Global warming

[mhaze]

Nice try AUP, but it's not there. It would include, as has been clarified previously rather than paraphrased as I did, a peer reviewed paper including all forcings and feedbacks, physics, chemistry etc.

Climate models are not evidence. If they were, there would only be need for one, not dozens with different outputs.
Chapter 9- 339 instances of "model", 52 "climate model".

But hey, go ahead and post it at CA Unthreaded #23.

CA Unthreaded #23? Dream on.....

The real hockey stick
is the blog message response curve on www.climateaudit.org.
Try Unthreaded #25 up to 400 or so.
100-200 posts per day in just one thread???

AUP I assume you did not mean to say this but I do like it

RC is just a big black hole of random musings, asssertions and cries of "where's Waldo", with ad hoc requests from McIntyre to stick to the point and stop acting like children.
​

 

[varwoche]

What is not rational?

What's not rational -- stunningly so -- is establishing policy positions based on literal interpretation of biblical texts.

I believe very strongly that we ought to support Israel; that it has a right to the land. This is the most important reason: Because God said so. As I said a minute ago, look it up in the book of Genesis ...That is God talking. link

And on the topic of a/gw:

Now look, God’s still up there. We still have these natural changes, and this is what’s going on right now. link

Note to self: Add Inhofe to the doofus list.

 

[mhaze]

What's not rational -- stunningly so -- is establishing policy positions based on literal interpretation of biblical texts.
And on the topic of a/gw: Note to self: Add Inhofe to the doofus list.

from your source...

INHOFE: You said, in talking about a shift that was coming -- you said, "If the Gulf Stream were to shift again, the British Isles could be engulfed in polar ice and Europe's climate could become frigid." That's another scary story.

O'BRIEN: But that also is a potential outgrowth of global warming when you talk about the ocean currents being arrested. This is "The Day After Tomorrow" scenario that we're talking about.
​

another scary story? Yep. And on the topic of a/gw:

Note to self: Add Varoche to "AGW true believers in Day After Tomorrow scary story" list? And on the topic of a/gw----

What's not rational -- stunningly so -- is establishing policy positions based on literal interpretation of (religious) environmental texts and or movement leaders.

Inhofe, a reasonable person (on this subject) says.

I have insisted all along that the climate change debate should be based on fundamental principles of science, not religion. Ultimately, I hope, it will be decided by hard facts and data-and by serious scientists committed to the principles of sound science. Instead of censoring skeptical viewpoints, as my alarmist friends favor, these scientists must be heard, and I will do my part to make sure that they are heard.
​

 

[mhaze]

Global Warming, Or Global Con? And doofus list....

And on the topic of a/gw: Note to self: Add Inhofe to the doofus list.

Doofus list, eh?

Global Warming, Or Global Con?
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, November 19, 2007 4:20 PM PT

Climate Change: A U.N. that can't save the world from war, famine, disease and pestilence now releases a report saying global warming will cause all of the above — and it's your SUV that's doing it.

The fourth and final assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reads like the Bible, but gospel it is not. It is a "consensus" in that it started with a foregone conclusion — that man-made pollution is dooming the planet — and gathered in any and all opinions that supported it.

The report incredibly warns that the 630,000 cubic miles of the Greenland ice sheet will virtually disappear in the near future, raising sea levels by almost 30 feet, and the Amazon rain forest will become a dry savannah.
There will be widespread species extinction, as up to three-fifths of wildlife will die out. The Great Barrier Reef will die. And, oh yeah, winter sports in the Alps will be a thing of the past.

United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, who attended the report's release Saturday in Valencia, Spain, told the Independent, a British newspaper, that he found the "quickening pace" of global warming "very frightening."

He did not say if he found the "quickening pace" of Iran's nuclear bomb program "very frightening," or explain exactly what he's doing about it right now.

From genocide in Rwanda and the Sudan to wars and rumors of wars in the Middle East and the Balkans, the U.N. has done little to protect the human species as millions die at the hands of despots that sit on its human rights panel.

 

[David Rodale]

Perhaps #1 and #2 on the doofus list, AGW journalists and the U.N, not necessarily in that order:

From the NYT November 1, 2007:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/01/business/01tourism.html
How Do You Ski if There Is No Snow?

PARIS — Global warming’s foes rarely cite ski resorts and golf courses among its victims.

But, though they may be less adorable than penguins and less gripping than melting ice caps, resort owners and tour operators will be directly and strongly affected by climate change. Indeed, few livelihoods are more dependent on the weather, other than farmers’.

Last month, organizers of a United Nations conference in Davos, Switzerland, sought to hammer that point home to officials and tour operators from nearly 100 countries.

“The entire tourism product will be affected,” said Geoffrey Lipman, assistant secretary general of the United Nations World Tourism Organization, “Every destination has a climate-related component.”

