A Story No Climate Reporter Wants to Pursue
In the immediate aftermath of Peter Gleick’s confession, reaction was passionate and wide-ranging. The news dominated the climate blogosphere for weeks, with every climate blog having something to say on the matter (with the conspicuous exception of RealClimate).
The story was also dutifully covered in the mainstream media. The first wave focused on Gleick’s admission. The second wave was the response to it. Any stories that followed after that mostly reported on the repercussions to Gleick. Since then, no reporters on the climate beat have seemed eager to follow up on the most dubious angle to the whole story.
That brings me to this post by Steve McIntyre, which compares the Gleick affair to Watergate and some of its principal characters. McIntyre writes:
Much recent commentary has characterized Gleick as a “hero”, some invoking [Daniel] Ellsberg as a precedent. But a closer examination of Watergate events shows that Gleick’s conduct is more evocative of Howard Hunt and Gordon Liddy than of Ellsberg.
It’s worth noting that Liddy went on to fame and fortune, with his best-selling book and syndicated radio show. He has also been lionized by the right wing in the United States.
It’s too early to say what lies ahead for Gleick. So far, the story of his entanglement with the Heartland Institute is what he has written. It’s not clear to me that any reporters are interested in pursuing it.
The “most dubious angle to the whole story” is the influence of bodies such as Heartland and the media’s failure to investigate and expose this network of influence and their dishonesty.
Gleick is one individual. It’s not clear to me why any reporters should be interested in pursuing what lies ahead for him whilst the really important issues remain largely unexamined.
And just to be clear, the dubiosity lies in the morality of the media’s failure to investigate and expose the dishonesty.
OPatrick,
You got to study war no more, man. You have no right to call anyone dishonest. You may say someone is wrong, but he (and you) have a right to be wrong – even in science.
Study cooperative social action. Study a focus on action communication model. Study shopping.
Paul, I’m not sure that makes sense. If a document is very clearly dishonest, and I think the NIPCC report for example is clearly not just wrong but dishonest – that is the ways in which it is wrong can only be explained by dishonesty on the part of those who put it together, then how can I have no ‘right’ to point this out?
I understand your point about trying to get cooperative action but whilst the background radiation of information on climate change is skewed by misinformation I am not convinced that meaningful action is a realistic solution on a community scale. The stories being sold are too comforting. I wholeheartedly support such action, and commend the initiatives you appear to be driving, but I don’t accept that they are sufficient.
It’s not clear to me that any reporters are interested in pursuing it.
What’s the story –
Overzealous climate activist commits wire fraud in order to gain proof that Heartland Institute is funded by ‘evil big oil’. Ends up proving that ‘evil big oil’ is providing a lot less funds them most people already assumed.
Overzealous activists for almost all causes end up doing ‘stupid’ things. The press reports them and the story is closed.
Steve McIntyre…having been the recipient of one of Glieck’s Climate BS awards is obviously going to see the story differently.
OP- “the media” do investigate. You should read the media more and discuss it less. Some “media” is too selective about what it investigates and you are obviously too selective about which media you consume.
For example, the “media” produced the “Delinquent Teenager” – which I’m sure you are cheering as a principled believer in the need for “media” investigation of “influence,” right? The “media” told me the IPCC’s absurdly dishonest “renewables” report was basically outsourced to Greenpeace. The “media” obviously told you (and I) that the NIPCC report wasn’t very good.
For some reason, only one of these seems to be resonating with you and you want some sort of “action” taken (but heaven forbid we assume you want this “action” to prevent another NIPCC report- right?)
It won’t happen. You will always be confronted with things you don’t want to be true and nobody will take “action” to prevent that.
Deal with it.
“If a document is very clearly dishonest… …then how can I have no “˜right’ to point this out?”
Who said you have no right to bitch about Heartland? Have at it- in as many media outlets as you want. Thanks to the advent of the Internet, you have more right and ability to holler than ever before.
Meanwhile this discussion is about whether or not Heartland has a right to say something that gives poor little OP the flutters. They do. Grow up.
@6 JeffN,
Many beleivers have no interest in the story actually being covered, which is what our host is strongly implying in his post.
As OP demonstrates, what many beleivers want is confirmation of their magical conspiracy thinking.
Look how OP persists in believing what is objectively untrue: that HI is part of a well funded vast conspiracy paid by ‘oil interests’ to somehow corrupt the thinking of good people.
The “most dubious angle to the whole story” is the influence of bodies such as Heartland and the media’s failure to investigate and expose this network of influence and their dishonesty.
Sounds like somebody needs to break into Heartland offices to find information linking Heartland and some evil industrial person. Nixon’s cronies did not find information linking the Democrats and Fidel Castro but that does not mean it did not exist, right? 😉
Opatrick,
<i>If a document is very clearly dishonest, and I think the NIPCC report for example is clearly not just wrong but dishonest</i>
It’s only ‘very clearly dishonest’ to people who share your ‘world view’.
The Himalayas melting by 2035 that appeared in the IPCC report was wrong. It got into the IPCC report because it fit the ‘narrative’ that the author’s believed…so they didn’t ‘question’ whether or not it might not be based on ‘rigorous science’.
Rosy O’Donnel is quite correct that the heat produced by the 9/11 impact and fire was insufficient to ‘melt steel’. So her statements were ‘correct’. As any engineer will tell you …the steel merely has to become ‘malleable’ to cause a building collapse which occurs at a much lower temperature.
Rosy O’Donnel and her fellow ‘truthers’ don’t seem to understand that. Their ‘world view’ prevents them from seeing the fact that ‘malleability’ rather then ‘melting’ is the critical factor.
I could go on endlessly where variously individual’s or groups ‘ideological’ world view prevented them from seeing ‘easily provable’ facts.
The only thing about climate that is ‘easily’ provable is that CO2 is a ‘greenhouse’ gas.
Keith, were there any points in my actual post that you disagreed with?
Just so people don’t lose track of my own position on this: I went to university in the heyday of the anti-war movement; the music of the day were the anthems of my youth. Toronto was a major destination of draft resisters. Nixon was a figure of contempt. I visited Cambodia in 1968 while the war was raging next door in Vietnam but before the devastation and self-immolation in The Killing Fields.
For the purposes of my post, I hadn’t examined the later biographies of the Watergate burglars except in passing. I wasn’t able to locate any information about co-leader James McCord after his release from jail (at least from internet searches); the total lack of information is itself interesting. Bernard Barker is said to have become a “sanitation inspector in Miami”. Howard Hunt wrote a lot of novels under various names; I didn’t notice anything else about him.
As for Liddy, as you observe, he eventually became prominent in U.S. right-wing talk radio (which we don’t get in Canada), but your notes give the impression that this happened almost concurrently. But this does not seem to be the case. I am unfamiliar with the backstory of U.S. rightwing politics in the 1970s and 1980s, but my impression is that he wasn’t specifically praised as a “hero” for his role in the break-ins, rather he served his time (4 1/2 years) and then tried to get on with his life as best he could. From his Wikipedia bio, it appears that his initial public appearances in the 1980s were on college campuses rather than right-wing talk radio. His Wikipedia bio indicates that he got his radio gig in 1992, 20 years after the burglaries themselves.
