Reality v Alarm

There has been an exchange of op-eds in the Wall Street Journal between groups of scientist with differing views on global warming. It could be thought as deniers v warministas. The latest op-ed has a wonderful point on falsification.

In this respect, an important gauge of scientific expertise is the ability to make successful predictions. When predictions fail, we say the theory is “falsified” and we should look for the reasons for the failure. Shown in the nearby graph is the measured annual temperature of the earth since 1989, just before the first report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Also shown are the projections of the likely increase of temperature, as published in the Summaries of each of the four IPCC reports, the first in the year 1990 and the last in the year 2007.

From the graph it appears that the projections exaggerate, substantially, the response of the earth’s temperature to CO2 which increased by about 11% from 1989 through 2011. Furthermore, when one examines the historical temperature record throughout the 20th century and into the 21st, the data strongly suggest a much lower CO2 effect than almost all models calculate.

Given this dubious track record of prediction, it is entirely reasonable to ask for a second opinion. We have offered ours. With apologies for any immodesty, we all have enjoyed distinguished careers in climate science or in key science and engineering disciplines (such as physics, aeronautics, geology, biology, forecasting) on which climate science is based.

The money quote?

Apparently every generation of humanity needs to relearn that Mother Nature tells us what the science is, not authoritarian academy bureaucrats or computer models.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

106 Responses to Reality v Alarm

  1. Rafe

    A beautiful set of numbers!

  2. JC

    An a beautiful letter in reply to Trenberth.

    The Trenberth letter tells us that decarbonization of the world’s economy would “drive decades of economic growth.” This is not a scientific statement nor is there evidence it is true. A premature global-scale transition from hydrocarbon fuels would require massive government intervention to support the deployment of more expensive energy technology. If there were economic advantages to investing in technology that depends on taxpayer support, companies like Beacon Power, Evergreen Solar, Solar Millenium, SpectraWatt, Solyndra, Ener1 and the Renewable Energy Development Corporation would be prospering instead of filing for bankruptcy in only the past few months.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203646004577213244084429540.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_carousel_3

    Another day another teamster receives another head kicking. And Trenberth is a thoroughly decrepit piece of work.

  3. James in Melbourne

    Careful, people. Steve from Brisbane gets mightily annoyed at the suggestion that Albert Arnold Gore, Jr., BA, is not the font of all wisdom in matters climatic.

    Gainsay the Goreball at your peril.

  4. Louis Hissink

    Looks like we also have the Coriolis Effect wrong as well – but more on that at a later date as it’s a bit of a chore collating all the various expositions of this effect to gain an idea of what “science” really thinks it is.

    Also the greenhouse gas effect has been thoroughly demolished, as summarised here.

    It’s truly been an interesting week.

  5. JM

    Sinclair you’ve been listening too much to people like Lucia – this “point” has been her bread and butter over the last few years.

    And it is a frequently and totally rebutted “point”, largely because Lucia doesn’t understand statistics very well (and is in fact in the process of teaching it to herself out of a 50 year old textbook).

    The IPCC makes projections over very long periods like a century. It does not make predictions, let alone predictions over short time periods like a decade.

    I might also point out that there is a difference between a physical model, ie. something that actually does predict the behaviour of a physical system, and the statistical “model” that analyses the data used to confirm it.

    I hope that’s not too subtle for you.

  6. Sinclair Davidson

    I might also point out that there is a difference between a physical model, ie. something that actually does predict the behaviour of a physical system, and the statistical “model” that analyses the data used to confirm it.

    Really? Well you learn something new every day.

    At least you didn’t try the ‘falsification isn’t the litmus test of good theory’ argument.

  7. JC

    JM

    WTF are you talking about? The Chart up top has nothing to do with Lucia. It’s a chart, which displays all the IPCC projections from their starting point on a decadenal average to where the IPCC projects. So far all the IPCC predictions have been spectacularly wrong. In fact their predictions not only appear to be pseudo science but get a perfect score in wrongology.

  8. Sinclair Davidson

    JC – Lucia is a red herring. Don’t let that distract you.

  9. Fisky

    We don’t want to hear Hamas fanboys giving their opinions on climate, JM. Why don’t you tell your friends to stop firing rockets at Israel and reduce their emissions a little?

  10. JM

    Sinclair: Really? Well you learn something new every day.

    So you’re are you now saying that the climate system is governed by an uber-equation that we

    a.) know, along with all of its parameters
    b.) is linear

    Really? If you are, I think you’re the only the person on the planet who would back either proposition. At least the present time.

    [No Really? I'm treating your statement with the contempt it deserves. It isn't me who has made the dud climate predictions, it is the IPCC. Sinc]

  11. JM

    Sorry that should read “At least at the present time”

  12. JC

    JC – Lucia is a red herring. Don’t let that distract you.

    More like a red whale. Where do these people come from?

    You mentioned a WSJ op-ed and this goose goes on a lucia rant. Fmd.

  13. JM

    Oh and Louis regarding the completely incoherent spiel at your link. Space does have a temperature.

    Or haven’t you ever stood in front of a radiator? Now go and look at the night sky. See the little dots? Those are stars.

    They radiate heat.

  14. Zatara

    “The IPCC makes projections over very long periods like a century. It does not make predictions, let alone predictions over short time periods like a decade.”

    And wouldn’t that be handy if true? They would be long dead and their damage well done when the calender rolled around to definitively prove them wrong. Fortunately for us it isn’t true. Melting Himalayan glaciers ring a bell?

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/20/ipcc-himalayan-glaciers-mistake

  15. AndrewL

    By what criteria are these projections falsified? IPCC 1995 looks pretty good in forecast. The next El Niño would have it pretty much spot on.

    Have any of these critics graphed their predictions so that their fitness for authority can be assessed?

  16. Falsification?

    The data presented in the link below is impeccably sourced, very relevant, publicly available, and from our best instruments. It checks all the main predictions of the climate models against the best data, and finds the climate models get them all wrong:

    http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/guest/evans-david/skeptics-case.pdf

    Yet the mainstream media has not published any of this data, anywhere, ever. (Including the WSJ to whom this was submitted.)

    Cheers
    Dr David Evans

  17. Samuel J

    The IPCC makes projections over very long periods like a century. It does not make predictions, let alone predictions over short time periods like a decade

    Hence the IPCC is a religious organisation, not a scientific organisation. What cannot be falsified is not a theory, it is a religion.

  18. dover_beach

    The IPCC makes projections over very long periods like a century. It does not make predictions, let alone predictions over short time periods like a decade.

    This is like saying that what is projected for each and every decade over this century is unrelated to the projection for this century. If the observations over the last decade and this decade presently fall outside of the uncertainty ranges given for the projection for this century this presents an obstacle both in short run and the long run to the overall projection.

