Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 2
Discussion
Blib said:
kerplunk said:
It's all 'projection' with morons like you isn't it - you don't really care about reality.
I really had to quote this gem from our pet Believer. Of all the people to type that sentence.....
Hey Plunks, how are those COMPUTER MODELS performing? You know, those projections that you and your friends would have us all accept are more valid than data from "reality".
Classic Plunky, just classic.
I guess making stuff up off the top of your head is so the norm around here you don't even realise you're doing it anymore
kerplunk said:
oh look more erroneous projecting what I think. That really showed me up!
I guess making stuff up off the top of your head is so the norm around here you don't even realise you're doing it anymore
I think you're cross-posting, now. Shouldn't that have gone on the RealClimate forums?I guess making stuff up off the top of your head is so the norm around here you don't even realise you're doing it anymore
kerplunk said:
Blib said:
kerplunk said:
It's all 'projection' with morons like you isn't it - you don't really care about reality.
I really had to quote this gem from our pet Believer. Of all the people to type that sentence.....
Hey Plunks, how are those COMPUTER MODELS performing? You know, those projections that you and your friends would have us all accept are more valid than data from "reality".
Classic Plunky, just classic.
I guess making stuff up off the top of your head is so the norm around here you don't even realise you're doing it anymore
Where's the projected warming Plunky?
s
t, they made it up turbobloke said:
Attenborough Must Check his Facts on Polar Bears
Christopher Booker, Sunday Telegraph, 17/03/13
De rigueur though it may be to describe Sir David Attenborough as a
"national treasure" and our "greatest living naturalist", it really is
time he was called to account for the shameless way in which he has
allowed himself to be made the frontman for one particular propaganda
campaign that has stood all genuine scientific evidence on its head.
...
But for his readiness to lend his immense prestige to a
scare story that defies all the evidence, he deserves no respect at
all.
He gets none from me, and I refuse point blank to watch any of his propaganda. Bellamy has a much greater right to the title of national treasure, and I remember well from my days as school rep for the British Association of Young Scientists, when I had the great fortune to meet him personally, how much enthusiasm and passion the man had for science, and how infectious it was. The hatchet job the BBC did on him is as morally bankrupt as their tacit support of that wretched Christopher Booker, Sunday Telegraph, 17/03/13
De rigueur though it may be to describe Sir David Attenborough as a
"national treasure" and our "greatest living naturalist", it really is
time he was called to account for the shameless way in which he has
allowed himself to be made the frontman for one particular propaganda
campaign that has stood all genuine scientific evidence on its head.
...
But for his readiness to lend his immense prestige to a
scare story that defies all the evidence, he deserves no respect at
all.
whose name should never be mentioned again.ETA
Edited by Big Al. on Monday 18th March 14:47
VictorMeldrew said:
He gets none from me, and I refuse point blank to watch any of his propaganda. Bellamy has a much greater right to the title of national treasure, and I remember well from my days as school rep for the British Association of Young Scientists, when I had the great fortune to meet him personally, how much enthusiasm and passion the man had for science, and how infectious it was. The hatchet job the BBC did on him is as morally bankrupt as their tacit support of that wretched whose name should never be mentioned again.
He has certainly 'sold his soul to the devil' in my book - I do wonder if he'll ever live to regret the (possible)coercion that he must had had from the BBC and other activists. whose name should never be mentioned again. BliarOut said:
'Making stuff up'
Where's the projected warming Plunky?
st, they made it up
As you know I've said plenty on that already so how about some climategate material:Where's the projected warming Plunky?
s
t, they made it up On Oct 14, 2009, at 3:01 AM, Tom Wigley wrote:
> > > > Dear all,
> > > > At the risk of overload, here are some notes of mine on the
> > > > recent
> > > > lack of warming. I look at this in two ways. The first is to
> > > > look at
> > > > the difference between the observed and expected anthropogenic
> > > > trend relative to the pdf for unforced variability. The second
> > > > is to remove ENSO, volcanoes and TSI variations from the
> > > > observed data.
