“What do you think of climate change?”

As Trump makes his intervention, the topic will arise once more in conversation. You may, like me, believe that AGW has only a minor contribution to our climate. You are familiar with all the endless discussions on the climate blogs.

The questioner may be someone in a pub, or at a dinner party. It could be your MP. You feel the need to give them a convincing reason which at least provides food for thought and persuades them that you are not a crank. But you have to keep it simple and quick. A complicated explanation lasting more than a minute will lose your audience. On the other hand, you may win their interest ….

What do you tell them?

"Brexit? Trump? The consensus and the experts and the establishment were proved wrong. There is so much more to Climate Change if you want to look. Try it. You will be surprised. And perhaps eventually angry."

When the Global Warming scam is reduced to dependency on a bent stick, and a fabricated beneficiary satisfaction survey, saying that 8 out of 10 research grants would be missed, and smell as fishy as catfood, it is over.

Alternatively, invite people to forecast next years climate based on tea leaf reading, just as accurate, and a lot cheaper too.

Would you trust your savings and pension on a financial model that predicts the market next year?
The climate is hideously more complex than the financial market.
Climate scares are based entirely on global climate models.
Why trust climate models to predict decades ahead, if you won't risk your financial future on much simpler models?
The global economy is being changed on the basis of climate scares, based on climate models.
Don't you see a problem here?

We have been warming up from the LIA for about 300 years. Most of the temperature measurements only go back about a century so it is not surprising that we are now breaking records. The big question is how much of that warming is part of the long term warming trend.

Years ago I visited my brother in a not yet gentrified portion of the District of Columbia and the tuna in the delicious noodle casserole he served came out of a catfood can. A wood fire ran most of the time in a 55 gallon drum especially of a wintry evening, down in the street below.

Tip o' the golf hat to charlie for the reminisces provoked.
==================

This is probably better.

We have been warming up from the LIA for about 300 years. Most of the temperature measurements only go back about a century so it is not surprising that we are now breaking records. The big question is how much recent, carbon dioxide related warming is mixed up in the long term trend.

There has been a temperature pause, give or take a few hundredths of a degree, since 1998. If 1998 was the record and the temperature has stayed constant, then it is not surprising that each year since then has also been a record.In reality, El Nino has addd some warming but we are now returning to the pause.

Dang, forgot to bang the modifying lid 'aromatic' down on the casserole.
===============

About ten years ago, I wasn’t particularly interested in climate but when I heard what was being said about climate change at the time, it immediately rang alarm bells.

“The recent warming is unprecedented. “ – I knew that was a lie.
“Carbon dioxide dominates our climate.” – I thought it was a lie then, but the pause proves it.
“We are at record high temperatures.” – What about the MWP, farming in Greenland, not to mention in earlier times as shown by proxy in the geological record?

Schrodinger's Cat
Well my position is and always has been is the climate today any more extreme in any facet now than it has been in the past. Then has sea level (or any other parameter) been greater/smaller/higher/lower/more/less in the past than now, if two or more are "worse" now than ever known then I might worry.

So far no one has been able to show the climate isn't working within previously experienced limits so I don't worry or lose sleep over it. I do worry about people telling my grandchildren there's a problem.

Schrodinger's Cat,

it depends on the audience. A complete stranger might think you're a bit of a kook if you start pontificating about LIA, MWP, etc. For them, Media Hoar's approach seems good to me. Could throw in all the other empty scares we've had over the decades.

Personally, I became highly sceptical the moment I heard about the positive feedback from water vapour; the absurd abuses of statistical methods clinched it.

Supertroll.

The climate is hideously more complex than the financial market.

Robert Swan. Who's talking about "perfect" models? The conversation would be about financial and climate models as used today. What financial model today has a climate module within it?

kim, 10 out of 10 cat owners said their cat preferred somewhere warmer to curl up and go to sleep. I believe 10 out of 10 cats would say the same about their owners, if they could express a preference.

IF the climate is warmer now, who or what is complaining?

Supertroll,

I have no beef with your approach to Schrodinger's Cat's question, but you made the statement quoted above as if it were self-evident. Not to me. Given that we're all sceptics here, is it unreasonable to ask you to explain why you think the climate is "hideously more complex" than the financial market? I have already outlined why I doubt it.

Robert Swan, the number of people who have invested their own money in Global Warming scams remains small, most of the money invested has belonged to other people.

As a financial model for scam artists, it has therefore proved very successful, even though very few have actually benefitted.

Climate Scientists were positive about where Global Warming was going, because the climate models that they had programmed, told them, and financial modellers programmed their business models accordingly. Now we know that Climate Scientists were never honest about what they knew in the first place.

As Climate Scientists have had billions, because they were the only experts capable of saving the planet, and they were paid billions to rubbish anyone else who pointed out the flaws, it must be concluded that the climate is very very complicated.

Personally, I can look back through history, and work out that the climate gets warmer and cooler, irrespective of CO2 levels, and nobody yet knows why. I just can't work out how to get paid billions, for stating the bleeding obvious.

Wow, imagine a climate model sophisticated enough to have a financial market model in it.
===========

kim, unfortunately Climate Scientists never put money away for a rainy day, month, year or few decades, because they never understood the climate.

When temperatures were falling it was Global Cooling, when they were rising it was Global Warming, now they are static it's Climate Change. They make it up as they go along: must be the pay cheques.

I don't think there are adequate enough observations of the money island effect to model it successfully. Well, why should that stop the effort? Time is short, action is urged against dangers imagined, modernize and post.
==============

“What do you think of climate change?”
Jan 27, 2017 at 3:58 PM | Unregistered CommenterSchrodinger's Cat

It's not what it used to be.

Jan 28, 2017 at 1:14 PM | michael hart

It is so over-rated. If it wasn't for all the expensive PR and hype, it would have carried on unnoticed, just as it always has.

97% of priests believe in God.

clipe. That 97% is probably significantly over-inflated as well. And there would be dispute about what "God" means 😈

All new "Trumpo" washing powder. Cleans up Climate Science's green stains and blemishes, whiter than white.