  19. dover_beach

    And there is the simple fact that the projections provided by the IPCC in the SPM, for instance, are to C/decade.

  20. John A

    Hmm, the money quote…

    Is that how you academics translate the expression “Mugged by Reality” ?

    :-)

  21. .

    “To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have.

    Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective, and being honest.”

    Leading greenhouse advocate, Dr Stephen Schneider
    (in interview for “Discover” magazine, Oct 1989)

  22. Mark

    Dear JM,

    Please provide me with any “predictions” or “models” by the IPCC or, to give it a really local flavour, by Tim Flannery “internationally acclaimed scientist, explorer and conservationist”, that have actually come true, look like coming true or are vaguely in a ballpark of truthfulness. Something…anything. By Ove even. Gosh by Gleick et al. Anything from The Team?

    There is something put there apart from the earth shattering observation that the world warmed a bit (like it always has) then started to get cooler again (like it always has).

    Much appreciated and breathless in anticipation here.

  23. JM

    Mark: Please provide me with any “predictions” or “models” by the IPCC

    That’s my point, the IPCC does not offer a single model which makes predictions and that can therefore be “falsified”. Contrary to what Sinclair appears to believe.

    Rather they offer a consensus projection, over a long period of time, that summarises the predictions of many, many underlying models – each of which is individually subject to testing.

    And which are tested and regarded with varying degrees of confidence. Which also depends on the domain in which they operate – the radiative properties of CO2 for example are one of those and are known to a very high degree of accuracy and confidence.

    Others that model such things as the flow of gases in the atmosphere are much less accurate and the confidence levels are not as good.

    The exercise that Sinclair is engaged in here is futile.

    If I can give you an analogy – does Sinclair have an uber-equation for the Australian economy as a whole? No he doesn’t.

    But what he can do is take econometric data and try to pick out some aspect of the economy from the noise.

    He and other economists do it all the time.

  24. cohenite

    The IPCC makes projections over very long periods like a century. It does not make predictions, let alone predictions over short time periods like a decade.

    That is a lie. From IPCC 1990:


    Based on the IPCC Business as Usual scenarios, the energy-balance upwelling diffusion model with best judgement parameters yields estimates of global warming from pre-industrial times (taken to be 1765) to the year 2030 between 1.3°C and 2.8″C, with a best estimate of 2 0°C This corresponds to a predicted rise from 1990 of 0.7-1.5°C with a best estimate of 1.1C. “

    As Steve Goddard notes:

    Prediction: 1990 to 2030 –> 0.7 – 1.5 degrees C

    T = T(1990) + 0.0275*deltaY

    Assuming a linear extrapolating to May 2011:

    T(2011) = T(1990) + 0.58 (maximum of 0.79 and minimum of 0.37)

    Comparison with actual data:

    http://clivebest.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/plotcomp1.png

    The IPCC makes all sorts of predictions [scenarios] over all time scales; the unifying quality of them is that they are all wrong.

    AGW is a failed theory; but that won’t stop the Gillard Rorschach project from spending about 15 BILLION on it over the next 2 years.

  25. JM

    cohenite the graph you reference in your link is dishonest.

    The IPCC “predictions” are centered on a delta of 0.2 in 1990 rather than zero

    They are vertically shifted in other words to make the “predictions” look bad. If you center them correctly the IPCC range doesn’t look nearly so bad, quite reasonable in fact.

    And that’s apart from the obvious that the so-called “prediction” actually runs out to 2030 not 2010 where the graph stops.

    Lies with graphs. A useful skill for consultants and those with an agenda, but not science.

  26. Sinclair Davidson

    Oh dear – it’s projections not predictions. Those projections have been falsified too.

    Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk.

  27. cohenite

    And this gibe:

    largely because Lucia doesn’t understand statistics very well

    This little episode where lucia demolished the rabbit and tammy’s statistical superior, Horatio Algernon, demonstrates that AGW’s predictions of climate sensitivity are fatally flawed and that the concept of an average global temperature as an indicator of radiative balance is equally flawed. It’s a 3-parter and well worth reading:

    http://rankexploits.com/musings/2008/spatial-variations-in-gmst-really-do-matter-iii-when-estimating-climate-sensitivity/

    It also demonstrates that JM is an arrogant dickhead.

  28. George Montgomery

    Dear Dr. David Evans,

    Re: Your Post Above
    viz.

    Yet the mainstream media has not published any of this data, anywhere, ever. (Including the WSJ to whom this was submitted.)

    Perhaps the WSJ didn’t publish your impeccably sourced, etc., because the WSJ was also aware of the link below and its comparison of the predictability of the sceptic climate models versus observation which fare worse than the AGW climate models (except for the Kellogg model).

    If climate models are hopeless at predicting the future then they’re equally hopeless at predicting the past. What with their “stomatal indices”, “tree rings”, “ice cores”, “fossil pollen”, “fossil coral”, etc., they can only ever infer and not actually measure what the temperature was in the past. So who really knows for sure what the temperature was in the Cambrian, or the MWP or any time before 1850? Answer: No one.

    Kindest regards,

    George Montgomery

    PS Mark, you can compare the different climate models on the link above. No doubt there are more, but is it really worthwhile looking?

  29. cohenite

    Dishonest, eh? They are centred on 1990 which is where the anomoly was; the intersection with the y axis is the linear back-projection; the temperature record begins in 1979 because that is when UAH commenced. The ‘predictions’ are junk.

    Go and apologise to lucia, you toe counting fraud.

  30. cohenite

    “anomoly” should be prediction.

  31. dover_beach

    JM, please, for the sake of climate science, shut up.

  32. JM

    cohenite: They are centred on 1990

    Don’t misrepresent what I said. The vertical offset – ie. “deltaT” whatever the hell that is – is centered on 0.2 not 0.0

    And “anomoly” does not mean prediction, nothing like it.

    Sinclair, go and read what I said. Then get an education in the physical sciences and how data is handled. The distinction I drew is real, is common and is analogous to similar exercises in econometrics.

    If you object to any of this, perhaps you could make your objections specific and concrete rather than abusive.

  33. PSC

    Conclusion:

    If the IPCC had gotten their report late to the printers in 1998, they would be absolutely invalidated.

    If the IPCC were hyper-efficient and had got the report out in 1996 saying exactly the same thing, they would have been validated in spades.

    Methinks there’s something wrong with your validation procedure for a 100 year forecast if it’s so sensitive to the publication date.

  34. Climate modeller Tasmin Edwards wrote at her new blog, clarifying a passage from IPCC executive summary:

    You cannot expect a single simulation to match every bump and wiggle in the real world, but you can try / hope that the statistical properties (e.g. the trend) of multiple simulations match the statistical properties of the real world.

