According to a very wise advisor of mine, the perfect cup of coffee is not scalding hot, and most likely contains a bit of sweetener and cream. I have come to realize that this applies to more than just a cup of coffee. I tried to explain to him that in the climate debate, an extended hand is often met with a slap in the face. However, I am once again going to try and extend a hand and brew a perfect cup of coffee by revealing two ideas that the man-made global warming crowd would have some credibility in trying to use.

Keep in mind, the coffee I like is still going to be darn hot and is more espresso than latte. So let me start by stirring the pot.

Climate alarmists are revealing ignorance in the excuses they are making. They don’t even have the right ideas. Remember: When you are right, it’s a reason; when wrong, an excuse. Three of their seven “excuses” are reasons I am right – items I listed several years ago on national TV as to why Earth would cool back to where it was in the late 1970s by 2030. But here are their seven reasons, courtesy of Climate Depot – a climate blog that’s double espresso, no cream, and no sugar when it comes to the AGW debate.

> Climate Depot Analysis: ‘There have been at least seven separate explanations for the standstill in global warming’ – 1) Low Solar Activity; 2) Oceans Ate Warming; 3) Chinese Coal Use; 4) Montreal Protocol; 5) Readjusted past temps to claim ‘pause’ never existed 6) Volcanoes 7) Decline in Water Vapor

Read about it here.

Reasons 1, 2 and 6 are part of the triple crown of cooling idea I discussed on TV nearly seven years ago. Number 7 is most likely a product of the cooling in the tropical Pacific and hence the turning down of the Earth’s thermostat. I have written extensively on this and how it has affected global tropical cyclone activity, lowering the objective measure of this, the ACE index, and leading to increased drought in the western and central US as we saw in the 1950s. And while you are probably sick of seeing this, global temperatures since this shift started (a reversal to a cold Pacific Decadol Oscillation) have trended down, in line with ideas on the triple crown of cooling.

You can not look at this and say there has not been a slight downward trend. It is based on 2-meter temperature observations from the National Center for Environmental Prediction.

So there are the 7 excuses. What is so amazing to me about this is instead of focusing on their potential counters to my argument on cooling, one of which I used to forecast this cold winter, they simply recite what they are told to, as if they give no thought as to how to actually make a point with their argument. But then again, if you claim every answer, no matter how wrong it is, is what you forecasted, and you can get away with it, you quickly adopt an ends justify the means mentality.

But I want the right answer. So in an effort to make this perfect cup of coffee, let me offer up some cream. My friend Dr. Roy Spencer makes a huge point: By using satellite radiation measurements, there has to be some increase in global temperatures occurring! He is an honest broker and while this may be considered almost being a traitor to our idea that AGW is agenda driven, it indicates what both Roy and I are after – the truth. We have enough “proof” that we know we can withstand the challenge on an even playing field. Here , read about it.

Dr. Spencer indirectly criticizes people like me that believe we will cool the next 20-30 years, but I look at the weight of evidence of the changing oceans (coming off their warm cycles), the weakening sun and the wild card, volcanic activity, as being strong enough to overcome this. Still, Roy’s point is excellent. In a nutshell, I may be right over the next 30 years, but the undercurrent may still be warming. If as I argue, the current observations are something we have never been able to observe before when warming was taking place, as the earth cools again, we may see this reverse. It is a chicken/egg argument, but both Roy and I agree that the “Yolk” is on anyone believing the implications of this is catastrophic warming. Still, it shows you that I am looking at ideas that challenge me, not just reciting pat answers or finding the best talking point I think will appeal to the masses.

Now here is the sweetener: In a world where any answer is the right answer, the idea that melting sea ice is causing whatever extremes we see, warm or cold, is not provable for one, and secondly, it’s false since we have two hemispheres and one of them has record sea ice. Thirdly, the reason for the melting of the northern ice cap to the extent it has is due to oceanic cycles that warmed, and are starting to cool, starting with the Pacific. The Atlantic, with more exposure to the Arctic Ocean, causes the most melting of the northern ice cap and is within several years of going into its cold mode – in which case, given global sea ice is above normal, will be even more of a moot point than it should be now.

So where is the cream? It’s here in the north Pacific, the very area my partner Joe D Aleo and I keyed on to forecast the cold winter for the US, similar to 1917-1918. The fact is, sea surface temperatures in the northeast Pacific are currently the warmest ever recorded!

That should certainly be something you’d think alarmists would jump on considering it’s an example of warmth and the fact it’s happening in the ocean, which has much greater heat capacity than air, giving them even more of an argument. And that argument would hold some water with me (pun intended, you have to smile about these things). Yet they make up nonsensical excuses and avoid two items that people like me have to answer. Fortunately, I do have an answer: It’s being compensated by the overwhelming cooling that has occurred in the tropical Pacific the last four years. Turn down the tropical Pacific, and you are going to affect the global climate.

And here is the SST comparison to 1917-1918 with the winter of ‘17-'18 on the right. This one will likely turn out quite close.

That said, if they want to use an argument, why are they not going to ones that would at least force me to rebut? Answer: They probably don’t know about it, perhaps because they are so message driven, they won’t stop to actually think about what they are saying. We actually showed our clients and subscribers before the fact in the face of a consensus among many that the winter would be warm. This should speak volumes as to who is doing the work to pursue the right answer – not only with the weather, but the fact that we are looking at patterns involving climate as a building block for our forecast.

I know there will be some that read this and ask: Why would you give them the time of day, yet two possible counter arguments to your point? Because in the pursuit of the right answer, one should not fear challenges, but embrace them. And I know the counter to the arguments, but at the least these deserve more of a mention than the “magnificent seven” above. I may be naïve to think in a fight where delusion and deception have become guiding lights that trying to be above board is wise. But then again, one has to believe in things bigger than what they can see if they have a chance to see beyond what they currently believe. That’s how knowledge is gained and how people advance.

Joe Bastardi is chief forecaster at WeatherBELL Analytics, a meteorological consulting firm.