I see Keith Kloor and Leo Hickman having a discussion on Twitter. I agree with Keith that this story has essentially died. Not sure if Leo is correct in that there isn’t enough to go on to write another story. Perhaps doing some deeper probing, just enough to keep the story alive in the minds of interested viewers.
Finding a writing comparison specialist (as opposed to bunch of non-specialists speculating with software they don’t know how to use) – someone who can take several people at Heartland (Bast, Taylor, Lehr, etc) and see who would be closest to the writer, and an explanation about the certainty . I know this might be too speculative for some journalist to engage in, but at least it would help out people being possibly misguided by the amateur attempts taking place right now
For Gleick
1. Finding out where Pacific Inst is in its investigation – getting a company name, time lines for completion, does the supposed memo actually exist for examination, etc.
2. Gleick has a PR person, right? Has this person completely clammed up? No information at all?
Heartland
1. They stated that “confirmed that the climate strategy memo was not written by a staff member, did not originate in The Heartland Institute’s offices, and was not one of the stolen documents. We are still waiting for the report of a forensic investigation firm“.
How did they confirm it wasn’t written by a staff member at home?
What type of forensics are they doing and by whom (independent)?
2. Did they leak any information to anyone regarding what they knew about the “insider” before Gleick admitted involvement? Did they have identifying IP information from email? Did they get a subpoena for Google to get information due to impersonation and Google agreement violations?
What would happen to Gleick if he is kicked out of academia (not that I think it could or should happen)?
Does anyone think that he could end up teaching chemistry in a community college, or selling paint in Home Depot? Or end up on welfare? I don’t think so. Maybe not a left-wing talk-radio but someone who thinks he’s a hero would take care of him.
There also (for speculation sport only) is a quiet disagreement among normally Gleick supporters about whether Gleick is a actually stupid enough to write that memo, and if not, confident enough to allow for this investigation to play out. Is he assured the investigation will clear him, or is he hiding the fact he has no evidence to back up his claim?
I tend to think that 1) writing the memo and then 2) sticking himself in it is so stupid as to pretty much disqualify him. People have tried to say that the phishing was also stupid, but I could at least see the utility of it from a sane person’s subjective. The memo – on the other hand – I find it incomprehensible and senseless and pretty much an insane move.
“my impression is that he wasn’t specifically praised as a “hero” for his role in the break-ins, rather he served his time (4 1/2 years) and then tried to get on with his life as best he could. From his Wikipedia bio, it appears that his initial public appearances in the 1980s were on college campuses rather than right-wing talk radio. His Wikipedia bio indicates that he got his radio gig in 1992, 20 years after the burglaries themselves. ”
Did you read the whole section there? And he had a book, movie, speaking tour with the WSJ, comic book, several TV appearances, a comic book character…
Steve,
I found your post very interesting. As for Liddy, my sense is that Watergate made him a martyr (particularly the jail sentence). I have to think that everything that came after that (best-selling book, speaking gigs, radio show) was built on his Watergate fame. If he was held in disgrace for his actions, I doubt any of that would have followed. That was the point I was trying to make.
grypo (13) Anybody so reckless to do what he did (phishing, then pose as “Heartland Insider” to 15 people) is easily capable of fabricating a memo (but I’m not saying he did). My point is that I don’t get how people would find one set of actions any more stupid than the other–and thus not equally plausible.
#12- Sashka, academia is where left-wing activists are sent to be cared for. Bill Ayers, the former and unrepentant Weather Underground bomber is just one of way too many examples.
Left-wing talk radio would be a bad choice- nobody listens to it.
“My point is that I don’t get how people would find one set of actions any more stupid than the other”“and thus not equally plausible.”
Totally disagree because they are not equal actions. Should be pretty easy to see that. If he is phishing to get to the truth of something, this does not mean he would lie about what that truth was, and in fact, further puts his mission in doubt. Why would he do that? Very different ethical actions
@13
I tend to think that 1) writing the memo and then 2) sticking himself in it is so stupid as to pretty much disqualify him.
Somehow reminds me of “Basic Instinct”.
@ 17
I do hope you’re not chairing an ethics task force somewhere.
So you think that lying about your identity to get to the truth, and lying about what truth is are identical ethically, or are you making flat humor?
The ends for one action is to get the truth, the ends for the other is to make up the truth.
keith what amazes me is that no professional journalist wants to tell the story. It’s a great story. Same with climategate. Just the story.
grypo. intelligence has nothing to do with a crime of passion. The Macarthur genius is intelligent. Intelligent enough to think that he can get away with it.
Smart people usually make the worst criminals. Especially in their first attempt. It’s the over confidence that gets them. You must be aware of the genius syndrome. Where a man get an award in one area and thinks that he is smart in all areas.
Let’s take his fishing expedition for example. Stupid stupid stupid. He was stupid to use googlemail. Stupid to send email to 15 people. Stupid to go silent on twitter. stupid to send the mail from a US location. stupid to send mail AT ALL. If he believed that the “memo’ was real, sending it by email
was a stupid move. using heartlandinsider as a name was stupid.
he had a perfect example of how to leak information like this and he was too stupid and arrogant to do it the right way.
Steve McIntyre, do you believe that Gleick’s actions were ‘authorised’ from above (I’m not sure what above would be, AGU perhaps?), which would seem to be a requirement for your analogy to hold any power?
That’s not really a convincing argument. The question of his knowledge in computers and leaking information is pretty bad. This does not suggest that he is stupid enough to believe that document is helpful.
harrywr2 @9
It’s only “˜very clearly dishonest’ to people who share your “˜world view’.
No, I disagree – I think the NIPCC report can be established objectively to be dishonest.
I think your use of the Himalayan glacier error is a good counter example. An arguable case can be made that it was confirmation bias on the part of at least a small group of people that resulted in the error getting through to the final report, but there is no obvious evidence of any active dishonesty nor any motive for it.
By contrast the NIPCC report is deliberately set up to mimic the IPCC reports and those responsible for putting it together are fully aware of the scientific processes that they violate.
@ 20
I don’t need ethical identity (but do revisit #6 on this subject) to see that a crook shouldn’t be teaching other people about ethics.
OP,
There is a secret cult in the US out to destroy the planet.
They have no love for their children or their grandchildren. They are greedy and evil.
Their stated mission is to amass as much wealth as is humanly possible, spend it on gaudy, earthly, sinful things, then leave the planet uninhabitable for future generations so nobody can have as much fun as they do.
They have so much wealth that, though they operate openly in plain view, their existence is known only to very few people. They have a secret handshake and hold secret meetings in a deep underground cavern in North Dakota.
You don’t want them to know you’re on to them.
kdk33
You need to read Bakan. Then you might understand more about the whys and wherefores of corporate behaviour.