    That’s what it means by not predicting the climate state – it means the instantaneous state of the system. It’s not a good choice of words, because “climate” is defined statistically: it is the long-term properties of multiple states in time. But by “climate” they mean “earth system” or perhaps “atmosphere”.

    You can try to predict the long-term *properties* of the atmosphere (e.g. trend) but not the long-term *instantaneous* snapshots (e.g. year to year).

  35. Sinclair Davidson

    JM – the real world has not conformed to the IPCC expectations. Now you can call it what you like – forecasts, predictions, projections … far be form me to object to how they conduct their affairs or the terminology you chose to employ.

  36. PSC

    JM – the real world has not conformed to the IPCC expectations. Now you can call it what you like – forecasts, predictions, projections … far be form me to object to how they conduct their affairs or the terminology you chose to employ.

    You’re always one for engaging with the substantive part of any argument aren’t you Sinc?

    You’re right – the real world didn’t conform the the 400ppmv protection of CFC11 by today, as the IPCC projected in the business-as-usual scenario in 89/90. We’re at 240ppmv. That’s before we talk about the collapse of the Eastern Bloc and the restructuring of the old inefficient and polluting Communist industries – again the real world failed to conform to that part of the IPCC projection.

    Given that “business-as-usual” is the basis for the temperature projection, and we did not have “business-as-usual” – indeed we got something substantially different – it’s a bit rich to compare the performance to the “business-as-usual” scenario.

  37. If anyone is willing to catch cooties by reading Real Climate, they did have a recent update on model to data comparisons.

    Pretty much looks like temp record is running a bit on the low side of modelling since about 2005 – a result not inconsistent with the graph on this post.

    What should be obvious to anyone who reads on the topic (more than climate skeptic sites) that this is simply too short a period to be claiming that AGW is “falsified” in any meaningful sense.

  38. Sinclair Davidson

    PSC – The IPCC made a specific claim that has turned out to be incorrect. Happens all the time. Get over it, move on. Soon there will be another good reason why we should abandon capitalism and democracy. By carrying on like this you’re not giving the rest of us the opportunity to forget how wrong you were this time. This limits the effectiveness of the next scare.

  39. PSC

    [ Context - IPCC projection contingent on 400ppmv CFC11. Current CFC11 = 240ppmv ]

    PSC – The IPCC made a specific claim that has turned out to be incorrect. Get over it, move on.

    You’re always one for engaging with the substantive part of any argument aren’t you Sinc?

  40. Sinclair Davidson

    PSC – the graph above summarises the substantive part of the argument. That IS their argument.

  41. cohenite

    Don’t misrepresent what I said. The vertical offset – ie. “deltaT” whatever the hell that is – is centered on 0.2 not 0.0

    DeltaT is the beginning of the UAH satellite temperature record; the Y axis represents the anomoly of time points over the temperature period beginning in 1979 based on the average of that period; there has been a slight upward trend hence DeltaT for both UAH and HadCrut is lower than the data finish; although as is plain from the UAH data which shows the end point almost at the same level as the start, that trend is indistinguishable from zero.

    The 1990 IPCC model predictions are presented as a linear trend; since they commenced in 1990 that trend will continue backwards to intercept the Y axis before the 1990 point. The fallacy of those predictions are clear in both the land [HadCrut] and satellite [UAH] records, with the divergence increasing over time.

    When you throw in the very grave concerns about data contamination due to problematic ‘adjustments’ it is plain that the AGW modelling is not worth a Gillard promise.

  42. cohenite

    What should be obvious to anyone who reads on the topic (more than climate skeptic sites) that this is simply too short a period to be claiming that AGW is “falsified” in any meaningful sense.

    No, that’s bullshit; the test is hindcasting where the modelling is applied in a predictive way to prior climate. In this respect Professor Demetrius Koutsoyiannis and his team show those models can’t model the past.

    Koutsoyiannis is one of the world’s leading hydrologists and an expert on Hurst and stochastic effects. Hurst or Long Term Persistence refers to the uncertainty and random qualities present in all complex natural systems. Koutsoyiannis argues that global warming modeling does not take into account this uncertainty.

    In his 2008 paper Koutsoyiannis compared the model predictions from 1990 to 2008 and whether those models could retrospectively match the actual temperature over the past 100 years. As I say this test of retrospectivity is called hindcasting. If a model has valid assumptions about the climatic effect of variables such as greenhouse gases, particularly CO2, then the model should be able to match past known data.

    Koutsoyiannis’s 2008 paper has not had a peer reviewed rebuttal but was subject to a critique at Real Climate by Gavin Schmidt. Schmidt’s criticism was 4-fold; that Koutsoyiannis uses a regional comparison, few models, real temperatures not anomalies and too short a time period.

    Each of Schmidt’s criticisms was either wrong or anticipated by Koutsoyiannis. The period from 1990-2008 was the period in which IPCC modeling had occurred; the IPCC had argued that regional effects from global warming would occur; model ensembles were used by Koutsoyiannis; and since the full 100 year temperature and rainfall data was used in intra-annual and 30 year periods by Koutsoyiannis anomalies were irrelevant.

    In 2008 Koutsoyiannis found that while the models had some success with the monthly data all the models were “irrelevant with reality” at the 30 year climate scale.

    Koutsoyiannis’s 2010 paper “is a continuation and expansion of Koutsoyiannis 2008”. The differences are that (a) Koutsoyiannis 2008 had tested only eight points, whereas 2010 tests 55 points for each variable; (b) 2010 examines more variables in addition to mean temperature and precipitation; and (c) 2010 compares at a large scale in addition to point scale. The large, continental scale in this case is the contiguous US.

    Again Koutsoyiannis 2010 found that the models did not hindcast successfully with real data from all the 55 world regions not matching what the models produced. The models were even worse in hindcasting against the real data for the US continent.

    The models are bullshit; they are programmed by devious creeps and intellectual harlots who now are furiously trying to ‘adjust’ data to fit the models.

  43. JM

    cohenite: DeltaT is the beginning of the UAH satellite temperature record [etc]

    What does this gibberish mean? The whole paragraph.

    Anomaly is (annual in this case) deviation from some long term (usually 30 year) mean. It does not mean the deviation from a single data point, even if that data point is the start of the series.

    the Y axis represents the anomoly of time points over the temperature period beginning in 1979 based on the average of that period

    The ‘anomaly’ of the time points??!!!! WTF does that mean? How does the “anomaly” of the x-axis turn up in the y-axis?

    The average of ‘that period’???!!!! What period? What’s the start of it and where’s the end? (I might also point out that UAH and HadCRU have different bases which is why HadCRU appears – but only appears – to show greater warming. It’s coming off a different base.)

    although as is plain from the UAH data which shows the end point almost at the same level as the start, that trend is indistinguishable from zero

    Prove it. “almost” isn’t good enough.