> > > > Both methods show that what we are seeing is not unusual. The
> > > > second
> > > > method leaves a significant warming over the past decade.
> > > > These sums complement Kevin's energy work.
> > > > Kevin says ... "The fact is that we can't account for the lack
> > > > of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't". I
> > > > do not
> > > > agree with this.
> > > > Tom.
That's from the same email chain that contained the 'dishonest presentations of model results' comment (by the same Tom Wigley), but for some reason didn't make it through the completely open and unbiased WUWT email-filtering service.
Edited by kerplunk on Monday 18th March 14:36
kerplunk said:
BliarOut said:
'Making stuff up'
Where's the projected warming Plunky?
st, they made it up
As you know I've said plenty on that already so how about some climategate material:Where's the projected warming Plunky?
s
t, they made it up On Oct 14, 2009, at 3:01 AM, Tom Wigley wrote:
> > > > Dear all,
> > > > At the risk of overload, here are some notes of mine on the
> > > > recent
> > > > lack of warming. I look at this in two ways. The first is to
> > > > look at
> > > > the difference between the observed and expected anthropogenic
> > > > trend relative to the pdf for unforced variability. The second
> > > > is to remove ENSO, volcanoes and TSI variations from the
> > > > observed data.
> > > > Both methods show that what we are seeing is not unusual. The
> > > > second
> > > > method leaves a significant warming over the past decade.
> > > > These sums complement Kevin's energy work.
> > > > Kevin says ... "The fact is that we can't account for the lack
> > > > of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't". I
> > > > do not
> > > > agree with this.
> > > > Tom.
That's from the same email chain that contained the 'dishonest presentations of model results' comment (by the same Tom Wigley), but for some reason didn't make it through the completely open and unbiased WUWT email-filtering service.
Edited by kerplunk on Monday 18th March 14:36
You really wanna use Climategate as your best defence? Good luck with that Guam said:
Actually just found the whole thread so as usual utter bks as far as the attack on Watts is concerned
On Oct 14, 2009, at 5:57 PM, Tom Wigley wrote:
> > Mike,
> >
> > The Figure you sent is very deceptive. As an example, historical
> > runs with PCM look as though they match observations — but the
> > match is a fluke. PCM has no indirect aerosol forcing and a low
> > climate sensitivity — compensating errors. In my (perhaps too
> > harsh)
> > view, there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model
> > results by individual authors and by IPCC. This is why I still use
> > results from MAGICC to compare with observed temperatures. At least
> > here I can assess how sensitive matches are to sensitivity and
> > forcing assumptions/uncertainties.
> >
> > Tom.
> > +++++++++++++++++++
> >
> > Michael Mann wrote:
> > > thanks Tom,
> > > I’ve taken the liberty of attaching a figure that Gavin put
> > > together the other day (its an update from a similar figure he
> > > prepared for an earlier RealClimate post. see:
> > > http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009...
manipulation/). It is indeed worth a thousand words, and drives home
Tom’s point below. We’re planning on doing a post on this shortly, but would be
nice to see the Sep. HadCRU numbers first,
> > > mike
> > > On Oct 14, 2009, at 3:01 AM, Tom Wigley wrote:
> > > > Dear all,
> > > > At the risk of overload, here are some notes of mine on the
> > > > recent
> > > > lack of warming. I look at this in two ways. The first is to
> > > > look at
> > > > the difference between the observed and expected anthropogenic
> > > > trend relative to the pdf for unforced variability. The second
> > > > is to remove ENSO, volcanoes and TSI variations from the
> > > > observed data.
> > > > Both methods show that what we are seeing is not unusual. The
> > > > second
> > > > method leaves a significant warming over the past decade.
> > > > These sums complement Kevin’s energy work.
> > > > Kevin says … “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack
> > > > of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t”. I
> > > > do not
> > > > agree with this.
> > > > Tom.
> > > > +++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > Kevin Trenberth wrote:
> > > > > Hi all
> > > > > Well I have my own article on where the heck is global
> > > > > warming? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have
> > > > > broken records the past two days for the coldest days on
> > > > > record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days
> > > > > was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the
> > > > > previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F
> > > > > and also a record low, well below the previous record low.
