So, climate deniers are essentially wealthy elitists who think they can buy their way out of the coming disaster? Could be, but if so, it seems that their arrogance and selfishness would be exceeded only by their foolishness.

@Heraclitus it’s just a theory, I’m hoping time won’t tell and we’ll pull through together somehow. Of course being middle aged I may not live to see that!

Good point. Greed, selfishness, and laziness trumps logic, reason, and intelligence.

First of all, "verily" means truly. "Virtually" means almost or nearly. Secondly, the referenced article is about meteorologists' views, or the views of weather forecasters, not about climatologists. There is a significant difference. Thirdly, this very article says " 97% of climate experts who publish primarily on climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature indicated they were convinced" and THAT is the significant percentage, not how many weathermen were convinced. Fourthly, the 2009 study that is referred to is 10 years old and a huge amount of additional convincing data have been collected in the last 10 years that makes any 2009 study obsolete. Even back then, 97% of professional climate experts were convinced and the remaining 3% were not climate deniers, they just were withholding their opinions until further evidence was found and I find that understandable. In the succeeding 10 years that 97% has become virtually (nearly) 100%.

That said, thanks for the reference, I will study it further.

@Heraclitus OK, I was wrong on the meaning of “virtually”, but now you are talking about nearly 100%. Science is not done by consensus, but there are plenty of knowledgeable climate scientists who are not alarmed:

[newsmax.com]

Here’s a recent book, The Rise and Fall of the Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climate Change”” that might interest those with open minds:

[link.springer.com]

@WilliamFleming
First, I certainly agree that mob hysteria is not the answer. Keep in mind that is the main thrust of the letter referenced, not that climate change is not real.

Secondly, I agree that science is not done by consensus. The consensus comes, or may not come, after the science is done. But, if you are not persuaded by the nearly unanimous consensus of the climate science experts, then what will convince you? Anything... before it is too late?

Thirdly, when the names of this global group were revealed it became highly controversial because it revealed that few professional climate experts were involved and the scientists in "related fields" often had very little if any recognized expertise in climate change. Many were political activists who also had science degrees. Simply having a science degree, in a different field is irrelevant. If you are not convinced by climate experts why would you be convinced by a scientists in a "related" field. Nevertheless, keep in mind they were not denying climate change, just challenging "mob hysteria" and "climate alarmism."

Fourthly, the claim by NewsMax that the eight points made are "eight straightforward and readily verifiable facts" is simply false. They are often neither straightforward nor verifiable facts, and I will address each one in turn:

1. Maybe. It depends on what you consider to be an emergency. I would concede that indeed there is no emergency...yet. Many think I am too being too conservative.
2. Yes, of course, but this ignores the fact that natural climate variations are being considered in the models. In fact, the natural climate cycle we are in is a cooling cycle. Otherwise, global warming would be worse than it already is.
3. According to what prediction? There have been some overly alarmist predictions in the past, such as that by the politician Al Gore. However, the vast majority of climate change experts have made moderate predictions that have proven to be too conservative according to more recent data that shows that positive feedback loops are accelerating warming. And that is where the alarmism is coming from.
4. This is a statement about political policy not about the science. And guess what? In some states, such as North Carolina, they ARE using an inadequate climate model. They are using outdated and more conservative climate models and have out-lawed using the more recent research that shows that climate change is happening faster than anticipated, the opposite of what is implied. Also, the statement that they "ignore the fact that enriching the atmosphere with CO2 is beneficial" is false to the point of being silly. No scientist or model ignores that CO2 is beneficial to plants. It is just that excessive CO2 in the atmosphere is not beneficial to our species.
   By the way, I would accept that climate scientists are using incomplete models, but not inadequate models.
5. Of course, CO2 is plant food. So what? This has nothing to do with the concerns about climate change. This too, is a silly claim in the argument.
6. Not true that there is "no statistical evidence", just that there is no conclusive statistical proof. Climate scientists have made it clear time and again you cannot simply point to a weather event and directly relate it to climate change. This represents a misunderstanding of the difference between weather and climate. There is no conclusive statistical proof that smoking will give you lung cancer either, but there is certainly plenty of statistical evidence. Speaking of the misuse of so-called statistics, the argument that we shouldn't use wind turbines because they kill birds and bats is silly. The number of birds killed by wind turbines is absolutely minuscule compared to the millions of birds killed by cats. Should we get rid of all the cats in the world? It also ignores the fact that as wind turbines are being outlawed from known bird migratory paths, and that birds themselves seem to be learning to avoid wind turbines, the numbers are decreasing considerably. Besides, not to be unconcerned, but a few dead birds and bats are the least of our worries.
7. Yes, policies must respect scientific and economic realities. Net-zero CO2 policy proposed for 2050 may indeed be unrealistic by 2050, though I would use the word "improbable". But, this is no cause for giving in and giving up. We already have existing nascent technologies that could turn things around if we only got serious and truly invested in them as a society. And what is the alternative?
8. Of course, an honest climate science debate is warranted, and there has been too little of it, including this NewsMax article.

Oh, and thanks for the book reference. I'll read it though I may not be able to get to it right away. May I suggest a book to you? The 2016 book, Climate Change: What Everyone Needs to Know by Joseph Romm.

And may I add that though we may not see things exactly the same way I appreciate the honest debate from you. Too little of it.