Nutty right-wing billionaires are a separate problem.
I think the story’s over. As a more-than-averagely interested person, who’d seen Gleick’s spat with Tamsin, with HI on Forbes, and laughed at his BS awards I was kinda gripped by the insanity of it, and excellent articles like Megan McCardle kept that going. The exposure of HI, exposing precisely nothing, was also interesting, as the myth of any form of ‘organised’ anti-science climate resistance persists.
But it’s over now, the Gleick bit.
There is an ‘anti-climate’ 🙂 movement, but it’s broadly anti ill-argued climate policy. I recall SMc got interested as a result of a Canadian government leaflet telling him that the world was ending and we needed to take drastic action now? I got interested when major policy decisions started being taken. And, not unnaturally, some of those questioning/opposing policy question the policies’ efficacy or economics, and some of them the scientific basis for those policies. As is the case for any policy debate, like social benefits, medicare, anything.
The nonsense about organised fossil-fuel stuff driving the whole thing is just that, nonsense.
Imho.
Gleick 1.0 is dying down – agreed.
Gleick 2.0 will begin when we find out whether or not Gleick wrote the fake memo.
We will eventually find this out.
My money is on Gleick as the author.
It doesn’t make sense that it was sent to him.
It makes sense to me that he wrote it after he was bored by the documents he tricked out of HI.
Crazy yes – but Gleick appears to be desperate.
His cause is failing and the ends justifies the means (in his mind).
The Gleick affair (and some of the comments here) illustrate well the plight of climate science right now.
The momentum is gone and the climate initiatives have stalled. One obvious reason is that governments are not willing to pour cash on projects so willingly during recession, be it renewable energy or cutting of emissions (Score one brownie point for economic growth). The other is that the power of climate science to “deliver” has fallen far short of the expectations. What was that line from Top Gun? “Your ego is writing checks your body can’t cash”. Unprecedented temperature rises, extreme weather events, ice-free Arctic sea, climate refugees…. where are they?
Joe Public is yawning and frankly, far more interested to know when his mortgage will surface from its underwater status.
Opatrick repeats himself, “I think the NIPCC report can be established objectively to be dishonest.”I suppose that’s your rationalization for not condemning the theft and probable forging of a document. What IF the NIPCC are NOT dishonest, but have similar motives to Glieck himself, altruistic motives of basing policy on good science and creating policy that is in the best interests of mankind or at leat our country. Judith Curry remarked that she had no reason to think the Heartland folk dishonest. Like her, I’m not impressed by a lot of their work, but dishonest is another thing altogether. I doubt that you can establish the dishonesty of the NIPCC report and am waiting for you do do so. To call persons dishonest without providing any evidence is…ah…dishonet.
Re #22 – when Liddy, Hunt and the others were sentenced in January 1973, nothing was known about authorization from “above”. It was suspected but not established. “Authorization” from above was not an element of the offence as charged. Nor is it relevant to whether Gleick committed an offence. The point of similarity that prompted the post was the identity of Gleick’s objective and the burglaries: a donors’ list. This straightfoward point seems highly relevant but has not been noted by commenters.
#15 – Keith, as someone who was of age in the period, I don’t think that your backcasting of the 1990s into the 1970s is applicable. Nor do I think that Liddy was regarded as a martyr for the Cause at the time, as much as a loose cannon and a dangerous freak (even by and perhaps particularly by the higher ups in the RNC), to which his maintaining his code of omerta contributed. I agree that Liddy’s Watergate notoriety contributed to his book sales, but there was an appetite at the time for the stories of each of the participants without any endorsement of their conduct. And even if Liddy was in some sense regarded as a “martyr” by the time of his talk show in the 90s, it was because he hadn’t flinched at a 20-year sentence and had maintained his omerta throughout his jail sentence. No one praised him as a “hero” for the break-in itself (as some have done for Gleick’s fraud.)
Jarmo @30:
I agree with everything you said.
I also think the initiatives have stalled because we really don’t have an economic non-carbon source of baseload electricity.
By economic, I mean cheaper than oil, gas or coal.
Only nuclear and hydro is baseload, but nuclear is more expensive than oil, gas or coal and hydro is pretty much peaked in the USA (we have dammed everything we are going to dam).
Wind and solar are intermittent, so not baseload – and therefore will not work until we have power storage technology.
So, bottom line – there is no solution which is technologically within our grasp – even if we all agreed to switch over to non-carbon generating electricity production.
The big switchover will not happen unless we invent non-carbon baseload power production which is actually cheaper than oil, gas and/or coal.
Look at propane for trucks – the switchover is beginning to happen in the USA. Why? Propane is cheaper now.
So in addition to huge doubts about the amount of feedback warming we will suffer – there is the economics (which are terrible).
That is why Gleick went crazy (IMHO).
It makes sense to me that he wrote it after he was bored by the documents he tricked out of HI.
If someone could explain to me how this “makes sense,” I’d sure appreciate it. There’s nothing in the “fake” memo that’s not in the memos Heartland acknowledged as real. If he was going to go to the trouble (and risk) of forging, why not put something good in there?
Doug Allen @ 31
It’s a bit of a dilemma for Heartland apologists. On the one hand, if their ‘experts’ are so crap they don’t know that the NIPCC ‘report’ is a misrepresentation of the science then they can be honest. But they most certainly are not ‘expert’.
On the other hand, if they know their onions they will know that the stuff peddled by HI is nonsense and they would have to be dishonest to promote it (or be involved in writing or even commissioning it).
So – incompetent or dishonest? It’s a tough one. Perhaps you could argue that they were both? Spread the liability a bit… 🙂
PDA – “If he was going to go to the trouble (and risk) of forging, why not put something good in there?”
You seem to be asking why someone doing something stupid wasn’t smarter about it. While the fake memo was based on real items, someone who is obviously a zealot wrote it framing items from the other documents in the light they wanted. A K-12 education plan became “dissuading teachers from teaching science”, a $25,000 donation from Koch for healthcare became $200,000, the NIPCC became something to “undermine” the IPCC.
RickA’s theory makes sense in that like everyone else Gleick was pretty underwhelmed by what was obtained from HI and spiced it up in the fake memo. The language in that memo jumped out as suspicious right from the start, it makes less sense that Gleick would have received such a bogus sounding memo and set out to break laws to expose HI based on it.
@ 32 Steve M:
Nor do I think that Liddy was regarded as a martyr for the Cause at the time, as much as a loose cannon and a dangerous freak (even by and perhaps particularly by the higher ups in the RNC), to which his maintaining his code of omerta contributed.
Absolutely correct; Liddy was almost universally regarded as a lunatic with a law degree.
PDA @34:
There’s nothing in the “fake” memo that’s not in the memos Heartland acknowledged as real.
Wrong!
“[D]issuading teachers from teaching science” is not in any of the HI documents acknowledged as real.
He thought he did put something good in there. Especially in light of his new role on the board of NCSE.
