The Great Green Con #1 GW Forecasts Wrong Again

[BubberMiley]

BC2004 is correct in saying that" alarmists must lash out at any opposing opinion or facts that detract from their new found religion" Not only lash out but start with the personal attacks and negative descriptions etc.

I guess, like BC2004, you don't see the irony in "lashing out" about personal attacks in the same sentence you "lash out" at "alarmists" who have a "new found religion."

In other words, the only personal attacks are the ones you are making.

Now, carry on digging your hole.

[Bitsy]

Steve McIntyre is a statistician by training and is more qualified than Mann to comment on the usefulness of Mann's various reconstructions (Mann is largely incompetent when it comes to statistics).

Also, the Penn state investigations into Mann were by the same people who 'investigated' allegations against the pedophile Sandusky. Being cleared by 'Penn State' means nothing to anyone who understands the issues.

Mann is basically fraud but he has successfully fooled many people who do not have to background to understand his garbage science into believing he is some sort of persecuted hero. It is rather pathetic and one of the reasons I hold climate science in contempt. I see better science in the weekly horoscopes.

Did you miss all of these?

Investigations Clear Scientists of Wrongdoing

Six official investigations have cleared scientists of accusations of wrongdoing.

• A three-part Penn State University cleared scientist Michael Mann of wrongdoing.

• Two reviews commissioned by the University of East Anglia"supported the honesty and integrity of scientists in the Climatic Research Unit."

• A UK Parliament report concluded that the emails have no bearing on our understanding of climate science and that claims against UEA scientists are misleading.

• The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Inspector General's office concluded there was no evidence of wrongdoing on behalf of their employees.

• The National Science Foundation's Inspector General's office concluded, "Lacking any direct evidence of research misconduct...we are closing this investigation with no further action."

Other agencies and media outlets have investigated the substance of the emails.

• The Environmental Protection Agency, in response to petitions against action to curb heat-trapping emissions, dismissed attacks on the science rooted in the stolen emails.

• Factcheck.org debunked claims that the emails put the conclusions of climate science into question.

• Politifact.com rated claims that the emails falsify climate science as "false."

• An Associated Press review of the emails found that they "don't undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions."

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/global_warming_contrarians/debunking-misinformation-stolen-emails-climategate.html

And I guess you missed this also.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/al-gore/koch-brother-funded-study_b_1032439.html?

As I said, Climategate was a lemon.

[waldo]

Did you miss all of these?

TimG most certainly knows all about the investigations... it'll get a particular rise out of him if you emphasize the independent nature of the investigations! Of course he couldn't leave out the latest go-to smear where deniers take extra efforts in mentioning the Penn State pedophile, Sandusky, anytime the Mann's name is mentioned. Classy, indeed! And... of course... we read his obligatory bow-down before the mantle of the "great neverending auditor" McIntyre.

[Hudson Jones]

Did you miss all of these?

Investigations Clear Scientists of Wrongdoing

Six official investigations have cleared scientists of accusations of wrongdoing.

• A three-part Penn State University cleared scientist Michael Mann of wrongdoing.

• Two reviews commissioned by the University of East Anglia"supported the honesty and integrity of scientists in the Climatic Research Unit."

• A UK Parliament report concluded that the emails have no bearing on our understanding of climate science and that claims against UEA scientists are misleading.

• The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Inspector General's office concluded there was no evidence of wrongdoing on behalf of their employees.

• The National Science Foundation's Inspector General's office concluded, "Lacking any direct evidence of research misconduct...we are closing this investigation with no further action."

Other agencies and media outlets have investigated the substance of the emails.

• The Environmental Protection Agency, in response to petitions against action to curb heat-trapping emissions, dismissed attacks on the science rooted in the stolen emails.

• Factcheck.org debunked claims that the emails put the conclusions of climate science into question.

• Politifact.com rated claims that the emails falsify climate science as "false."

• An Associated Press review of the emails found that they "don't undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions."

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/global_warming_contrarians/debunking-misinformation-stolen-emails-climategate.html

And I guess you missed this also.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/al-gore/koch-brother-funded-study_b_1032439.html?

As I said, Climategate was a lemon.

Sure sure. You are contributing to Al Gore making his millions!

[bush_cheney2004]

Did you miss all of these?

Investigations Clear Scientists of Wrongdoing

Six official investigations have cleared scientists of accusations of wrongdoing.....

Hey...I think I found the problem here....how many is SIX ?

[bush_cheney2004]

This is great....lots of folks are jumping on board the failed IPCC models and current average temps:

To that point, it has been recently observed that past climate model forecasts have been spectacular failures due to bad assumptions and a fanatical blind loyalty to a very weak (lame?) AGW hypothesis. ....the newest CMIP5 climate simulations appear to be not much better.