    Then I might listen to you.

    The 1990 IPCC model predictions are presented as a linear trend

    No they’re not. They’re presented as a range over a long period of time, not a linear trend that you can chop into endlessly smaller pieces.

    Sinclair’s graph totally misrepresents them. And his argument relies on that misrepresentation.

  44. JM

    Sinclair: the real world has not conformed to the IPCC expectations

    Hasn’t it? Your graph doesn’t give me any way to judge. It doesn’t show the IPCC projections at all, it shows some straight line caricature of them.

    Where are the error bars Sinclair? Do the observations fall within them? Of course they do.

    Come back to me when you can show

    a.) what model you’re attempting to “falsify”
    b.) real falsification

    At the moment you’re not even close, you’re just indulging in rhetoric.

  45. Sinclair Davidson

    JM – not my graph the WSJ’s graph. Not my problem if you have no eyes in your head.

  46. Mk50 of Brisbane

    JM

    Oh and Louis regarding the completely incoherent spiel at your link. Space does have a temperature.

    Oh, aren’t brain-dead luvvies so cute when they pretend they understand science’n’stuff. Space has a temperature, does it?

    How?

    What’s the physical mechanism whereby vacuum empty of matter can have a temperature? You do understand that what we call ‘temperature’ is actually the energy excitation state of matter in plasma, gas, liquid or solid states, don’t you? (of course the question’s rhetorical)

    So please, gigantically brained titanic intellect of the warmtardish bedwetters of the apocalypse, explain to me how you can have a temperature in an empty space containing no matter? You don’t even understand basic definitions FFS. I started to discuss thermodynamics and barriers to energy transfer then realised you’d never understand it. So I looked for an explanation so basic, so simple that an eight year old would comprehend (I tried it on an eight year old to make sure – no worries). Yes, yes, I know it will stretch what we laughing call your ‘intellect’ to the very limits, but try anyway.

    Or haven’t you ever stood in front of a radiator? Now go and look at the night sky. See the little dots? Those are stars.

    What, you expect applause for knowing what star are? Guess among other luvvies you’d get it for being rooly smert.

    Not hear, child.

    Aaah, science for kumbaya bogans. Radiators are stars too. How sweet. LSHMSFOAIDMT

    They radiate heat.

    Actually, they do not you sad, sad little hominid. Firstly, what you are seeing, you pathetic ignoramus, is visible light: but wait, there’s more. What you call ‘heat’ is infra-red light which a human (and you too) are not fitted by evolution to detect visually. Nothing radiates ‘heat’. Plasma, gaseous, liquid and solid matter taken to a higher energy level radiate (usually among other things) infra red light. What you feel as ‘heat’ is your nerves responding to energy transfer as they absorb IR light and gain energy. It’s a warning your nervous system passes back to the brain, as absorbing too much IR energy destroys cells: an effect we call ‘burns’.

    You should have attended Physics at high school instead of GLBTG Studies and macramé for droolers, you basket-weaving ignoramus

  47. .

    Where are the error bars Sinclair?

    Great, Year 9 statistics.

  48. Mk50 of Brisbane

    cohenite: DeltaT is the beginning of the UAH satellite temperature record [etc]

    What does this gibberish mean? The whole paragraph.

    Bwahahahahahahahaha….

    JM, Cohenite is an actual scientist type. AFAIK that’s how he earns his living.

    And he’s simplified it. I have a basic science degree but my others are history – and even I can understand what he’s saying on first reading.

    You can’t… what a maroon

    and you have not even read Koutsoyiannis

    Dude!

  49. cohenite

    Just to take one of your knuckle-head objections:

    the Y axis represents the anomoly of time points over the temperature period beginning in 1979 based on the average of that period

    The ‘anomaly’ of the time points??!!!! WTF does that mean? How does the “anomaly” of the x-axis turn up in the y-axis?

    The chronology of the annual means is depicted on the horizontal axis, the x axis; their deviation [anomoly] from the data average/mean is shown on the vertical axis, the y axis. This deviation can be presented as a trend.

    Say it slowly.

    And sure both HadCrut and UAH have different base periods; a base period in this case is a 30 year average to which anomolies of particular years are calculated; by anomaly it is meant whether a particular data point, in this case year, is above or below the average; Goddard’s graph has normalised these 2 different base periods; for an explanation of baseline adjustment or normalisation see:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/notes

  50. Sinclair Davidson

    . – one of the signatories to that letter is Scott Armstrong, the man who literally wrote the book on long-term forecasting and we have some onanist crapping on about not understanding statistics, and error bars. Unbelievable!

  51. Mk50, as it happens, Roy Spencer – yes, the satellite temperature scientist who thinks mainstream climate science has vastly estimated sensitivity to CO2 – has just devoted a post to trying to kill the argument you appear to base your hyperbolic comment on.

    Judith Curry has no time at all for the Sky Dragon argument either.

    It is genuinely a crank argument, run by cranks.

  52. Rafe

    Garth Paltridge provided some insights into the lack of accuracy of climate models, and the way warming alarmists use them.

    “The twenty or so models that have some respectability (by virtue of the fact that they figure largely in the IPCC deliberations) calculate global-average temperatures that range several degrees about the observed value of 15 degrees C.” (p 21)

    Several degrees! If that is not bad enough, it gets worse when you try to predict other things like rainfall (a central feature of the Garnaut model). A team at the ANU looked at the predictions for current (measured) rainfall in Australia based on the several IPCC models. The range extended from 200 mm per year less than the actual, to 1000 mm per year more. Looking good?

    Moving on to forecasts of Australian rainfall late in this century, about half predicted more rainfall and half predicted less. In case you think that the average means anything (bearing in mind everything depends on which set of models you use), the average was an increase of about 8 mm per annum.

    The outlier in the field (the most extreme, which in a particular model is the data point you throw out if you want your model to look better) is the CSIRO model that predicted 100 mm less rainfall. This is the model that shaped the CSIRO input to the predictions of disaster that motivated the current policy direction..

  53. Mk50 of Brisbane

    SFB, I read your post and said ‘WTF is the Skydragon argument?’

    googled and found out about the book of the same.

    Never heard of it before.

    Sorry you pop your bubble but I was responding solely to this piece of idiocy by the moron’s moron, JM:

    Space does have a temperature.

    Well to be blunt, it doesn’t. It does not because it cannot. Temperature applies (as mentioned) to the energy content of matter.

    There’s no matter in a vacuum. By definition it cannot have a temperature if it contains no matter. And even the extant (but extremely tenuous) atmosphere of the moon is generally regarded as ‘space’ = ‘vacuum’.