LA times view of G Gordon and his college debates with Timothy Leary circa 1989.
“Some call it a semiserious debate with comic topspin, others call it a dog-and-pony show blatantly capitalizing on the eccentric reputations of both men”
http://articles.latimes.com/1989-07-12/entertainment/ca-3542_1_timothy-leary
There’s nothing in the “fake” memo that’s not in the memos Heartland acknowledged as real.
I appreciate the climate zealots continuing to demonstrate their dishonesty.
The casual repetition of blatant, easily disproved fabrications like PDA’s makes it easy to demonstrate to even the non-scientific MEGO crowd how the alarmist camp routinely lies to promote their cause.
BBD Says:
On the other hand, if they know their onions they will know that the stuff peddled by HI is nonsense and they would have to be dishonest to promote
Almost no one is capable of seeing past their own ideological biases…even if they work at it.
When you say ‘if they know their onions’ what you mean is ‘if they see things correctly like I do’.
Khrushchev accused Kennedy of being ‘dishonest’ when Kennedy took Khrushchev to the slums of New York to let Khrushchev see our ‘poor people’. There were TV antennas on the roofs. Khrushchev could not conceive that ‘poor people’ would have televisions.
Khrushchev being the ‘good communist’ he was believed that capitalism produced great economic disparities…and it does…it also produces enough so that even poor people can have TV’s. In his ‘communist country’ even the ‘middle class’ didn’t have TV’s.
harrywr2
When you say “˜if they know their onions’ what you mean is “˜if they see things correctly like I do’.
No, I meant if they had a reasonable understanding of the field. I really couldn’t have been plainer. You have inserted your own biased interpretation here 🙂
BBD Says:
No, I meant if they had a reasonable understanding of the field
Does Dr Richard Lindzen, a member of the National Acedemy of Science since 1977, where is his expertise is listed as climate, meteorology, atmospheric dynamics,and climate feedbacks have a ‘reasonable understanding’ of the field?
How about this guy?
http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/atmos/christy2011/index.html
Dr. John R. Christy is the Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville
So please inform me by what objective standard I should judge ‘who has a reasonable understanding of the field’?
Should I believe Dr Peter Gleick…a ‘water expert’ over Dr Richard Lindzen? How about believing Gavin Schmidt…who is a computer programmer? How about the cartoonist that runs skeptical science?
BBD,
I agree with Harry about the difficulty of seeing past one’s ideological bias.
I notice Opatrick hasn’t come around to disprove his dishonesty, but, like the Heartland folks, I don’t really consider him dishonest, just unable to see past his strong bias. I wonder if BBD has read the NIPCC report and can support his statements of misrepresentation. I admit I have not. I have read parts of it and all of the IPCC 4th assessment. My impression is that neither the IPCC nor the NIPCC are dishonest; careless occasionally and biased, yes, but mainly biased. Both are over-reaching in their conclusions based on a lot of uncertainty and unknowns about attribution and climate sensitivity. I think its unhelpful and uncharitable to assume others are dishonest or incompetant unless you have strong evidence. I see name calling, but no evidence.
The fake memo was written to FRAME the documents.
To draw attention to key points
To tell a story where Gleick is a part of their strategy and where Revkin and curry are comprimised.
THAT is what clued me in. Nobody puts that stuff in a strategy. Gleick egotistically needed to see Taylors fight with him as a part of their strategy. And he needed to try to marginalize Revkin and Curry.
When I explained to Revkin that Gleick was the likely author , his response:
well that makes sense given what the memo says about me
Doug Allen, assuming you are engaged in this debate you will have seen the discussions about the NIPCC report and if you are not convinced by the evidence of the dishonesty of those behind it then nothing I say will change your mind.
But that was not my point, I want the main-stream media to be taking up and presenting this evidence because I believe that the large majority of people who simply don’t know much about climate change would be convinced of their dishonesty. If it turns out I am wrong about their dishonesty being objectively identifiable then fine – but I am not.
The aim of the NIPCC report was to try to present a (false) balance in people’s minds, an equivalence between the IPCC reports and this pastiche. This false sense of balance filters down into the limited understanding that most people have about climate change and reduces their sense of urgency about the problems we face. Doubt is a comforting message and most people don’t have the time or the inclination to find out if that doubt is justified. That is where the main-stream media should be stepping in. They should be giving the context that allows people to make informed decisions.
#46
Can you imagine a situation in which people and the leaders of a nation are apparently aware of the dangers of AGW, support the IPCC conclusions and yet choose not to cut emissions?
If not, look at for example China. Are they making informed decisions?
Jarmo, yes of course I can. Every government, and every individual, has competing priorities. Better understanding of the issues mean better informed decisions.
This Lindzen? Deliberate misrepresentation is not confidence inspiring. And since Lindzen is properly qualified, it cannot be stupidity or ignorance (see 35). Let’s also remember that Lindzen’s various attempts to demonstrate mechanisms for a low climate sensitivity have resulted in seriously flawed papers which have prompted multiple replies*.
I think after failing to defend his low climate sensitivity hypothesis for so long, Lindzen yet still vigorously promoting it – to partisans – Lindzen has lost much if not all credibility.
Christy likewise, and for the same reasons. His ideas simply do not stand up to scrutiny, and only ‘sceptics’ now take them seriously.
Schmidt is a climate modeller – not just a generic ‘computer programmer’. This sort of misrepresentation is a waste of time harry.
I’d be inclined to take the expert opinion of the entire field of atmospheric physics over the unsupported views of Lindzen and Christy. They are entirely isolated and have never succeeded in making a convincing case for their ideas.
You only prefer the tiny minority over the majority expert position if you are biased.
#48
Seems like we agree on something 🙂
Not surprisingly, when countries like Canada and Russia compare the costs and benefits of AGW in their particular countries and the wealth their fossil fuel industries generate , a “No thanks” to Kyoto extension results.
You only prefer the tiny minority over the majority expert position if you are biased.
This is a (very) weak appeal to authority. It is actually an appeal to the majority. It is a logical fallacy. It is not science.
Many people think this way and the IPCC (and RC and CP and BBD and etc) promote this kind of thinking. It isn’t working.
It is the first illogical steap towards tyranny of the majority. Which we have covered ad-nauseum elsewhere.
@43
“How about believing Gavin Schmidt”¦who is a computer programmer?”
ummm. really?
Harry-coal-bot you need to step up your game beyond spouting random quotes on the delivered price of coal in west virginia. Defending Lindzen and Christy and then calling Schmidt a ‘computer programmer’?
Methinks your delusions are starting to show….