November 15, 2007:
http://www.fasttrackski.co.uk/ski-news/switzerland/swiss-snow-makes-50-year-record-200711151407.php
Swiss Snow Makes 50-year Record

Swiss ski resorts are expecting a record season after promising early snowfall, it has been reported.

Ski break spots including Davos, St Antonien and Braunwald have experienced exceptionally strong snowfall for so early in the season, swissinfo has reported.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

 

[CapelDodger]

That's the paraphrased request Steve McIntyre has asked for on multiple occasions.

What's that got to do with McIntyre's misrepresentation of what Emile-Geay said as quoted by McIntyre in the post in question?

You're right though, you are very limited.

You appear to be very confused, or at least disorganised in your thinling.

Emil-Geay did not claim that the R-squared statistics are relevant, he pointed out that the McIntyre groupies weren't decrying the paper despite that fact that they do decry the absence in the case of Mann et al. A case of double-standards.

Here's the actual verbiage which you did not quote

In fact (as anyone can see) I quoted exactly the same extract as you do. Extracting from that piece :

"it is extremely hypocritical (and all too characteristic of Team climate science) for Emile-Geay to criticize Loehle for this omission given the history of obstruction on this matter by Mann and Ammann."

(Bolding yours.)

McIntyre's hypocrisy is in claiming that Emile-Geay was crticising Loehle, when in fact he was drawing attention to the double-standards displayed (very visibly) by McIntyre groupies on ClimateAudit.

Who is the real hypocrite? It's the Mann defenders propping up junk science.

The real hypocrite is McIntyre, misrepresenting Emile-Geay so as to accuse him of hypocrisy. That really is hypocritical.

You also failed to mention that Steve M did not comment on the Loehle discussion for quite some time into the discussion, as was noted at the beginning of the original post.

So what? Maybe it took him a while to work out how he was going to misrepresent Emile-Geay to his own advantage. In the post we're quoting he laid his own hypocrisy bare.

It looks like the only posts you read were from JEG.

The only post I read was the McIntyre one you linked to. I took the Emile-Geay quote from that post, since McIntyre provided it himself. If it isn't actually representative of what Emile-Geay said, McIntyre stands condemned of misrepresentation anyway.

However much you wriggle, McIntyre demonstrates himself to be a hypocrite - and not even a very clever one, I doubt he'd have made it as a lawyer - in that very post.

 

[CapelDodger]

Nice try AUP, but it's not there. It would include, as has been clarified previously rather than paraphrased as I did, a peer reviewed paper including all forcings and feedbacks, physics, chemistry etc.

The IPCC reports do not include papers. The IPCC exists to collate science done by scientific research insitutions, which leads to published papers.

Perhaps what you mean to say is that it should include a reference to one paper containing everything you demand, and perhaps raisins and a silver sixpence too (etc is so useful, isn't it? Nobody can ever satisfy a demand for an etc). There is no such paper, nor is its existence even credible. Which, I suppose, is why you keep demanding it. Does McIntyre take the same tack? It wouldn't surprise me, frankly.

The chapter aup cites references many papers and explains how the range of climate-sensitivity is arrived at . Which is what McIntyre is asking for, is it not? It's written to be understood by the educated layman, and presumably that includes McIntyre.

But hey, go ahead and post it at CA Unthreaded #23.

Do you really think aup's cite hasn't been posted on CA already? No disrespect to aup, but it doesn't exactly take much digging. The AR4 report is quite prominent, after all. I expect it to be strongly featured in Bali - maybe Stevie should get over there to do some counter-lobbying amongst the diplomats. Or is that already on his itinerary? Hopefully so, since decent hotel-rooms are going to be like gold-dust.

 

[mhaze]

What's that got to do with McIntyre's misrepresentation of what Emile-Geay said as quoted by McIntyre in the post in question?

However much you wriggle, McIntyre demonstrates himself to be a hypocrite - and not even a very clever one, I doubt he'd have made it as a lawyer - in that very post.

CA is an open forum.

You can make such criticism on climateaudit.org.

Try doing that at surRealclimate.org.

 

[CapelDodger]

What's not rational -- stunningly so -- is establishing policy positions based on literal interpretation of biblical texts.

Actually, such thinking is rational within the caricatures of real worlds that buffoons inhabit. It's the cartoon-reality that marks them out as buffoons. Consider Bin Laden - another buffoon, just a different cartoon. Chrichton - the buffoon's buffoon.

McIntyre et al, on the other hand, are weasels. A very different beast. Bellamy : buffoon. Lindzen : weasel. The Face Of CO2Science : weasel. mhaze : buffoon.

There's potential for two lists here .

 

[CapelDodger]

CA is an open forum.

You can make such criticism on climateaudit.org.

Try doing that at surRealclimate.org.