> > > > > This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game
> > > > > was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below
> > > > > freezing weather).
> > > > > Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change
> > > > > planning: tracking Earth’s global energy. /Current Opinion in
> > > > > Environmental Sustainability/, *1*, 19-27,
> > > > > doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [PDF]
> > > > >
(A PDF of the published version can be obtained from the author.)
> > > > > The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at
> > > > > the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data
> > > > > published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there
> > > > > should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong.
> > > > > Our observing system is inadequate.
> > > > > That said there is a LOT of nonsense about the PDO. People
> > > > > like CPC are tracking PDO on a monthly basis but it is highly
> > > > > correlated with ENSO. Most of what they are seeing is the
> > > > > change in ENSO not real PDO. It surely isn’t decadal. The
> > > > > PDO is already reversing with the switch to El Nino. The PDO
> > > > > index became positive in September for first time since Sept
> > > > > 2007.
Link http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/13/climategate-...
Fair enough I may have missed that (or it's been added).ks as far as the attack on Watts is concernedOn Oct 14, 2009, at 5:57 PM, Tom Wigley wrote:
> > Mike,
> >
> > The Figure you sent is very deceptive. As an example, historical
> > runs with PCM look as though they match observations — but the
> > match is a fluke. PCM has no indirect aerosol forcing and a low
> > climate sensitivity — compensating errors. In my (perhaps too
> > harsh)
> > view, there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model
> > results by individual authors and by IPCC. This is why I still use
> > results from MAGICC to compare with observed temperatures. At least
> > here I can assess how sensitive matches are to sensitivity and
> > forcing assumptions/uncertainties.
> >
> > Tom.
> > +++++++++++++++++++
> >
> > Michael Mann wrote:
> > > thanks Tom,
> > > I’ve taken the liberty of attaching a figure that Gavin put
> > > together the other day (its an update from a similar figure he
> > > prepared for an earlier RealClimate post. see:
> > > http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009...
manipulation/). It is indeed worth a thousand words, and drives home
Tom’s point below. We’re planning on doing a post on this shortly, but would be
nice to see the Sep. HadCRU numbers first,
> > > mike
> > > On Oct 14, 2009, at 3:01 AM, Tom Wigley wrote:
> > > > Dear all,
> > > > At the risk of overload, here are some notes of mine on the
> > > > recent
> > > > lack of warming. I look at this in two ways. The first is to
> > > > look at
> > > > the difference between the observed and expected anthropogenic
> > > > trend relative to the pdf for unforced variability. The second
> > > > is to remove ENSO, volcanoes and TSI variations from the
> > > > observed data.
> > > > Both methods show that what we are seeing is not unusual. The
> > > > second
> > > > method leaves a significant warming over the past decade.
> > > > These sums complement Kevin’s energy work.
> > > > Kevin says … “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack
> > > > of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t”. I
> > > > do not
> > > > agree with this.
> > > > Tom.
> > > > +++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > Kevin Trenberth wrote:
> > > > > Hi all
> > > > > Well I have my own article on where the heck is global
> > > > > warming? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have
> > > > > broken records the past two days for the coldest days on
> > > > > record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days
> > > > > was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the
> > > > > previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F
> > > > > and also a record low, well below the previous record low.
> > > > > This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game
> > > > > was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below
> > > > > freezing weather).
> > > > > Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change
> > > > > planning: tracking Earth’s global energy. /Current Opinion in
> > > > > Environmental Sustainability/, *1*, 19-27,
> > > > > doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [PDF]
> > > > >
(A PDF of the published version can be obtained from the author.)
> > > > > The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at
> > > > > the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data
> > > > > published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there
> > > > > should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong.
> > > > > Our observing system is inadequate.
> > > > > That said there is a LOT of nonsense about the PDO. People
> > > > > like CPC are tracking PDO on a monthly basis but it is highly
> > > > > correlated with ENSO. Most of what they are seeing is the
> > > > > change in ENSO not real PDO. It surely isn’t decadal. The
> > > > > PDO is already reversing with the switch to El Nino. The PDO
> > > > > index became positive in September for first time since Sept
> > > > > 2007.
