The wit and wisdom of ‘Real’ Climate scientist Dr. Ray Pierrehumbert

Ray Pierrehumbert playing accordion at the liquidus. Source: http://geosci.uchicago.edu/people/faculty.shtml

Over at Judith Curry’s place she draws attention to a comment left at Keith Kloor’s Collide-a-Scape by RealClimate founder Dr. Ray Pierrehumbert of the University of Chicago. At left is his photo direct from his department website.

Along with the photo is this comment from Dr. Pierrehumbert:

“We’re drawing attention to the vast body of literature accumulating, which says when it comes to global warming, we may not be just looking at a different climate, but one that is more variable from year to year than our present climate. Think about what would happen if one year we had 105-degree heat waves, then the next decade we had unusually cold winters, and then we had 50 years of drought. It would be very hard to adapt to that kind of climate.”

Yes imagine that, but imagining and actuality are completely different things.

But back to the matter at hand, here’s the comment he left at Kloor’s:

raypierre Says:
June 17th, 2011 at 6:56 pm

Keith, your problem is that you have no judgment and you are just too gullible. Anytime anybody who looks like  part of “the team” comes along and turns around and criticizes “the team,” you will fawn all over them without thinking about the actual factual basis or merits of their claims. Think Judy Curry, and now, Lynas.  There may or may not be something fishy about the specifics of the renewable energy claims under discussion here (I think not, though it’s certain that the practice of doing press releases in advance of the full report is available is a bad thing and needs to stop, no questions there) but you aren’t even asking the hard questions before jumping in on Lynas’ side.  Some of the defense of the IPCC may be knee-jerk, but a lot of it is in fact well-considered, from people who know the process and the checks and balances there — which can be improved, but are not by any means as bad as most people seem to think.

Your other problem is that in your efforts to show what a big heart you have and be inclusive, you are blind to the real failings and chicanery of people like McIntyre and McKittrick.  The actual scientific consequence of these guys, relative to the noise they make and their character assasination operation against honest, earnest climate scientists is tiny, and they’ve pretty much lost any right to be taken seriously.  Note that the IPCC blunder on Himalayan glaciers  — something that really did reveal problems (though not fatal ones) in IPCC procedures — was outed first by professional glaciologists, both within and outside the IPCC. i.e. REAL SCIENTISTS, not noisemakers.

McIntyre, McKittrick, and Watts are the Andrew Breitbarts of climate. Occasionally they may out something that is technically true, but it is always of minor consequence compared to the noise, and always a distraction from the truly important questions facing society.  That’s why, big as the IPCC tent may be, I hope there will never be a place in it for any of these clowns.

Well, I never aspired to be under the IPCC big top, and I can’t play the accordion, so I don’t think Ray will have to worry about any competition there.

As for Steve and Ross, well I’m sure they’ll do just fine without needing to join the IPCC too.

But no hard feelings, and I think we should offer Ray some cheese with that whine.

And I should add this, be sure to read Dr. Pierrehumbert’s essay (which was linked on the department home page near his photo) titled Atmospheric Science Fiction.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Climate ugliness and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

172 Responses to The wit and wisdom of ‘Real’ Climate scientist Dr. Ray Pierrehumbert

  1. Brian Hall says:

    The IPCC has checks and balances, all right, to make sure that persons and papers not in line with The Narrative™ are sidelined and eased out of sight.

    Pierre’s probably afraid that his funding and fortunes are in danger of taking a real haircut. Or make that buzz-cut.

  2. Ray says:

    We can also imagine cows with wings. In that case we would need very strong umbrellas and really good wipers on our cars. If imagination is all that is needed in science, we can imagine all we want but it might never make it true.

  3. omnologos says:

    A recent Dilbert strip springs to mind…

    On the positive side, as long as there’s people with raypierre’s attitude there will be little or no chance of any large-scale mitigation policy to become law, given his superior political skills and emphasis on inclusivity.

  4. Hairy Pierre gives away his game in making a political comparison of Skeptics to Breitbart–admitting that his own game is at heart political.