    Mars has a very thin atmosphere indeed but it’s way above vacuum. The martian atmosphere has temperature, and it’s very, very cold. Vacuum has no temperature – it makes as much sense as saying that the open waters of the Pacific ocean has splendid oak forests populated with Ents.

  54. JM

    Various: What’s the physical mechanism whereby vacuum empty of matter can have a temperature?

    Radiation you twerps. You remember there are three forms of heat transfer? Conduction, convection and …. what’s the other one?

    Oh yeah? Radiation.

    If there were no stars in the sky, what would be the current temperature of the universe?

    2.7K The temperature of the cosmic background radiation that permeates the universe. Permeates. Got that? The whole freaking lot, every square centimetre of it.

    Mk50: Actually, they [stars] do not [emit heat] you sad, sad little hominid

    Really? Funny. I was out today and I’m sure I felt the heat of the Sun on my face and I believe the Sun is actually a …. whatchamacallit? A star. Idiot.

    aren’t brain-dead luvvies so cute when they pretend they understand science’n’stuff

    Well when they actually DO understand this stuff I think they’re entitled to criticise the morons who don’t but persist in abusive and totally incorrect assertions that belong in the Dark Ages.

    Temperature applies (as mentioned) to the energy content of matter.

    Let’s take this real slow. Thermometers measure temperature. Which they do as a proxy of the kinetic energy present in the matter they are in contact with. They are instruments. Of limited application.

    Because as we all know E=Mc^2

    Now that actually has a real meaning. Energy equals Mass. Forget the c^2 bit, that’s just a proportionality constant.

    So when that light from that distant star reaches your eye (or your skin) it transfers energy to it.

    And what’s a component of the electromagnetic spectrum? Oh that’s right. Heat.

    F******t

    Space has a temperature. Period.

    Your can’t measure it with a thermometer so you have to use some other instrument but it definitely has a temperature.

  55. JM

    Oh and just while we’re on this topic:

    What’s the physical mechanism whereby vacuum empty of matter can have a temperature?

    The vacuum itself has energy. There doesn’t have to be any matter there at all but there is energy. Where there is energy, there is heat, where there is heat there is temperature.

    A mercury thermometer won’t measure it, but it is there. The limitations are in the instrument, not the universe.

  56. JM

    Sinclair: not my graph the WSJ’s graph. Not my problem if you have no eyes in your head.

    Surely you can do better than that? “Not me, someone else, don’t blame me, I wouldn’t know”

    No you wouldn’t. That much is obvious.

  57. Sinclair Davidson

    JM – you suffer from the delusion that I care what you think. The graph is presented disproving your theory and now you’re quibbling. Suck it up – you lost.

  58. John H.

    Space has a temperature, does it?

    Never reaches -273K, circa 200-300. Of course “space” has a temperature, how the fuck could anyone not see that?

  59. Rafe

    Would some of the local alarmists like to respond to the points that Paltridge made about the (un)reliability of climate models? What do you think can be usefully predicted, projected, forecast or whatever you like to call it from such a base?

  60. JM

    Sinclair: The graph is presented disproving your theory

    How? First specify what you think “my” theory is in quantifiable and testable form, then show me how the data – not the graph – disprove it.

    Can’t do that? Thought not. You’re just hand waving Sinclair.

    Rafe: … from such a base?

    What base? Specify it. Be concrete.

  61. eveningperson

    I dare say the experts will reply in due course – whether they will be allowed to do so in the WSJ (prop: Rupert Murdoch) I don’t know, as another reply by scientists, all members of the National Academy of Science, was refused by the WSJ and published elsewhere.

    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/328/5979/689.full.pdf

    I noted, while I was looking for this reference, that if you type the title of the original op-ed in the WSJ into Google, you find it reposted by huge numbers of blogs (where the authors are rather inaccurately described as “leading scientists”). Science denial makes up for lack of quality by enormous quantity.

    Rafe will, no doubt, as a philosopher and a critical rationalist, be asking a lot of searching questions about this. Here are just a few that occur to me almost right away, before I’ve had any time to look at this in detail.

    Where are the links to the sources of these data?

    Why are the IPCC predictions given as trend lines, but not the actual data? This makes it impossible for the reader to compare them by eye. It may be that the reader is intended to focus on the downward slope at the end of the data and contrast that with the supposed IPCC trend.

    Where are the uncertainties (often given as error bars), for both the predicted and actual data? Again, without these, it is impossible to make a judgement, as they are an essential part of the data.

    Isn’t there a sly word-play on ‘prediction’ here? Popper’s choice of the word ‘prediction’ was a bad one – a Popperian prediction is a logical implication of a theory, and is timeless. In falsification, we focus on those states that a theory logically rules out, and if that state occurs the theory is considered to be (conditionally, at least) falsified. Timelessness implies that backward ‘prediction’ is possible. For example, climate models can be tested against known data for the past, and restricting the testing to the future is reducing the range over which the theory can be tested, and therefore making the test less reliable.

    IPCC predictions, however, are conditional forecasts. They depend on scenarios that can’t be known for certain in advance – how much CO2 is produced by human activity, and on natural phenomena that are known to affect the climate, including el Nino/la Nina and volcanic activity. Therefore without knowing the scenarios on which these are based we again have no basis on which to judge.

    Also, I wonder, why HADCrut, given that it probably underestimates global warming, as it excludes Arctic stations and warming is strongest (both theoretically and actually) in polar regions? What about the other sets of measurements?

    I’m sure there are perfectly good answers to these questions, but I would like to see them. That’s all I have time for now…

    RB

  62. eveningperson

    Oh, and I’ve just noticed that the ‘money shot’ seems to be a very stupid remark.

    A ‘computer model’ is just a mathematical model, even if a complex one.

    No theory (which is abstract) can ever be tested against reality without a model (putting in parameters from the real world).

    The correspondents should criticise the model (that’s science) but science does not proceed without them.

    RB

  63. dover_beach

    a Popperian prediction is a logical implication of a theory, and is timeless. In falsification, we focus on those states that a theory logically rules out, and if that state occurs the theory is considered to be (conditionally, at least) falsified.

    This passage seems to profoundly misunderstand Popper’s philosophy of science given that he was responding to the implications of, among other things, the problem of underdetermination, whose chief implication is that nothing can be “logically ruled out”.

    IPCC predictions, however, are conditional forecasts.

    All forecasts ate “conditional”; the uncertainty ranges are meant to cater for those contingencies you’ve listed. And yet the observations nevertheless fall outside of those ranges too and yet you want to pretend that we still cannot judge those forecasts.

    Also, I wonder, why HADCrut, given that it probably underestimates global warming, as it excludes Arctic stations and warming is strongest (both theoretically and actually) in polar regions? What about the other sets of measurements?