Opatrick- Of course, I have read discussions of the NIPCC report, some aleging dishonestly. Glieck comes to mind right away! I also have read parts of the NIPCC reports and all of the IPCC 4th assessment. There are blogs devoted to discrediting much in both of them. You and BBD make accusations without evidence. I asked if you had read the NIPCC report and could show evidence of dishonesty. If you study both sides you’ll figure out why there is no closure to these scientific arguments about attribution and climate sensitivity. There is not enough evidence to be persuasive one way or the other. We are no nearer closure now than 10 years ago when the fear of CAGW WAS the consensus and rightly so after 20 years of significant warming from 1978-1998. Because that warming ended so soon, it did not turn out to be unprecedented or unusual, but statistically the same as the 1920-1942 warming, as Phil Jones and others have stated. So here we are 15 years later, all waiting to see if model projections by the IPCC, so far projecting much more warming than is happening, or the models of climate scientists like Christy and Lindzen with much lower climate sensitivity are more accurate (they are so far) or if the growing number of solar scientists and some climate scientists whose models project cooling- if they are right. I’m not picking a horse because, as has been discussed ad infinitum in many scientific journals and blogs, there is not enough empirical evidence- the temperature record- to falsify any of those hypotheses yet. Rants by those ideologically committed to one side or the other are just that- rants and do not help. Let’s rant less and try to get done those things we agree on: reducing carbon soot emissions, continuing to study alternative enegy supplies and gradually switch over to those that prove to have the least downside and are the most cost effective, protecting biomes such as tropical forests and other areas where biodiversity and its ecology is threatened. I’m a conservationist and a environmental educator and have witnessed the tragedy of unintended consequences by the CAGW alarmist policies- food poverty from using food for fuel and the clear cutting of tropical forests for the monoculture of palm oil plantations. Please, let’s have a thoughtful discussion about climate and create policy that doesn’t make things worse.
On kicking Gleick out of academia: He’s not in academia. He works for a private-sector company, The Pacific Institute, not a college or university.
On Watergate: yes, the burglary bears a closer resemblance to Liddy and Hunt than to Ellsberg, but the big deal with Watergate was the White-House’s role in orchestrating the plumbers and covering up their crimes. For McIntyre’s analogy to work, there would have to be evidence that Gleick’s theft was part of a conspiracy by the IPCC leadership rather than the isolated act of a loose cannon.
On Ellsberg: I join in rejecting the analogy. There’s a big difference between the government keeping its activities secret from the public that elected it and a private firm keeping its activities secret. Private firms have rights to privacy that governments don’t, while governments have unique duties of accountability and transparency that don’t apply to the private sector.
A more plausible analogy than Ellsberg might be Jeffrey Wigland (the whistle-blower who leaked the Brown and Williamson tobacco files), but in that case the leaked documents provided powerful evidence of perjury by tobacco company executives and there is no such smoking gun in the Heartland documents and thus, much less justification for stealing and leaking them.
Julian Assange is probably the closest analogy; one which reflects very poorly on Gleick.
@ 54
In this case, perhaps he could be kicked into the academia. As mentioned below, left-wing criminal types enjoy certain demand there.
BBD Says:
I’d be inclined to take the expert opinion of the entire field of atmospheric physics over the unsupported views of Lindzen and Christy,You only prefer the tiny minority over the majority expert position if you are biased.
Great..so now we’ve established that anyone who believes a ‘minority’ expert opinion is biased. Believing the ‘minority expert opinion’ doesn’t have anything to do with ‘knowing your onions’ or being ‘dishonest’.
The ‘prevailing’ scientific view that the earth was the center of the Universe was first challenged in the 3rd century BC. The ‘majority view’ lasted all the way into the 1600’s.
Even then, the ‘new majority view’ that the sun was the center of the Universe was also ‘incorrect’ and it wasn’t until the last century that it was overturned.
How about a more current example.
My wifes total cholesterol is 260. It has always been that high. For the last 20 years she has been having her annual exams and the doctor would test her cholesterol and then prescribe medicine that promptly made her sick.
1st ‘science’ told us that all’cholesterol was bad and ‘total cholesterol’ was the measure. Anyone over 240 needed to be medicated
Then science decided there was good cholesterol and bad cholesterol…LDL higher then 100 was ‘bad’ and HDL less then 50 was ‘bad’. In either of those groups you need to be medicated.
Now science has decided the ‘ratio’ of HDL to LDL should be considered.
My wifes HDL is 130. The testing equipment they have at ‘cholesterol screening clinics’ doesn’t even measure HDL that high. Her ratio of good cholesterol to bad cholesterol is exceptionally good and always has been.
All those years of resigning herself to dieing of heart disease at an early ages because the medicine made her so ill she couldn’t take it and the cholesterol was supposedly causing heart disease.
Yes…I’m biased…IMHO ‘Science’ has a tendency of suffering from hubris and making ‘conclusions’ before all the facts are known.
harrywr2
Great..so now we’ve established that anyone who believes a “˜minority’ expert opinion is biased.
No, we’ve established that Lindzen and Christy have been unable to provide evidence for their hypothesis. We’ve established that as a consequence they are academically isolated (hence in a very, very small minority of contrarian opinion).
We’ve established that preferring the unsupported views of isolated contrarians is illogical and demonstrates bias.
kdk33
This is a (very) weak appeal to authority. It is actually an appeal to the majority. It is a logical fallacy. It is not science.
What’s so funny about this is that you don’t see that when you reference Lindzen or Spencer on sensitivity you are appealing to authority (albeit very marginal authority lacking support or credibility).
How is it that Lindzen *is* science (although nobody agrees with him and he cannot demonstrate the mechanisms he hypotheses) and all the other studies that contradict him and *do* withstand scrutiny are *not* science?
How does that work?
You are *seriously* confused. Well, actually, *biased* and confused 🙂
Harry-coal-bot seems to be suffering from a galileo complex in addition to his well documented obsession with the delivered price of coal in west Texas.
The problem BBD is that once you ditch Lindzen and Spencer whose left to help keep you in the first stage of denial? I guess you could always try Spencer, Scafetti, or Shaviv. I should stop there as I don’t want to be seen as enabling other people’s delusions…
“No, we’ve established that Lindzen and Christy have been unable to provide evidence for their hypothesis.”
Do they have hypothesis, or have they simply demonstrated convincingly that BBD’s preferred hypothesis are incorrect? As if nature hasn’t already done that.
Think of Einstein, who when asked what he thought of large number of scientist who disagreed with him, noted that if he were wrong it would only take one scientist to show it.
BBD,
You are mistaken again. Lindzen, for example, and Jones, Trenberth or any other IPCC scientist are agreed on the greenhouse effect that Arrhenius and others discovered and wrote about. No disagreement on the mechanism. The disagreement is on the feedbacks (from mainly water vapor and clouds) with the IPCC scientists creating models that project high sensitivity and Lindzen et al creating models that project lower sensitivity. Since the role of water vapor and clouds is poorly understood (as both sides admit) there is NO contradiction of either side yet. Climate sensitivity (and attribution) are what is uncertain, and the models (hypotheses) of the several sides are bing tested against the empirical record, the temperature. Unless you have a crystal ball and know future global temperatures, it’s foolish to make stong claims about which side is right. We don’t know.
Dough Allen
BBD You are mistaken again.