Find cause for such criticism at RealClimate, then post it. Go on, try it. If it doesn't appear, tell us what the cause was. This is an open forum, after all. That will persuade us that RealClimate will refuse to allow such criticism.

I've called McIntyre a hypocrite here, on this open forum, strictly on the basis of what he posted on ClimateAudit and David Rodale linked to. I've given my reasons - he misrepresented what Emile-Geay said and then accused others of hypocrisy on that basis.

Since you can't refute my post you take refuge in misdirection and claims about RealClimate that are unfounded on any evidence. Give us the evidence. Find such blatant hypocrisy on RealClimate and make a post. Don't just tell us that it wouldn't appear, show us it not appearing. Go on, try it.

I'm not interested in any hearsay you may have to offer. Show me yourself, by demonstration.

I was invited - nay exhorted - to look at ClimateAudit and I demonstrated hypocrisy in the first page presented to me. I didn't even have to search for it. Your mission, should you choose to accept it, will be a lot trickier.

 

[mhaze]

Find cause for such criticism at RealClimate, then post it. Go on, try it. If it doesn't appear, tell us what the cause was. This is an open forum, after all. That will persuade us that RealClimate will refuse to allow such criticism.

Their censorship is a thing of legend.

I've called McIntyre a hypocrite here, on this open forum, strictly on the basis of what he posted on ClimateAudit and David Rodale linked to. I've given my reasons - he misrepresented what Emile-Geay said and then accused others of hypocrisy on that basis.

Since you can't refute my post you take refuge in misdirection.......Your mission, should you choose to accept it, will be a lot trickier.

I could not really get what your complaint about McIntyre was from your prior post. Can you make it a bit simpler?

 

[CapelDodger]

Note to self: Add Inhofe to the doofus list.

Inhofe only crossed my horizon when I heard that Chrichton had been called to give evidence to Congress on AGW. Chrichton I had heard of, as an author of airport-novels that were a cut above the norm, in that a few were made into bad films. And one whose latest oeuvre was being feted in the blogosphere despite the fact his so-called science and most of the plot were derived from said blogosphere. Celebrity endorsement - and in that company, Crichton is a celebrity. But before Congress?

That's when I discovered Inhofe. Not a new species by any means, and no great surprise. Nor any surpise that he's no longer in charge of that Senatorial Committee or whatever his plaything was for a while.

I've been pitching this I'm a Contrarian Celebrity Get Me Off This Pacific Atoll reality TV show, so far without takers. It would be a valuable vehicle for the contrarian argument, and there's no lack of funding available, so I still have hopes that Fox will commission it. All I have to do is drum up the celebrities.

 

[mhaze]

I've been pitching this I'm a Contrarian Celebrity Get Me Off This Pacific Atoll reality TV show, so far without takers

Probably because is reality the island....

Isn't Sinking?

No Alarming AGW there!

 

[CapelDodger]

Their censorship is a thing of legend.

For all the evidence available it's actually a myth. Provide some evidence. Post something on RealClimate, have it rejected, then tell us what it was. Then RealClimate's reputation will not just be talk, it will be solid.

I could not really get what your complaint about McIntyre was from your prior post. Can you make it a bit simpler?

McIntyre claims that Emile-Geay was criticising Loehle, when in fact Emile-Geay was criticising ClimateAudit. Simpler than that I cannot make it.

 

[CapelDodger]

Probably because is reality the island....

Isn't Sinking?

No Alarming AGW there!

Are you drunk?

 

[CapelDodger]

Swiss Snow Makes 50-year Record


Sorry, couldn't resist.

I'm not at all surprised. You think snowfall equates with cold weather and therefore with a cool climate, don't you? It's easy to understand that belief - in your cultural experience snow and cold weather coincide.

Snowfall in the Alps actually depends on evaporation from the North Atlantic, and that depends on its surface-temperature. A cold ocean means less evaporation and less snow. After all, that water has to get from Atlantic to Alps somehow, and it's not doing it by land or sea.

So what you've pointed out is how warm the North Atlantic is at the moment. The measure of climate-change is not snowfall in the Alps, but how long the snow lies on the ground up there. The Alpine ski-season has got off to a good start, but how long will it last? Only time will tell - but not much time, nothing like three-to-eight years.

You may well come to regret your enthusiasm's triumph over your resistance.

 

[mhaze]

McIntyre claims that Emile-Geay was criticising Loehle, when in fact Emile-Geay was criticising ClimateAudit. Simpler than that I cannot make it.

Emile-Geay was criticising Loehle
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2380#comment-162058

Only in the last 2 Paragraphs does he mention Steve or CA...