  5. nobody in particular says:

    Think about what would happen if one year we had 105-degree heat waves, then the next decade we had unusually cold winters, and then we had 50 years of drought.

    Just how is that any more variable than the way things already have been for longer than we’ve even been around…?

  6. Bill in Vigo says:

    Just curious but why do they always end up demonizing the opposition. I see no merrit in the above argument by the good Dr. I just haven’t figured what exactly he is good at.

    Bill Derryberry

  7. janama says:

    The hubris of the Real Climate team never ceases to amaze me.

  8. ivp0 says:

    By the looks of him I think Ray has had enough wine already.

  9. One of these days….the term “mad scientist” will resurface.

    I mean, seriously.

    Don’t blame the red wine though. [snip]
    Chris
    Norfolk, Va, USA

  10. DocattheAutopsy says:

    Interesting that he calls you guys Brietbarts.

    Brietbart is regularly condemned at first, but his claims always come to light as being factual. Nobody gives him credit, either.

  11. Wondering Aloud says:

    Interesting. It really appears that he really is not able to understnd the issue at all. I could take the easy way and point out who the “clown ” is but what leaps out at me is his overwelming confidence in the “team” . He is apparently so unfamiliar with the actual scientific method that he doesn’t realize that the whole concept of CAGW is dead, because the theory has now failed to predict observation for over 15 years. Faced with absolute failure to predict one has to be pretty unfamiliar with scientific method to hole Pierrehumbert. University of Chicago it says, how embarassing.

  12. rbateman says:

    I can imagine the entire US gripped in 100F + heat one week, then killing frosts hitting most of it the next week. It actually happened in the late 19th Century.
    I can imagine Mega Droughts hitting the Southwest, or once fertile grasslands that are now the Sahara. How about the passages the Pharoahs created through the Sinai (now Suez) that kept failing due to the shrinking of the Red Sea? Or the Nile that froze in the 9th Century?
    Climate change happens.

  13. Ron Dean says:

    Uhmmm, hold on a second here. My memory may be flawed, but wasn’t the ridiculous Himalayan glacier claim reported on *before* the “professional glaciologists” got involved?

    If my memory is correct, the good Dr. Pierrehumbert could do with a bit of humility – and maybe even realize that the issues brought up in blogs such as this one are far more than of “minor consequence”.

    REPLY: yes, Dr. John Nielsen-Gammon, Texas state climatologist spotted it, as reported here on WUWT. Dec 22, 2009

    Texas State Climatologist: “IPCC AR4 was flat out wrong” – relied on flawed WWF report

    – Anthony

  14. Patrick says:

    “Think about what would happen if one year we had 105-degree heat waves, then the next decade we had unusually cold winters, and then we had 50 years of drought. It would be very hard to adapt to that kind of climate.”

    Other than the drought, that’s Wisconsin’s climate. Of course, if the climate were truly becoming more variable, 50 years of any condition would be impossible.

  15. FatBigot says:

    The sole basis of the “catastrophic anthropogenic global warming” hypothesis is the cumulative effect of a series of factors. It requires (i) past temperatures to be as the team says they were, (ii) the warming effect of CO2 alone to be as the team says it is and (iii) positive feedbacks to be activated by CO2-induced warming.

    All three are required for the hypothesis to get off the ground at all.

    Dr Pierrehumbert is, if I might respectfully say so, plainly wrong to assert that damage done to one of the three limbs does not undermine the correctness of the whole. Quite patently the whole is felled by any one of the three limbs being less than perfectly secure because every stage of every limb is required to stand true in order for the hypothesis to be sound.

  16. omnologos says:

    Bill in Vigo – Just curious but why do they always end up demonizing the opposition

    Was wondering the same, so I’m trying with some exchanges with “Policy Lass”.

    What I’d like to know is if these people actually care about the environment, climate change and the planet, to the point of being willing to participate to the building of effective, practical, realistic, implementable environment and climate change policies…or they are just interested to participate to a good fight.

  17. Geoff Sherrington says:

    The next IPCC prediction is IAN. The acronym is for “Increased Absolute Normailty”, a catch-all wherein every conceivable climate or weather event can be demonised as due to bad man/woman.