Here is an incomplete list of replies in the literature to Lindzen starting with his ‘infra-red iris’ hypothesis (Lindzen et al. 2001) and working forward as he variously modifies his arguments for low climate sensitivity:
Hartmann & Michelsen (2002)
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0477%282002%29083%3C0249%3ANEFI%3E2.3.CO%3B2
Lin et al. (2002)
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0442%282002%29015%3C0003%3ATIHANO%3E2.0.CO%3B2
Harrison (2002)
http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2F1520-0477(2002)083%3C0597%3ACODTEH%3E2.3.CO%3B2
Fu et al (2002)
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/2/31/2002/acp-2-31-2002.html
Replies to Lindzen & Choi (2009)/Spencer & Braswell (2009):
Trenberth et al. (2010)
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2009GL042314.shtml
Lin et al. (2010)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022407310001226
Murphy et al. (2010)
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2010GL042911.shtml
Dessler (2010)
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6010/1523.abstract
Replies to Lindzen & Choi (2011)/Spencer & Braswell (2011):
Dessler (2011)
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/pip/2011GL049236.shtml
Lindzen and Spencer have not provided robust arguments for low climate sensitivity. If you are quixotic enough to keep on arguing that ‘we don’t know’ (which is nonsense – we have a fairly good idea now) then take it up with the authors above, not me. Post the correspondence here.
What’s so funny about this is that you don’t see that when you reference Lindzen or Spencer on sensitivity you are appealing to authority (albeit very marginal authority lacking support or credibility).
Seriously? What are you talking about, BBD? I have not appealed to anyone.
OTOH, your argument above is argumentum ad hominem; it is tu quoque. Another logical fallacy.
How is it that Lindzen *is* science (although nobody agrees with him and he cannot demonstrate the mechanisms he hypotheses) and all the other studies that contradict him and *do* withstand scrutiny are *not* science?
Again, what in the world are you talking about? (Although it is worth pointing out that the available observational data supports low climate sensitivity)
You are *seriously* confused. Well, actually, *biased* and confused
Yes, BBD, you keep insisting that anyone who disagrees with you is rich, evil, or defective. This is also argumentum ad hominem, a logical fallacy.
Yawn…
As regards you #62.
I think everyone is convinced that you have masterd the cut and paste function and that skeptical science is in your list of favorites.
Perhaps you could discuss the physics. Tell us, in your words, why Lindzen is wrong and, again in your words, the physics you find more compelling, and why. That would be a nice change of pace.
kdk33
If, instead of being a lazy troll, you read through the (abstracts only) list above, you could answer your own question.
I’ve spent literally hours explaining things to you over the last few weeks – to no avail – so if you really want to know, stop being so effing idle and skim through those abstracts yourself.
We’re getting to the point where I’m going to stop responding to your rubbish again. It’s a vexatious waste of time.
OTOH, your argument above is argumentum ad hominem; it is tu quoque. Another logical fallacy.
I love it when boneheads like kdk33 start wittering on about formal logic. You have to smile.
@BBD
FWIW you’ve lasted far, far longer than I would have predicted. Your perseverance is awe inspiring 😉
We’re getting to the point where I’m going to stop responding to your rubbish again. It’s a vexatious waste of time.
Yes, you’ve been promising this for some time.
boneheads like kdk33
This is argumentum ad homenim. Have you anything meaningful to offer.
I’ve spent literally hours explaining things to you over the last few weeks
No, you’ve spent hours convincing me you cannot do highschool math, or parse physics at even an elementery level. OTOH, you are able to cut and paste and copy other peoples work. And argue various logical fallacies.
Marlowe
Kind words indeed, but I’m a fool. I’d have been better off down the pub 🙂
kdk33
This is argumentum ad homenim [sic]. Have you anything meaningful to offer.
Nope. I’ve wasted enough time on you to realise that you aren’t capable of rational thought. So from now on, I’ll be erring toward the ad hominem as it’s more fun and less time-consuming.
If you are going to ponce around with Latin tags you need to spell them correctly. Or you come across as a pompous but illiterate buffoon, which (though undeniably an achievement) is not the desired effect.
BBD,
Bravo, you’re showing evidence of the widespread criticism of Lindzen’s attempt to understand feedback. As you know, there are many papers back and forth by the scientists about the competing theories of feedback. This is science, and there will be many papers that don’t hold up to new knowledge and there will continue to be many false leads. Earlier you accused Lindzen of dilerberate misrepresentation- a far cry from the scientific method at work with lots of competing models of climate sensitivity. I could easily present links to a dozen papers in the literature that are replies to Trenberth, Dessler, and the other’s attempt to understand feedback. That’s why I indicated before that climate sensitivity is the heart of the problem of knowing whether our increasing emissions of CO2 will be CAGW (high sensitivity) or just AGW (low sensitivity). Both sides admit that it’s a very complex scientific problem that is poorly understood. We should both be glad that scientists are wrestling with it. Because its so complex, it looks doubtful that our present GHG understanding and theory will provide the answer, and we’ll have to do what you don’t want- apply scientific method to test the competing model projections and thus the hypotheses they are based on. You want answers now, but the empirical (temperature) record doesn’t so far fit the projections of the CAGW models or the cooling models I previously referred to. Right now, and its way too early to be confident, the empirical (temperature) seems to be confirming the lower sensitivity models. Yes, you’re right, there are not robust arguments by Lindzen, Spencer, Trenberth or anybody else. Instead of arguing “we don’t know” which I think is the fair and accurate descrition at this point in climate science history, would you rather have me argue that the empirical record has already, after 15 years of flat-lining temperatures, established that the higher sensitivity models of the IPCC have been falsified? I thought not.
BBD, we are disagreeing about something very important that can’t be answered . There’s a lot of know-nothing argument about junk science out there which deserves your criticism. Don’t squander your respect by attacking those who strongly believe that scientifc method will decide theses issues and who, like you, consider it very important.
If you are going to ponce around with Latin tags you need to spell them correctly. Or you come across as a pompous but illiterate buffoon, which (though undeniably an achievement) is not the desired effect
Yes, name calling is certainly your strength. And spelling, of course.
Doug Allen
Earlier you accused Lindzen of dilerberate misrepresentation- a far cry from the scientific method at work with lots of competing models of climate sensitivity.
I did. He did. So…?
I could easily present links to a dozen papers in the literature that are replies to Trenberth, Dessler, and the other’s attempt to understand feedback.
Then let’s see ’em. All dozen.
Both sides admit that it’s a very complex scientific problem that is poorly understood.
Overstatement. Convergent results from a variety of methodological approaches strongly suggest the 2007 best estimate of ~3C ECS for 2xCO2 is about right.
Because its so complex, it looks doubtful that our present GHG understanding and theory will provide the answer, and we’ll have to do what you don’t want- apply scientific method to test the competing model projections and thus the hypotheses they are based on.
Er, when did I proscribe any methodological approach? You are making stuff up and repeating your previous incorrect overstatement.
