Fake Skeptics & Serial Climate Change Disinformation

[lukin]

Shady, there's a post and questions waiting for you over here - snap to it... chop, chop!

Waldo, you must be the owner of the world's largest tinfoil hat.

[waldo]

keep chirping lukin... you make Shady look like a braniac!

[lukin]

keep chirping lukin... you make Shady look like a braniac!

Waldo, what in your opinion is the true purpose of H.A.A.R.P.?

[Michael Hardner]

lukin - thanks for asking a question at least.

The thread is mired in insults.

[waldo]

Waldo, what in your opinion is the true purpose of H.A.A.R.P.?

the very nature of you questioning the, as you say, "true purpose" of HAARP, presupposes (on your part), a conspiracy theme... and just one post back you make reference to a "tinfoil hat"

now, conspiracy themes are a most prevalent fall-back for fake skeptics. What's your HAARP conspiracy flavour? A directed-energy weapon?... or perhaps an earthquake induction device?... or perhaps a mind control pursuit?... or, wait for it - weather control! Is that it, lukin? Weather control? Is that it? Is that what the U.S. Government, U.S. Navy, U.S. Air Force and DARPA are up to?

lay it out for us lukin - give us your best!

[lukin]

the very nature of you questioning the, as you say, "true purpose" of HAARP, presupposes (on your part), a conspiracy theme... and just one post back you make reference to a "tinfoil hat"

now, conspiracy themes are a most prevalent fall-back for fake skeptics. What's your HAARP conspiracy flavour? A directed-energy weapon?... or perhaps an earthquake induction device?... or perhaps a mind control pursuit?... or, wait for it - weather control! Is that it, lukin? Weather control? Is that it? Is that what the U.S. Government, U.S. Navy, U.S. Air Force and DARPA are up to?

lay it out for us lukin - give us your best!

You see, Michael,no one here dishes more insults than waldo. That is why he isn't very well respected.

I just simpley asked, waldo, what you think is the real purpose of HAARP.....just asking for your opinion, not a cut a pasted propaganda. Is it all conspiracy related, i don't know. what do you say?

[waldo]

I just simpley asked, waldo, what you think is the real purpose of HAARP.....just asking for your opinion, not a cut a pasted propaganda. Is it all conspiracy related, i don't know. what do you say?

what's the relevance of the question within this thread? Why don't you state your view/position before asking that of others? Is there a problem?

[lukin]

what's the relevance of the question within this thread? Why don't you state your view/position before asking that of others? Is there a problem?

I was asking you a question. But i realize you are not capable of answering a direct question. Your avoidance speaks volumes.

[waldo]

I was asking you a question. But i realize you are not capable of answering a direct question. Your avoidance speaks volumes.

what's the relevance of the question within this thread? Why don't you state your view/position before asking that of others? Is there a problem?

[waldo]

I was asking you a question. But i realize you are not capable of answering a direct question. Your avoidance speaks volumes.

questions? Still waiting for your answers lukin... still waiting! Is there a, uhhh... problem?

let's make the above questions clearer for you:

- has there been increased/accelerated warming in the relatively recent past? => YES or NO

- if YES, how much has it warmed in the relatively recent past?

- if NO, state your denial, loudly and proudly =>

State you deny that increased/accelerated warming has occurred in the relatively recent past

- if you accept increased/accelerated warming has occurred in the relatively recent past

- if you do not accept the principal causal tie to the relatively recent increased/accelerated warming has been anthropogenic sourced CO2 emissions, state your denial, loudly and proudly =>

State you deny that the principal causal tie for the relatively recent past increased/accelerated warming has been anthropogenic sourced CO2 emissions

- alternatively =>

State your attribution causal tie(s), those other than anthropogenic sourced CO2 emissions... and be prepared to support your position with appropriate reference(s)

- I have many times over stated agreement with the current IPCC consensus statement/position on (equilibrium) climate sensitivity - between 2 to 4.5 °C with a

best estimate of ~ 3 °C

of warming for a doubling of the concentration of atmospheric CO2. If you are not in agreement with the consensus statement/position on climate sensitivity =>

State your position on how much warming you interpret and associate with a doubling of the concentration of atmospheric CO2... and be prepared to support your position with appropriate reference(s)

[lukin]

questions? Still waiting for your answers lukin... still waiting! Is there a, uhhh... problem?