  18. pat says:

    good to see the MSM giving McIntyre credit where credit is due. kudos to u as well, anthony, and keep up the good work:

    17 June: Washington Times Editorial: EDITORIAL: U.N. climate propaganda exposed
    Industry lobbyists behind ‘scientific’ claims in IPCC press release
    Since this statement was supposedly based on actual scientific research, Steve McIntyre, editor of the Climate Audit blog, did what the IPCC must have assumed nobody would bother doing. He checked the sources cited in the report…
    That’s why the Environmental Protection Agency needs to pull the plug on the job-crushing cap-and-trade style regulations it seeks to impose. The agency based the whole of its “endangerment finding” on the work of IPCC, as if it were scientific. It would be more honest for the EPA to say its rules are based on the desire of Greenpeace and the renewable-energy industry to raise taxes on competing sources of electricity. They shouldn’t be allowed to get away with this fraud.
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jun/17/un-climate-propaganda-exposed/

    17 June: Economist: The IPCC and Greenpeace
    Renewable outrage
    Steve McIntyre, who runs a blog on which he tries to hold climate science to higher standards than he sees it holding itself, picked up all these IPCC/Greenpeace connections and posted on them angrily, calling for all involved to be sacked. “As a citizen,” he says, “I would like to know how much weight we can put on renewables as a big-footprint solution. Prior to the IPCC report, I was aware that Greenpeace—and WWF—had promoted high renewable scenarios. However, before placing any weight on them, the realism of these scenarios needs to be closely examined. IPCC has a mandate to provide hard information but did no critical evaluation of the Greenpeace scenario.”
    His desire for solid, honest answers is plainly one to be shared…
    But the press release which focuses on an outlier, not on the range of options, is also and more worryingly the sort of mistake you get in organisations that assume everyone wants to hear the party line…
    http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2011/06/ipcc-and-greenpeace

    17 June: Reason: Ronald Bailey: A Bad Week for Climate Change Alarmists*
    This statement comes from an IPCC press release. The study on which the claim was made wasn’t made public until a month later. By then the media had moved on, and the meme that renewables could solve climate change by 2050 launched. What McIntyre found was that the scenario highlighted in the press release was ulitmately derived from a report issued jointly by Greenpeace and the European Renewable Energy Council. That’s right – activists and lobbyists collaborating. Who would have thought?…
    The second foot-shooting occurred when it was discovered that climate change researchers at the University of Colorado have been quietly adjusting the figures for sea level rise…
    Nerem replies that the adjustment adds just an inch over a century to the figures which doesn’t amount to all that much when computer models project that the future rise is sea level will be 2 to 4 feet over the coming century.
    Now Nerem says that his group is thinking about making both the adjusted and unadjusted data public. Well, yes…
    http://reason.com/blog/2011/06/17/a-bad-week-for-climate-change

  19. Mike McMillan says:

    If you can play the accordion, you will have something to keep yourself entertained when the rolling blackouts begin.

  20. kuhnkat says:

    “And I should add this, be sure to read Dr. Pierrehumbert’s essay (which was linked on the department home page near his photo) titled Atmospheric Science Fiction.”

    No thanks, I have read all of IPCC AR4 I intend to.

  21. vimy100 says:

    As always with the AGW crowd, it is all name-calling and guilt by association. This kind of thing should be deeply embarrassing, especially given that every prediction made by the AGW crowd for the past 15 years has failed, even after eliminating so many rural sites from the record. Why are they not embarrassed by their failure and their tactics?

    I don’t mind their being wrong ~ their presuppositions were reasonable and watching for what effect increased atmospheric CO2 might have is a reasonable idea. But in the face of their failure, they vilify honest men and women and try to ruin their reputations. Why?

  22. Sean Peake says:

    I thought Gabby Hayes was long dead?

  23. Occasionally they may out something that is technically true, but it is always of minor consequence compared to the noise…

    So, the “noise” is really important; “technically true” things are of minor consequence. I get it.

    Aucune merveille son goût en musique et vin n’est celle d’un clochard.

  24. DonK31 says:

    Weiner blamed Breitbart also, just before he admitted that he lied about…http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqR_SwwByMM

  25. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

    I might be seeing this wrong, but…….

    Scare people about global warming, end up with some global warming grant money so you don’t have to work anymore but can just sit around being a hippie accordion player……..

    Is that what I’m seeing?

  26. Doug in Seattle says:

    I find that stories about the team are a waste of time. This one is no different.

  27. Nick Stokes says:

    Ron Dean says: June 17, 2011 at 9:35 pm
    “Uhmmm, hold on a second here. My memory may be flawed, but wasn’t the ridiculous Himalayan glacier claim reported on *before* the “professional glaciologists” got involved?”

    REPLY: yes, Dr. John Nielsen-Gammon, Texas state climatologist spotted it, as reported here on WUWT.
    – Anthony”

    From the JN-G report cited:
    “Khandekar, the BBC, and I all rely on J. Graham Cogley, a glaciologist in the Department of Geography at Trent University, Ontario for pointing this out. Cogley and three colleagues have written a letter to Nature on this subject, and I’ve since corresponded with Cogley by email.”

    REPLY: Thanks

  28. James Sexton says:

    Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
    June 17, 2011 at 10:19 pm

    I might be seeing this wrong, but…….

    Scare people about global warming, end up with some global warming grant money so you don’t have to work anymore but can just sit around being a hippie accordion player……..

    Is that what I’m seeing?
    ===============================================================

    Yeh, well, I think too, that he’s obligated to post some whines and degenerate other people’s contribution to science that makes his buddies look bad…… but other than that, yeh, that’s what it looks like.

  29. Phillip Bratby says:

    So McIntyre, McKittrick, and Watts are clowns are they? He has lost any credibilty he may have had with that one statement.

  30. Richard Hill says:

    Anthony, Thanks for the pointer to R P-H’s “Atmospheric Science Fiction”. As a long time SF fan, I found it quite a fun read. Asimov forever! (BTW I found R P-H’s remarks about McIntyre et al poisonous and totally unjustified.)

  31. John Whitman says:

    Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
    June 17, 2011 at 10:19 pm

    I might be seeing this wrong, but…….

    Scare people about global warming, end up with some global warming grant money so you don’t have to work anymore but can just sit around being a hippie accordion player……..

    Is that what I’m seeing?

    ——-

    Amino Acids in Meteorites,

    Nah, what you are seeing is an audition for Ophra’s replacement for the talk show.

    John

  32. omnologos says:

    another explanation for that odd photograph is that it was taken at the auditions for a new tv show, “America’s Got (no) Climate Talent”.

  33. Blade says:

    ['RealClimate' founder says:] “Keith, your problem is that you have no judgment and you are just too gullible.”

    I wonder if Keith realizes them’s fightin’ words.

    ['RealClimate' founder says:] “… you are blind to the real failings and chicanery of people like McIntyre and McKittrick …”

    Them’s really fightin’ words.

    ['RealClimate' founder says:] “… the noise they make and their character assasination [sic] operation against honest, earnest climate scientists …”

    Oooh, Cry Me A River! (and hand me a barf bag)

    ['RealClimate' founder says:] “McIntyre, McKittrick, and Watts are the Andrew Breitbarts of climate.”

    In my book, that is a gigantic compliment, and is fairly accurate since Breitbart helped bring down ACORN, and the three listed are certainly among the top of those bringing down AGW.

    We’re officially entering the end-stage of the AGW scam. This stage is characterized by widespread personality meltdowns and egregious mistakes. This one alone will keep CA busy for quite a while.

    I’m gonna need a bigger popcorn maker.

  34. Scott says:

    If Steve McIntyre is Andrew Breitbart, Dr. Ray Pierrehumbert is Anthony Weiner.

  35. Jack Savage says:

    Using that photo to poke fun is to descend to the same level of argument as the fanatical catastrophists. Best avoided.
    I have to admit it is hard to resist……but resisted it should be.

  36. UK Sceptic says:

    Dr Ray is the spitting image of one of the homeless winos that hang around parts of the local town centre cadging grants money from the taxpayers public. Can we arrest him for climate vagrancy?

  37. Beesaman says:

    Is this someone more worried about the the balance of his cheques rather than the balance of checks?

  38. Back in the sixties, when some bearded academic said: “we may …” it was treated as a bit of a joke.

    These days, when they say: “we may … ” it is treated as a god given law of nature.

    There’s nothing wrong with having the odd accordion wielding academic who wants “love and peace” amongst everyone and thinks they are god’s gift to science and indeed humanity in general (and they don’t underrate their science either). But it’s quite another thing having the massed ranks of economic advisors taking these people seriously and doing anything to our economies based on their ideologically driver “chum-science”.

  39. Allan M says:

    Bill in Vigo says:
    June 17, 2011 at 8:55 pm

    Just curious but why do they always end up demonizing the opposition.

    Robespierrehumbert.

  40. Jordan says:

    I was driving along when my car started making an unusual noise. When I pulled over to see what was going on, my car broke down and I had it towed-in for repairs.

    Ray should pay attention to noise. Sometimes it will prove to be the most important thing he is hearing. The noise might stop him completing his journey, and his ideas might need to be towed-in to the repair shop.

    But he seems to be saying hat he is unwilling to pay attention because of emotional commitments to completing his journey. He’s gonna try to keep driving as he is unable to take into account unwelcome information from certain sources.

    Ray will find himself standing on the roadside as others pass him by. Expect more emotional outbursts.

  41. Perry says:

    For music buffs everywhere & because it appears not noted here yet, the BUFF known as Mister Raypierre Wit Humbug has demonstrated in his witterings that he can create an extraordinary amount of self harm with a pencil & paper and the photo of him playing with his squeeze box, suggests that there were a number of “first cousin” relationships in his antecedents. Blue Fugates of Troublesome Creek?

  42. davidmhoffer says:

    Alarmist; If XYZ happens, it could be very difficult to adapt to.

    Skeptic; Is there any evidence that XYZ is likely to happen?

    Alarmist; 98.5% of climate scientists agree that we’re going to have to deal with XYZ.

    Sketpic: But… is there any evidence that XYZ is likely to happen?

    Alarmist; Sophisticated computer models clearly show the devastating effects of XYZ.

    Skeptic: Yeah, OK, but is there any EVIDENCE that XYZ is likely to happen.

    Alarmist: We can see it happening already due to the impending extinction of the polar bear.

    Skeptic: The polar bear population has been increasing, but next you’ll blame that on XYZ too. Is there any evidence that XYZ is happening?

    Alarmist; You are unfairly denigrated honest hard workking scientist who have spent their whole careers studying XYZ, and they earned substantive degrees and grant money doing it.

    Skeptic; Well wonderful that they’ve been able to study and get grants, but I’m asking the same question as before, have they been able to priduce any evidence that XYZ is happening?

    Alarmist; How much more evidence do you need, its all around you. Winters getting colder/hotter, rainfall increasing/decreasing, more flooding/drought, polar bears increasing/decreasing? How many models expressing the same predictions do you need? How many more scientist are required to convince you?

    Skeptic; None. Just some evidence would do nicely.

  43. BENG says:

    ” chicanery of people like McIntyre and McKittrick”

    Surely this is actually libel?? If I was McIntyre/McKittrick, I’d seriously consider taking him to court over this rather irrational and unprofessional (to say the least) outburst.

  44. kim says:

    Though I haven’t much truck with Keith Kloor, the fact that he draws fire regularly from alarmists is to his credit. If only he’d take the obvious lesson from the climate wars, that the left has the more violently flecked rhetoric, and generalize it more widely, he might be on to a vista such as Mark Lynas now beholds.
    ===============

  45. Orson Olson says:

    Yeah. Call the dedicated, unpaid, unvainglorious – and otfen vilified – names like “clowns.” That’s the way to show an open mind to evidence and reason.

    I always knew Ray Pierrehumbert had it in him.

  46. tallbloke says:

    So this would be the same ‘raypierre’ who rubbished Roy Spencers simple climate model on the basis that the part of the ocean which is important climatologically is only 35m deep, rather than the 1000m Roy used (quite correctly).

    And the same ‘rapierre’ who rubbished Courtillot and Allegre for their paper on solar variation, geomagnetism and global temperature, while administering another foot shooting to his fellow Team members. Their feet must be so swollen by now that the clown shoes fit nicely.

    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/02/26/les-chevaliers-de-l%E2%80%99ordre-de-le-soleil-gris/

  47. Stacey says:

    He’s playing the wrong instrument. It should be a fiddle.
    Well if A and the 2M’s are clowns how must it feel for the fiddlers at UnReal Climate to have thier work exposed for the rubbish it is,well,by a bunch of clowns.
    “………..happens if…….’
    If my auntie had testicles she’d be my uncle.

  48. jonjermey says:

    “there will never be a place in it for any of these clowns….”

    Because they have an endless oversupply of clowns already.

  49. Shevva says:

    Notice they never answer there critice’s, just Ad-Homs, my science teacher would be ashamed and an instant F if the answer was there wrong because there clowns, I would need more to my argument, like actually showing my workings and data but that was just my science teacher.

  50. Kilted Mushroom says:

    Only an uninvolved lurker but I understood that the glacier thing was detected in the IPPC deliberations at WG1. This was ignored by “those who matter” and progressed into the full report. Experts found it and experts ignored it. Am I wrong?

  51. Martin Brumby says:

    I’ve never heard of Pierre Humbug.

    What’s his great claim to fame? Skill on the accordian to accompany his colleagues on the fiddle?

    Looks like this posting will be his “15 minutes of fame”.

    Sad, really.

  52. ZZZ says:

    Has anyone else noticed that the guy in the picture suffers from a bad case of “camel toe” (Camel toe is a problem women often suffer from when wearing pants that are too tight.)

  53. Mike Borgelt says:

    I hope he’s good enough to earn some money as a pavement musician. He’s not much of a scientist.

  54. Bob Tisdale says:

    I had two reactions when I read Ray Pierrehumbert statement, ” Think about what would happen if one year we had 105-degree heat waves, then the next decade we had unusually cold winters, and then we had 50 years of drought. It would be very hard to adapt to that kind of climate.”

    First, the team is finally looking into natural cycles, and second and foremost, they haven’t a clue.

  55. Dr Slop says:

    “tent”, “clowns”, ah, now I understand!

  56. KnR says:

    Ray Pierrehumbert is merely pushing the idea of the good lie , becasue that lie is used to support an idea which is in turn a morally right cause . Two small problem’s , what is morally right is point of conjecture more often than not and this is a view as no role at all in science. Chances are if one of his own students where to use this approach their own work Pierrerhumbert would fail them for not meeting the standards expected of the scientific approach. So why he thinks its acceptable on this instance is a very good question.

  57. Mooloo says:

    Only an uninvolved lurker but I understood that the glacier thing was detected in the IPPC deliberations at WG1. This was ignored by “those who matter” and progressed into the full report. Experts found it and experts ignored it. Am I wrong?

    A point neatly sidestepped by Mr Pierrehumbert.

    It actually puts the IPCC in much worse light than merely having an error. It shows that there are no effective checks in the IPCC on bollocks – so long as it fits the message.

  58. Jimbo says:

    Note that the IPCC blunder on Himalayan glaciers — something that really did reveal problems (though not fatal ones) in IPCC procedures — was outed first by professional glaciologists, both within and outside the IPCC. i.e. REAL SCIENTISTS, not noisemakers.

    And the response from Dr. Pachauri was to claim that the respected Indian glaciologist was engaged in “voodoo science”.

    How long did it take to correct the mistake after being told: only 2 months. Allegedly, Dr. Pachauri knew about the false claim before the Copenhagen conference.

    [News archives]

  59. Jim Cripwell says:

    The thing I find to be absolutely terrifying (I wish I could think of a stronger word), is that Dr. Pierrehumbert actually believes that what he writes is the truth; that someone of his intellect and intelligence can believe his own words. This is just how low scientists and science has sunk.