    HADcrut does not “exclude Arctic stations” because there are very few Arctic stations. GISS ‘interpolates’ Arctic temperatures from those stations nearest to the North Pole (up to 1000km distant). So its difficult to know how you “actually” know the temp in this region without assistance of the theory.

  64. eveningperson

    Two more questions:

    What information do *you* think you get from the graph?

    Given that the letter is in the WSJ, which presumably is mainly read by business people, what information do you think they will believe they have got from it?

    RB

  65. eveningperson

    And another:

    Assuming that the authors of the letter are correct, and the IPCC
    ‘prediction’ is significantly out from the observed data, what has been refuted?

  66. Sinclair Davidson

    JM – more like finger waving.

  67. Driftforge

    Let’s just pretend the sun doesn’t matter.

    One thing I’ve noted about so called ‘skeptics’ is that they tend to be experienced, technically skilled people. I.E. people who can smell ‘technical’ bullshit a mile off..

  68. Rafe

    Dforge, for people with other things to do in our busy day, what is the bottom line of that long argument? Is it supporting the view expounded by the “Don’t Sell Your Coat” man that sunspot studies signal the impending onset of cooling?

  69. Driftforge

    Summary: Modelling in the IPCC has assumed that the effect of solar variance of any kind is less significant that the effect of CO2 by a factor of 40 to 1. This is not an outcome of the modelling, it is an input.

    Research going back decades, and notably in the last 10 years shows that the correlation between solar fluctuations and temperature is in the range of .6 to .8 over the course of history.

    Discarding this primary driver, thought the omission of relevant variables in the analysis and modelling, is the primary driver of significance for CO2.

  70. Driftforge

    Basically – just because you don’t know the mechanism by which solar variations lead to this correlation, doesn’t mean you can leave solar variation out of your analysis and modelling.

    If you leave the primary driver for temperature change out, is it any wonder that your model shows poor predictive capability?

  71. Rafe

    Thanks, one of the things I learned during my work in econometrics was the huge effect of leaving out a major variable. That can change not just the magnitude but also the direction (+ or -) of the influence exerted by other variables in the equation!

    That is why it is such a scandal that Treasury has not released details of the Garnaut model, clearly from Paltridge’s report (see comment above) any critical examination of the work will destroy its credibility.

    As Dforge said somewher else, anything put out by the IPCC is prima facie suspect.

  72. Rafe

    Who would have ever suspected it! Feedback mechanisms to stabilize the global temperature.

  73. Driftforge

    If you believe in an long history for the planet.. you cannot seriously entertain the thought that the earth has an unstable climate sensitivity to pretty much anything that has occurred over that history. Has CO2 been higher? Yes. Therefore the feedback must be negative.

    Now if you believe in a young earth, well.. you may still be able to make an argument.

  74. eveningperson

    @dover_beach:
    ++This passage seems to profoundly misunderstand Popper’s philosophy of science given that he was responding to the implications of, among other things, the problem of underdetermination, whose chief implication is that nothing can be “logically ruled out”.++

    Indeed, and this problem is massively underdetermined, so assuming that the graph and the assertions associated with it are correct, this does not make the problem of AGW go away.

    But I’m more interested here in Rafe’s (and your) response to and use of this graph. Is no-one going to apply a bit of rational criticism to it?

    ++ All forecasts ate “conditional”; the uncertainty ranges are meant to cater for those contingencies you’ve listed. And yet the observations nevertheless fall outside of those ranges too and yet you want to pretend that we still cannot judge those forecasts.++

    No, the IPCC presents different graphs for different scenarios. As far as I know, this is pretty standard. Of course, this allows for selective misrepresentation by critics, which is why the source of the graph is important.

    Error bars normally represent uncertainties in the measurement techniques, but also there are natural variables superimposed on any AGW trend, such as the El Niño/La Niña-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and volcanic eruptions, which are not easily predicted. Which is why the real data go ‘up and down’.

    I’m leaving open for the moment the question of whether the IPCC forecasts are wrong or not, and what this might mean, while I wait for Rafe to get back to me in the Critical Cafe on what the graph “means”.

    Incidentally, I hope that Rafe is now clear on the difference between climate modelling and reconstructing paleoclimates.

  75. dover_beach

    Indeed, and this problem is massively underdetermined, so assuming that the graph and the assertions associated with it are correct, this does not make the problem of AGW go away.

    So, you misunderstood Popper, and now you want to employ the problem of underdetermination to deflect criticism from the problem of AGW when underdetermination itself means that ‘the problem of AGW’ is possibly not a problem.

    the IPCC presents different graphs for different scenarios.

    Well, yes they do; is there any evidence that its critics have here ill-chosen a scenario to an observation? I would have thought that selecting a scenario that represented BAU and compared this to actual observations was more or less appropriate.

    Error bars normally represent uncertainties in the measurement techniques, but also there are natural variables superimposed on any AGW trend, such as the El Niño/La Niña-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and volcanic eruptions, which are not easily predicted. Which is why the real data go ‘up and down’.

    Yes, but here we aren’t concerned with “measurement techniques” but with the projections of a model which are not measurements. The modellers themselves suggest that the multi-model means are supposed to reflect the range of natural variability and yet the actual observations currently fall outside of this range.

  76. JM

    DB: yet the actual observations currently fall outside of this range.

    Rubbish. Actual observations fall within the IPCC range.

    Show me where they don’t

  77. daddy dave

    I’ve just noticed that the ‘money shot’ seems to be a very stupid remark.

    A ‘computer model’ is just a mathematical model, even if a complex one.

    No theory (which is abstract) can ever be tested against reality without a model (putting in parameters from the real world).

    Yes, sure, but you’re being deliberately obtuse, eveningperson. In the case of climate the computer models have become a substitute for theory. Furthermore like any computer model dependent on numerous assumptions outside of the theories that guided their instructions. If you like, you can prove me wrong by showing me where we can download and run an open source version of the IPCC computer models.

    So there’s a very specific charge here about computer modelling, and if you don’t get it then you’re way behind the 8 ball.

    … or maybe you do get it, but are just trolling, to throw the discussion off on a tangent.

  78. daddy dave

    IPCC predictions, however, are conditional forecasts. They depend on scenarios that can’t be known for certain in advance – how much CO2 is produced by human activity, and on natural phenomena that are known to affect the climate, including el Nino/la Nina and volcanic activity. Therefore without knowing the scenarios on which these are based we again have no basis on which to judge.

    Exactly!

    You said it yourself, eveningperson.

    Here’s the thing that sticks in my craw. When the rubber hits the road alarmists like yourself retreat into this lack of certainty position.

    But that’s not the case when advocating policy (and as a side note, the very notion of physical scientists advocating tax policies shows how absurd the situation has become).