I guess you know nothing about HAARP. just say so. No need to dodge. You pretend to know everything, so I was interested in what your viewpoint on HAARP was. I guess you aren't able to give a simple opinion unless it's been written by one of your cohorts. Truly sad, waldo.

[waldo]

I guess you know nothing about HAARP. just say so. No need to dodge. You pretend to know everything, so I was interested in what your viewpoint on HAARP was. I guess you aren't able to give a simple opinion unless it's been written by one of your cohorts. Truly sad, waldo.

why your song and dance blustering? If you have something you want to say about HAARP, in this thread, you could speak to it's relevance... within this thread... and, of course, you could advise what significance you believe HAARP holds, you could advise what your position on HAARP is. I mean, after all, you brought it up!

what's the relevance of the question within this thread? Why don't you state your view/position before asking that of others? Is there a problem?

[lukin]

why your song and dance blustering? If you have something you want to say about HAARP, in this thread, you could speak to it's relevance... within this thread... and, of course, you could advise what significance you believe HAARP holds, you could advise what your position on HAARP is. I mean, after all, you brought it up!

I asked you about HAARP. What do you know about it? I don't know much about it. I thought you could get the ball rolling. but I realize your a one-trick pony. oh well.....

[waldo]

I asked you about HAARP. What do you know about it? I don't know much about it. I thought you could get the ball rolling. but I realize your a one-trick pony. oh well.....

you seem to know enough about it to couch your question in a degree of conspiracy. As I said, "the very nature of you questioning the, as you say, "true purpose" of HAARP, presupposes (on your part), a conspiracy theme.

let's recap: you drop a one-liner with an acronym reference to H.A.A.R.P. - you don't even identify what it is. You state nothing about it - nothing. You offer no comments of your own to even spur discussion. You draw no reference to linked comment - you provide no links/citations. You provide nothing! The only thing you did was throw a question out asking my opinion on the, as you stated, "true purpose of H.A.A.R.P". Other than as an insult vehicle, you certainly don't care what I think - why the/your charade?

again, again, again:

what's the relevance of the question within this thread? Why don't you state your view/position before asking that of others? Is there a problem?

[waldo]

as there's been a few liberties taken lately... rather than continue an existing catch-all thread derail, time to resurrect this thread to capture some of those (taken) liberties:

1) No - we don't know exactly what's going on in the North. There was a big to-do about the year 2007 having the most loss of ice in the sattellite record - but almost no news about the year 2013 being on par with the satellite period average. This year is still well within the 2 standard deviation window. Now that we are likely experiencing some cooling, who knows what the longer term trend might be? Read the overview and "Conditions in Context" in the link I've provided. Just keep an open mind.

3) Indeed - things are not as they might seem.....because the nature of the news media is to report sensationalism - to report the extraordinary. No one wants to read that ice and temperatures were the same as last year or that "we're reporting that there are no hurricanes".

Link: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

Simple, you've been repeatedly presented with both extent and volume status updates that show long-term Arctic sea-ice melting trends. You seem to perpetually fixate on extent while ignoring volume. I recall you harping on the "great 2013 recovery"! Of course, what you failed to grasp was that the 2013 extent level was still less than the comparative 1981-2010 average reference period... do you even understand what fitting within the standard deviation means... when it's with respect to the long-term melting trend? Oh my!

and, of course, you once again trot out your "cooling" idiocy! How many times must one state that a reduced rate of warming is not "cooling"? Notwithstanding, of course, as has been repeatedly shown, the so-called PAUSE... isn't. It isn't, whether you choose to fixate myopically on surface temperature (while ignoring the oceans)... or whether you choose to ignore the relatively recent Cowton/Way temperature processing updates/methodology... a study (and subsequents to it) that seem to be holding up quite well.

of course, we have a long way to go; however, into the second month of the 2014 Arctic melt, extent has only ever been lower at this point in one year previously (2011). Since you so touted the "2013 recovery" (out of the multi-decade melting trend), care to predict what's going to happen to that single-year 2013 ice? Will it become multi-year? C'mon, Simple... stand behind that much hyped denialsphere Arctic sea ice recovery!!! You know, that sensationalism you're highlighting, but to which you're quite accepting to... you quite like that type of fake-skeptic sensationalism, hey?
.

