Just looked over the paper... simply incredible. No source for the data used in the figures (except for Fig. 1). No description of the methods used for the theoretical calculations. Virtually all of the references are to their own writings. Then they have the gall to say "We have proven that the GCM-models used in IPCC report AR5 cannot compute correctly the natural component included in the observed global temperature." wtf???

I was under the impression that U of Turku had a reputable climate science program, but looking at their site (at least the English version), I don't see these guys mentioned at all. Maybe they are a couple of grad students?

I'm always interested to read well-researched and well-written papers that reach conclusions at odds with the "consensus", but this one is a head scratcher, in the same league as Gerlich and Tscheuschner, almost. IMO it doesn't deserve the attention it's getting.

The entire climate change fixes the Democrats want would be a Job and Economy killing measure.

I agree. In fact, EVEN IF the worst case scenarios projected by the models are true, the Green New Deal fixes will not avert much of the coming disaster, and instead will leave us with less capital with which to build what we would need to adapt to climate change as it unfolds.

There are some "no regrets" steps we can take, things we should be doing for reasons unrelated to global warming. Alternative energy sources are a must because fossil fuels are a finite resource that we will almost certainly run out of within a few generations. We should not be shuttering nuclear plants, and we should be investing more in solving the problems of getting to and beyond break-even in nuclear fusion. I'm pessimistic about solar and wind ever being more than an extra source of "free" energy on the side, because of the intermittency problem and also because of the land area that has to be set aside for them. But by all means, let's keep working on them and deploying them where it's practical.

Whether we are the main driver of what's happening now or not, climate change is inevitable so let's work harder on strategies for adaptation. We don't know how much effect our GHG emissions will ultimately have but one thing is for certain, the climate will change in ways we can't imagine today, as it always has. Let's discourage further development along the coastlines - that will probably happen as a matter of course, as insurance on structures there will become more and more expensive. People who live in large coastal cities will have serious decisions to make in the next few decades. We can learn from past underestimates of the power of nature and design our buildings to withstand more powerful winds, earthquakes, etc. in areas that are vulnerable to those events.

The last thing we need is panicked, radical changes that are likely to leave us more vulnerable to what we fear most. Chicken Little is a shitty role model.

In contrast, the only heartthrobs for us girls were Kirk and Khan. Kirk was sensitive and philosophical like Picard, but more given to passion. And Ricardo Montalban as Khan ... swoooooon! Talk about your toxic masculinity! 

Ryker ... too pretty boy. Data had more appeal.

Hey... even *I* thought Ricardo Montalban was hot, and I'm gay! (lesbian, for those of you not paying attention... ) Kirk... too pompous and egotistical for me.

There were VERY few Trek women that I found attractive in that way. Denise Crosby as Tasha Yar somewhat, but she wasn't really convincing in the role (and part of that was probably the writing, which was very ho-hum at that point), and anyway they killed her off at the end of the first season. Nana Visitor as Major Kira, once she stopped overacting the part, and especially Michelle Forbes as Ro Laren, but she was only in one episode. No one else that really stands out for me, though I've forgotten most of the episodes of TOS except for the really standout ones.

Well okay, Kate Mulgrew was JUST A LITTLE appealing as Janeway on VOY. But not enough to salvage the show for me, which was so inane (and self-consciously "diverse") that I really could not watch it much of the time.

Somehow I missed this post the first time around.

You don't have to understand the nuts and bolts of the science.  Heck, when it comes to climatology I certainly don't, I'm a geneticist.  I do understand basic thermodynamics and the relationship between heat and energy, which is why I understand global warming means more energetic climate, not necessarily hotter (though is certainly is tending that way). All that said, I've known researchers in climate science.  They're no different than me, just trying to figure out what's going on.  It just so happens that what they're figured out has far more profound consequences.

I don't expect the average person to understand the nuts and bolts of the science, and I'm certainly not disparaging them because they don't. My point is that BECAUSE they don't understand the science, they are in no position to judge whether an argument casting doubt on some or other element of the "climate change consensus" is based on science or not. Did Mann go too far with the pasting together of data from different sources to make the "hockey stick" graph? Has there really been a hiatus in global warming in the first two decades of this century? If you don't have the intellectual tools to evaluate those claims, then you're vulnerable to being manipulated by people who are motivated by politics instead of science. And if a scientist makes claims that aren't 100% supported by hard science, the more literate skeptical pundits will have a field day with him and damage not only his credibility, but that of everyone in the field. That's why IMO scientists working in areas that are highly charged politically have a special responsibility to avoid premature release of results to the public, and above all to avoid making alarmist claims that can't be backed up with airtight evidence. If your results indicate that a dire outcome is a possibility, then you also need to be honest and forthcoming about the uncertainties involved.

