Skeptics Missing the Main Argument, Unfortunately

Both Anthony Watts (WUWT) and Lubos Motl (Reference Frame) comment on Kevin Trenberth's upcoming talk at the American Meteorological Society meeting on Jan 26 on Communicating Climate Change with the thoughtful title ClimategateThoughts.

Watts and Motl are a bit skeptical to Trenberth, but they seem to accept the energy budget of Trenberth underlying CO2 climate alarmism, discussed at length on this blog.

The following questions present themselves:

• Why are Watts and Motl not skeptical to the backbone of CO2 alarmism: Trenberth's energy budget?
• Why are Watts and Motl ignoring the devastating analysis of Trenberth's budget presented in Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death to the Greenhouse Gas Theory or Death to Trenberth's Energy budget? Is the math there overwhelming?

In short, why are skeptics not skeptic? Maybe because they view themselves as physicists, and

physicists believe in the "greenhouse effect" and Trenberth's energy budget.

Watts and Motl are joined by Lindzen and Spencer as "skeptic physicists" confessing to the "greenhouse effect" with a miraculous ability of turning a thin atmosphere into a "heat-trapping blanket". There must have been something seriously wrong with physics education during the 20th century.

Here is the basic belief to which Lindzen confesses:

• It is generally acknowledged that simply doubling CO2 should lead to a warming about 1 degree Centigrade.

Lindzen does not understand that here "general acknowledgement" is achieved by making this

statement into a definition of no-feedback climate sensitivity. Lindzen does not want to know that a (generally acknowledged) definition does not say anything about any reality, but is just a play with words, as empty as saying that there are 100 centimeters on 1 meter.

This is unfortunate because CO2 climate alarmism is based on this no-feedback sensitivity of 1 C, which then is argued to possibly become an alarming 3 C by positive feedback.

But you cannot get anything from a definition and without the 1 C to start with, the real game has to start with 0 C and this feedback game is completely open, as explained in Climate Feedbacks with Nothing to Feed On. It is not even clear if more CO2 will cause cooling, or warming or nothing.

It is unfortunate that a skeptic physicist like Lindzen does not appear to be willing to see this, (and therefore feels obliged to invent negative feedback which may be questioned). Why? Lindzen can't be so stupid that he can't see the trick used to create climate alarmism out of nothing, from a definition. But why is he willing to interprete a definition as a physical fact?

Lindzen is in good company with Judith Curry:

• Well, burning fossil fuels and other anthropogenic activities have undoubtedly changed the climate and even weather patterns, the butterfly flapping its wings in Brazil, and all that.

And all that: Anything is possible in physics science fiction.

What is the cost of the fiction, in the US? About $4 billion next year into climate change

research (NSF 1.6, DOE 0.6, Nasa 0.4, NOOA 0.4, DOI 0.2). Enough to pay 40.000 full-time

researchers. A good size army.

Of course peanuts compared to the $14 trillion of federal budget deficit. Anyway, what about say $1 billion to skeptic climate science? About 10.000 full-time skeptics. And it would be well spent money, since it could save the $4 billion. Maybe something for new Congress looking for cuts?

PS Lindzen repeats his mantra in A Case Against Precipitous Climate Action:

• However, the contribution of increasing CO2 alone does not, in fact, lead to much warming (approximately 1 deg. C for each doubling of CO2).

Lindzen does not understand that this mantra is precisely what underlies "Precipitous Climate Action" and so his argument is rather for than against doing something drastic quickly.