[waldo]

and again... yes, again... from a repeat disinformer on one of his favourite targets, we get to revisit "climate models vs. observations". Out of the several recent posts, the following captures the disinformation:

The "science" hasn't been able to accurately recreate the past - or even explain many of the historical "anomoles" - the computer models have been dreadful in predicting the future......

........but the determining factor in scientific theories is observation - and that's where the theories and models are found to be so wanting.

of course, in the past I've written some 'at length' commentary on the acknowledged limitations and deficiencies within climate models... areas that are actively being worked on by world-wide groups/bodies for improvements... always working to better the models. But just what has so emboldened Simple to get yet another model rise out of him? What could it be? More on that to follow, but first, a short revisit on (as I recall), the last MLW go-around that had the denialsphere in a tizzy... all because of a leaked DRAFT image from an early draft version of the latest IPCC AR5 WG1 report... again, DRAFT image! Simple managed to blow an "indecipherable spaghetti" gasket over that leaked image! In any case, a short extract of a related spaghetti precursor post that speaks to just how well climate model projections have done:

..... of course, why should one ever expect M&M to actually look at the data (the graph) and attempt to interpret if there might be a reason why the early draft... again early draft, version of the graph was changed... over the 10+ month period between the "leak" of the early draft and the final draft and this manufactured M&M BS. Of course, the "leak" itself is worthy of additional comment, particularly its origin... care to dance over that aspect, hey TimG? Notwithstanding, apparently, denialists have a most skewed point of recognizing what draft means... and "how dare the IPCC make changes for accuracy sake through iterative drafts".

in any case TimG, as a follower of the blog exchanges, you clearly knew I would come back with the following... are you simply looking for another outlet to push your loyalty to the M&M cause? As I mentioned, apparently M&M couldn't be bothered to actually look at the early draft data/graph... particularly the improper baseline associated with the early draft version:

- IPCC model global warming projections have done much better than you think --- Global warming since 1990 has fallen within the range of IPCC climate model projections

- Why Curry, McIntyre, and Co. are Still Wrong about IPCC Climate Model Accuracy

- Fake skeptic draws fake picture of Global Temperature
.

but hey now, as the waldo keyed on, let's see what actually came forward in the final published version of the WG1 report... as follows. Just what became of Simple's "indicipherable spaghetti" related to that leaked draft image? Simple, your spaghetti is still there along with an accompanying summation... care to comment on that accompanying summary image that follows below? The SKS boys at the same above Guardian link can help you if you're so inclined.

.

[waldo]

but the above post digresses from the referenced 'just what so emboldened member Simple'... to post several times about the failure of climate models to match/project observed temperatures? We were teased for a while, but it eventually came forward in this post:

You mean those 73 computer models - all of which failed to predict that there would be little if any warming over the last 17 years.....which collectively, on average, over-estimated the warming by an average of 3 to 4 degrees? You mean those historical models? I'll even post a link which you failed to do:

Link: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/climate-scientist-73-un-climate-models-wrong-no-global-warming-17
Link: http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=8926a1d3-f43f-4f8b-811d-0a0daa3e1012

so there it is! From the wunderkid deniers, Christy and Spencer... the infamous duo! They of the collective early failures of the UAH satellite temperature record... bailed out by real scientists who's efforts brought forward RSS as an ongoing check against UAH. Christy and Spencer responsible for the early years of casted doubt on and misinformation about the reliability of the surface temperature record(s)... Christy and Spencer responsible for the early long-standing "it's cooling" idiocy. Notwithstanding the outright lies from Christy to the U.S. Congress... notwithstanding the long-standing scientific failures of Spencer.

much has been written about this latest Christy (Spencer) model nonsense. A few take-away gems:

- CMIP climate models are global in nature - they are not intended as regional models. The IPCC is quite emphatic to this point. So, of course, that's exactly how Christy incorrectly used outputs from them... he compared the CMIP model outputs to the regional tropics, most particularly, the tropics troposphere temperature... and only a "mid-slice" within that troposphere!