Thus, it is a safe bet that proposing trillion-dollar climate solutions based on the outputs of these new
models will prove to be another common sense (no computer needed) predictable disaster. However, that will again be in hindsight for the political elites and mainstream journalists.

http://www.c3headlines.com/predictionsforecasts/

[Bonam]

it wasn't 'Gore's hockey stick graph'... and it stands up very well today. Only a denier would challenge global warming and the visual representation of the blade of the hockey stick - right?

...

as an alternative, would offering scribbler something like this graphic actually mean anything to her?

Your linked graph speaks for itself. Why include childish insults like calling "scribblet" scribbler?

Edited March 28, 2013 by Bonam

[TimG]

Six official investigations have cleared scientists of accusations of wrongdoing.

You don't have a clue what each of those investigations looked and you have absolutely no idea whether they are even relevant. All you did is cut and paste them from from blog.

Each one of these inquiries is nonsense for different reasons. The most common reason is they "investigated" an irrelevant question and discovered a result that no one disagrees with. The most laughable one is Penn State basically asked Mann if he did anything wrong and when Mann said he did not they never looked into it further. How many murderers would go free if the courts simply dismissed cases because the accused said he did nothing wrong?

If an inquiry actually asked the questions which the skeptics are asking they would come to different conclusions. But no one in the climate science establishment wants to ask those questions because it would be too embarrassing.

As I said, Climategate was a lemon.

Again, you have absolutely no understanding of the issues. If you did you would know that the 20th century temperature rise is a largely irrelevant question. The real issue is climate sensitivity and the question of whether the rise was mostly natural.

But more importantly: climategate changed the narrative. No matter how many whitewashes the climate establishment applies they cannot wipe the stench created by emails which show scientists as political activists out to suppress views they don't like.

Edited March 28, 2013 by TimG

[Bitsy]

You don't have a clue what each of those investigations looked and you have absolutely no idea whether they are even relevant. All you did is cut and paste them from from blog.

Each one of these inquiries is nonsense for different reasons. The most common reason is they "investigated" an irrelevant question and discovered a result that no one disagrees with. The most laughable one is Penn State basically asked Mann if he did anything wrong and when Mann said he did not they never looked into it further. How many murderers would go free if the courts simply dismissed cases because the accused said he did nothing wrong?

If an inquiry actually asked the questions which the skeptics are asking they would come to different conclusions. But no one in the climate science establishment wants to ask those questions because it would be too embarrassing.Again, you have absolutely no understanding of the issues. If you did you would know that the 20th century temperature rise is a largely irrelevant question. The real issue is climate sensitivity and the question of whether the rise was mostly natural.

But more importantly: climategate changed the narrative. No matter how many whitewashes the climate establishment applies they cannot wipe the stench created by emails which show scientists as political activists out to suppress views they don't like.

And please tell me how you acquired so much knowledge of the investigations?

[Michael Hardner]

overall, the film stands up very well with a few legitimate criticisms, which, of course, give miscreants the outlet they so revel in.

I'm glad you acknowledge that there are a few real flaws in the film - this conveys a level of intellectual honesty that your opponents would never acknowledge in you.

As you have said, it's easier to make fun of pop environmental figures than refute the weight of knowledge, or God forbid try to suggest solutions.

Would anybody on the other side care to acknowledge faults in, say, McIntyre's 'hockey stick' critiques. Are the skeptics still talking about him or ?

[bush_cheney2004]

Another version of the colossal IPCC climate change model FAILS.....I would like to thank member scribblet for highlighting these recent analyses and departures from the "guaranteed" "95% confidence interval" predictions from Team AGW.

[TimG]

And please tell me how you acquired so much knowledge of the investigations?

By actually reading the reports produced as well as critical commentary when the reports were published.

[bush_cheney2004]

I'm glad you acknowledge that there are a few real flaws in the film - this conveys a level of intellectual honesty that your opponents would never acknowledge in you.

He has to....the film's mistakes were no longer easily hidden by shouting down critics.

[TimG]

Would anybody on the other side care to acknowledge faults in, say, McIntyre's 'hockey stick' critiques. Are the skeptics still talking about him or ?

I have yet to read any faults that are important enough to acknowledge. That said, alarmists are unable to critique his arguments so what they do is make up arguments that he never made and debunk those. Suspect you have read some of these phoney critiques. Edited March 28, 2013 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

Steve McIntyre is a statistician by training and is more qualified than Mann to comment on the usefulness of Mann's various reconstructions (Mann is largely incompetent when it comes to statistics).

They finally had their chance to criticize the work and if Mann was a "fraud" as you say then the response would have been less anemic than it was.

I think you have some kind of personal stake in this, or you see yourself as having one for some reason.

[Michael Hardner]

I have yet to read any faults that are important enough to acknowledge. That said, alarmists are unable to critique his arguments so what they do is make up arguments that he never made and debunk those. Suspect you have read some of these phoney critiques.

Any faults ? How about Monkton ?

[TimG]

They finally had their chance to criticize the work and if Mann was a "fraud" as you say then the response would have been less anemic than it was.