    It’s also not the case with doomsday scenarios being taught to small children in schools causing distress to thousands – in fact, without exaggeration, millions – of children. How come the scientists aren’t complaining about how the science is being distorted?

    How come they never objected to Gore’s misleading statements, to misleading statements by journalists, politicians, ‘public intellectuals’, and in school textbooks?

    Their objection to distortion of the science has only ever been in one direction, and this selectivity has itself had a distorting effect on public debate.

    Go on, bluster away. The bluff’s over and really, the debate’s over too.

  79. .

    Here’s the thing that sticks in my craw. When the rubber hits the road alarmists like yourself retreat into this lack of certainty position.

    The tax is like paying for a grossly out of the money put option. Only a fool would part with their money.

  80. Not that it will convince any of the skeptics here, or even likely be read by them, but Real Climate has a post about this WSJ article and the graphs (as well as links to other Real Climate posts giving greater detail about climate models).

    Basically, what JM argued in this thread is supported.

  81. eveningperson

    My answer to the questions I asked:

    Rafe obviously thought the letter from the ’16 scientists’, and the graph included in it, significant, as he referred to it here and posted it on his blog.

    But the graph is to all intents and purposes meaningless – you certainly can’t use it judge the accompanying statement that IPCC models have allegedly failed to ‘predict’ observed warming. This statement is in any case almost certainly false.

    The reasons why it is meaningless are at least:

    - It does not show the source of the data. It has been suggested elsewhere that the IPCC ‘predictions’ in the diagram are the average of different scenarios, which would be nonsense in any case.

    - The ‘predictions’ and the data are presented in incommensurable ways.

    - No uncertainty is shown for either ‘predictions’ and the data.

    As I said before, these are matters that any scientist would actually pick up on at the outset of any discussion of a data set.

    So what is the significance of this graph? I conjecture that it is an example of what I call ‘spin’ – something presented to appeal to a non-rational, or at least imperfectly rational, appreciation of the matter. ‘Climate sceptics’ are mostly credulous and think ‘confirmationistically’ (if that is a word): ‘Look, here are another 16 scientists willing to speak out against alarmism!’

    Given that most of the readers of WSJ are business people, and won’t have much scientific knowledge, I can imagine that many will read the graph another way: ‘Look at those stupid scientists! They predicted smooth curves but really the data go up and down!’

    Now, I can’t know the motivation of the 16, they may be incompetent or dishonest, but the use of this graph does not reflect well on them.

    RB

  82. Sinclair Davidson

    You losers need to get with the program – the debate is over, as is the warming, you lost we won eat that.

  83. eveningperson

    @daddy dave, 24 Feb 12 at 5:24 am:

    Are you being disingenuous here?

    The ‘no basis on which to judge’ I referred to above is about the source of the information used as IPCC ‘predictions’ in the graph. Not about the uncertainty of the IPCC projections themselves. Since we don’t know where this graph came from, we can’t use it to judge the IPCC.

    Of course there is uncertainty in both the models and the data themselves, and if you actually look at the scientific work you will see that the scientists are the people who calculate and debate the uncertainty in their work.

    It is important to remember the actual data reflect a classic problem of extracting signals from noise, and as more data are acquired the uncertainty in the data goes down.

    Policy – whatever it is – should reflect an attitude to uncertainty. Suppose there is a 5% chance of warming being at the extreme end of the range. Should there be action on this, and if so what?

    I may have views on this (which you presumably don’t know as I haven’t discussed them here) but I don’t know the answer. One thing I do know is that insurance companies take this seriously.

  84. eveningperson

    @daddy dave, 24 Feb 12 at 5:24 am:

    Why shouldn’t scientists advocate policies, about tax or otherwise? Does being a scientist make you less than a citizen?

  85. Sinclair Davidson

    One thing I do know is that insurance companies take this seriously.

    Fleecing their customers.

  86. JC

    Why shouldn’t scientists advocate policies, about tax or otherwise? Does being a scientist make you less than a citizen?

    They do and in say Trenberth’s case it was laughable. A 12th year economics student wouldn’t suggest such utter crap.

    But it’s interesting how you strongly advocate that scientists have a dog in the economics fight whereas most of the alarmists like yourself don’t think non-climate science sceptics have that right.

    What a fucking partisan creep your are eveningP.

  87. eveningperson

    @daddy dave, 24 Feb 12 at 5:14 am:

    I’m not trolling. I came here to ask specific questions about Rafe’s graph and the letter it came from, because Rafe cited it in a correspondence I was having with him. What do you think about the graph?

    Climate models are based on theory, about matter and energy: thermodynamics, fluid dynamics and so on. A model differs from a theory in that you instantiate a theory in a model by using specific values of the parameters to reflect those that can occur in the real world. Only this way can you compare the theory with data.

    So how can a model be a ‘substitute ‘ for theory?

    What would be the point of downloading someone else’s models (unless you wanted to check for mathematical or programming errors)? If you are doubtful about their assumptions (which you can read in their publications) then you should use the original data with your own model. You can then include your own assumptions (remember to make them explicit) and see if your model agrees better with the data and the known properties of matter and energy.

    I’m not a climate modeller myself – if you want to see the models or the data the best place to ask, I think, is in Real Climate.

    RB

  88. JC

    You are trolling EveningP.

    Realclimate is an astroturf site run by leftwing political advocates. Please don’t even try that shit.

    It was even set up by a leftwing PR firm.

  89. eveningperson

    @dover_beach:

    I think you’re engaging in misdirection here.

    The issue about the scenarios is that we haven’t as, far as I can tell, any idea where the alleged IPCC projections come from. It’s possible they have averaged several scenarios, which would be meaningless.

    And I have since confirmed that the data sets and the relevant IPCC projection agree within uncertainty limits. This is available online.

    It is interesting that over about the last three years the measured warming has been a little below the projection. This doesn’t invalidate the model used, and probably mostly reflects the predominance of La Nina conditions. (Note – I’m not a climate scientist, so go to them for technical details!) We may well experience warming over the projection when El Nino returns, as in 1998.

  90. daddy dave

    eveningperson, your questions are thoughtful and seem genuine. So FWIW here are my answers.

    Policy – whatever it is – should reflect an attitude to uncertainty. Suppose there is a 5% chance of warming being at the extreme end of the range. Should there be action on this, and if so what?

    I actually agree with this completely. But I would like to point out that uncertainty tends not to get mentioned much in the public debate, doesn’t cross politicians lips, and doesn’t feature in policymaking except in a vague portentious sense. Uncertainty is only ever invoked to imply that things are going to get really f-ing bad. Uncertainty about whether there will be any negative outcomes at all seems curiously missing from the debate, except from the (ahem) denialists.

    Furthermore, policymakers seem blind to the costs – the costs are calculated on the assumption of perfect global cooperation.