Link http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/13/climategate-...
Edited by Guam on Monday 18th March 14:54
Still not quite all there - there's at least one other email in the chain (Gavin Schmidt responding to Wigley's criticism of his 'plot') - all in CG1 & 2 files.
Climate Scientists Turn Sceptical As Climate Predictions Fail
Academics are revising their views after acknowledging the miscalculation. Last night Myles Allen, Oxford University’s Professor of Geosystem Science, said that until recently he believed the world might be on course for a catastrophic temperature rise of more than five degrees this century. But he now says: ‘The odds have come down,’ – adding that warming is likely to be significantly lower. Prof Allen says higher estimates are now ‘looking iffy’.
Many scientists say the pause, and new research into factors such as smoke particles and ocean cycles, has made them rethink what is termed ‘climate sensitivity’ – how much the world will warm for a given level of CO2. Yesterday Piers Forster, Climate Change Professor at Leeds University, said: ‘The fact that global surface temperatures haven’t risen in the last 15 years, combined with good knowledge of the terms changing climate, make the high estimates unlikely.’
David Rose, Mail on Sunday, 17 March 2013
Calling all climate rats, on your particular sinking ship the exit is -------->
Academics are revising their views after acknowledging the miscalculation. Last night Myles Allen, Oxford University’s Professor of Geosystem Science, said that until recently he believed the world might be on course for a catastrophic temperature rise of more than five degrees this century. But he now says: ‘The odds have come down,’ – adding that warming is likely to be significantly lower. Prof Allen says higher estimates are now ‘looking iffy’.
Many scientists say the pause, and new research into factors such as smoke particles and ocean cycles, has made them rethink what is termed ‘climate sensitivity’ – how much the world will warm for a given level of CO2. Yesterday Piers Forster, Climate Change Professor at Leeds University, said: ‘The fact that global surface temperatures haven’t risen in the last 15 years, combined with good knowledge of the terms changing climate, make the high estimates unlikely.’
David Rose, Mail on Sunday, 17 March 2013
Calling all climate rats, on your particular sinking ship the exit is -------->
Guam said:
kerplunk said:
Fair enough I may have missed that (or it's been added).
Still not quite all there - there's at least one other email in the chain (Gavin Schmidt responding to Wigley's criticism of his 'plot') - all in CG1 & 2 files.
Not been added, its been there since day one, plus we havent discussed Gavin Schmidts plot, or even raised it as any kind of issue on here, in fact the only reference to this string, related by me on here was related to the model run, not the Kevin Trenberth comment.Still not quite all there - there's at least one other email in the chain (Gavin Schmidt responding to Wigley's criticism of his 'plot') - all in CG1 & 2 files.
Your point was to attack the credibility of Watts <an old and tired approach>, by implying that he deliberately left stuff out of the process.
Guam said:
There are 11 others who recieved the archive and who are going through themn to clean them up, its an easy allegation to make that they will skew the findings.
Bearing in mind FOIA requested that they cleanse out non relevant personal stuff first <which anyone with integrity would do>, then the only other alternative there is, is to release the password and let the chips fall where they may, or suffer exactly the kind of allegation we saw just now from you.
You arent alone in doing this incidentally, frankly if it keeps up, then I think sooner or later someone will release the password into the public domain, I wonder how the participants in the archive feel about that prospect?
Goes with the territory I'm afraid. The 'entrusted' 12 are protaganists at the end of the day and so not impartial. Bearing in mind FOIA requested that they cleanse out non relevant personal stuff first <which anyone with integrity would do>, then the only other alternative there is, is to release the password and let the chips fall where they may, or suffer exactly the kind of allegation we saw just now from you.
You arent alone in doing this incidentally, frankly if it keeps up, then I think sooner or later someone will release the password into the public domain, I wonder how the participants in the archive feel about that prospect?
