Thought you might like to see the comments that were too hot for Joe Romm to handle (so he deleted them from his blog…without of course even leaving any record they had ever been on his blog):

“So the planet can warm, say, 0.2°C next decade — just as it warmed 0.2°C this decade, using NASA’s data, which is probably the best — and still warm 5°C this century, if we don’t act quickly to reverse emissions trends. That said, I am expecting the planet to warm more than 0.2°C next decade, particularly if there is not a major volcano.”

“Yes, the planet CAN warm 5°C in the century, even after only warming less than 0.5°C in the first 20 years of the century. Just like Tim Jeter CAN raise his lifetime batting average 10 points in the remainder of his career. But the question is, WILL that happen? If you don’t quote odds, you’re essentially not making any claim.

The NASA GISS global land and sea anomaly will most likely be 0.51 deg C for 2000-2009.

What is your prediction for the *most likely* temperature anomaly each decade from 2000 to 2100 (i.e., the temperature anomaly for which there is a 50 percent chance of the actual rise being less, and a 50 percent chance of the temperature anomaly being more)?

Decade……..NASA GISS Anomaly (deg. C)
2000 – 2009…….0.51
2010 – 2019…….????
2020 – 2029…….????
2030 – 2039…….????
2040 – 2049…….????
2050 – 2059…….????
2060 – 2069…….????
2070 – 2079…….????
2080 – 2089…….????
2090 – 2099…….????

I’ve always wondered if Joe Romm really believed any of his scary predictions. Apparently not.

Joe Romm has not answered me, and actually I would not be surprised if he ignored my posts (I have posted in two discussion threads to get his attention). But I sincerely wish he would put his money where his mouth is !

“Joe, I see that you have declined to publish my follow-up comment. Why is that? Do you not have any answers to my questions, or do you fear seeing my follow-up wager proposition in print?

Heck, I’ll even lower my proposed wager to 0.19 degrees Celsius next decade. That means you can win the bet even if global warming occurs at a pace that is less than half your prediction. Joe, do you walk the walk, or do you simply talk the talk?”

Anybody care to guess whether Romm accepts the offer? Anybody care to guess whether he blocks it from appearing on his site?

Sure, 0.15 is “extra, extra cushy” for him, but 0.3 is quite cushy also. Note that he also refuses to accept my 0.25 wager. If Romm even remotely trusted his won predictions, he would have pounced on my proposed wagers.

Heck, I’ll even give him a wager at 1.9. That means he can win the bet even if global warming is less than half his prediction. Joe, do you walk the walk, or do you simply talk the talk?

Joe, according to your beloved IPCC and your alarmist pals, temperatures should rise at least 3 degrees Celsius over the next century. That averages out to 0.3 degrees Celsius per decade. Why are you willing to place money on only HALF that amount of warming? I think this tells us something about how much even the alarmists doubt their own predictions of gloom and doom.

Also, it is interesting that you specify the James Hansen-doctored GISS temperature compilation, which suspiciously is the extreme outlier among temperature data sets. How about a temperature report that is a little more objective?

Joe, I will wager whatever amount of money you choose that the 2010’s will be less than 0.3 degrees Celsius warmer than the current decade, according to the objective satellite temperature data.

Do I have a taker?

To which Romm responded:

I understand you deniers are stuck in linear thinking, where the future is always exactly like the past, but if you had any familiarity whatsoever with the scientific literature, then you would know that climate warming is not a linear phenomenon, it is an accelerating phenomenon, in part because of well-known delays in the equilibration of global temperatures with all the exogenous forcings and in part because of positive, amplifying feedbacks in the carbon cycle — the impact of global dimming is also relevant to the recent and near-term trend line, for those, unlike you, interested in actual science.

More seriously, the fact that you would accuse one of the top climate scientists in the world of doctoring data, when his work has been subject to extensive peer review over many many years and you are simply allowed to repeat long-debunked falsehoods again and again, however, makes clear to any independent observer that your words are not to be trusted.

I submitted a follow-up comment, but Romm has blocked it from appearing on his site. My comment reads:

“Joe, thank you for your reply. I admire your dedication and passion for your beliefs, although I disagree with them. Three questions:

1) If global warming is an accelerating rather than a linear phenomenon, then why did more global warming occur in the 30 years between 1910 and 1940 than the 30 years between 1979 and today? (see NASA satellite data at http://www.drroyspencer.com/)

2) If all temperature compilations except for Hansen report that 1998 — rather than 2005 — was the warmest year in the recent temperature record, then doesn’t a scientific “consensus” indicate that you and Hansen are wrong? Indeed, when such a substantial percentage of the temperature reports reach the same conclusion, could it not be said that “the debate is over”?

3) At 0.3 degrees Celsius, I am already giving you a cushy proposition. Whenever I watch alarmist presentations or participate in debates with them, they almost always assert a warming of AT LEAST 3 degrees Celsius this century, and usually more like 4 degrees Celsius (or a pace of 0.4 degrees per decade). So at 0.3 degrees next decade, I am letting you wager on the low end of alarmist assertions. That being said, I will be still more generous and offer the wager at 0.25 degrees Celsius over the next decade. Interested?”

Several scientists and global warming experts report that they, too, have been blocked from submitting comments in the “comments” section on Romm’s blog. Given the professional tone of my comment that Joe blocked, we can safely assume his reasons have nothing to do with maintaining proper decorum, and everything to do with being unable to present lucid arguments on his behalf. After all, why WOULDN’T Romm welcome critical inquiries on his website that he can publicly defeat and thus bolster his own argument?

What are you afraid of, Joe, your own over-the-top global warming predictions? Why are you afraid to post questions and comments – in the portion of your blog specifically set up for them – that cordially question your assertions? My offer to wager on global temperature remains open. I am letting you claim victory even if temperatures next decade warm at a pace that is 42 percent BELOW your own predictions. Why won’t you accept my offer, Joe, do you privately acknowledge far less of a “crisis” than you are publicly asserting?

“[W]e need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.” – Joe Romm’s friend, Stephen Schneider.