- as it stands, notwithstanding there is no direct correlation between surface and satellite, there is a known discrepancy between the global surface temperatures and the mid-troposphere. It's an active area of study/analysis, one that seems to be currently focused on "satellite instrument problems". So, of course, Christy chooses this known discrepancy point... of course he does.

- currently there is a wide discrepancy between the UAH and RSS satellite outputs. For years and years they've tracked each other... more recently they've significantly departed. Current speculation is centered on satellite decay not being properly handled by RSS... speculation. In terms of Christy's "methodology", this is significant in that he simply grouped this most significant RSS versus UAH discrepancy by averaging them (along with the outputs from a couple of radiosondes). Christy does away with the satellite record discrepancy with a simple averaging!

- Christy chose only a single IPCC RCP scenario and the respective climate model outputs that were run against that single scenario... the 'worst case' scenario that few envison actually occurring. Of course he did.

- surface temperature records are baselined, typically, against 25-30 year periods of time. For 'whatever' reason, Christy chose to only use satellite temperature output against a 5 year baseline.

- etc., etc., etc.

well done Simple! I'm not sure if it reaches the level of some of your past 'worst', but it's a keeper, for sure!
.

[Keepitsimple]

but the above post digresses from the referenced 'just what so emboldened member Simple'... to post several times about the failure of climate models to match/project observed temperatures? We were teased for a while, but it eventually came forward in this post:

so there it is! From the wunderkid deniers, Christy and Spencer... the infamous duo! They of the collective early failures of the UAH satellite temperature record... bailed out by real scientists who's efforts brought forward RSS as an ongoing check against UAH. Christy and Spencer responsible for the early years of casted doubt on and misinformation about the reliability of the surface temperature record(s)... Christy and Spencer responsible for the early long-standing "it's cooling" idiocy. Notwithstanding the outright lies from Christy to the U.S. Congress... notwithstanding the long-standing scientific failures of Spencer.

much has been written about this latest Christy (Spencer) model nonsense. A few take-away gems:

well done Simple! I'm not sure if it reaches the level of some of your past 'worst', but it's a keeper, for sure!

.

Can't say I've missed your bluster and blah, blah, blah......but whether you realize it or not, you are saying one of two things or a combination of both:

1) Christy and Spencer were wrong - and all the models have accurately predicted the 17 year lull - and counting - in Global warming. But whether there is some miniscule technical shortcoming in their work - it has been acknowledged by just about everyone that there has been a long term lull that the models have not predicted.

2) The satellite data is wrong.

Waldo.....give yourself a good shake. The models overestimated the warming.....and satellites give a more accurate picture of warming - free of localized quality-control issues with land-based temperatures. It's OK Waldo - you're not dumb - you KNOW that computer models - with parameters that can be "adjusted" by programmers who are pre-disposed to confirming a warming climate.....are going to "predict" temperatures that continually over-estimate that warming. It's just human nature.

Edited June 2, 2014 by Keepitsimple

[waldo]

Waldo.....give yourself a good shake. The models overestimated the warming.....and satellites give a more accurate picture of warming - free of localized quality-control issues with land-based temperatures. It's OK Waldo - you're not dumb - you KNOW that computer models - with parameters that can be "adjusted" by programmers who are pre-disposed to confirming a warming climate.....are going to "predict" temperatures that continually over-estimate that warming. It's just human nature.

whaaa!... "quality control issues"!!! You clearly haven't a clue as to just what hoops are jumped through to arrive at the final satellite temperature records! Try as you might, try as you have over and over again, there is strong confidence in the surface temperature records... that's a confidence built on multiple records with distinct processing methodologies from independent agencies... a confidence that is based on openess and transparency and multiple challenges from "all comers" to replicate the results... results of which have only reaffirmed that confidence... a confidence that has published papers fully detailing adjustments/measures to deal with/manage your lame attempt to "quality control" tarnish the surface temperature record datasets.

through your multiple failures over multiple threads you've simply established you know little to nothing about climate models. I've shown you multiple times just how well climate model projections have actually done... just a few posts back I extended upon your earlier "indecipherable spaghetti" failure and updated it with the accompanying IPCC graphic that actually appeared in the latest AR5 final published WG1 report.

as for your stated "bluster, blah, blah, blah", nothing stands up to your continued failure/nonsense..... that would be YOUR "bluster, blah, blah, blah"!

[Keepitsimple]

through your multiple failures over multiple threads you've simply established you know little to nothing about climate models. I've shown you multiple times just how well climate model projections have actually done... just a few posts back I extended upon your earlier "indecipherable spaghetti" failure and updated it with the accompanying IPCC graphic that actually appeared in the latest AR5 final published WG1 report.

as for your stated "bluster, blah, blah, blah", nothing stands up to your continued failure/nonsense..... that would be YOUR "bluster, blah, blah, blah"!

Bluster, blah blah, blah........once again, you refuse to simply state your position. By refuting Christy/Spencer's research - are you saying that all those computer models (or at least the majority of them) predicted the 17 year lull in warming? Pretty simple question - yes or no?

Edited June 2, 2014 by Keepitsimple

[waldo]

Bluster, blah blah, blah........once again, you refuse to simply state your position. By refuting Christy/Spencer's research - are you saying that all those computer models (or at least the majority of them) predicted the 17 year lull in warming? Pretty simple question - yes or no?

why do you insist on repeating your "bluster, blah, blah, blah" wording? Is this just your standard packaged response to having your nonsense/claims refuted... consistently, repeatedly refuted? Yes, as I detailed, your linked article and the "research" (as you call it) has no standing. It's quite remarkable you would suggest what I detailed was nothing more than a, as you stated, "miniscule technical shortcoming in their work"!

here... have a dose of reality: IPCC global surface warming projections have been accurate

.

[waldo]

although this thread went a bit dormant, in keeping with its established practice to capture posted disinformation, the following quoted post takes liberties by extending on the clearly stated (and precisely limited) reference to politicians:

How serious are climate alarmists in enforcing their dogma? This is an actual conversation from PBS regarding the imprisoning of skeptics and/or polticians purposely ignoring the problem. What's their biggest concern? Cost and prison space!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RT1EP54Wejc

the actual spoken dialogue:

PBS' Bill Moyers: Welcome. Last week, the scientist David Suzuki was here to tell us what he thinks should happen to politicians who ignore or deny evidence that the Earth is heating up.

David Suzuki: Our politicians should be thrown in the slammer for willful blindness. If we are in a position of being able to act, and we see something going on and we refuse to acknowledge the threat or act on it, we can be taken to court for willful blindness. I think that we are being willfully blind to the consequences for our children and grandchildren. It's an intergenerational crime.

[Keepitsimple]

why do you insist on repeating your "bluster, blah, blah, blah" wording? Is this just your standard packaged response to having your nonsense/claims refuted... consistently, repeatedly refuted? Yes, as I detailed, your linked article and the "research" (as you call it) has no standing. It's quite remarkable you would suggest what I detailed was nothing more than a, as you stated, "miniscule technical shortcoming in their work"!

here... have a dose of reality: IPCC global surface warming projections have been accurate

.

Here's the centerpiece of your "dose of reality".....from your go-to site - the alarmist John Cook's Skeptical Science

Since 1990, global surface temperatures have warmed at a rate of about 0.15°C per decade, within the range of model projections of about 0.10 to 0.35°C per decade.

1) First of all, that speghetti graph is indecipherable.

2) Second, even Cook's machinations can't hide the math. The range is .25 degrees. The observed increment from the lowest estimate to the actual is .05. All things being equal, that means that 20% of the models were accurate or under-estimated - and 80% over-estimated. But in fact, all things are never equal - so why do you think that your Mr. Cook neglecterd to tell us how many models actually under-estimated - and how many over-estimated? Why not trumpet exactly how many models got it right? Could it throw even more cold water on his shabby attempt to create some level of validation for these biased models?

[waldo]

1) First of all, that speghetti graph is indecipherable.

if you note the update time/date for the linked reference article, you'll see the article aligns with your initial "indecipherable spaghetti" parroting that you did of the denialsphere "meltdown" associated with the leak of that initial draft (and incorrectly baselined) graphic. Of course, as you were schooled at the time, as a draft, the baseline problem was fixed. As I repeat, a few posts back I provided the actual relevant IPCC AR5 summary graphic that associates with and extends upon that initial 'spaghetti' graphic showing all the multi-modal runs. Of course, as you were also advised, as was provided at the time, you simply choose to completely ignore the full graphic that included range limits for the respective iterative IPCC reports (and mean, for the AR4 and the respective emission scenarios shown)... as follows:

.