    Why shouldn’t scientists advocate policies, about tax or otherwise?

    They should – as citizens. But science produces public knowledge. They aren’t Oracles nor do they have a special ability to commune with supernatural powers. They don’t know anything that can’t be found publicly.

    Their opinions about what should be done with the results of scientific research should have no greater weight than intelligent non-specialists.

    As for your rather hamfisted attempt at Socratic questioning with me regarding models, theories and simulations, you’re misconstruing my point (possibly on purpose).

    If you are doubtful about their assumptions (which you can read in their publications) then you should use the original data with your own model.

    Now that’s just not a serious thing to say.

  91. wreckage

    Why shouldn’t scientists advocate policies, about tax or otherwise? Does being a scientist make you less than a citizen?

    They should vote. They should not be advocates. They are neither experts nor stakeholders when it comes to taxation.

  92. daddy dave

    The issue about the scenarios is that we haven’t as, far as I can tell, any idea where the alleged IPCC projections come from.

    In that case, it should be simple to refute.

    After all, what a better way to put egg on the face of the Wall Street Journal, and at the same time, disabuse people of the propaganda that they might have read there?

    Sorry mate, but it’s a reputable publication – and every climate scientist in the debate must have seen the article by now – so I’ll take it at face value until you can prove otherwise.

  93. JC

    Policy – whatever it is – should reflect an attitude to uncertainty. Suppose there is a 5% chance of warming being at the extreme end of the range. Should there be action on this, and if so what?

    The extreme end is what exactly?

    Even if we took Stern’s dire predictions it would take a drop of around 20% in Global GDP before there was any need to take action.

  94. eveningperson

    @JC:

    RC is a site run by climate scientists. I offered it as a source of data and models. Where else would you go but the scientists themselves?

    If you want to fight a war, don’t you have to take it to the enemy?

    Or do you feel you’ll be contaminated by association?

    That’s a foolish reaction of yours. But I’ve seen it often before.

    RB

  95. eveningperson

    @daddy dave:

    I don’t intend to repeat myself, and I have other things to do. You can find me in Critical Cafe, on and off – possibly off for a bit as I am about to become busy again.

    “Now that’s just not a serious thing to say.”

    But it’s the only thing to do. Which is what scientists do.

    “I’ll take it at face value until you can prove otherwise.”

    Not a critical thinker, then.

    It’s interesting that no-one (including Rafe) seems to have answered my questions about what you actually think you have got from the graph.

    RB

  96. .

    Here to teach us Year Nine statistics again?

  97. JC

    Here’s the numbers.

    Global GDP at the moment is roughly US$65 trillion.

    Assume global GDP growth rate or 4% to 2100.

    Future Global GDP in 2100 is $1,342 trillion undamaged and unmitigated GDP.

    Stern assumed GDP would be damaged by 20% by 2100.

    So we end up with $1,342 trillion * 80% = $1,073 trillion.

    Stern suggested we spend 1% of GDP to mitigate.

    So it would assume a molested (mitigated) growth rate of 3%, which is $876 trillion.

    So even with Sterns alarmist AGW there is no case to mitigate.

    $1,073 – 876 = $200 trillion better off not to mitigate and leave it alone if there is AGE damage.

    That’s the trouble with you alarmists, Evening. You go around screaming and pulling up your dresses like teenage girls trying to panic everyone else with your illogical bullshit.

  98. daddy dave

    But it’s the only thing to do. Which is what scientists do.

    Wow, you so completely missed the point.

    Not a critical thinker, then.

    Again, point-missing all over the place. Your big attack on the WSJ article was to complain that the graph might be wrong, and my gosh, how would you ever know without more data?

    My response: if it was wrong, we’d know about it already.

    I don’t intend to repeat myself, and I have other things to do.

    Why would you repeat yourself when all your points have been addressed?
    oh well, see ya.

  99. wreckage

    It’s interesting that no-one (including Rafe) seems to have answered my questions about what you actually think you have got from the graph.

    Interesting. Concerning. Troubling. Do you ever get tired of this passive-aggressive nonsense?

  100. wreckage

    Here’s the numbers.

    LALALALALALALALA I’M NOT LISTENING WE MUST ACT FOR THE CHILDREN WON’T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN

  101. JC

    RC is a site run by climate scientists. I offered it as a source of data and models. Where else would you go but the scientists themselves?

    Realbeta.org is not a site run by scientists at all. They are political advocates and players. Let’s not forget that James Hansen has called for the executives of energy companies to be indicted for crimes against humanity.

    In other words it’s basically run by fr left scumbags. They lie and they cheat.

    If you want to fight a war, don’t you have to take it to the enemy?

    I’m not fighting any war. I actually think AGW is a potentially a large but manageable problem

    Or do you feel you’ll be contaminated by association?

    There’s no point in reading that site because it’s a waste of time. They lie, cheat and obfuscate at any opportunity.

    That’s a foolish reaction of yours. But I’ve seen it often before.

    Nothing foolish at all, EveningP. It’s logical and well centred.

  102. wreckage

    No, no, no JC. Assuming the same motivations apply to all humans is wrong. There are other humans, better humans, humans who care naught for prestige, influence, money, sex, or the esteem of their peers! Of course, E-P has stumbled upon them, recognised them at once (being him/ herself entirely free of bias) and now seeks to bring these better humans to the attention of all!

  103. JC

    Oh yea, the better humans that think of da children and their childrens children.

    They are such wonderful creatures. Most work for the public sector too.

  104. wreckage

    humans who care naught for prestige, influence, money, sex, or the esteem of their peers

    I can’t even type that with a straight face. I’d try saying it out loud but the giggling might wake the missus.

  105. eveningperson

    “Again, point-missing all over the place. Your big attack on the WSJ article was to complain that the graph might be wrong, and my gosh, how would you ever know without more data?”

    You missed the point: my point was, the graph is meaningless, by any significant criterion, obvious to anyone who takes a critical look, yet people are willing to take it as some sort of evidence for their point of view.

    Several other commenters comment on things I haven’t said, as if they represent my point of view.

    And, by the way, I work as a freelance, offering a business to business service. Have done for 20 years.

    RB

  106. JC

    You missed the point: my point was, the graph is meaningless, by any significant criterion, obvious to anyone who takes a critical look, yet people are willing to take it as some sort of evidence for their point of view.

    The point the chart is making is that climate predictions out 100 years made by these climate models are nothing more than pseudo science. That’s all the argument is about.

    Several other commenters comment on things I haven’t said, as if they represent my point of view.

    Not true, you’re lying. For instance you made the dishonest point that Realbeta.org is a science based site when in fact it is nothing of the sort.

    And, by the way, I work as a freelance, offering a business to business service. Have done for 20 years.

    Big fucking deal.

Comments are closed.