Right now, and its way too early to be confident, the empirical (temperature) seems to be confirming the lower sensitivity models.
Wrong. Really badly wrong. You need to read this. Right away.
Instead of arguing “we don’t know” which I think is the fair and accurate descrition at this point in climate science history, would you rather have me argue that the empirical record has already, after 15 years of flat-lining temperatures, established that the higher sensitivity models of the IPCC have been falsified?
Read Cohen et al.
Don’t squander your respect by attacking those who strongly believe that scientifc method will decide theses issues and who, like you, consider it very important.
I see very little respect for the scientific method in what Lindzen just did with GISTEMP, and what Spencer does with his ‘simple climate models’.
kdk33
And thinking straight 🙂
Keith,
The commentary herein demonstrates why climate reporters might not want to pursue the story. There would be all sorts of interesting angles on the Glieck morality story of noble cause corruption, but the context is so very difficult to understand. Few reporters- Revkin is an exception- have the scientific understanding to comprehend what all the claims and counterclaims are about. Even with dozens of books and over one hundred climate blogs, there is probably no neutral place to go and study climate science that both sides would consider neutral. With little neutrality, much name calling, and political narratives incorporating one overdrawn POV or the other, it’s very easy to become cynical about the understanding or good will of the other side. What is a poor reporter (who wants to be objective) to do? Furthermore, you have an increasing mumber of scientifically oriented conservationists and liberals like me who claim we have to wait for the answer as to whether CO2 emissions will be a substantial threat or not. That’s not what reporters want to hear. They want news, not the lack of it, even if that lack of news (understanding) is the important message.
Although both you and Revkin tend to be on the CAGW side, you’re both informed and try to be fair. I often send people here. I think the quickest way to understand the scientific disputes, IF you have a science background, is on Judith Curry’s site, but it would take many tens of hours. Science of Doom is a really good site for those with mathematical skill. Watts Up With That is slanted to the skeptical side and Real Climate to the IPCC side, but both are must reads, in my opinion, if just for their competing POVs and links to articles and other sites. Add the insight of Climate Audit and, for local color, the over-the-top, rants at Desmogblog and Junk Science. Tell a journalist to go to those sites and do the background study necessary to comprehend them. Sheesh!
And thinking straight
Thinking straight, or cut and paste… 😉
BBD – nice link to the IOP piece. All these years I thought cold temperatures caused snow, now I find out that snow CAUSES cold temperatures!
“large-scale cooling has occurred during
boreal winter over much of the NH landmasses over the last
two and a half decades” ok.
“Though we cannot conclude definitively that warming in
the summer and autumn is forcing winter regional cooling,
analysis of the most recent observational and modelling
data supports links between strong regional cooling trends
in the winter and warming trends in the prior seasons.” true or crap it’s only a REGIONAL effect.
The energy has to go somewhere. Global temps have decelerated/plateaued/cooled (bias dependent) for over 10 years. A regional effect won’t explain it away. Since energy can’t disappear and the NH is cooling in the winter, the SH would have to be absorbing the energy and warming faster, but it’s not.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vnh/from:1978/plot/hadcrut3nh/from:1978/trend/plot/hadcrut3vsh/from:1978/plot/hadcrut3vsh/from:1978/trend
That’s the kind of stuff you hold to support the ‘worse than we thought’ meme? Jeez.
D. Robinson
true or crap it’s only a REGIONAL effect.
Not so. It accounts for the flat trend in global average temperature over the last decade according to Cohen et al. (2012) (a separate paper) that provides a detailed spatial and seasonal analysis of temperature trends.
See fig. 3 and fig 4. below the abstract or the full draft paper here. The NH extratropical DJF temperatures are depressing GAT:
175 Analysis of monthly and annual temperatures over the past decade shows that the
176 positive global temperature trend has become insignificant and small. Based on previously
177 reported analysis of the observations and modelling studies this is neither inconsistent with
178 a warming planet nor unexpected; and computation of global temperature trends over
179 longer periods does exhibit statistically significant warming. However, upon examining the
180 trends seasonally, more interesting and significant findings are discovered. In examining
181 the NH extratropical landmasses, the biggest contributor to global temperature trends, we
182 find substantial divergence in trends between boreal winter and the other three seasons. A
183 statistically significant warming trend is absent across NH landmasses during DJF going
184 back to at least 1987, with either wintertime near-neutral or cooling trends. In contrast,
185 significant warming is found for the other three seasons over the same time period.
That’s the kind of stuff you hold to support the “˜worse than we thought’ meme? Jeez.
Denial is not going to make this go away. The flat trend in GAT is looking likely to be anthropogenic – and the rest of the world is warming exactly as projected (see observations vs CMIP5 Fig 3.)
The quote from Cohen et al (2012) is a mess. Sorry. Here it is again, tidied up (emphasis added):
“Analysis of monthly and annual temperatures over the past decade shows that the positive global temperature trend has become insignificant and small. Based on previously reported analysis of the observations and modelling studies this is neither inconsistent with a warming planet nor unexpected; and computation of global temperature trends over longer periods does exhibit statistically significant warming. However, upon examining the trends seasonally, more interesting and significant findings are discovered. In examining the NH extratropical landmasses, the biggest contributor to global temperature trends, we find substantial divergence in trends between boreal winter and the other three seasons. A statistically significant warming trend is absent [emphasis as original] across NH landmasses during DJF going back to at least 1987, with either wintertime near-neutral or cooling trends. In contrast, significant warming is found for the other three seasons over the same time period.”
BBD – Come on, they cherry picked the dates and are defensively trying to explain something that NOBODY saw coming, cooler winters. With a start date prior to 1987 or an end date prior to 2010 the data doesn’t cooperate. ‘Oh yes, the models predicted cooler winters as a consequence of global warming.’ Well I call BS.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/time-series/index.php?parameter=tmp&month=2&year=2012&filter=3&state=110&div=0
‘Cooler winters’ are ‘neither inconsistent with a warming planet nor unexpected;” BS.
Michael Mann 2007 – “As warm winters become more prevalent, we can’t say that that particular one was due to climate change, but what we can see is that sixes are coming up more often than they should be.”
Gavin Schmidt 2007 “Global warming is like, year on year, giving a small push toward warmer winters,”
Think Progress 2011 “the primary effect of global warming on winter is, well, warmer temperatures “” making white Christmases less likely.”
I could go on and on. Climate Scientists once again moving the damned goal posts rather than saying, ‘yes we’re surprised’.
Same old frustrating BS.
I said, earlier:
Finding a writing comparison specialist (as opposed to bunch of non-specialists speculating with software they don’t know how to use) ““ someone who can take several people at Heartland (Bast, Taylor, Lehr, etc) and see who would be closest to the writer, and an explanation about the certainty .
An expert did look, at least, at Gleick and Bast according to a report followed up on by Watts. It looked at these two only and came to the conclusion that it was more likely Gleick than Bast.