Releasing the password wouldn't be a very good move for anyone imo so we agree there. The general public have no business reading irrelevent personally sensitive emails (but by the same token neither do the '12' - not releasing the p/w is the least of two evils).
BliarOut said:
Shouldn't be using a organisational e-mail account for personal communications, the content belongs to the organisation.
The thing is you can't be sure of anything without checking through them all first. Email chains can contain emails from anywhere. There's hazard here for both the people in the emails and anyone responsible for making them public. http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/p...
Also;
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/201...
Also;
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/201...
Edited by Oakey on Monday 18th March 19:20
kerplunk said:
The thing is you can't be sure of anything without checking through them all first. Email chains can contain emails from anywhere. There's hazard here for both the people in the emails and anyone responsible for making them public.
Not forgetting the massive egg on face for those exchanging gutter content when their puerile and/or confessional emails are more widely circulated than first thought, there is a serious risk of a tipping point in the opinion of readers when these acknowledged-as-genuine messages are seen to contain the following:- agw scientists abusing the peer review process by acting as bullies and gatekeepers
- agw scientists seeking to keep 'dangerous' science out of IPCC reports, if necessary by 'redefining what the peer review literature is', so providing incomplete i.e. one-sided information to policy makers in SPMs
- agw scientists being abusive to other scientists (not critiquing their work)
- agw scientists being abusive to journalists not meekly falling in line with agw
- an admission that modelling is inadequate to give policy guidance e.g. on New Orleans
- an admission that agw scientists know 'f--k all' (their words) about aspects of paleo climate
- an admission that there is no agw explanation for the recent lack of warming (cooling)
- evidence appearing to suggest a falsified reference was maintained against advice
- an admission that the energy budget is nowhere near to being balanced so considerations of geo-engineering (carbon policies) are pointless and if implemented anyway nobody could say if they had worked or not
- an admission that current warmth is not 'unprecedented' as it was matched ~1000 years ago by the MWP
- an admission that the data and code at UEA CRU were and therefore are 'garbage'
- an admission that gigo code consists of 'botch after botch after botch'
- an admission that erroneous gridded surface data was tacked onto truncated dendro data to 'hide the decline', mixing chalk and cheese while claiming the total is chalk
- comments that appear to reveal breaches of UK FOIA (under investigation)
- comments that appear to signal destruction of raw data (under investigation?)
- subsequent revelations emerging include use of outlier data in calibration and homogenisation, together with selectivity in e.g. use of Russian data, such as would inevitably give an apparently pre-determined outcome
Of course, anyone is free to carry on defending the behavour of Climategate superstars if they're daft enough to think it's warranted for any misguided reason
Guam said:
Oh come on, the rest of the thread was there on watts, if I didnt link to it I would have indicated where it was from, given that the point from that was regarding the model run being a fluke then posting the rest of the thread <posted before as it happens from earlier releaeses> was superflous.
The fact that you couldnt be bothered to go and check before piling in with another attempted "gotcha" is down to you no one else
Actually you were very un-explicit about the point you were making so it ain't no 'given' but I don't see how this really matters much - I'm just explaining what happened and I (deliberately) didn't mention you in the original post. Of course it was my misfire.The fact that you couldnt be bothered to go and check before piling in with another attempted "gotcha" is down to you no one else
Edited by kerplunk on Monday 18th March 19:54
kerplunk said:
My point was primarily re the lack of warming.
I think I missed your point, but I know some people seem to think the planet is still warming, despite the crushing amount of direct and indirect evidence, and the fact that the major climate 'scientists' admit it too.Do you think it's still warming? If so, why?
Guam said:
kerplunk said:
Actually you were very un-explicit about the point you were making so it ain't no 'given' but I see how this really matters much - I'm just expalining what happened and I (deliberately) didn't mention you in the original post. Of course it was my misfire.
If you say so KP, the subsequent posts made it pretty plain, and when I post stuff from the archives I traditionally avoid direct comment in the initial post, allowing folks to form their own opinion as to the content, I will then post up subsequently any topic I feel the email provokes.I see no reason to change that, given that in virtually every case the content will speak for itself!
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff