University.
Hayhoe addressing faculty and students at Hardin-Simmons University.

Photograph by AP Photo, Abilene Reporter-News/Nellie Doneva

One mild Friday in early October, I flew to Houston with Hayhoe and her eight-year-old son, who spent the short flight absorbed in the game Minecraft on his iPad while Hayhoe tapped away on her laptop. She was to give a keynote speech at Memorial Drive Presbyterian Church, a collection of limestone buildings nestled between pine trees in one of Houston’s most affluent neighborhoods. The weekend symposium was called “Faithful Alternatives to Fossil Fuel Divestment.” Hayhoe arrived with some tough talk for her audience. “There’s no way to sugarcoat this, and I wish I could, because I know I’m in Houston, but the way that we get our energy does matter. If we continue to rely only on fossil fuels, we’re going to end up on a very different pathway than if we gradually and sensibly transition to clean and renewable energy that we can grow here in Texas—and that many of our energy companies are already investing in very heavily.”

The conference was organized in response to the Presbyterian Church (USA)’s proposal to divest church resources from fossil fuels, a move the Houston chapter had rejected as a symbolic one that unfairly vilified the people who work in the fossil-fuel industry. The group instead proposed that the national organization take steps to reduce its carbon footprint and advocate for a carbon tax. Hayhoe, too, is a proponent of putting a price on carbon and letting the markets sort it out. She thinks that a reasonable tax on gasoline would be around 6 cents a gallon. “Regulations just get more and more complicated, and you have to hire new people to deal with them,” she explained. “It gets expensive and difficult to plot your strategy, but any business–from the ma-and-pa shop around the corner to the biggest multinational in the world–knows what to do with a simple price change. Business is all about maximizing profit and minimizing costs. So in a sense, putting a price on carbon just frees up business to do what it does best.”

But the most revealing part of her talk centered on why Christians should care about climate change. To lead into this subject, Hayhoe flipped to a slide with a quote from John Holdren, President Obama’s science adviser: “We basically have three choices: mitigation, adaptation, or suffering. We’re going to do some of each. The question is what the mix is going to be. The more mitigation we do, the less adaptation will be required and the less suffering there will be.” Suffering, Hayhoe said, is not a word often deployed by scientists. “As scientists we don’t know a lot about suffering, but as Christians we do. And we know that part of the reason we’re here in this world is to help people who are suffering.” And that suffering will not be meted out proportionally: if global warming continues unchecked, the poor—whether they’re in Houston’s Fifth Ward or in low-lying areas of Bangladesh—who have contributed least to carbon emissions will feel the most pain, from enduring more-intense heat waves to paying the higher food prices that will accompany failed crops. Throughout the Bible, God charges Christians to serve others, Hayhoe said, from Genesis, where God makes man in his image so that he can be responsible for every living creature on earth, to 1 Peter 4:10: “ ‘Each of you should use whatever gift you have received to serve others, as faithful stewards of God’s grace in its various forms.’

“We’ve been given this commandment to love others as Christ loved us,” Hayhoe said as a slide quoting John 13:34–35 flashed on the screen: “ ‘Let me give you a new command: love one another. In the same way I loved you, you love one another. This is how everyone will recognize that you are my disciples—when they see the love you have for each other.’ ” She continued: “You can see, you just go through the Bible for verse after verse. They’re not verses about climate change; they’re not verses about the environment. They’re verses about our attitudes and perspectives to other people on the planet. We are to be recognized for our love for other people.” The members of the crowd nodded along in agreement as she spoke. The year 2015 was a good one to be proclaiming this message: in June, Pope Francis sent out his 192-page papal encyclical imploring the world’s 1.2 billion Catholics to care about climate change, and in October, the National Association of Evangelicals issued a similar call to action.

Hayhoe can speak honestly about suffering because of a lesson she learned when her parents became missionaries and moved the family to Colombia when she was nine. There, she witnessed true poverty. Her father would travel to remote villages to speak at tiny churches, and she remembers hearing stories of landslides washing away homes after heavy rains. She now recognizes that these early memories of poverty and vulnerability have informed her work. Hayhoe was raised as a member of the Plymouth Brethren, a conservative, evangelical offshoot of the Anglican Church that emphasizes reading the Bible and interpreting it for oneself. This lent itself well to science, Hayhoe told me. “My dad was very much of the perspective that the Bible is God’s first book and nature—creation—is God’s second book.”

Though Hayhoe has always been serious about her faith, connecting with groups of fellow Christians about climate change was not something she did before moving to Texas. In 2006 she and her husband, Andrew Farley, relocated from South Bend, Indiana, to Lubbock, one of the most conservative cities in the country, so that they could both take jobs at Texas Tech, he as a linguistics professor, she as a researcher. He also became the pastor at a small nondenominational church on the southwest side of town, now called Church Without Religion. People were surprised when they learned what the pastor’s wife did, and Farley started getting lots of questions about it. And at Texas Tech, the invitations for Hayhoe to speak about climate change started rolling in. The volume of these questions and the lack of resources to point people to spurred her and Farley to write a book together, A Climate for Change: Global Warming Facts for Faith-Based Decisions. The questions they tackle in the book were familiar territory for the couple, who had met through a Christian organization while in graduate school. A few months into their marriage, Hayhoe realized that Farley, who had grown up in a conservative household in Virginia, did not think climate change was real, and they began vigorously debating the topic. “It took about two years, but now we’re on the same side,” she said.

But beyond just speaking to Christian groups, Hayhoe prides herself on being able to talk to anyone with an open mind about the reality of climate change. She bemoans the fact that global warming has come to be viewed as a niche environmental issue. “To care about climate change, all you have to be, pretty much, is a human living on planet Earth. You can be exactly who you are with exactly the values you have, and I can show you how those values connect to climate change,” Hayhoe told me.

Hayhoe’s first step is always to “genuinely bond over a shared value,” with an emphasis on that shared value’s being genuine. “The key is not to pretend; we can all smell someone who is not genuine a mile away,” she said. “If I’m talking to farmers or ranchers or water managers, I start off by talking about what we all care about, which is making sure we have water. And that, for many Texans, is almost as strong of a value as whatever it says in the Bible.” Her next step is to connect that issue to climate change. So when talking about water, she describes how climate change is changing rainfall patterns. “We’re getting these heavy downpours, and then we’re getting longer dry periods in between, and our droughts are getting stronger because the warmer it is, the more water evaporates out of our lakes and rivers and our soil,” she said. She tries to end her talks with solutions that inspire people, ranging from the personal (measuring your carbon footprint and installing energy-efficient light bulbs) to the large-scale (putting a tax on carbon). Hayhoe herself is most excited by the efforts of Elon Musk, the CEO of Tesla Motors and founder of SpaceX. “If I had to pick one person to save the world—and I don’t think any one person will but if I had to pick one—it would be him.” She is excited about the battery packs that Tesla is developing, declaring energy storage the “single technology that will make the most difference.”

Ultimately, she does not care whether people agree with the science, so long as they take action. She compares this to a battle waged in the mid-1800’s, before the germ theory of disease gained widespread acceptance, when a Hungarian physician urged other doctors to wash their hands and instruments before delivering babies. As doctors changed their habits, fewer and fewer women died from “childbed fever.” “I don’t care if they thought germs are imaginary, so long as they washed their hands,” she said. The same is true for climate change, in Hayhoe’s mind. If people start using more-efficient light bulbs or driving more-fuel-friendly cars, it doesn’t matter what they think about the science.

Hayhoe is coy about her own personal politics, and this air of mystery is useful to her. When I asked her about another Canadian-born Texan, climate-change skeptic and senator Ted Cruz, she demurred. She’s a U.S. permanent resident but not a citizen, so she can’t vote in the presidential election, and she seems to enjoy the level of remove this gives her from American politics. “It helps me not to pick sides, because people always ask if you’re Democrat or Republican, and I’m neither. I can’t be,” she told me. “I appreciate the solutions that some Republicans are starting to advance, and I appreciate the fact that Democrats accept the science. But it’s become so polarized that the good people on both sides are being marginalized.” Whoever the next president is, Hayhoe hopes he or she will honor the commitments made at the climate summit in Paris last year and also put a price on carbon.

Hayhoe’s religious background led NOVA’s Secret Life of Scientists and Engineers to dub her a “climate change evangelist” in 2011, and the label has stuck, though she is lukewarm on it. “An evangelist is someone who spreads good news, and I feel like I’m not really evangelizing. I feel more like a Cassandra, or an Old Testament prophet spreading bad news, saying, ‘If thou dost not change from thy wicked ways and repent, thou shalt reap the harvest of thy deeds.’ ” But when Hayhoe talks, she doesn’t sound so pessimistic. That’s a strategic choice, as she realizes that doom and despair won’t motivate others to act. For that, you need hope. “You have to offer people a vision of what the world could look like if we could wean ourselves off fossil fuels, if we could have a clean-energy economy,” she said. “We would all want to live in that world.”

Lyndon Baines Johnson was at his ranch outside Johnson City recuperating from gallbladder surgery on November 5, 1965, when his science advisers published a 317-page report warning about the dangers of air pollution. Tucked away in an appendix were 23 pages about atmospheric carbon dioxide. “Through his worldwide industrial civilization, Man is unwittingly conducting a vast geophysical experiment,” the report states. “Within a few generations he is burning the fossil fuels that slowly accumulated in the earth over the past 500 million years.” This additional carbon in the atmosphere would, over time, raise the earth’s temperature, slowly melt the antarctic ice cap, and lead to increased ocean acidity, the report proclaimed. “The climate changes that may be produced by the increased CO2 content could be deleterious from the point of human beings,” the report concluded.

Fifty years later, Hayhoe gave the capstone presentation at a daylong symposium in Washington commemorating the first time a president was warned about the danger of climate change. “As several have already said today, we are conducting an experiment with our planet on a scale that has never before been attempted,” she said, echoing the words of the report. The climate models that scientists now use churn out petabytes of data—which is something like, in Hayhoe’s words, “twenty million four-drawer filing cabinets full of text”—that then need to be analyzed to see how these changes will manifest in particular locales. “What’s the point of doing all of that modeling and all of that analysis if we don’t understand how it’s going to affect the system right here that we care about?”

Would LBJ even recognize the future Texas predicted by these models? In the past fifty years, temperatures in Texas have risen half a degree per decade and are set to rise at least 3.5 degrees by mid-century if global emissions aren’t slashed. “Our average summer could look like 2011 within my lifetime if we continue on our current pathway,” Hayhoe told an audience in October, referencing that scorching summer when much of Texas saw more than one hundred 100-degree days. Austin could feel more like Scottsdale, Arizona. Rainfall patterns are shifting, so the state will face longer dry spells punctuated by more bouts of heavy rain. In West Texas, farming and ranching communities have thrived in the semiarid environment by pulling water from aquifers. But as the aquifers dry up, these communities are relying more on rainfall, just as that rainfall is becoming less likely and droughts are getting more intense, Hayhoe said. In LBJ’s beloved Hill Country, this means increased risk of fire. Humans are the ones igniting the fires, but climate change is making them worse by providing the ideal dry conditions they need to spread. On the Gulf Coast, where a quarter of the state’s 27 million people live, sea levels are already eight inches higher than they were a hundred years ago and are set to rise an additional one to four feet by the end of the century. And then there’s the danger from stronger hurricanes fueled by record-breaking ocean temperatures.

Texas leaders, however, seem unwilling to tackle the problem or even admit that it exists. Governor Greg Abbott has long voiced skepticism about the science of climate change, telling the editorial board of the San Antonio Express-News during his gubernatorial campaign that the climate has always changed over time and further study was needed. “We must be good guardians of our earth, but we must base our decisions on peer-reviewed scientific inquiry, free from political demagogues using climate change as an excuse to remake the American economy,” he told the newspaper. As attorney general, Abbott made a habit of suing the Obama administration, oftentimes over regulatory issues relating to climate change. His successor, Ken Paxton, is continuing that tradition, joining a lawsuit in October over the administration’s Clean Power Plan, which calls on states to curb emissions by phasing out coal plants and shifting to natural gas and renewables. The plan would require Texas to decrease its coal power capacity by 4,000 megawatts, or 25 percent, and Paxton has likened this to the EPA’s mounting a “war on coal and fossil fuels.”

In such a milieu, efforts to incorporate climate change into planning at the state level have fallen flat, and bills that attempt to address it have gone nowhere in recent years in the Legislature. “At the state level, in some circles, climate change is still a taboo subject,” John Nielsen-Gammon, the state climatologist, told me. This leaves cities to do their own resilience planning. Meanwhile, entities such as the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, the operator of the state’s electric grid, are not taking climate change into account when developing their projections for load growth, which could lead to problems as the mercury creeps upward.

In Congress, Texans are some of the most vocal climate-change skeptics. Congressman Lamar Smith, a Republican from San Antonio, has used his chairmanship of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee to tussle with federal agencies over their climate-change research, going so far as to subpoena the scientists who conducted a study with a conclusion he disagreed with and demand their emails. (Smith, it is worth noting, has received more than $600,000 in campaign donations from the fossil-fuel industry over his 29 years in Congress.) And then there’s Cruz, who in December held a three-hour Senate hearing titled “Data or Dogma? Promoting Open Inquiry in the Debate Over the Magnitude of Human Impact on Earth’s Climate,” at which he claimed that there was a lack of scientific consensus on global warming.

Hayhoe is hopeful that as green energy gets cheaper, more people will begin using it. “Texas is unique, in that it is one of the states that have the most to lose economically from climate-change impacts, but Texas also has the most to gain by transitioning to a clean-energy economy,” Hayhoe told me one day in her office on campus, a cluttered, windowless space. The room’s sole decorative flair, a papier-mâché arctic fox that was a Christmas present from her young son, sat perched on a shelf.

If Texas were its own country, it would be the seventh-most-prolific emitter of carbon dioxide in the world. As it stands, Texas is the number one emitter in the U.S.; it released some 641 million metric tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere in 2013, almost double that of California.

But the state also has a seemingly boundless potential for green energy. Texas leads the nation in wind generation; turbines produced a full 10 percent of the state’s power in 2015. By 2030, that number is forecast to jump to 37 percent. One night last September, supply of wind power was so plentiful and demand was so low that the spot price of electricity went negative for a few hours. Solar installation has lagged behind, but when it ramps up, there’s enough capacity just in the area a hundred miles square** between Plainview and Amarillo to light the entire United States, as Hayhoe likes to point out. In Pecos County alone, companies have plans to invest $1 billion in large-scale solar energy farms.  “Texas understands energy. Energy is a Texas thing,” Hayhoe told me. “We have the land we need to do this, as well as the technology and entrepreneurial spirit. I wish that the whole state could see that this is an opportunity for a better future.”

*Clarification: This sentence has been edited to clarify the conclusions of the study and include the fact that a number of scientific organizations have issued statements about global warming being a threat. 

**Correction: An earlier version of this sentence incorrectly referred to this area a hundred square miles. We regret the error. 

Related Content

  • donuthin2

    Wow, This lady is pretty remarkable both in her scientific skills as well as her communication skills. Her ability to stand before a group of cynics and present the science is very unusual. I was once pretty cynical about whether global warming was real but even more so that the activities of civilization may be a major driving force. I now think the evidence is pretty compelling. Unfortunately before the evidence is strong enough to convince most of the skeptics, we will be so far down the road that fixing the problem will be exponentially more difficult. We simply cannot afford the risk of being wrong.

    • Hugh Everett

      “It has been estimated that the U.S. national commitments to the UN to reduce emissions by 28% will prevent three hundredths of a degree centigrade in warming by 2100.”– Judith Curry, National Research Council Climate Research Committee, in testimony before Congress

      http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/judith_curry_how_much_warming_are_we_really_causing_and_whats_the_point_of_/

      That’s a simple statement of cost-benefit analysis. Forcing every American to live like Fred Flintstone in a moribund economy will achieve a ΔT so insignificant that it would be quickly negated by developing nations. It is mathematically impossible for Americans to reduce the temperature of the planet. People who understand science and math are able to grasp this concept.

      • plainsman844
        • Hugh Everett

          It would be fascinating to read your scientific rebuttal to this assertion:

          “It has been estimated that the U.S. national commitments to the UN to reduce emissions by 28% will prevent three hundredths of a degree centigrade in warming by 2100.”

          Liberals love the word “science”, but I’ve never met one who is well educated in the field. I’m sure your response will be impressive.

          • plainsman844

            You assume Judith Curry’s statement is correct. Based on her previous performance, I do not. And regarding your previous “Flintstone” characterization, I would direct you to the views of economists with some climate expertise:
            http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/jan/04/consensus-of-economists-cut-carbon-pollution

          • Hugh Everett

            “You assume Judith Curry’s statement is correct.”

            You are invited to correct her assertion. The Obama Administration has committed to reduce the national carbon footprint by 28%. How much will surface temperature be reduced as a result of this massive undertaking?Hint: If the answer is in the ballpark of 0.03 °C, then the remedies promoted by environmentalists are ridiculous.If you accept the challenge to answer the question, you would be the first warmist-alarmist to ever try it. Good luck.

          • plainsman844

            For starters, whether that figure is correct or not, it’s rather meaningless since it seems to presume that no other countries will be lowering their emissions correspondingly. The current Paris Agreement is molded around an initial four year plan of strategy development, so the process is just beginning.

            Personally, I think the Paris 1.5 C target is unlikely, but 2 C might well be achievable, as further discussed in the following, which predates Paris:
            http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/10/limiting-global-warming-to-2-c-why-victor-and-kennel-are-wrong/

          • Hugh Everett

            “whether that figure is correct or not, it’s rather meaningless since it seems to presume that no other countries will be lowering their emissions correspondingly”

            The U.S. is only responsible for 15% of anthropogenic CO2. 0.03/0.15 = 0.2 °C That would be the total reduction if all countries reduced the global carbon footprint by 28%. Of course, the developing nations like China and India will be increasing their emissions, not lowering.

          • Biologyteacher100

            Yes, climate change is an international problem. Fortunately, with US leadership the world is taking action. And fortunately, China is taking very strong action. How can we expect developing countries to make commitments if the US does little or nothing? The US is responsible for a large amount of the CO2 that has accumulated during the past 50 years, far more than any other country in the world.

          • Infoczar

            “And fortunately, China is taking very strong action.” No it isn’t. They have yet to meet a single benchmark – saying you are doing something is very different from doing something. You claim to be a scientist but don’t seem to understand the concept of verification.

          • Biologyteacher100

            China had a goal of peaking their coal burning by 2017. They actually achieved their goal in 2014. China had been increasing their emissions at a high right. The sharp decline in China is the reason why world carbon emissions peaked and started down in 2015. You probably also know that China is investing about 30% of the worlds total dollar investment in solar and wind energy.

          • Infoczar

            I sure can’t breath when I’m there.

          • Your “luck” will run out when your fossil fuel subsidy swag does.
            GOOD!

          • joe1234x

            I am entertained by the environmentalists’ complaints of “subsidized” fossil fuels while every alternative fuel and energy source has been heavily subsidized… forever. Lol

          • Biologyteacher100

            I have a long record of scientific research, publication and teaching at a US university and several European science institutes. Among the hundreds of Ph.D. scientists I know both in the US and worldwide, there is a range in political affiliation, but hardly any can stomach the current anti-science ranting of the Republicans. Do you actually know or meet any scientists who are active doing science and publishing their results?

          • Hugh Everett

            I work with hundreds scientists who hold thousands of valuable patents in petroleum technology. My degrees are in chemistry, chemical engineering, petroleum engineering.

          • Biologyteacher100

            Petroleum engineers seem to be skeptical about climate science. Not surprising.

          • David

            I laughed but if you are going to go there you must also admit people might want to protect their research money or their academic prestige. Two edged sword.

          • Biologyteacher100

            The way to develop a scientific reputation is to published research that is supported by new science in the coming years and decades. For example, one of my papers that was published in 1991 has been cited by over 400 other studies. It’s proven to be the basis of an increasingly important area of research and its highest citation rate was in 2014. Scientists really want to get it right, because they know that their reputations depend on it.

          • Infoczar

            I’d be careful conflating biology and climate science if you are truly concerned with reputation.

          • Biologyteacher100

            I am occasionally called on to edit and review studies on climate change effects by oceanographers and limnologists. I began reading the climate literature very broadly when I was involved in a study of the effects of warming on a large lake on the border of Italy and Switzerland. Biologists study effects of climate on ecosystem function and species populations. We mainly use experiments and long term data sets to look at impacts that have already occurred, but we need to understand what is ahead.

          • Infoczar

            That is a terrible thought.

          • Biologyteacher100

            Great–are you saying that you are an editor for a peer reviewed science journal?

          • Infoczar

            I don’t need to be (nor want to be ha ha), I have enough influence to keep colleagues from reviewing the work of confirmed biased reviewers – all I have to do is point them to this thread.

          • joe1234x

            But their research funding depends on being on the lucrative side of the argument. That can cause a lemming-like agreement as the large majority of researchers begin their work with a (subconscious?) bias to stay in the money and therefore back each other.

            I’m not saying it’s a huge conspiracy and completely false, but we need to acknowledge that there are biases on all sides of this, and none stronger than the need to keep the research funds flowing.

          • Biologyteacher100

            The best way to advance science is to propose research, the outcome of which, would either support or contradict current understanding. A scientist does not know the outcome when he or she starts a study. The best result is one that provides strong clear evidence one way or the other, not one that supports a particular viewpoint. Actually if a scientist could present strong evidence against the climate consensus, he or she would be very famous and would easily get research grants and recognition. My best research results were ones that were unexpected and showed that most of my colleagues were wrong. You get a scientific reputation by advancing science, not by just confirming the status quo.

          • joe1234x

            Right. But you can also get a reputation by radically advancing the status quo.

          • Biologyteacher100

            Of course and this is what has happened over the past 30 years. New lines of research supporting the notion that greenhouse gases are warming the planet and have been a major control of the earth’s climate in the past. Scientists have gathered data that could cut down or support the greenhouse mechanism and just about all of the evidence supports the fact that greenhouse gases are now warming the climate at a rapid rate.

          • Biologyteacher100

            I’ve served on NSF panels in Washington DC and have also reviewed hundreds of grant proposals over the years. No body gets funding by proposing boring research that just repeats when we already know. The best proposals are ones that have a potential to contradict our current understanding. Research money is very short. At NSF and NIH the country’s top scientist try and only 10-15% of proposals are funded. The ones that are funded support potentially ground breaking research.

          • joe1234x

            “… that supports global warming.” There I fixed it for you. I never said it wasn’t competitive or that they were funding boring, repetitive research. Just that research illustrating critical problems is more likely to get funded than research that says there’s not that much to worry about. Not to mention, if there’s not much to worry about, the entire click ate research funding arena disappears or is greatly reduced. There is no doubt good climate research that is funded. But I am skeptical that there is a bias inherent in this system.

          • Infoczar

            No body [sic] . . .

          • plainsman844
          • See false equivalence. There simply no comparison with a paid hack defending dirty, planet polluting energy and the money available for climate research.

            Billions of dollars in profits a YEAR for over a century for dirty energy visiting all sorts of human misery on mostly, but not limited to, the poor and other life forms in the biosphere versus the pitttance in climate science research is what you call a “two edged sword”!!?

            I don’t think so.

          • David

            I didn’t say they were equal. Try to not get so excited.

          • I prefer facts to false equivalences. If you think my concern with the greedy and suicidally stupid behavior of the fossil fuel industry equates to “getting excited”, perhaps I have some grounds for getting excited.

            When you are in a hole, it is customary to stop digging.

          • Smoky Joe

            You implied it. Don’t waggle out.

          • David

            Your reading comprehension sucks. I said that if you allow for the possibility that petroleum engineers can be biased then you must also admit that other scientists might be biased as well. Did I say just as many climate scientists are biased? Did I say they are biased in the same degree? I won’t waggle out if you don’t make assumptions. Do you think climate scientists are incapable of bias? Are climate scientists not human?

          • joe1234x

            You should acknowledge the harmful effects of attempts to reduce CO2 production on the world’s poor as well. Health, longevity and quality of life are all linked to standard of living, which is driven by low costcost, plentiful energy. When we decide to choose to go with the higher cost renewables or higher cost alternatives, it is way for the well off but a massive burden on the world’s poor, preventing their access to higher standards of living and all that entails. So let’s look at the complete picture.

          • Biologyteacher100

            Right now about 300 million in India are suffering from drought and extreme heat. Wide parts of Africa have the same problem. Of course, burning coal and oil fuels makes many Indian cities dangerous place to live. Right now, the Indian government says that solar power is less expensive than new coal power and fortunately they are moving away from coal. When hundreds of millions of the world’s poor become climate refugees, this will not be a positive effect of fossil fuels on helping to raise standards of living.

          • joe1234x

            Okay. But if we restrain our CO2 production tomorrow to 1990 levels, the drought and extreme heat effects that you attribute to anthropogenic CO2 will not end for years or decades, correct? But their lack of sanitary facilities, air conditioning, potential for cheap, clean water and other such infrastructure will suffer due to the increased cost of energy.

            The fact that Indian cities are dangerous places to live in is entirely unrelated to CO2 production but highly related to NOx, SOx, HC, and particulate matter. These things are not produced in large quantities by modern power plants. This is a local emissions control problem, not a CO2/global warming problem.

            The Indian government is obviously as brilliant on this front as they are on many others. If solar power is cheaper than new coal power, then you don’t need to harp any more on global warming/climate change as the problem will solve itself through economics and we don’t need the IPCC or anyone else.

            My fear is that millions of the world’s poor won’t live long enough to become climate refugees due to the high human cost of trying to fix a problem that we don’t fully understand at the cost of today’s standard of living for people who are on the brink. And if we are wrong about the cause, or the level, or the ability to have a significant effect, then we’ve just put them in the standard of living hole for minimal or no benefit, even a benefit that may not show up for 20 or 50 or 100 years.

          • Biologyteacher100

            By reducing CO2 emissions, we will slow the rate of climate change. We are now on track to melt the poles and destroy much of human habitat. My fear is that we are near the point where the cost of doing enough will be outside of human possibility. For example, the arctic is melting quickly and the production of CO2 and methane from the tundra will soon become a significant source of greenhouse gases. From the view of trying to help my grandchildren, working to slow climate change will help world economics and political stability.
            The Indian crisis is one where rural and farm families are moving to cities because they don’t have water to raise crops or even to drink. I agree that the air pollution problem in Indian cities is also a serious health threat. What’s all this stuff about a problem that “we don’t fully understand?” Of course, nothing is “fully understood” but 90% is enough to take action. In my view, drought, flooding and heat waves that will drive political instability are the biggest threats to developing countries.

          • Tom Moran

            On track to melt the poles? You are being misled by the activist wing of science.

          • Tom Moran

            Has there ever not been a period with heat and drought? Moving away from coal? Pfffft
            http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSL3N12616220151006

          • plainsman844

            Science has a good understanding of past climate changes and their causes, and that evidence makes the human cause of modern climate change all the more clear. Greenhouse gasses – mainly CO2, but also methane – have been implicated in most of the climate changes in Earth’s past. When they were reduced, the global climate became colder. When they were increased, the global climate became warmer. When changes were big and rapid (as they are today from fossil fuel emissions), the consequences for life on Earth were often dire – in some cases causing mass extinctions. And BTW, today’s human-created CO2 is easily differentiated from naturally occurring CO2 due to their differing isotope signatures.

          • Tom Moran

            Why haven’t increased anthropogenic greenhouses gases caused increased temps in the area of the earth with the least amount of water vapor? Can you share with the world this breakthrough science peer reviewed paper that positively identifies the origin of C12-C14 isotopes?

          • plainsman844
          • Tom Moran

            See:
            http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL066749/full

            “We investigated this in detail and show that for central Antarctica an increase in CO2 concentration leads to an increased long-wave energy loss to space, which cools the Earth-atmosphere system. These findings for central Antarctica are in contrast to the general warming effect of increasing CO2.”

          • plainsman844

            Well golly, that’s sure a game changer.
            “It is important to note that these results do not contradict the key statements of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) [Solomon et al., 2007; Ramaswamy et al., 2001; IPCC, 2013], namely, the well-known warming effect that CO2 has on the Earth’s climate.”

          • joe1234x

            Citation please. CO2 is a relatively plentiful, very stable compound, and is CO2, no alternative isotopes are present in any significant levels. You can’t just go around saying scientific-sounding words without having anything to back it up.

          • plainsman844
          • joe1234x

            No time to go through it right now, but there are a bunch of maybes in that article. More later. Thanks for the link.

          • Tom Moran

            Yes because scientists, unlike politicians and Wall Street types, are unaffected by human tendencies of fear and greed.

          • Smoky Joe

            A scientists’s reputation is his/her career. A petroleum PR guy’s lies are his livelihood.

          • David

            Not sure I get your distinction. And to be clear, Hugh and Biologyteacher100 were talking about Petroleum engineers…. not PR guys.

          • Smoky Joe

            It’s really hard to understand something when making your living requires that you do not.

          • plainsman844

            AHHH, I wondered where you were cutting-and-pasting your stats from – why don’t you link to them so we can evaluate their origins? Big energy has a long history of paid shills running around.

          • Smoky Joe

            You can be sure they came from one of the Koch Brother financed institutions.

          • Infoczar

            I have the same credentials and my experience is exactly the opposite – I’m calling BS.

          • Biologyteacher100

            You can find my publications at my Google scholar web site under WR DeMott. Where do I find your list of publications? Hard to imagine that someone going by “infoczar” is really a scientist.

          • Infoczar

            I’m happy to remain anonymous and call BS via my experience. I can hardly breath when I’m there – you must fare better?

          • Katmandu01

            Obviously then you don’t have the same credibility or experience in the study of climate science that Biologyteacher100 (aka WR DeMott) has. Otherwise you would be quite willing to cite your own list of publications. instead of remaining anonymous.

          • Infoczar

            If you are brave enough to look at my response below you will see I did not need to rely on my credentials to correct his misinformation. The actual scientific data worked just fine. That is plenty of credibility if you are honest – isn’t it?

          • Katmandu01

            Biologyteacher100 said, “You can find my publications at my Google scholar web site under WR DeMott,” and asked, “Where do I find your list of publications?” Your response, “I’m happy to remain anonymous and call BS via my experience,” was pretty lame to say the least. He laid down a challenge and quite simply put, the best you could do was to toss out bullshit.

          • Infoczar

            I have frequently been attacked politically and am glad to use the actual science I really don’t need the crutch. Sorry that isn’t good enough for you but it is all you will get. BTW you up voted my take down of his bs below . . . so . . . there is that. The data won already what you are asking for is irrelevant and “lame”.

          • Katmandu01

            “Sorry that isn’t good enough for you but it is all you will get.”
            And that was all I expected.
            “BTW you up voted my take down of his bs below…”
            Damn it! My finger twitched.
            “The data won already…”
            What data? Be specific and be sure to cite your sources.

          • Infoczar

            “Damn it! My finger twitched.”
            Because . . . why admit you learned something?

            “What data? Be specific and be sure to cite your sources.”
            Exactly how lazy are you?? Maybe scroll down a bit? – primary sources are awaiting your tiny, tiny, tiny bit of effort. . . . What a rube.

          • Katmandu01

            “Because . . . why admit you learned something?”
            No – because I didn’t intend to “up vote” your comment. BTW I have learned SFA from you.
            “Maybe scroll down a bit?”
            Or just cut to the chase and copy and paste the links to your sources in a reply. It’s that easy.
            “I doubt you will be capable of comprehending the studies.”
            Try me. So far, the best you can do is to toss out some childish insults.

          • Infoczar

            “Or just cut to the chase and copy and paste the links to your sources in a reply. It’s that easy. ”
            “Try me. So far, the best you can do is to toss out some childish insults.”

            I did try you – but you are clearly too lazy to read the links on a post that you literally found to remove your up vote (slightly down in this very thread). You aren’t fooling me – you have willfully chosen to remain ignorant. You are in WAY over your head.

          • Infoczar

            Oops! no response? Crickets – That’s what I thought. When you post, you should pay more attention to assessing when you are in over your head. (But I do see you removed your up vote – thanks for verifying your humiliation – it was a good chuckle.)

          • Katmandu01

            “no response?”
            I happen to have a life. As for the rest of your nonsense grow up.

          • Infoczar

            You mad?

          • Iodized_Pepper

            Got any citations for us?

          • Infoczar

            Yeah – scroll down about three comments in this same thread if you have the courage.

          • plainsman844

            Yeah, for some cherry picking/selectivity:

            http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/content/19/1/2.full

          • Infoczar

            Are you mad that the data support my position? Too bad.

          • Iodized_Pepper

            Sorry – I didn’t see anything. Try again.

          • Infoczar

            Keep trying – I talked to your parents the other day and they said you are improving.

          • Iodized_Pepper

            We’ve backed you into a corner, so you are trying to change the subject with witless insults.

          • Infoczar

            Corner? No one has addressed the studies I linked yet. You aren’t even good a trolling. You should get a different full time hobby.

          • Iodized_Pepper

            ‘Studies’? BWHAHAHA!

          • Infoczar

            Willfully ignorant and happy to be so. Typical of a certain ideology.

          • Iodized_Pepper

            We are glad you are willfully ignorant.

          • Infoczar

            Your willful ignorance is on display and yet you can do nothing more than troll – try responding to my papers – I won’t hold my breath.

          • Iodized_Pepper

            Your willful ignorance is on display and yet you can do nothing more than troll – try responding to my request for information – I won’t hold my breath.

          • Infoczar

            Did you learn something by reposting it? Nah . . you are far too obtuse – but you WERE given a learning opportunity.

          • Iodized_Pepper

            LOL, you are the one embracing (and other things) uninformed ignorance!

          • Infoczar

            No – I have watched you for a couple of days- flee responding to legitimate scientific studies I linked – claiming you can’t find them in the very thread in which you are trolling. If that doesn’t reveal who and what you are then nothing does.

          • Iodized_Pepper

            “No one has addressed the studies I linked yet.” No one wants to waste their time.

          • Infoczar

            You haven’t looked – I’d bet my life savings that you have never even heard of stochastic processes. You have to understand it before you can comment on it. So far over your head you’d have to look up to see down.

          • Iodized_Pepper

            It’s the typical denier gameplan.

          • Iodized_Pepper

            BS – you are either a troll, or a shill for a denier group.

          • Iodized_Pepper

            Too cowardly (or a liar) to step up. Typical.

          • Infoczar

            Alright, spill it Pepper – your full bio or are you “coward”?

          • Iodized_Pepper

            I’m happy to remain anonymous and call BS via my experience.

          • Infoczar

            Yeah – but since you have never backed up your “experience” and I have that means you have absolutely no credibility. So there is that.

          • Iodized_Pepper

            Sure you have validated your credentials. What have you published? Or are you going to hide again?

          • Infoczar

            Reading compression isn’t your thing is it? I am more than happy to match my knowledge with you but something tells me (maybe the fact that you are a hypocrite who wants to dox me but will not reveal your own credentials) you will not do that. You are here to troll as you do in all of your comments. Rest assured – you are in WAY over your head. I can hardly wait to see your next pearl of wisdom I’m certain it will actually contain some kind of substance. Wait – the other thing – it won’t – the evidence is over 16 hundred posts devoid of content of any kind beyond troll bombs. Aren’t you at least a little bit ashamed? You should be – it is a pathology.

          • Iodized_Pepper

            Sheesh, you bloviate about your expertise, but have none, then attack other people when asked to prove yourself. Please try to answer the question: What are your credentials? If you refer me to non-existent links, you’ve proved what you are, and it’s not good.

          • Infoczar

            We’ve already discussed this in the past and you fled with your tail between your legs when content reared its scary head – but . . . since you are back . .. let’s see what you know – this should be hilarious. Do you believe that “global warming” is a run away green house? Let’s get a benchmark of where you stand. ha ha ha ha ha I can hardly wait.

          • Iodized_Pepper

            Well bless your little heart for honestly answering that you have no credentials. I found out what I wanted to know.

          • Infoczar

            Chicken. As I said – in over your head. I’m not surprised you are fleeing again.

          • Iodized_Pepper

            Chicken. As I said – in over your head. I’m not surprised you are fleeing again.

          • Infoczar

            Ha ha ha – I used to do that when I was in kindergarten too. Why don’t you answer a few easy questions instead of childishly trolling so we can establish your level of understanding of the “science” you consistently and blithely trot out? I get that you were bullied by the other kids or the Baptist church (or whoever it is that you rural Maine kids who dream of getting to some day “get to move to the metropolis” of Bangor get bullied by) but at some point you are going to have to stop guarding and be forthcoming about your ignorance. My bet is that you will continue to cling to your pathology though.

          • Iodized_Pepper

            Your statement pretty much covers your ignorance. Please stop embarrassing yourself. You claimed to have expert knowledge, were challenged to back up your talk, and failed.

          • Infoczar

            Don’t cry – I’m here and willing to try to educate you a bit even when all evidence points to you being unteachable. That happens to be laudable.

          • Iodized_Pepper

            ” I’m here and willing to try to educate you a bit even when all evidence points to you being unteachable. That happens to be laudable.”
            We know you are unteachable. It’s fun to bat you around and watch you squirm and howl. But you are boring me now. Good luck, and take your meds.

          • Infoczar

            Embracing ignorance is no way to go through life. Hey – I know how even YOU can make it rich!! Maybe you can “hoard some ammo and then sell it to some ‘right wingers’ when a democrat gets elected” – ha ha ha what an ignorant rube.

          • Iodized_Pepper

            I agree – stop embracing ignorance. It makes you look like a fool.

          • Infoczar

            You need to thank me – I have been willing to educate you but every time I try to get you to discuss substance you run away with your tail between your legs. I’m doing you a favor you have a real opportunity here. I’d find it interesting and hilarious to try to get you to understand some rudimentary science and you might learn to stop embarrassing yourself online. I admit I don’t think you are capable but it would be very funny if I could get you to engage. Let’s start with something easy – are you capable of more than just run of the mill trolling? Try really hard – you might be able to answer that one. If you can, your odds of becoming less informed are greatly increased.

          • Edward Silha

            The estimates by Curry have not been validated (not published in a peer reviewed journal, not supported by a large group of climate scientists). At the moment, they are only an opinion of a single climate scientist with a poor track record of making claims that are correct.
            You can cite all the cherry picked data you want, but the crux of the matter is that your opinion is worth as much as mine (nada). Can you cite a single international science organization that has published a position opposing the IPCC conclusions? Is you opinion more valid than the members of the national academies of sciences of nearly every developed nation?
            Politifact and FactCheck have stated that claims that the 97% figure is bogus are in themselves bogus.

            http://video.mit.edu/watch/what-we-know-about-climate-change-prof-kerry-emanuel-mit-club-of-northern-california-27750/
            Kerry Emanuel sees himself as a conservative. He believes marriage is between a man and a woman. He backs a strong military. He almost always votes Republican and admires Ronald Reagan.

            At 1:04 into the video Kerry Emanuel says the following:
            Sure, you can go to that 3% club and find somebody who will stand up and say there is no problem, but they are a tiny minority and they don’t represent the consensus. And yes, the consensus is very important. Nobody in their right mind, if they were sick, would not take a consensus of good doctors and go with the one that gives them the rosiest sounding diagnosis. Science does not advance by consensus, but anyone trying to formulate policy had better jolly well use the consensus on anything that is important.

          • Hugh Everett

            “The estimates by Curry have not been validated (not published in a peer reviewed journal, not supported by a large group of climate scientists). At the moment, they are only an opinion of a single climate scientist with a poor track record of making claims that are correct.”

            It is very easy to use climate models and current assumptions to calculate a back-of-the-envelope estimate of the net effect on global surface temperatures achieved by reducing the U.S. carbon footprint 28%. It’s easier than high school algebra.

            I openly challenge you to run the numbers and report back to the forum. If you can’t do the math, at least try to google up an answer to the question. Let’s see how close you come to Judith Curry’s ΔT of 0.03 °C.Hold everything else constant, and estimate the U.S. contribution to reducing the temperature of the planet. You are about to learn a lesson in the futility of liberalism.

          • Jason

            Forget it Hugh. It’s their religion and when you attack it, you attack them. They only accept sacrament from approved climate priests. You are not one. lol

          • Iodized_Pepper

            Seems that most deniers are working on faith, therefore you and others of your ilk are the religiots.

          • Jason

            First of all even Cook had to admit there is no such thing as a denier. It’s just a label you church of climate change disciples like to use to marginalize skeptics. And skeptics are using the scientific method, not making a plea to authority fallacy like yourself.

          • Henrik Øelund

            The estimates by Curry match exactly the numbers from IPCC using the MAGICC model.
            Are you saying that IPCC’s model is flawed?
            Then show me yours.
            The entire Paris INDC promises until 2030 correspond to 0,048 C temperature reduction in 2100.
            If you prolong the period till 2100, the total temperature reduction will be be 0,17 C.
            The US climate policies fully achieved and adhered to throughout the century will reduce the temperature by 0,031 C.
            So if you tell me that the climate model used across every single IPCC report is wrong then every single projection from the IPCC is wrong.
            But maybe you are just better scientists than the guys at IPCC.

          • Katmandu01

            Your assumption that any concern about the threat posed by anthropogenic global warming is based on some kind of a left of center political bias is complete and total nonsense. The issue is about science. Got that? It has nothing to do with any political ideology. Only in the US with the dominance of simplistic, reactionary political forces like the tea party and the distorted influence exerted on government by Big Carbon (Koch Industries, Exxon Mobil, etc.) along with Canada and Australia (heavily dependent on the fossil fuel industry) is the issue of climate change viewed as political. Elsewhere it is viewed as strictly a scientific issue and rightly so.

          • Infoczar

            “It has nothing to do with any political ideology.” Correct . . . so why exactly are you afraid to be exposed to the data in the link directly above your inane comment?

          • Katmandu01

            The “data” you’re referring to were links to studies and an article that disputes the extent to which China is effectively moving away from its reliance on fossil fuels. Your “data” does nothing to refute the scientific consensus concerning anthropogenic global warming or anything that Dr. Hayhoe is quoted as saying in this article.

          • Infoczar

            You are even more of a disingenuous moron than I suspected. My comments were an answer to your hero’s BS as I very clearly stated. Try again when you can think lucidly.

          • Iodized_Pepper

            Talking to yourself?

          • Infoczar

            You mad bro? Being wrong is just being wrong you don’t have to cry.

          • Iodized_Pepper

            Uh, what? You typed words, but they make no sense.

          • Infoczar

            When you rubes are proved wrong you always run from the facts – however, you have yet to post a fact. 15k of pure trolling is all you’ve offered – it is pathological and hilarious.

          • Iodized_Pepper

            When you deniers are proved wrong you always run from the facts – however, you have yet to post a fact.

          • Infoczar

            I posted facts you just are terrified to address them so you just troll. Also, I’m not a denier – I’m a researcher – big difference. Frankly, there is nothing to deny anyway – every peer reviewed study states that the climate models are incomplete from the outset for good reason. We do not have all of the variables and the data for the variables we do have are unreliable. It is pretty simple really. We do know however that the global system is varying well within normal limits – there is not even a question.

          • Iodized_Pepper

            Ah – typical denier “I’m a researcher”. Are you a scientist? Published any papers? Anything? Please show me these ‘facts’. Nothing from Fox, et al.

          • Infoczar

            I linked them . . . so . . . if you aren’t afraid they await your trolling.

          • Ian Woolley

            Well, in both the UK and Australia it’s viewed as political. And France, and Canada.

          • Katmandu01

            Not really. David Cameron, Britain’s Conservative prime minister take this issue very seriously. As President of France’s right of center government, Sarkozy took it quite seriously as well.

          • Jason

            They love the word “science” until you mention GMO’s. Then they lose their minds and call scientists crazy for calling it safe.

          • David

            you should get out more…would do you good! 😉

          • Kevin McKinney

            Rather hard to rebut without knowing who made the estimate, what they based it on, and how they calculated it. There was, however, a similar result derived by the Cato Institute:

            http://www.cato.org/blog/002degc-temperature-rise-averted-vital-number-missing-epas-numbers-fact-sheet

            I’m going to assume that the methodology is comparable, in the total absence of any other information.

            And what Cato did was assume that nobody else was going to do anything–which is pretty silly, given that “national commitments to the UN” have now been made by 161 countries.

          • Hugh Everett

            Only math-impaired, science-impaired liberals would struggle with a concept this simple.

            ”According to an ongoing temperature analysis conducted by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), the average global temperature on Earth has increased by about 0.8° Celsius (1.4° Fahrenheit) since 1880.”

            So let’s blame the entire 0.8 °C on anthropogenic greenhouse gas. The U.S. is responsible for 15% of emissions. We’re talking about reducing emissions 28% via massive forced contraction in the U.S. economy.

            0.8 X 0.15 X 0.28 = 0.3 °C

          • Kevin McKinney

            So, you don’t want the US to take responsibility for our share of (current) emissions.

            Never mind that the proportion of historical emissions is far higher.

            Never mind that, as I’ve already shown, it’s not a matter of the US acting alone.

            Never mind that you ignore all costs of climate change to invoke a totally unquantified and cost boogeyman. (Gee, that could be something the ‘math-impaired’ would be guilty of.)

            Let’s just point out that nobody reputable expects any kind of ‘contraction’ through mitigating carbon. In fact, the 2010 McKinsey study on this concluded that “mitigation would come at a net profit to society.”

            http://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/sustainability-and-resource-productivity/our-insights/impact-of-the-financial-crisis-on-carbon-economics-version-21

          • Hugh Everett

            Let me explain it to you again, because you clearly don’t understand the math. The U.S. share of global emissions is 15%. Under the climate agreement, we will achieve 28% reduction in U.S. carbon footprint via Flintstonian reduction in productivity and consumption. The highest possible global ΔT we can blame on anthropogenic carbon since the beginning of the industrial revolution is 0.8 °C.

            0.8 X 0.15 X 0.28 = 0.03 °C

            Judith Curry’s testimony before Congress was correct, and that’s why she is not being challenged….by anyone. She’s a leading climatologist.

            A 0.03 °C reduction in global surface temperature for all of the cost and misery and effort that will go into achieving it is nothing. Especially when you consider that developing nations with their exploding populations will negate that number in a couple of years.

            It’s called math and science and logic, and it is definitely not on your side.

          • Kevin McKinney

            The math is quite self-evident, thanks. Why you think I should either a) have trouble with it when it is presented, or b) be able to psychically divine it when it wasn’t, is unclear.

            You speak of logic. You might try addressing some of mine.

            Do you need me to explain it again? Or have you just not read it yet?

          • Hugh Everett

            0.03 °C is 0.03 °C. It’s a number so small that it is meaningless. It proves that Americans cannot possibly reduce the temperature of the planet, no matter how much we spend or how much we suffer for the ignorance of liberalism.You’re one of those guys who still believes in “Peak Oil”, even though 88 rigs are currently producing more natural gas than the entire country can consume. When faced with logic, science, math, you simply refuse to accept reality.

          • Kevin McKinney

            And you’re one of those guys who utterly refuses to engage with logic, and keeps repeating his talking points like a mindless parrot.

            Whatever, dude. I have better uses of my time than engaging with obvious trolls.

          • Hugh Everett

            “Rather hard to rebut without knowing who made the estimate, what they based it on, and how they calculated it.”– Kevin McKinney

            Does this look hard?: 0.8 X 0.15 X 0.28 = 0.03 °C

          • Kevin McKinney

            You’re repeating yourself.

            How about responding?

        • Edward Silha
          • Jason

            Love John Cook’s craptastic website labeling anyone who disagrees with him a “Climate Misinformer” That site is so biased it’s not even funny. Just try to post a dissenting opinion on there and watch how fast it gets deleted.

          • plainsman844

            Apparently you haven’t spent much time reading the comments following articles (or YOUR attempted comments were just too stupid and irrelevant to print). As for “biased”, you also seem oblivious to how often articles contain copious links to directly applicable primary scientific literature. Any dearth of contrary primary literature would be construed by science literate individuals as an indication of how little such scientifically legitimate contrary research exists.

          • Jason

            copious links to debunked, or “adjusted” data and flat out lies to protect their jobs. Feel free to point me to “primary literature that shows how much warming humans have caused over the last 150 years. You won’t find any because they don’t know. And climate models are not accurate predictors of actual climate events. In fact they can’t even postdict climate events properly. Forget the fact that the models could never actually simulate the chaotic climate accurately due to gaps in the understanding of the climate. It seems that there are even error in the physics and they way there were applied.

            http://sciencespeak.com/climate-basic.html

          • Kevin McKinney

            Don’t know about ‘the last 150 years’ but papers attributing warming since 1950 are not hard to find. See AR5, 10.3.1.1.3, p. 881, accessible here:

            https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter10_FINAL.pdf

            Among papers in the primary literature listed are:

            “Christidis et al., 2010; Jones et al., 2011, 2013; Gillett et al., 2012, 2013; Stott and Jones, 2012; Knutson et al., 2013; Ribes and Terray, 2013”

            These papers are cited in support of the attribution of at least half of observed warming to anthropogenic forcings.

          • David

            anytime you resort to grade-school neologisms to mount ad-hominem arguments you are basically admitting you’re the loosing end of the argument.

          • Jason

            Neologisms? Bwahahaha. Perhaps you should not use words you do not understand. And I don’t think you can use ad hominem against a website. I did not attack John Cook personally, just his craptastic website. Love it when someone tries to copy and past something someone else wrote because they lack the ability to string a sentence or two of their own together.

          • David

            Are you suggesting craptastic is not an newly invented word? Or that I don’t know what ad-hominem means?

            Who cut and pasted what?

            Please clarify.

            And remember, you don’t win by being meaner when correcting people on the Internet. In fact, we all loose.

        • Henrik Øelund

          The model she uses is the official model of the IPCC:
          MAGICC which has been used across all 5 IPCC reports and is co-funded by the EPA.
          It is run with standard parameters.
          If you think the model is flawed then pray show us how?

        • Tom Moran

          So you’re saying that it’s possible for climate scientists to be wrong?

      • Christine Penner Polle

        Who cares? The shift to a clean energy economy is an incredible free-market opportunity. Why do we have to remain dependent on stinky fossil fuels? Why can’t we have cleaner air and cleaner water? What can’t we have distributed energy systems that light up the world with more energy, more mobility, more freedom?

        • Hugh Everett

          Because this country is blessed to sit atop an ocean of hydrocarbons that makes us super competitive in the global economy. Because just 88 rigs are currently producing more natural gas than all Americans can consume. Because thanks to fracking and directional drilling, our proven reserves are now measured in centuries. Because the Energy Returned On Energy Invested of green energy is inherently inefficient, non competitive, and unsustainable in comparison with fossil fuels.

          • “Blessed”!!? You have GOT to be kidding!

            Or you are the most biosphere math challenged person on the planet.

            “Super competitive” is a fascinating view from a dirty energy industry that gets subsidized by we-the-people six ways from Sunday AND flares toxic gases nearly one third the volume of fracked gas 24/7 for ANOTHER CONVENIENTLY profitable externalization of costs.

            In FACT if fracking sites had to capture and process the witches brew of toxic gases they now flare willy nilly both there AND at ocean rigs, they would ALL be out of business.

            And PLEASE, DO NOT claim that the flared gases are not hazardous to the climate in general and humans in particular. There is a REASON the ocean going rigs and platforms have the “Water Curtain”. It prevents rig employees form getting respiratory diseases AND cancer.

            But if it’s dumped into the atmosphere so you can be “super competitive”, then you think that’s just fine and dandy, don’t you?

            I suggest you learn some viable biosphere math.

            Scientist and Christian Katharine Hayhoe is right. As a Christian, I agree 100% with her irrefutable logic and willingness to walk the talk.

            The is no economy on a sick planet. It’s time you fossil fuelers got that through your heads. We-the-people are NOT going to subsidize your profit over people and planet any more.

            When ALL the costs you are dumping on us are figured, fossil fuels are NOT competitive with Renewable Energy technologies.

          • Hugh Everett

            We’ve been flaring wells for more than a century. You can even see the flares from the space shuttle.

            http://fm.cnbc.com/applications/cnbc.com/resources/files/2014/08/20/northdakota.jpg

            You probably didn’t study science in college, but the combustion of natural gas (methane, ethane, propane) yields CO2 and H2O. It’s harmless.Your post is typical of positions environmentalists take on technological issues: 100% emotion and 0% scientific foundation.

          • Yes, they can be seen from space. Yes, flaring has been done for over a century. And that is supposed to compose talking point to make them valid?

            You accuse me of “emotion” and try defend your CYA of fossil fuel pollution with razzle dazzle instead of science facts. I have more years of scientific studies than you have of denial of science and double talk in defense of profit over planet.

            The fact is that you are defending your pocketbook, not the environment.

            You want to ignore the facts and belittle my arguments by claiming I am “ignorant”.

            Look up “Water Curtain” for ocean going oil rigs and platforms before you continue to embarrass yourself with your lack of knowledge about the toxicity of gases being flared 24/7 to the detriment of the biosphere.

            Emotion does not have a tinker’s damn to do with it, pal. Just because they have gotten away with dumping that crap on the biosphere for a century does not make it right, given the HARD scientific studies proving it is severely polluting.

            “Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.” — Aldous Huxley

            “We can’t have a healthy business on a sick planet.”— Ashley Orgain, manager of mission advocacy and outreach for Seventh Generation, Burlington, Vermont

          • Hugh Everett

            it appears that you have zero education in the field of chemistry. How can you argue so passionately and emotionally on a subject in which you are totally uneducated?
            http://www.epa.state.oh.us/Portals/27/oil%20and%20gas/Basics%20of%20Gas%20Flaring.pdf

            State and Federal EPA carefully monitor, study, and analyze flaring for potential environmental impact. The fact that it has been common practice for more than a century, and continues to be widespread practice today, proves that you don’t know what you’re talking about.

            You’re one of those guys who hears environmentalist propaganda like the phrase “Peak Oil”, and become absolutely convinced that we are running out of oil and natural gas. Then along comes fracking to prove you wrong. It’s the same with your concern over flaring natural gas. You don’t know enough chemistry to realize that the combustion products are water and carbon dioxide. Yet you want to argue these issues (that you know nothing about) at the top of your lungs in an emotional rant. You are a typical anti-science Luddite.

          • chriswinter

            Inherently inefficient on EROEI? Once you build a wind turbine or a solar PV array, it keeps producing power with little further energy input — unlike oil or natural gas, which must be continually mined and transported.

            Non-competitive? The price per kwh of renewable energy keeps coming down, whereas fossil fuel prices are artificially lowered by direct and indirect subsidies. Without those subsidies, it’s the fossil fuels that could not compete.

            Unsustainable? Both wind and solar are driven by the Sun, which has billions of years of life left. Fossil fuels have centuries at the outside.

          • Hugh Everett

            Environmentalists like to spread all manner of propaganda on mythology like “Peak Oil”, but Barack Obama, the Fracker-In-Chief, is solidly behind fossil fuel production because it’s undeniably good for the U.S. economy.

            Independent sources confirm that green energy yields poor Energy Returned On Energy Invested. It’s simple physics…nothing yields BTUs like dinosaur juice. We can produce wind energy in Big Spring, Texas, but moving the electricity to Dallas means we lose a lot of current because of Ohm’s Law.

            Let me reiterate that only 88 rigs are producing more natural gas than the entire country can consume. That’s a miracle, and it means that EROEI of gas continues to improve.

      • chriswinter

        Between your assertions that “It is mathematically impossible for Americans to reduce the temperature of the planet” and that the temperature drop resulting from President Obama’s commitment to a 28% cut in CO2 “is in the ballpark of 0.03 °C”, there is a wide chasm.

        • Hugh Everett

          “the U.S. national commitments to the UN to reduce emissions by 28% will prevent three hundredths of a degree centigrade in warming by 2100.”So you say that three hundredths of a degree centigrade is a “wide chasm” from zero? I hope you understand that industrialized countries will continue to expand production capacity; energy producing countries will continue to totally ignore warmist-alarmists; and developing countries will continue to expand population and consumption. Your puny three hundredths of a degree will be quickly overwhelmed and negated.

          • chriswinter

            Mathematically, yes. There is an infinity of real numbers between zero and 0.03. It’s also illogical to assert a temperature cannot possibly be reduced and then say it will only be reduced by 0.03°C.

            Sorry for the delay. Been busy.

          • Hugh Everett

            I’m sorry to inform you that you’ve officially lost all privileges and right of usage with respect to the words “math”, “mathematics”, “mathematical”. I can only hope that you’re an artist, musician, or Colorado pot grower, because otherwise you’re in big trouble.

      • Cossard

        That is not “a simple statement of cost-benefit analysis”. This is why you had to make up the cost in your head, namely “forcing every American to live like Fred Flintstone in a moribund economy”. But we do not live in the magical fantasy cartoon world in your head.

      • David

        ‘it has been estimated…’ Passive voice. Beware…there be dragons near…

    • The fossil fuel industry will continue to fund denial because they are not “profitable” unless they can externalize all the pollution costs onto we-the-people. The fossil fuelers love their subsidy swag (both the visible and invisible “subsidies”)..

      Here’s the typically mendacious pitch the fossil fuel industry funds that pollutes the internet on a daily basis:

      Don’t worry about this… According to the fossil fuel industry scientists that would never tell a lie for money, it’s “El Niño” … IOW, “nothing to see here. Move along, citizen.”

      And don’t forget to BUY, BUY, BUY fossil fuels so you can burn them and provide more GOOD CO2 FOOD for plants…

      And, OF COURSE, BUY, BUY, BUY fossil fuel industry stocks because they are well priced now due to, uh, challenging market conditions TOTALLY unrelated to those pesky, irrelevant, over subsidized, green scam (etc.) renewable energy technologies…

      The fossil fuel industry corporations are CERTAINLY NOT welfare queen subsidy grabbing, government corrupting, democracy destroying, politician buying, court corrupting, greedy, pollution cost externalizing, biosphere math challenged, conscience free, lying, double talking, Orwellian propaganda pushing crooks! SNIFF! They are, and have ALWAYS been, our loyal servants, working their poor fingers to the bone, just trying help us out while they sacrifice for us unworthy and ungrateful eco-leftists…

      Climate change catastrophe? Waddayoutalkingabout? What part of NOTHING TO SEE HERE, MOVE ALONG do you not understand?

      We must not get hysterical or be chicken little nervous nellies. But it is TRUE, TRUE, TRUE that we are all gonna die without fossil fuels while we are returning to the caves from lack of the only TRULY COMPETITIVE energy resource (hydrocarbons, OF COURSE).

      Stop trying to get in the way of fossil fuel industry profit over planet swag PROGRESS…

      • Henrik Øelund

        I see – the fossil fuel industry scientists invented the El Niño!!!!
        Must inform NOAA!
        Thank you.

        • CB

          “the fossil fuel industry scientists invented the El Niño!!!! Must inform NOAA!”

          lol! So funny how you know what El Niño is whilst it’s happening, but then forget the second you’re cherry-picking an El Niño year as a start date.

          Why don’t you try selecting all the el Niño years and calculating that trend?

          What do you think will be the result?

          “2015 is Earth’s warmest year by widest margin on record”

          http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/summary-info/global/201512

          • zlop polz

            “2015 is Earth’s warmest year by widest margin on record”
            It is irreversible and EXXON is to blame
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=lnkJT2XEhow#t=270

          • CB

            “It is irreversible and EXXON is to blame”

            Some things are irreversible and Exxon is in large part to blame…

            What happened to you, BTW? You disappeared the other day.

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYNDT2kProU

          • zlop polz

            “What happened to you, BTW? You disappeared the other day.”

            Long story. Back in the Telegraph, Dellingpole days, we actually had a community.
            Since then, Disqust has degenerated. Being banned from numerous sites,
            motivated me to reboot my designator. I still cannot post from my main computer
            and I am remotely controlling another computer to post.

          • CB

            “banned from numerous sites”

            I’m sorry to hear that, Z. I believe that sometimes you post things that are off-topic, but I’ve never seen you post anything that would warrant a blanket termination. We all go OT from time to time. It’s a crappy thing to have happen.

            earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/earthmatters/files/2015/06/no-slow-down-in-global-warming-720×546.jpg

          • zlop polz

            “I’m sorry to hear that, Z. I believe that sometimes you post things that are off-topic”

            Feels good to realize that, Disqus is the platform of the enemy,
            and that one can use it, take what is beneficial to seeing truth.
            (instead feeling guilty for not conforming to the $atanic World Order)

            Most articles are stupid (in the Arthur Miller definition of the word)
            So, one posts something smart and relevant.
            For example the Rothschilds (Anglo-Zionists) control the Telegraph.
            Hence, the banning of most, intelligent, posters.

            You are doing a good job with NASA. There is an outreach for the Muslim and LBGT.
            Perhaps, they could make Hillary an astronaut? (psychopath outreach?)

          • CB

            “the Rothschilds (Anglo-Zionists) control the Telegraph.”

            This is the type of conspiracy theory that drove the Holocaust. That alone may have been enough to get you booted. I, personally, don’t see any significant difference between fact-free claims like this one and the deranged claims Climate Deniers make about “grant-seeking climate scientists”.

            The evidence for these conspiracies in either instance is precisely zero.

            Perhaps this is an indication the public needs to focus a little more time on the conspiratorial thought-process itself instead of being so vigilant against crimes that have already happened. Any future Holocaust is very unlikely to play out in quite the same way…

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

            http://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/fight-misinformation/climate-deception-dossiers-fossil-fuel-industry-memos

          • zlop polz

            “This is the type of conspiracy theory that drove the Holocaust.”
            Much of that is widely discussed (debunked) on the Internet.

            For a deeper understanding of Rothschild-ism, start from the
            1880 pogroms, Bolshevik Labor-Zionism and the 9/11 false flag.

            The New World Order is 500 years old
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=-7QlmtOMNGM#t=72

          • CB

            “The New World Order is 500 years old”

            Remember when I said you are the least skeptical person I have ever met?

            This kind of claim is what I was talking about.

            There are real conspiracies afoot! …but you have to be skeptical of your sources if you want to be able to sort fact from fiction.

            “ExxonMobil has funneled nearly $16 million between 1998 and 2005 to a network of 43 advocacy organizations that seek to confuse the public on global warming science.”

            http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/fight-misinformation/exxonmobil-report-smoke.html

          • zlop polz

            “The New World Order is 500 years old”

            That is a quote from David Hawkins of abeldanger.
            We used to have good discussions at the Telegraph.
            Among other things, he is a forensic economist,
            identified the BP oil disaster as a False Flag.

            “How the Crown Agents use Jamie Gorelick to sanitize and hide important crime evidence, such as in the case of 9/11 and the BP oil spill.” http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=39910

          • Well Done

            Your graph is a lie, man’s CO2 is irrelevant, gloom and doom is an old, old trick, and blaming corporations for your fantasies only helps us understand the anti-corporate, socialist agenda behind your crusade.

          • CB

            “Your graph is a lie, man’s CO2 is irrelevant”

            Well, how do you know, sweet petunia!?

            Where are you getting your information?

            vimeo.com/34099316

          • Henrik Øelund

            Oh yeah, thanks for setting me straight!
            Warmest year ever and it’s Exxons fault!
            Your research is brillant!

          • CB

            Uh oh! Now you done stepped in it…

            See that “CO₂ after R. A. Berner” there?

            What’s the granularity of that dataset?

            Is it shorter or longer than the duration of that ice age between the Ordovician and the Silurian? …and if it’s longer, why would anyone think it could give them any information about levels of CO₂ at the time?

            “NAME OF DATA SET: GEOCARB III… CONTRIBUTOR: Robert A. Berner… Calculated paleolevels of atmospheric CO2 from the GEOCARB III model, which models the carbon cycle on long time scales (here a 30 million year resolution).”

            ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/climate_forcing/trace_gases/phanerozoic_co2.txt

          • CB

            Huh… no answer… Go figure.

            “How come a big ice age happened when carbon dioxide levels were high? It’s a question climate sceptics often ask. But sometimes the right answer is the simplest: it turns out CO₂ levels were not that high after all. The Ordovician ice age happened 444 million years ago, and records have suggested that CO₂ levels were relatively high then. But when Seth Young of Indiana University in Bloomington did a detailed analysis of carbon-13 levels in rocks formed at the time, the picture that emerged was very different. Young found CO₂ concentrations were in fact relatively low when the ice age began.”

            http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18618-high-carbon-ice-age-mystery-solved

          • Henrik Øelund

            Why are you talking about CO2?
            “2015 is Earth’s warmest year by widest margin on record”
            This is what you had in your post. My own country Denmark had an average temperature at least 10 degrees higher coming out of the last ice age.
            And according to the Greenland ice core 4.400 years out of the last 5.000 were warmer than 2015.
            How is that “the warmest”?
            By the way: You truncated the Arctic ice graph……..Why would you do that?
            Oh, I see – IPCC graph:

          • CB

            “Why are you talking about CO2?”

            Why do you think, sweetheart?

            Let me give you a local reference! Det kan du godt forstå…

            “In 1895, Arrhenius… described an energy budget model that considered the radiative effects of carbon dioxide (carbonic acid) and water vapor on the surface temperature of the Earth”

            earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Arrhenius

          • Henrik Øelund

            Nu taler du dansk….:)
            What about the other 2 questions, Darling?
            Is 2015 the warmest year?
            Why did you truncate the Arctic ice graph?
            And I know Arrhenius 🙂
            I have been to the University of Uppsala several times.
            Isn’t he the guy who estimated climate sensitivity at 5-6 degrees celsius?
            Much like the do-nothing scenario of the IPCC of 4,5 degrees. Is that a realistic estimate….you think?
            That in 2035 it will be 4,5 – 6 degrees warmer than in 1958…..?
            (That’s another question by the way).
            And please stop the linking phobia 🙁
            Just explain it in your own words – this endless appealing to governmental authority is so boring and pathetic.

          • CB

            “Is 2015 the warmest year?”

            Ja, det er det.

            “Why did you truncate the Arctic ice graph?”

            Det er ikke noget graph her! o_O

            “I know Arrhenius”

            Du er for gammel…

            Henrik, how high above sea level do you live?

            “Together, Greenland and Antarctica contain about 75% of the world’s fresh water, enough to raise sea level by over 75 meters, if all the ice were returned to the oceans.”

            earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/PolarIce/polar_ice2.php

          • Henrik Øelund

            More links and the rest is complete drivel.
            I’m out.
            And it’s “Der er ikke nogen graf” in danish.
            Have a nice life in your big, green fantasy 🙂

          • CB

            “it’s “Der er ikke nogen graf” in danish.”

            Tak for hjælpen!

            Jeg har stillte et spørgsmål. Har du set det?

            How high above sea level is your home?

            “A new study by researchers at NASA and the University of California, Irvine, finds a rapidly melting section of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet appears to be in an irreversible state of decline, with nothing to stop the glaciers in this area from melting into the sea.”

            http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2014-148

          • Well Done

            NOAA is corrupt. Completely. There is no way to take Earth’s temperature, besides, the records are incomplete and corrupted. What’s really interesting is that NONE of the predicted effects of man-caused climate change have happened. Instead, climate alarmists point to whatever is happening and assure us “that is to be expected”. You lot are like the Emperor With No Clothes; you seem to think if enough of you put forth BS, people will believe you. Some do. Climate alarmists’ attempts to jail dissidents shows us the mentality behind your agenda.

          • CB

            “NOAA is corrupt.”

            Uh huh, and whoooooo isn’t?

            Where are you getting your information, butterbean?

            “2015 Unambiguously the Hottest Year on Record… 2015 set the record with 99.996% confidence.”

            berkeleyearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2015-Hottest-Year-BE-Press-Release-v1.0.pdf

  • Kim Triolo Feil

    …mass exodus for loss of drinkable water in Texas will occur before the unliveable planet due to climate change I predict…

  • Kacee

    This is an extrordinarily well written article. Thank you for the time and effort you put into this.

  • Jim Madewell

    another politically correct article…………

    • donuthin2

      also, probably more correct than the skeptics will ever agree no matter how good the science.

    • plainsman844
    • G_David

      And yet another brain-dead internet comment.

    • DarthDisney

      If you had 97% of Cancer Doctors tell you that you were dying of cancer, why would you be stupid enough to believe a Computer Scientist who tells you that you don’t? There is nothing political correct about it.

      But I guess reality isn’t important enough for you to research it, that might mean you would have to be *gasp* wrong.

      • David

        Your 97% number is garbage. Please stop using it.

        • plainsman844

          What evidence can you provide to refute that level of consensus among scientists concerning man-made global warming? Is it more conclusive than this:

          http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/apr/13/its-settled-90100-of-climate-experts-agree-on-human-caused-global-warming

          • David

            2012 poll of American Meteorological Society members don’t back up your 97%. Of the 1,821 members who responded (a quarter of the organization), 52 percent stated that human activity was the primary cause of global warming, and 10 percent attributed the
            phenomenon to human activity and natural causes in about equal measure, while 20 percent said enough is not yet known to make any determination.

            http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00091.1

            It is the parroting of the BS 97% number that people are using to silence debate on the topic. Has the Earth warmed? I think most agree there has been some warming. How much of a role do humans play? I think most would say at least some but the exact percentage would be hard to prove. Last and maybe most importantly, are the predictive models correct?

          • plainsman844

            Your AMS info is obsolete:
            http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/mar/28/new-survey-finds-a-growing-climate-consensus-among-meteorologists

            As for climate scientists (the ones actually doing the majority of research):
            http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

            So, I’ll be looking forward to your data refuting these “BS” figures.

          • David

            There really isn’t any point arguing because you don’t want to see to truth or simply won’t admit it. First it is 97% of all scientists agree, then it is only 97% of all climate scientists, then 96% of climate scientists who publish, then it is really 96% who publish in a peer reviewed journal and take a position. Do we only ask scientists who hold a PhD in Geology, Astronomy, Meteorology, Oceanography AND Physics? If you aren’t published does your opinion not count? The whole 97% number is simply to silence dissent. It isn’t enough to say that most scientists agree, it isn’t enough to say 75% agree. The number has to be so large that anybody questioning it would be labeled a loon. Oh, and once AGAIN the AMS numbers are NOT 97%. From YOUR link 29% believe that the change is largely or entirely human caused; 38% think most of the change is from humans; 14% answered that humans and natural factors are about equally responsible. Only 5% felt that climate change is mainly natural. I don’t even know what you are trying to push. These guys might be wonderful researchers in their fields but they suck as statisticians.

          • Biologyteacher100

            Publishing research is a form of “voting.” The 97% figure refers to climate scientists who are actually functioning as scientists and publishing research. If we look at broader groups of scientists the number was about 90%, but that is increasing.

          • plainsman844

            Gee, so sorry to rain on your parade, but the facts are the vast majority of professionals actively involved in climate research agree that humans are the primary culprits responsible for current global warming – no matter how you try to parse it. Since that doesn’t concur with your world view, you can take your scientifically vacuous ball and go home.

          • David

            I never said they didn’t. How does that differ from my world view? I have already said I believe that the earth has warmed (since the beginning of the industrial revolution) and I believe that humans are a factor in this. My problem is with scientists who silence dissent because of research money or their egos. This is HARDLY the only time when scientific community has done this.

          • plainsman844

            WHO has silenced anyone? Is it the scientific community’s fault that the vast preponderance of research comes to a similar conclusion, or is it indicative of having the right answer? And “a factor”? Here’s your “factor”:

            http://www.skepticalscience.com/humans-caused-all-gw-since-1950.html

          • David

            Jagadish Shukla, a climate scientist at George Mason University made headlines when he was the lead signatory on a letter to Obama, Attorney General Loretta Lynch and the head of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy “strongly” supporting
            using federal racketeering laws to investigate those in the private or public sector who work with the fossil fuel industry to “undermine climate science.”

            17 states, said they will pursue climate change litigation. Massachusetts and the U.S. Virgin Islands officially joined an ongoing investigation into potential fraud by ExxonMobil, and all the states committed to working together as “creatively, collaboratively, and aggressively” as possible to combat climate change.

            http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases-all?ID=865dbe39-802a-23ad-4949-ee9098538277

            If you don’t see it you are blind or not even looking. Next you will tell me the scientific community always welcomes new theories with open arms.

          • plainsman844

            For starters, energy interests like ExxonMobile HAVE poured many millions into support of climate denial, Exxon even after their own company scientists acknowledged (internally) that greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels was primarily to blame for global warming.
            As for “new theories” you are a classic conspiracy theory crank if you think new ideas aren’t welcome within science – the catch is they have to have sound enough scholarship and methodology to pass peer review and gain publication. The vast majority of papers (in ANY discipline) don’t exhibit those characteristics and don’t get published, or get published in obscure journals or worse, vanity publications (not uncommon with ID/creationist dreck for instance). And how do I know this? I’ve been a working archaeologist for 36 years, so I have considerable personal familiarity with the inner workings of scientific publication. You, apparently, do not.

          • David

            The notion of the universe springing from nothing was immediately ridiculed by leading astronomers including Fred Hoyle, who originated the term “big bang” as a pejorative. Hoyle followed up with a very public radio tirade against the theory. Other physicists, including Einstein, opposed the Big Bang, even when their equations implied an
            abrupt beginning of the universe. It became the theory of choice only gradually, and only because no other explanation could explain the cosmos that scientists were beginning to study in the 1920s and 1930s.

            The theory of continental drift was formulated in 1912 by Richard Wegener, a German METEOROLOGIST and explorer. The idea, backed up with substantial evidence, was met with opposition for almost 50 years. (Couldn’t explain the mechanism)

            Max Plank said “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents
            and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”

            Oliver Heaviside’s papers were routinely rejected by technical journal editors his and
            some experts denounced his long equations (with few, if any, reference notes to explain them) as a “superior form of gibberish”. Heaviside’s work would eventually transform science and mathematics.

            George Zweig who proposed the concept of quarks (he called them aces) tried to publish his paper with the Physical Review, but the head of the Theory Division, Leon Van Hove, wouldn’t allow it. He told me that all reports from CERN had to be published in European journals, even though American institutions paid my salary, overhead, and publication costs.He was also blackballed by respected theoretical physicists because his ace theory was clearly the work of a charlatan.

          • plainsman844

            Not one of your examples refutes what I’ve said about traversing peer-review and publishing today, and particularly in relation to climate science. If the scholarship and methodology is weak, it won’t make it to publication, or you have to settle for lesser publications. Many papers that fail initial publication take referee criticisms to heart, the research and methodology is refined, and peer review eventually overcome. If the research is crap, it will remain unpublished and deservedly so. Your little science anecdotes won’t change that reality.

          • chriswinter

            Sure, the scientific establishment rejected the proponents of the big bang theory, plate tectonics, meteoric origin of craters, and many other formerly outré ideas — until those proponents came up with reliable evidence to support their claims.

            The same thing would happen if John Coleman or Joe Bastardi, say, came up with good evidence to falsify AGW. But I’m not going to hold my breath waiting for that to happen, and neither should you. At any given time, we must base policy on the best science we have. When better science comes along, the policy will change.

          • David

            It isn’t the rejection that I care about. It is ostracizing that occurs that bothers me. It isn’t enough for some to merely reject or demand more evidence for new/opposing ideas. They must mock them and attack the people that bring them forward.

          • plainsman844

            When you denigrate climate conclusions supported by multiple lines of evidence, you had better be prepared for blowback.

          • Infoczar

            “primary culprits” What!?? Oh brother.

          • plainsman844

            Factually correct.

          • Infoczar

            Nope

          • plainsman844
          • Infoczar

            ha ha ha ha ha ha sputter sputter sputter ha ha ha ha – even your own source says “greenhouse gasses” – now go educate yourself about what percentage of the constituent gases are CO2. What a freakin’ rube – your severe Dunning Kruger has sunk you. You are so out of your depth here it isn’t even funny anymore.

          • plainsman844

            Manmade CO2 emissions are much smaller than natural emissions.
            Consumption of vegetation by animals & microbes accounts for about
            220 gigatonnes of CO2 per year. Respiration by vegetation emits around
            220 gigatonnes. The ocean releases about 332 gigatonnes. In contrast,
            when you combine the effect of fossil fuel burning and changes in land
            use, human CO2 emissions are only around 29 gigatonnes per year.
            However, natural CO2 emissions (from the ocean and vegetation) are
            balanced by natural absorptions (again by the ocean and vegetation).
            Land plants absorb about 450 gigatonnes of CO2 per year and the ocean
            absorbs about 338 gigatonnes. This keeps atmospheric CO2 levels in rough
            balance. Human CO2 emissions upsets the natural balance.

            About 40% of human CO2 emissions are being absorbed, mostly by
            vegetation and the oceans. The rest remains in the atmosphere. As a
            consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million
            years. A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20.000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years.

            Additional confirmation that rising CO2 levels are due to human activity
            comes from examining the ratio of carbon isotopes. Carbon 12
            has 6 neutrons, carbon 13 has 7 neutrons. Plants have a lower C13/C12
            ratio than in the atmosphere. If rising atmospheric CO2 comes from fossil fuels, the C13/C12 should be falling This is just what is occurring. The C13/C12 ratio correlates with the trend in global emissions.

            We know CO2 absorbs and re-emits longwave radiation. The theory of greenhouse gases predicts that if we increase the proportion of greenhouse gases, more warming will occur. Scientists
            have measured the influence of CO2 on both incoming solar energy and
            outgoing long-wave radiation. Less longwave radiation is escaping to
            space at the specific wavelengths of greenhouse gases. Increased
            longwave radiation is measured at the surface of the Earth at the same
            wavelengths. These data provide empirical evidence for the predicted effect of CO2.

          • Infoczar

            Why do you keep posting support of my position? You might want to work on the accuracy of your language. Think about the phrase “primary culprit” – back to the drawing board.

          • plainsman844

            I’m not terribly devastated if my prose style doesn’t appeal to you. The fact remains that human-created greenhouse gas emissions, primarily CO2, is the major cause of current global warming. If that isn’t culpability on the part of humans, I don’t know what is. The empirical evidence is clear to all but a tiny minority involved in climate research.

          • Infoczar

            You have no clue what you are talking about but you do a fine job of reposting idealogical directives. This doesn’t have to be political. Try reading some of the stuff you link to (primary sources only) and think a little bit for yourself. It will serve you better. I promise you – our models are woefully incomplete.

          • plainsman844

            And you provide a heady brew of empty bluster.

          • Infoczar

            It isn’t empty bluster to the informed. It is well respected but feel free to embrace your ignorance. No one can say I didn’t try.

          • plainsman844

            I don’t have anymore time to waste on your arrogant pontificating. I’m hitting the road tomorrow for three days of storm chasing with some buddies and I’ve got packing to do. If you live anywhere from NW Texas to SW Kansas, I’d pay close attention to the weather on Tuesday especially – there’s going to be a blockbuster dryline and a LOT of potential for very strong supercells and big long-track tornadoes.

          • Infoczar

            I watch out. @_@

          • Iodized_Pepper

            Wow, what a well reasoned and thoughtful argument!

          • Infoczar

            And yet more substance than all of you 15 hundred comments put together.

          • Iodized_Pepper

            No, not really.

          • Infoczar

            Yes – definitely.

          • Infoczar

            Far and away . . .

          • Iodized_Pepper

            There really isn’t any point arguing because you don’t want to see to truth or simply won’t admit it.

          • David

            Please tell me what I am not seeing or admitting.

          • Biologyteacher100

            A few meteorologists are also climate scientists, but most people with degrees in metrology did not take a course in climate. Of course, many TV meteorologists have degrees in communication and know rather little about meteorology. Maybe only 10% of members of the AMS would qualify as scientists. Still, as noted below, meteorologists are catching on.

          • David

            Meteorology is the scientific study of the atmosphere. By definition meteorologists are scientists. Do you have some figures to back up your 10% accusation? TV “meteorologists” who hold communication degrees would be called a weatherman or broadcaster.

          • plainsman844

            Yeah, like Anthony Watts.

          • Jason

            Oh a former cartoonist like John Cook. lol

          • plainsman844

            Well, let’s see. Cook is the Climate Communication Fellow for the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland. He originally obtained a Bachelor of Science at the University of Queensland, achieving First Class Honours with a major in physics. He co-authored the 2011 book Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand with Haydn Washington, and the 2013 college textbook Climate Change Science: A Modern Synthesis with Tom Farmer. He also lead-authored the paper Quantifying the Consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature, and was awarded the best paper published in Environmental Research Letters in 2013.

            Nice try, Einstein.

          • Jason

            Cook is a hack. try comparing him the Richard Lindzen who has published over 200 scientific papers. Lindzen contributed on 3 IPCC reports and was lead author on one. Cook could not hold Lindzen’s sweaty jock strap. Cook was a former cartoonist before he found out he could make money fooling suckers like you.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwqIy8Ikv-c

          • plainsman844

            Richard Lindzen??? AHHahaha! OK, let’s see:

            Claims that the link between smoking and lung cancer is “weak.” (False)

            Claims that satellite measurements show no warming. (False)

            Claimed that a decrease in water vapor would allow carbon dioxide to escape from the
            atmosphere. (He has since accepted this as refuted and calls it an”old view.”)

            Claims that solar and volcanic forcings were severely downplayed to fudge data. (False)

            Continues to misrepresent the link between warming and hurricanes.

            Perhaps he’s too busy collecting cash from energy companies and kissing up to serial liars like the Heartland Institute to keep up with current climate science.

          • Biologyteacher100

            Maybe my definitions are stricter. I don’t consider people with undergraduate degrees in a science field are “scientists” just because of their education I don’t considerthat people who (only) teach science are scientists. Science is mainly a process for understanding the natural world. The people who are clearly scientists are people who “do” science and publish their results. I admit that some people would use a broader definition.

          • David

            Most likely as would LOOSELY call anybody that uses empirical data (even if they don’t what it is called) a scientist. I think the term “research scientist might” be a better or more accurate word to use. I think I disagree that you have to be published to be a “real” scientist. Undergrads take physics and calculus, engineers will take classes on fluid dynamics and metallurgy. They at the bare minimum know the scientific method and how to conduct basic research. Still I have no problem with your definition as long as you are clear in what you mean.

          • Biologyteacher100

            We agree pretty much. Quite a few undergrads participate in research with their professors and some undergraduate science labs have components of research. Getting your results published is a big hurdle for most and is a really important learning process. Being a reviewer of manuscripts and grants also greatly helps one’s understanding of science.

          • Infoczar

            You are correct David. I study complex systems and frankly the smartest people I interact with that read and evaluate data don’t need to publish in order to do it – though many do. A biologist is not a system’s theorist nor a climate scientist but some of them inexplicably think contributing a small portion of data to a very complex system makes them an expert. Climate models are currently woefully incomplete and none of us believes that the results coming from them is significant – but we are working on it. Even the smallest ecosystems are incredibly complex and we just don’t have all of the variables yet. Apply that to the whole Earth models and you just can’t predict anything. We do have a general idea that CO2 has some very tiny forcing effects but climateballers tend to have cause and effect backwards in almost every case. The planet MAY be warming a bit but not in a significant way and it is certainly well within self correcting limits. That doesn’t make pop-culture headlines so you won’t hear it much. Manipulating data has become a game of ideological one-upmanship with these people. But since you don’t have all of the data it doesn’t mean much because it isn’t being shown in the context of a fully understood system.

          • plainsman844

            WHAT a steaming load.

          • Infoczar

            You lost me at linear regressions. No dynamical system analysis at all. You are too uninformed to claim I am misinformed.

          • plainsman844

            Nice citations to back up your claims, smart guy.

          • Infoczar

            From you own Abstract “smart guy”:

            “Climate modelling uncertainty is difficult to take into account with regression based methods and is almost never treated explicitly.”

            Try again when you actually understand what you are posting. lol

          • plainsman844

            Nice cherry picking from one citation. Oh, and speaking of cherry picking/selectivity:

            http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/content/19/1/2.full

            And related:

            https://theconversation.com/what-i-learned-from-debating-science-with-trolls-30514

          • Infoczar

            “Cherry picking” (from your own source no less ha ha ha) because it proved you wrong. All of the actual studies you pointed to support me 100%. Try again.

          • plainsman844

            In you dreams/ego.

          • Infoczar

            I’ll consider that conceding. Thanks for playing – I had a laugh or two.

          • Iodized_Pepper

            We laughed too – at you.

          • Infoczar

            I’m laughing at you all day long – have you ever posted a comment with ANY substance at all? 15k of nothing is just sad.

          • Iodized_Pepper

            Have you ever posted a comment with ANY substance at all? 15 hundred of nothing is just sad.

          • Infoczar

            Just because you can’t read doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. Your willful ignorance isn’t something to celebrate.

          • Iodized_Pepper

            LOL, show me a link. If you can’t, you are a liar.

          • Infoczar

            or . . . you could use your given faculties to read it.

          • Iodized_Pepper

            No link…no proof…you got nothing.

          • Infoczar

            You are lazy – even for a troll.

          • Iodized_Pepper

            This from the troll who can’t post links!

          • Infoczar

            You know they are there – who do your think you are fooling? What a chicken.

          • Iodized_Pepper

            Just because you can’t read doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. Your willful ignorance isn’t something to celebrate.

          • Infoczar

            The quote so nice it needed posting twice!!

          • Iodized_Pepper

            He’s a typical denier – never have any proof. When I ask them for proof, they say, ‘Do the research yourself’.

          • 4thEstate

            As with most of your comments, this one is easily refuted. “AMS members are nearly unanimous (96%) in thinking that climate change is
            occurring” http://blog.ametsoc.org/news/new-survey-shows-ams-members-positions-on-climate-change/

          • David

            Your 96% number isn’t referring to the same thing. The 97% number was the assertion that 97% of “all scientists” agree that human actions are causing “global warming” which simply isn’t the case. The only way to you get to the very high numbers is being highly selective in who you count and when you do this your sample size drops to almost nothing which makes the confidence interval ridiculously low. If you don’t understand the difference in the numbers then I am not going to take the time to explain.

          • plainsman844

            Absolute nonsense. That’s a direct contradiction of multiple citations available within this post.

        • Edward Silha

          Your assertion is nonsense (i.e., garbage).:
          http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
          http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/sep/02/rick-santorum/santorum-un-climate-head-debunked-widely-cited-97-/
          http://www.factcheck.org/2015/09/santorums-climate-consensus-claims/

          http://video.mit.edu/watch/what-we-know-about-climate-change-prof-kerry-emanuel-mit-club-of-northern-california-27750/
          Kerry Emanuel sees himself as a conservative. He believes marriage is between a man and a woman. He backs a strong military. He almost always votes Republican and admires Ronald Reagan.
          At 1:04 into the video Kerry Emanuel says the following:
          Sure, you can go to that 3% club and find somebody who will stand up and say there is no problem, but they are a tiny minority and they don’t represent the consensus. And yes, the consensus is very important. Nobody in their right mind, if they were sick, would not take a consensus of good doctors and go with the one that gives them the rosiest sounding diagnosis. Science does not advance by consensus, but anyone trying to formulate policy had better jolly well use the consensus on anything that is important.

          • David

            I have no idea what you are going on about.

          • Edward Silha

            Follow the links and watch the video. The 97% number is valid. Four studies have produced almost exactly the same result.
            The two fact checking sites state that claims that the 97% number is false are in themselves false.

          • David

            I have already responded to this in this article. Please read those and then respond.

          • Edward Silha

            Not that I can find.
            Regardless, nearly every international scientific organization in the world agrees that the climate (planet) is warming, the warming is caused by human activity, and the risk is significant enough to justify action to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.

            So do you disagree with all these organizations?

          • plainsman844

            Don’t expect rational debate from Davey; he’s been tap dancing around the repeated evidence for the 97% figure for some time now.

          • Jason

            Yeah because they have the word “fact” in their domain names, so it must be true. Your links do not point to any peer reviewed scientific studies. The four studies have been debunked countless times. Again… Science is not run via consensus. Empirical evidence only. And since climate models cannot accurately predict the Earth’s climate. relying on them to shape policy is a fools errand.

          • Jason

            Someone forgot to tell you science is not run via consensus. Only empirical evidence will do. Climate models that predict CAGW are not empirical evidence. Not only that, they can not predict future climate as the IPCC themselves said in the 2007 report.

            “The long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible”

            Your 97% analogy is absurd since first, the study’s have been debunked and proven to be useless. Second, there are many kinds of doctors. If a podiatrist told me I had brain cancer, I would certainly get another opinion. The same holds true of the 97% as you can see in this thread. Many are “scientists” of some discipline or another, but have no actual climate science knowledge other than what they have been spoon feed. Take for instance Bill Nye just to name one clown paid by the green movement to push their propaganda.

            Science is not run via consensus, no matter how much you want it to be. Simply stating that 97% of “scientists” agree with CAGW is not science. The world is too large and chaotic to run real world experimentation. So tools such as climate models are used to help get some insight into what is happening. But they are not, nor will they ever be powerful enough to actually simulate the Earth’s climate. These models have been consistently high in their predictions, and each report, the IPCC dials back their predictions.

            If your argument rests on “Well 97% of people I can’t name, nor have I read their actual papers” then I would say you are a naive fool.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwqIy8Ikv-c

        • 4thEstate

          Just in case there is any interest from any readers of this thread, this recent article about consensus. This one by Powell points out that in 2013-14 only 1 out of 17,350 peer-reviewed articles attempted to refute Anthropogenic Global Warming: http://bst.sagepub.com/content/early/2016/04/25/0270467616634958.abstract

          • David

            Did you actually read the paper? Do you understand that a no-position paper does not constitute support for AGW? According to Powell, “I argue that we can use articles that clearly reject the theory to infer the percentage who accept it.” This is faulty logic that I might expect from a geologist and not a real statistician. Do you even know why I have a problem with the 97% number? I don’t know many who say that GW (not necessarily AGW) isn’t happening but that isn’t what the 97% number was about. Once again we have people pushing bad statistics to further their cause.

      • Brad Keyes

        If 97% of doctors thought I had cancer, and I asked them how they knew, and they said “because 97% of doctors think so,” and I asked them why, and they said “because 97% of doctors think so,” then I’d be pretty confident that it was science that was dying of cancer, not me.

        Let us know when oncology descends to the level of climate “science” so we can start planning the funeral of Western thought, K?

  • David

    Facts??? Since when is it a fact that ice ages (which we are still in BTW) are caused by changing orbital cycles? Last time I checked it was a theory? The earth’s temperature peaked 8,000 years ago? I think not. Way to stay neutral Sonia.