Fraud has many meanings. Mann is a fraud in the sense that he is incompetent as a scientist but he produces results that people want to see so they don't look too hard.

I think you have some kind of personal stake in this, or you see yourself as having one for some reason.

I am reacting as any disillusioned person. 10 years ago I had a lot of respect for our scientific institutions and was absolutely horrified to see the crap that no only goes on in climate science but is considered acceptable. I now see the science establishment as largely composed of political lobbyists seeking funding and if they produce useful scientific discoveries it is purely by accident. Edited March 28, 2013 by TimG

[TimG]

Any faults ? How about Monkton ?

Monckton is a buffoon that many skeptics don't like. You were talking about Steve McIntyre.

[Bitsy]

By actually reading the reports produced as well as critical commentary when the reports were published.

Then it should be no problem for you to provide us with examples and links to the investigations that you found lacking.

[RNG]

I lost my "free" access to technical papers some time ago. Have any of the models been able to handle water vapor yet?

[Bitsy]

http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/home/10915-james-hansen-nasa-admits-global-temperature-standstill-is-real

This of course was omitted from Hanson’s comment.

Indeed, the current stand-still of the 5-year running mean global temperature may be largely a consequence of the fact that the first half of the past 10 years had predominately El Nino conditions,

while the second half had predominately La Nina conditions (Nino index in Fig. 1). Comparing the global temperature at the time of the most recent three La Ninas (1999-2000, 2008, and 2011-2012), it is apparent that global temperature has continued to rise between recent years of comparable tropical temperature, indeed, at a rate of warming similar to that of the previous three decades. We conclude that background global warming is continuing, consistent with the known planetary energy imbalance, even though it is likely that the slowdown in climate forcing growth rate contributed to the recent apparent standstill in global temperature.

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/719139main_2012_GISTEMP_summary.pdf

About the Arctic sea ice:

http://nsidc.org/icelights/2012/03/26/the-arctic-sea-ice-maximum/

I don’t believe there has been much controversy the sea ice in the Antarctic

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/earth20121112.html

[TimG]

Then it should be no problem for you to provide us with examples and links to the investigations that you found lacking.

I tried but the Penn state report does not seem to be online anymore.

Here is a editorial from the time:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/07/climategate-and-the-big-green-lie/59709/

Three of four allegations are dismissed out of hand at the outset: the inquiry announces that, for "lack of credible evidence", it will not even investigate them.

...

Moving on, the report then says, in effect, that Mann is a distinguished scholar, a successful raiser of research funding, a man admired by his peers -- so any allegation of academic impropriety must be false.

...

In short, the case for the prosecution is never heard. Mann is asked if the allegations (well, one of them) are true, and says no. His record is swooned over. Verdict: case dismissed, with apologies that Mann has been put to such trouble.

He quotes from the report.

If you dispute his characterization of the report then you need to find it and explain why he is wrong.

If you were actually interested in finding out the truth you should be appalled by the claims in that editorial (by a writer who BTW fully supports action on CO2). However, I am pretty sure you have no interest in the truth and you, like waldo and Michael, are only looking for excuses to stay inside the little alarmist bubble you have created for yourself.

Edited March 28, 2013 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

Fraud has many meanings. Mann is a fraud in the sense that he is incompetent as a scientist but he produces results that people want to see so they don't look too hard.

And yet, somehow his paper survived the criticisms from McIntyre.

I am reacting as any disillusioned person.

I'm convinced there's something else to it. There are questions, flaws, and uncertainty of course but you have adopted this as a issue far removed from where it actually is. I expect that other scientific theories have just as many detractors, but they survive - debate continues, and people don't get as disillusioned as you appear to be.

Waldo admits flaws in Gore's opus. I see some weaknesses in some of the papers, but the gist of the work is quite convincing.

[TimG]

And yet, somehow his paper survived the criticisms from McIntyre.

Yes - and that is simply a sign of deep rot within our scientific institutions.

I'm convinced there's something else to it. There are questions, flaws, and uncertainty of course but you have adopted this as a issue far removed from where it actually is.

It is rather arrogant of you to presume that you know better than me why I adopt the positions I do.

Waldo admits flaws in Gore's opus.

puhleeze. waldo is the most intellectually dishonest buffoon on this forum. He refuses the concede the even most basic points when they are spelled out for him.

As for the gist of the work: convincing about what? That it is likely to get warmer in the future? Sure. No disagreement from me. But anything else from the amount of warming to the likely consequences is largely nonsense. Some of it will end up being true because of pure random chance rather than scientific insight.

[scribblet]

I guess, like BC2004, you don't see the irony in "lashing out" about personal attacks in the same sentence you "lash out" at "alarmists" who have a "new found religion."

In other words, the only personal attacks are the ones you are making.

Now, carry on digging your hole.

Now you really are amusing, but carry on if it helps you get through your day.