@Heraclitus My mind is not totally made up. I’ll put your recommended book on my list. I’m sure it is readily available, unlike Rex Fleming’s book which appears to have been suppressed. I will not argue any of those eight points pro or con. My point is that there are numerous highly qualified climate scientists who urge restraint. There are ideologues on both sides of the debate, but alarmists appears to be winning in the political arena.

One reason I am not very worried is that a radical new method of generating power is upon us, and will be announced soon. Mark my words.

@WilliamFleming I am not against a certain amount of restraint, just self-destructive delay, denial, and dishonesty. Thanks again for the debate and the references.

@Heraclitus

[judithcurry.com]

@WilliamFleming Ah, yes, the Lukewarmers! Actually, they had a fairly strong case until a few years ago and were right to question some of the modeling inadequacies, especially that of the troposphere. Keep in mind this is just a subset of climate change modeling. But, unfortunately, several things are left out of the analysis:

1. The Great Satellite Debate. Deniers often jumped on the fact that earlier satellite data as it did not show much warming in the troposphere in particular. In fact, it had appeared to plateau. Then it was discovered that the degradation of satellite orbits had not been taken into account. Once this correction was made the temperatures were revised upwards. Of course, by then, the Deniers had already been crying "Hoax!"
2. Initially, the satellite data analysis did not (adequately) take into account climate forcings such as La Nina, volcanic activity, cycles of intensity variation of the sun's radiation and changes in the earth's orbit and angling. It turned out that once these short-term cooling effects were accounted for the plateauing disappeared and expected warming was displayed. Of course, by then, the Deniers had already been crying "Hoax!"
3. Earlier models WERE inadequate in that CC experts did not realize how much of global warming was being absorbed by the deep ocean as this is very tough to measure. This meant that the troposphere modeling predictions were too high, but this simply meant that much of the heat was going elsewhere. This was when much of the focus of CC turned to future sea-level rise. Of course, by then, the Deniers had already been crying "Hoax!"
4. CC feedback mechanisms had been generally assumed to have little effect on global warming and was largely dismissed as insignificant. Unfortunately, there is a second and more serious reason why CC feedback mechanisms have been largely ignored. Their long-term effects are not well-understood, as we have very little experience with them, and consequently, they are quite difficult to model. However, the latest data show that CC feedback mechanisms are having MORE impact on global warming, not less, and consequently the overall CC models needed to be revised with upwards predictions. It is these recent revisions that have lead to a resurgence of the CC Alarmist movement that you now see on almost a global basis.

As I said earlier, climate change modeling is incomplete. Climate change modeling is evolving and there is no question that today's modeling is better than yesterday's, and tomorrow's will be better than today's. But, as of today, the best data shows that most prior, especially recent modeling which had pretty much eliminated the more extreme scenario predictions, was inadequate in the sense that they led to an UNDERESTIMATION of the rate of climate change. I remember a presentation on TV 10-12 years ago that predicted that the beginning public observation of climate change effects that we are seeing now would not occur until about 2030. Frankly, I hope that today's' CC feedback mechanism modeling is exaggerated and that the LukeWarmers turn out to be right after all. But based on everything I have heard and read in the last year...I don't think so.

@Heraclitus Satellite measurements show the worldwide average temperature to be drifting upward at a slow rate, but this chart shows the continental US to be cooling since 2016:

[ncdc.noaa.gov]

@WilliamFleming That's right. In spite of the fact that the continental US has been cooling the global rate is rising, which means that the rest of the earth is experiencing greater warming than the average would indicate. So, why is the continental US cooling? There is an increasingly unstable polar vortex due to artic amplification. The west to east jet stream is weakening due to the decreasing temperate differential. When this happens the north to south pressures predominate more. Since there is no such thing as north of the north pole, this means that there is increasing southern pressure on the jet stream. This leads to meandering waves of cold air known as Rossby waves. But worse, due to the weakening of the jet stream pressures, which would normally serve as a corrective, the Rossby waves tend to stall out or get stuck for extended periods. This results in cold wave after cold wave. What have we been experiencing in the US lately? That's right, cold wave after cold wave. This is exactly what climate science predicts. Nevertheless, US Deniers use this very phenomenon to claim that climate change is a hoax.

This reminds me of the Kübler-Ross model of the 5 stages of grief: denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance. The deniers are still stuck in denial. Most of us, especially the youth, are in the anger stage. The bargaining stage will start when we actually begin to get serious and have to bargain about which sacrifices we are willing to make to address the crisis. The depression stage will set in when it becomes obvious that we have done too little too late. The acceptance stage will be for the survivors who eventually come to terms with the fate and foolishness of the human race.

@Heraclitus I had not thought of it like that, but yes you are absolutely right

Good point that the deniers are often religious in motivation. Some bible-thumpers say that climate change cannot occur because of Joshua 10:14 which says the sun stood still. Though this appears to have nothing to do with climate change, they claim it means that God controls the climate and that humans cannot change it no matter what they do.

Yes, but first of all, that is generic global warming, not the extreme weather effects predicted by climate change. Though I suppose the answer to that is that they are ignorant of the difference. But, more importantly, how is snow a hoax? Let alone a Chinese snow hoax? And what is the purpose of this snow hoax?

Yes, but the Chinese are doing more to combat climate change than we are. So, does that mean that the Chinese have been fooled by their own hoax?