Finer points:
even the full-length document is rather short for an accurate analysis. Most authorship attribution experts recommend larger samples if possible. (E.g., Eder recommends 3500 words per sample, noting that results obtained from fewer than 3000 words are simply disastrous.”)
we have observed that Bast and Gleick appear to have extremely similar writing styles.
the JGAAP system identi ed the author of the complete (unredacted) memo as Peter Gleick, despite the large amount of text that even Bast admits is largely taken from genuine writings of the Heartland Institute. We justify this result by observing, that much of the quotation is actual paraphrase, and the amount of undisputed writing is still nearly 2/3 of the full memo.
the analytic method that correctly and reliably identified twelve of twelve authors in calibration testing also selected Gleick as the author of the disputed document. [over Bast]
Even with the uncertainty, I’d say this eliminates Bast as the the likely writer.
D. Robinson
BBD ““ Come on, they cherry picked the dates and are defensively trying to explain something that NOBODY saw coming, cooler winters. With a start date prior to 1987 or an end date prior to 2010 the data doesn’t cooperate. “˜Oh yes, the models predicted cooler winters as a consequence of global warming.’ Well I call BS.
Contiguous US temperatures? I think you need to read the linked studies again… carefully.
If you look again, you will see this (emphasis added):
Based on current literature and our own examination of the latest coupled climate models, the lack of a significant warming trend in winter spanning nearly three decades is not likely or expected (less than 10% of the [model] ensemble members analyzed in this study predicted no warming in winter). Therefore, we argue that any attribution study on the recent cessation of global warming should explicitly explain the seasonally asymmetric nature of the temperature trend.
The whole point here is that yes, the NH extratropical DJF flat trend *doesn’t* emerge from the regional modelling studies, and that Cohen and co-authors may well have found the mechanism: the anthropogenically warmed Arctic and its influence on October snowfall in Siberia.
I could go on and on. Climate Scientists once again moving the damned goal posts rather than saying, “˜yes we’re surprised’.
Some climate scientists are clearly doing rather more than merely being surprised. And the result is likely to be the end for the illusory comfort derived by ‘sceptics’ from the last decade of flat global average temperatures.
D. Robinson
Be sure to look at the spatial mapping in Fig 3. of the draft GRL paper (pdf here). Hopefully that should explain why looking at the contiguous US temperature data is not bringing clarity to this discussion.
BBD – I read your links. Simplistically, if the NH is warming 9 months a year, and cooling enough 3 months a year to flatten out the annual trend, where is the energy hiding during DJF?
BBD,
I did try to provide links to a dozen or more sites and my comment has been awaiting moderation now for over 20 hours!
I also tincluded a link to another view of Lindzen- this one-
I’m not goint to do your homework for you, but I will share a much more thoughtful view on Lindzen than you seem to hold-
http://judithcurry.com/2012/02/27/lindzens-seminar-at-the-house-of-commons/#comment-185327
D. Robinson
Do you not quite grasp how snow albedo works?
Doug Allen
WTF has Pete ‘Stalker’ Ridley go to do with anything? Or is this not the comment you meant to link? Or are you literally implying that Lindzen’s accusation of scientific misconduct against GISS is okay because UK energy policy is a bit broken at the moment? I’m really rather baffled.
BBD – yes thanks I do. I just couldn’t believe for a minute that BBD would promote a theory that shows the Earth’s climate system has, at least some, ability to self regulate it’s temperature.
Warmer spring summer fall = more snow in Eurasia = more reflected sunlight = colder winter = flat global temps? Sounds like the Earth has a thermostat after all.
What’s the theory for how the cycle breaks?
D. Robinson
I just couldn’t believe for a minute that BBD would promote a theory
Why? I’m not ‘promoting’ anything. I’m interested in the actual mechanisms at work. This has FA to do with politics or ‘tribalism’.
What’s the theory for how the cycle breaks?
Warming Eurasian Autumn temperatures turn October snowfall into rain. It’s worth bearing in mind that the 1988 – 2010 Sept Oct Nov trend for the NH extratropics as a whole (20N – poleward limit of measurement) is 0.49C/decade (CRUTEM3). See the Cohen (2012) GRL, Fig 3 (a). Also, the addition of Siberian stations to HADCRUT4 has increased GAT estimates over the last decade (Jones et al. 2012, in press):
Hemispheric temperature averages for land areas developed with the new CRUTEM4 dataset differ slightly from their CRUTEM3 equivalent. The inclusion of much additional data from the Arctic (particularly the Russian Arctic) has led to estimates for the Northern Hemisphere (NH) being warmer by about 0.1 for years since 2001. The NH/SH warms by 1.12/0.84C over the period 1901-2010.
Heartland caught hoisted by their own petard.
Mosher:
“keith what amazes me is that no professional journalist wants to tell the story. It’s a great story. Same with climategate. Just the story.”
The latter ‘story’ would include you, and you would not have control of that narrative. Wonder if you’re OK with having done to you what did to Jones et al? I have to admit, it would be poetic justice of a sort. I’m sure that story will be reported someday.
So manmade cooling is masking manmade warming. Not exactly Occams razor is it?
Let me see; no stratospheric cooling since 1995, no evident tropospheric hotspot; indicating no positive feedbacks, no ocean heating since accurate records began, no heating evident in the radiosonde data and no firm conclusions able to be drawn about OLR. Well sure there are a myriad of post-hoc excuses; some contradict each other, others contradict basic physics and apparently we are also now supposed to trust models over data thus contradicting both standard practice and common sense.
Or, a less pessimistic and rather more obvious finding is that multiple lines of evidence now indicate nothing unnatural happening at all. But if that was the case, we wouldn’t spend so much on climate research would we? Well I don’t expect turkeys to start voting for xmas but I wonder how long this non-warming will have to last before catastrophists are forced to admit this latest world-ending hypothesis is just as wrong as all the others that came before it.
If Gleik fabricated a document A reasonable person might then wonder just how rife such fabrication might be in such self-promoting circles. An indication to that can be given by the amount of people prepared to defend his actions, as if they would indeed do the same.
I note Lindzen apologized for an honest error in his presentation. I eagerly await Michael Manns apology over his use of upside down data and data-mining algorithms that almost buried the medieval warm period. Not that Lindzen was actually wrong about constant upwards adjustments in GISS; he just chose the wrong data set to prove it. Should have gone here:
http://www.real-science.com/new-giss-data-set-heating-arctic
Of course most people hate to admit they are wrong just as nobody can imagine ever having worn flared trousers in the seventies. It’s cool to be in with the in crowd. Even better when you can be self-righteous without ever having to do anything at all to prove you are greener than the rest of us.
“others contradict basic physics”
Which ones, proposed by whom?
And why do you write as if a linear relationship is expected between greenhouse gas emission and AGW indicators like stratospheric cooling across a span of 15 years , when it isn’t?
So manmade cooling is masking manmade warming.
Actually, global warming causes global cooling. It’s worse than we thought. ;-).