In summary, this is a rather obscure compilation of proxy data, with a conciseness in methodology that borders on farce.​

I’m willing to lend a mildly sympathetic ear to the Wegman claim that all climatologists are in bed with each other and even to the conspiracy theory that Nature and Science are personal allies of the Mann family and have sworn the death of ClimateAuditors . But let’s be serious here for a minute ! What on Earth do you expect from a GRL editor when they see such a piece of junk in their inbox ? It leaves much to say about E&E’s standards. Are we to surmise than any anti-Global-Warming or anti-hockey-stick paper gets a go ?
McIntyre & McKitrick (GRL, 2005) showed much competence in their rebuttal of the hockey-stick . Though i have my issues with that paper, it is a legitimate criticism of MBH98, one that was deservedly published, and is precisely the kind of work that lends credence to ClimateAudit. The latter community would be well-inspired to apply the same rigorous standards to all climate studies, regardless of their scientific or political outcome. It’s hard enough sifting through the comments of ignorant global-warming-denialists on this site - but so far i still do because of some very incisive and insightful climate investigations that question (and i believe, ultimately enrich) mainstream climatology. CA must now put their mind where their mouth is. Mr McIntyre, the ball is in your camp.
Are you with science, or are you for the obscurantists ?

​

 

[CapelDodger]

Emile-Geay was criticising Loehle
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2380#comment-162058

Only in the last 2 Paragraphs does he mention Steve or CA...

To my mind :

"Where are the CE, RE, and most importantly R-squared statistics that are so dear to ClimateAuditers ?"

constitutes a reference to ClimateAudit. It's quoted by McIntyre in the piece David Rodale linked to "Emile-Geay and Verification r2 Statistics , which is where McIntyre waxes hypocritical.

Perhaps you don't do irony, but that's what Emile-Geay is engaging in. (Actually his style verges on the sarcastic, but I have high standards,) Emile-Geay certainly criticises Leahe's paper in the rest of the post, but not on the grounds of R-squared statistics. For instance, that quote in context

"- VALIDATION :
this is where the paper shatters all publication standards. There is :
- No error analysis (in Y, not to mention X)
- No significance testing.
- No cross validation.
Impressive ! Where are the CE, RE, and most importantly R-squared statistics that are so dear to ClimateAuditers ? How are we supposed to guess whether the reconstruction has any skill ?"

There's plenty there to justify the last question without giving any weight to the R-squared statistics so dear to ClimateAuditors - when it suits them, that is.

You'll have noticed that McIntyre leaves out the first three objections - no error analysis, no significance testing, no cross validation - and leaves "How are we supposed to guess whether the reconstruction has any skill ?" apparently hanging solely on "Where are the CE, RE, and most importantly R-squared statistics that are so dear to ClimateAuditers ?".

Whereas, of course, it hangs on rather more than that.

 

[mhaze]

To my mind :
constitutes a reference to ClimateAudit. It's quoted by McIntyre in the piece David Rodale linked to "Emile-Geay and Verification r2 Statistics , which is where McIntyre waxes hypocritical.

Perhaps you don't do irony, but that's what Emile-Geay is engaging in. (Actually his style verges on the sarcastic, but I have high standards,) Emile-Geay certainly criticises Leahe's paper in the rest of the post, but not on the grounds of R-squared statistics. For instance, that quote in context

There's plenty there to justify the last question without giving any weight to the R-squared statistics so dear to ClimateAuditors - when it suits them, that is.

You'll have noticed that McIntyre leaves out the first three objections - no error analysis, no significance testing, no cross validation - and leaves "How are we supposed to guess whether the reconstruction has any skill ?" apparently hanging solely on "Where are the CE, RE, and most importantly R-squared statistics that are so dear to ClimateAuditers ?".

Whereas, of course, it hangs on rather more than that.

Nonsense. Go ask JEG what he is saying if you want it clarified.

 

[mhaze]

"I have a nightmare" or "I have a dream"

good article from Reason mag - Bold is mine.

Techno-Optimistic Environmentalism

Reframing the dismal science of ecology for the 21st century
Ronald Bailey | November 27, 2007

In their 2004 essay "The Death of Environmentalism," activists Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus famously declared, "We have become convinced that modern environmentalism, with all of its unexamined assumptions, outdated concepts and exhausted strategies, must die so that something new can live."

What killed environmentalism? Man-made global warming. The pair argued that the problem of global warming is too big to be handled by green incrementalism. Switching to bioethanol and compact fluorescent lighting simply won't do. Something much bigger is needed. And they argued that modern environmentalism was not up to the task.

They blamed environmentalism's political ineffectiveness on the fact that environmentalists were perceived as being little more than another special interest group. In addition, the two excoriated movement activists for their "failure to articulate an inspiring and positive vision." Environmentalists turned off possible supporters because they were invested in telling the public doom-and-gloom "I have a nightmare" stories rather than delivering "I have a dream" speeches.

Read the rest here.