    • plainsman844

      You seem unable to distinguish between a scientific theory and a hunch. That Milankovitch cycles are the cause of true ice ages is well supported by much empirical evidence. The rest of your drivel is equally ill conceived.

      • David

        The big bang theory is a….. a) Fact b) Theory c)Hunch d)Hypothesis e)Law.

        • plainsman844

          The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model for the universe from the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale evolution.

          http://angryastronomer.blogspot.com/2006/07/big-bang-common-misconceptions.html

          • David

            Thank you for making my point…..

          • plainsman844

            What point would that be? So far all you’ve done is snipe without providing any empirical evidence whatsoever to back up your gripes. You’re not even a very good troll.

          • David

            I wouldn’t go around calling them facts because I understand that it is based on model. A model built on our current understanding which could change, like the measured temperature of the earth’s core did 3 years ago or the rate at which the universe is expanding.

          • plainsman844

            Quote where I referred to anything as a “fact”.

    • DarthDisney

      This is a completely different warming period, but I guess the scientific speak is just too difficult for you to read.

      • David

        Yeah, way too complex my cartoon friend.

  • alphamale11

    Texas, at one time, had one of the finest education system in the nation. They were the premier authority on Text books, they bought more per student than any other state. Geophysical year 56-57 was a fantastic time to be a student in Texas starting in grade school and moving up. Then the evangelicals left their snakes in the Ozarks and moved south and the holy rollers left their tents in Oklahoma. Lousiana, fortunately just stayed in the kitchen. The failure of the education system has been to not mention this is a cyclic system, yes, but the time scales can vary. Like it may hardly ever get passed 50 degrees in the homestead cabin at Christmas, but have a family reunion at Christmas time and it will be close to 80 the whole week. Dud, hello.

    • David

      Good thing only one side is to blame !!! Pat yourself on the back and know that you are a better person.

      • plainsman844

        Well, it certainly isn’t the fault of organizations like this:
        http://tfn.org/issue/education/

        • David

          So I looked… and yeah… the WAR ON WOMEN. Any person/organization that uses that term in this country is an idiot or just pushing an agenda. In the US, close to 60% of college freshmen are women. If you want to see a war on women go to Afghanistan where girls don’t get to go to school, go to China where girls don’t even get a chance and the birth rate is 10 boys to every 9 girls, go India where rapes and honor killings are accepted. If TFN is your idea of an objective organization then you are showing your bias. Does the left not want to admit a bias because they don’t see it or because they are pushing an agenda.

          • plainsman844

            Translation: the wingnut educational revisionists in Texas are right because Jesus. Got it.

          • David

            You really don’t comprehend anything you read do you? I am more than happy to admit that I have idiots on “my side”. The funny thing is the people on the other side never admit any faults. They are all unbiased and only working to educate kids in the best way possible.

          • plainsman844

            unbiased? Yeah, as long as they’re pushing revisionist history and denying evolution.

          • David

            Typical dismissive.

  • Biologyteacher100

    Dr. Hayhoe is an excellent scientist and I much appreciate her efforts to help educate the public on climate science and the scientific evidence.

  • Dennis

    Anyone know of Dark Winter by John L. Casey and his hypothesis. It counters the global warming hypothesis to climate change with another idea. Thoughts?

  • Sandra G. Holland

    What does what the female scientist is wearing have to do with her profession?

  • Katmandu01

    The problem of anthropogenic global warming isn’t about some fascinating and complex theory in physics like whether or not the Higgs Boson actually exists. It isn’t like a debate over what finally brought about the extinction of the dinosaurs. These problems are extremely interesting and resolving them will certainly advance our accumulation of knowledge but however they are or if they are ever resolved will not really affect the course of life on this planet. In the case of global warming however, the consequences of getting this wrong, of screwing it up are quite simply too dreadful to contemplate. Consider just a few of those consequences:

    – The collapse of complex marine ecosystems throughout the world through ocean acidification and the warming of the oceans.

    – The shutdown of the thermohaline circulation including the collapse of the atlantic conveyer and its impact on climate patterns in Western Europe.

    – The expanding desertification north and south of the equator triggering the collapse of vital ecosystems and farmland and the forced migration of 100’s of millions of climate refugees.

    – Rising sea levels from the melting of the Greenland and Antarctic glaciers forcing 100’s of millions of people to abandon their farmland, homes and cities in such low lying regions of the world as Bangladesh and the Mekong Delta.

    Now if by some bizarre turn of events a discovery is made which completely overturns the established scientific consensus concerning global warming and some kind of “natural” cause is found for what is happening or if somehow the trends that I have outlined just don’t happen what are the worst consequences of amassing a combined human effort to evolve our economies away from their dependence on the burning of fossil fuels? Let’s see:

    – We would no longer have to power our civilization by going cap in hand to various petro-tyrants.

    – We can abandon the strip mining of the boreal forests of northern Canada and other atrocities such as mountain top removal throughout the Appalachians.

    – We would no longer have to risk environmental catastrophes of the complex and delicate ecosystems of our coastal regions because of the sinking of ocean tankers or the blow out of drilling rigs.

    Given the risks and the choices presented the idea of continuing with a business as usual approach to this problem is completely insane.

  • Prairie Dog Rebellion

    Great article. Too bad there are so many douchebags like Don Zimmerman spouting off their pseudoscientific, uninformed opinions about an issue that demands a minimal level of legitimate science education to comprehend. At least middle school. But from the tone and content of many of the comments here it seems that there are plenty of TM readers who are similarly deluded. Oh wait, right. This is Texas. Home of the largest population of insane people (Republican tea partiers) on the face of the dying Earth.

  • Brad Keyes

    Ms Smith, this is objectively false:

    ‘Today, there is robust scientific consensus that global warming is “real, caused by humans, and dangerous”; a study found that 97 percent of climate scientists agree with those conclusions.’

    No study has ever shown a 97 percent consensus on the ‘dangerous’ part.

    Correct this untruth before it becomes a lie. We’ve drawn the falsehood to your attention, so the clock is ticking. Misinformation becomes disinformation when you fail to fix it. Tick tock.

    • Ian Woolley

      That’s six hours gone…tick tock…

    • Iodized_Pepper

      “Misinformation becomes disinformation when you fail to fix it.” I tell this to deniers all the time, yet they still keep posting links to bogus websites.

      • Brad Keyes

        Gosh. I wasn’t actually talking to you, but since you’ve decided to contribute to the conversation, yeah, that must be frustrating. Deniers give me the $#!15 too. My sympathies.

        What’s a ‘bogus website’ though? I’m trying to imagine how something could appear to be a website, without really being one.

        Is English your first language?

        • Iodized_Pepper

          By that, I meant that the deniers present bogus information on their websites. Bogus: Fake, not real, untrue.

          • I’m what is sometimes referred to as a “lukewarmer.” My web site is sealevel.info. I regularly get called a “denier” and worse by people who disagree with me, but I don’t believe you will find any bogus information on my site.

            I encourage you to examine the information on my site, and see if you can find any errors. If you do. then please bring them to my attention. My contact information is on the site.

  • Henrik Øelund

    I want to do policy based climate science…Great!! A true scientist – now I feel completely safe!
    Einstein and Rutherford rotating in their graves.

  • Paul Matthews

    Katherine Hayhoe is “trying to connect with the very people who most doubt her research”.

  • Frederic

    The point of wheter there is climate change or not is moot and all energy spent on it is wasted. People will not listen even if you are right, Ms Hayhoe because they’d rather have warming than a lower standard of living. Furthermore the influence of renewables into politics exists as much as oil and coal is doing lobbying. It is obvious that solar and wind will not solve this worlds problems (soon enough), even with coercion and lowering our standard of living. Scientists like Ms Hayhoe should better spend their time on finding radically better ways of producing energy that might even undercut the price of coal. Solving global warming should be accidential therefore avoiding this roadblock. One of the contenders is the Molten Salt Reactor. The US (ORNL) had a test reactor running successfully for four years in the sixties. It has been abandoned by the war mongering president Nixon for not being able to create nukes and his stupidity. Just google/youtube this.

  • ClimateLearner

    The long years we went through with no appreciable global warming at all until very recently do not seem to have calmed the fears of many with regard to our impact on the climate system, and the extensively promoted alarm being raised about it. Professor Lindzen has pointed out many times that what we have observed in the climate system over the past 50 years or so (the period of presumed high impact by us getting underway) is perfectly consistent with there being no crisis, as are the recognition of CO2 as a greenhouse gas and our contributions to rising levels of it. Profess Hayhoe takes a different view, but hers is far more readily challenged. See for example the links to such criticism provided here: https://cliscep.com/2016/04/25/katherine-hayhoe-is-trying-to-connect/ .

    • Sam Gilman

      The scientific community already was starting to see very broad agreement on global warming back in the 1970s.

      Since then, every single decade has been warmer than the previous one. Even when the rate of warming slowed, the climate science community insisted that the threat from global warming had not gone away. They did this because, unsurprisingly, they didn’t base their entire understanding on the headline temperature. Instead they based their views on the processes that lead to warming, which they could see hadn’t stopped.

      During the period when warming slowed (but didn’t reverse as would generally happen if the rising trend were just noise – regression to the mean) “skeptics” rejected the idea that this was just a pause, and tried to claim that this was evidence of no threat.

      The warming has resumed. Just as everyone said it would. Records are again being broken.

      And yet still there are “skeptics” who insist there’s nothing going on.

      • ClimateLearner

        Quote: ‘And yet still there are “skeptics” who insist there’s nothing going on.’
        Where?

  • Brad Keyes

    Kudos for correcting that. You’ve shown more integrity than the authors of the study in question.

  • John Macdonell

    Very good article. Hayhoe’s tactic of first finding a value her listeners can all rally around is helpful(like identifying water shortage to the Texan farmers). Next relating that to climate change effects. Then show what they can do now, to mitigate the problem in the future.

    Avoids much of the acrimony. Excellent.

  • ClimateLearner

    I roll out of bed this morning with one mission in mind. Will all open-minded people passing this way please consider going to see Climate Hustle on May 2nd? http://www.climatehustlemovie.com/
    I think it could help us all get Prof Hayhoe’s campaigning work into perspective.

  • don76550

    This woman is pushing an absolute hoax.

  • Patrick

    Isn’t this the “scientist” who sounded the alarm that Texas was entering a period of “Mega-Drought”? I don’t see any apologies forthcoming.

  • Smoky Joe

    Newborn babies in areas near a high density of gas wells showed a 30% greater prevalence of congenital heart defects compared to newborns from areas having no gas wells within a 10-mile radius.

    Congenital heart defects in newborns usually require surgery

    http://tinyurl.com/HealthFracked_NIEHS

    Babies in the highest quartile of exposure (avg 124 gas wells/ 20 km) had a 40 % increased risk of premature birth compared to babies in the lowest quartile of exposure (avg 6 gas wells/ 20 km). http://journals.lww.com/epidem/_layouts/15/oaks.journals.mobile/articleviewer.aspx?year=2016&issue=03000&article=00002

    Unconventional Gas and Oil Drilling is Associated with Increased Hospital Utilization Rates

    Examined 95,000 hospitalization records from 3 rural counties in PA 2007-2011

    People in zip codes with a higher number or density of wells had significantly more total hospitalizations

    Hospitalizations for neurological disease (stroke, Parkinson’s) were higher than zip codes without wells

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26176544

  • AZTEX00

    I remember when environmental zealot RFK Jr. blamed Hurricane Katrina on President Bush and his policies. And now a hurricane has not hit the US in a decade.

    I would be more inclined to consider believing some of the climate change hype were it not for the fact that many so-called scientists have been found to have intentionally distorted the evidence.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/11/23/climategate-2-0-new-e-mails-rock-the-global-warming-debate/#64e2bce2988d

  • qb

    If carbon emissions are directly responsible for the increase in global temperature and this is scientific fact as Ms Hayhoe insists, then she should have no trouble revealing the scientific ratio of increased atmospheric CO2 levels to increased global temperature. Of course she offers no such scientific information because in fact CO2 is not the driving force in global climate temperature , as evidenced by the indisputable fact that over the past 15 years CO2 levels have risin significantly ,while global temperature has remained virtually constant.

  • Anne_Ominous

    If she’s one of the “most respected” authorities on the matter, WHY did she declare West Texas was in a “permanent drought” just before the floods last year?

    If she (provably) has no clue what the climate is like a month in the future, she sure as heck doesn’t know about 1 year, or 10 years, or 100 years in the future.

    Before you start on me, yes I do know the difference between weather and climate. Just as well as she does. SHE is the one who publicly declared the permanent drought… which turned out to be nonsense.

  • Well Done

    Hayhoe has drank the koolaid. That she is emotionally committed to this bureaucratic power grab doesn’t make it any more convincing. Science tells us a few % of CO2 can not affect the climate. Don’t you wonder why Hayhoe and company spent 25 years trying to explain the “pause” in warming, and now they proclaim it was actually warming all along? They’ve spent that time changing the data. Older temps were “adjusted” downward, and recent readings were “adjusted” upwards. People who have archives of data know this. People who have access to the raw data see the discrepancies. Blaming whatever happens on man’s CO2 is witch doctor stuff.