This is NOT an easy tightrope for climate scientists to walk, and I think several modern climatologists have overstepped, to various degrees, and the reputation of the field has suffered as a result. At least some of the original luminaries were acutely aware of the problem though. In the thread on AAAS I mentioned earlier, climate scientist Robert Kandel posted a quote yesterday from Steve Schneider that's worth reading, if you're on that forum. Unfortunately, Schneider died a few years back and there seem to be only a few today who take their responsibility to not mislead the public seriously. Kandel seems to be one such, but he's from the old guard, and most of the younger regulars on sites like RealClimate are unabashed activists who advocate for carbon taxes, cap-and-trade, and other schemes to make burning fossil fuels prohibitively expensive, never mind the effect that would have on the economy.

I've seen that, though I already know a way to sequester lots and lots of carbon.  Its called trees.

And Kenneth Towe on the AAAS thread has countered that argument effectively: at the rate we're putting CO2 into the air, there just aren't enough trees on the planet to manage the excess, and wouldn't be even if we could replace the ones we've chopped down in short order.

IMO Curry is right, it's a wicked problem with no clear solution and no clear way to determine the optimal solution. Science may be under attack, but people who think the arguments over global warming are all about attacking science are being misled. We as scientists should be trying to present the full truth in ways the lay public can understand, not manipulating them to demand drastic actions that will have side effects we may not be able to accept.

Right. 

You know what, "Lucifer"? Fuck you. I don't know what you do for a living, but I put in long hours during the semester. If you can't accept that sometimes people need to just focus on more important things, then fuck you. Seriously.

And I have better things to do with my summer break than waste it mud wrestling with pigs.

As far as the people who elected Trump, whether you believe me or not, I don't care, but you're way off the mark if you think I "sneer" at them. Addressing their valid concerns should be the Dems' number one priority. As usual though, the Dems can't see past their desire to bring down Trump, and it is likely to be their undoing next year.

That's an excellent article!  I might pick a nit with what he says about Kuhn, I've read Kuhn and I can talk about his philosophy; well he does say Kuhn is responsible for elevating consensus over science and if that is true that's not what Kuhn meant, but it wouldn't be the first time a wise person's words were completely twisted and misused.

I haven't read Kuhn in the original, but from what I have read *about* his work, I agree that reducing science to a matter of consensus appears to be a significant distortion of what Kuhn was all about. I'd also agree that that is a nit!

I especially like Tracinski's example of plate tectonics vis. climate change, since PT was indeed a fringe theory for nearly 50 years because no one (before Harry Hess) could dream up a plausible mechanism for continental drift, and because critical evidence was lacking for whether it was actually happening. Dismissing CD was scientifically defensible until both of those factors changed. Similarly, there is sufficient evidence today for increasing greenhouse warming to justify the consensus belief - but that doesn't make it true, and the climate system is complex enough that people continue to debate about the relative magnitude of the greenhouse effect vs. aerosols vs. internal variability. The people for whom support for science is code for fighting climate change reduce a legitimate - and necessary - scientific debate to a purely political issue driven by competing philosophical and financial interests. That's about as anti-science an attitude as I can think of.

Interesting.

BTW, using historical facts, the 2018 election could hardly be seen as a “referendum on Trump”.

Anyway, we are going into 2020, and the President’s message will be “America First, Secure Borders, Strong Economy, Lower Taxes and Low Unemployment”.

What message will the Democrats use to counter that?

Of course we don't know yet - they haven't agreed on a party platform for 2020. But my guess is it will be some combination of "Medicare For All", "Equal Rights for Women", "A Woman's Right to Choose", and "A Living Wage for All".

Also, with the current crop of declared democrats, which one do you favor, and which of their policies do you favor, and why?

What makes you think I favor ANY of them? Actually, I don't. Of the declared candidates whose positions are clear, there is not a single one I could vote for. I hold out little hope that the ones who haven't staked out clear positions yet (e.g. Hickenlooper, O'Rourke) will prove to be much more moderate than the others, but I've been surprised before.

As things stand, I expect to be either voting for Trump in 2020 as the lesser of two evils, or sitting the election out.

Obviously you can't if you have no handle on the changes in that baseline. But it's not true that we have NO handle on the changes. There are cycles, especially short term (e.g. ENSO) that we do understand. The longer timescale variations (multi-decadal and centennial) we aren't quite on top of yet. There has been some interesting work recently on millennial and multi-millennial scale variability - see the postings by Javier on Judith Curry's blog. (AFAIK this is not peer-reviewed so it's hard to judge its quality - but it's interesting still.) But it's true that we have a long way to go still before we can say that we know what the climate WOULD HAVE done had we not started burning dinosaurs.

So yes, I agree that there is a large uncertainty in how much of the recent warming is due to us. That doesn't mean that it is all a hoax. It just means that we have much more to learn about the climate system. I think we know enough to be concerned  - just not enough to be sounding the alarm of imminent catastrophe.