2) Second, even Cook's machinations can't hide the math. The range is .25 degrees. The observed increment from the lowest estimate to the actual is .05. All things being equal, that means that 20% of the models were accurate or under-estimated - and 80% over-estimated. But in fact, all things are never equal - so why do you think that your Mr. Cook neglecterd to tell us how many models actually under-estimated - and how many over-estimated? Why not trumpet exactly how many models got it right? Could it throw even more cold water on his shabby attempt to create some level of validation for these biased models?

SkS has no shortage of active working scientists associated with it; your targeting of the site originator is completely off-base. Please update your fake-skeptic talking points.

your comment simply reinforces you have no basic understanding of what you're presuming to speak to. You're completely ignoring the iterative emission scenarios within the equally ~7 year iterative IPCC reports. Models improve/evolve through each report succession; equally new/revised emission scenarios associate with new model groupings. Model runs are purposely made against respective emission scenarios... scenarios that have degrees of likelihood in occuring; a likelihood that reflects upon, for example, the adoption of varying degrees of emission mitigation action/measures. In your lack of understanding, you're completely and absolutely discounting the output range of each respective report/model grouping reflects upon the varying emission scenarios and the model runs made against those scenarios. You're taking that observed decadal warming rate and applying the most juvenile and ridiculous math to presume on an unfounded upper-lower estimate of accuracy... and, again, you're doing this completely without regard to the range attachments associated with varying likelihood occurrence of an assortment of emission scenarios.

unless you're prepared to get into the details of each respective report/model grouping... while establishing a selected emission scenario as the 'most likely candidate'... or perhaps accepting some default/defacto 'business as usual (BAU)' emission scenario, you can't (as you've done) simply take overall model output range limits and presume to make a definitive assessment against the overall decadal warming rate. Of course, to a die-hard fake-skeptic like you, you would certainly favour a BAU that would factor little to no actual mitigation action/measures... of course!!! Without taking these significant detailed measures to account for iterative reports/models/emission scenarios (and settling on the likelihood scenario)... the best you can do reflects upon a statement within the referenced article, one that quotes from the IPCC, as follows:

"global climate models generally simulate global temperatures that compare well with observations over climate timescales ... The 1990–2012 data have been shown to be consistent with the [1990 IPCC report] projections, and not consistent with zero trend from 1990 ... the trend in globally-averaged surface temperatures falls within the range of the previous IPCC projections."

note the reference to "climate timescales"... something you should be well aware of since its been beat upon throughout a long history of various MLW threads/posts. You've also been schooled over your past failures in climate trending and short-term trends and/or cherry-picking of start years. Your continual nattering on "17 years" is simply you again falling directly into your past pattern of selecting upon that cherry-picked 97/98 El Nino starting point... and, of course, climate timescales are more aligned with, at minimum, a 25-30 year period. None of this is new to you... so... why do you persist in this regard? Cause it's the fake-skeptic way? Is that it?

.

[Keepitsimple]

Since 1990, global surface temperatures have warmed at a rate of about 0.15°C per decade, within the range of model projections of about 0.10 to 0.35°C per decade.

Waldo - and you wonder why I keep using the term bluster, blah, blah, blah......after all your blathering, you said absolutely nothing. What part of your own Skeptical Science article did you not understand? What use are references to 25 and 30 year timescales if you choose to ignore your own article highlighted in the passage above? Not sure there was anyone in class when you were doing your "schooling" . So - once again......on a 30+ n year timescale......

Second, even Cook's machinations can't hide the math. The range is .25 degrees. The observed increment from the lowest estimate to the actual is .05. All things being equal, that means that 20% of the models were accurate or under-estimated - and 80% over-estimated. But in fact, all things are never equal - so why do you think that your Mr. Cook neglecterd to tell us how many models actually under-estimated - and how many over-estimated? Why not trumpet exactly how many models got it right? Could it throw even more cold water on his shabby attempt to create some level of validation for these biased models?

Edited June 2, 2014 by Keepitsimple