  60. Julian in Wales says:

    “we may not be just looking at a different climate, but one that is more variable from year to year than our present climate. Think about what would happen if one year we had 105-degree heat waves, then the next decade we had unusually cold winters, and then we had 50 years of drought. It would be very hard to adapt to that kind of climate.”

    So absolutely everything from decade long mini ice ages to droughts followed by floods will be logged as epirical evidence of global warming? And anyone who questions such a theory is somehow bad, mad and to be excluded from the debate about what drives climate variation? We may as well give up all science and instead just worship the great deliberations of Dr. Ray Pierrehumbert of the University of Chicago?

    He should write more often.

  61. Stonyground says:

    The thing that puzzles me is that I keep reading claims that 80% of our energy needs coming from renewables by 2050 is both practical and economically viable. People seem to be claiming that, yes this information came from a biased source and wasn’t properly checked before being accepted, but it is basically correct. Surely the claim that renewable energy, wind,solar, tidal etc. could possibly account for anything like 80% of the world’s energy needs even if hugely subsidised is completely absurd. To suggest that such things are not only possible but can be done at a profit is surely in the world of fantasy. Particularly unlikely is the notion that battery operated vehicles can entirely replace petrol and diesel ones.

  62. Jimbo says:

    Some of the defense of the IPCC may be knee-jerk, but a lot of it is in fact well-considered, from people who know the process and the checks and balances there………..

    Is this part of the process?

    From: Phil Jones
    To: “Michael E. Mann”
    Subject: HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
    Date: Thu Jul 8 16:30:16 2004
    “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !
    Cheers
    Phil”
    Source: CRU Emails

    I won’t even mention deleting emails. ;O)

    Is Greenpeace involvement in the IPCC process part of the checks and balances?

    Dr. Ray Pierrehumbert needs an urgent reality check.

  63. mikemUK says:

    “Some of the defence of the IPCC . . . . . . which can be improved, but are not by any means as bad as MOST PEOPLE seem to think” – my caps.

    Priceless, I wonder why that should be?

    Meanwhile accept my congratulations. There can hardly be a greater accolade than gratuitous insults from such a buffoon as this.

  64. Don Keiller says:

    Grief! So that’s Ray Pierrehumbert.

    He looks exactly like a bunch of winos I pass every day on my way to work.
    Some of them actually carry clap-boards saying “The End of the World is Nigh”- “Repent!”

    They are clearly unbalanced, just like some Climate Scientists, it would appear.

  65. Lawrence says:

    Harry Bergeron said

    “Hairy Pierre gives away his game in making a political comparison of Skeptics to Breitbart — admitting that his own game is at heart political.”

    I agree with that 100%, that statement immediately flashed up in neon (oops LED Lights) he’s political left motivations.

    Oddly enough though here in the UK we have Peirs Corbyn who is not only extreme left wing but also a scathing AGW sceptic ; so there re are exceptions to the rule. However I generally feel that the left hate everything about western civilisation and a way to manifest that hatred is through AGW. People keep saying ‘the science’ but I wholly believe the deep seated political motivations take the science and spin it out of all proportion as Anthony suggests with Pierre’s gloomy scenario, imagination. The attitude to the UN is part of that; some deep seated guilt that the west developed far more rapidly than the remaining planet over the last thousand years. and therefore owes everyone else and hence the uncritical attitude towards the UN and to what Leon Trotsky called its predecessor the League of Nations, a “thieves kitchen”.

  66. Bruce says:

    I thought Prince Lvov murdered Rasputin years ago!

  67. Jimbo says:

    Dr. Ray Pierrehumbert
    “……………then the next decade we had unusually cold winters,………”

    This is a sign that he knows that their initial AGW speculation about milder NH winters is utter bull. He is setting up the escape route for when NH winters get colder. In 1998 Real Climate’s Gavin Schmidt ‘speculated’ in a peer reviewed Letter To Nature about milder NH winters as a result of the greenhouse effect. Now Dr. Ray Pierrehumbert is speculating about colder winters as a result of global warming.

    These people will do anything to protect their religion, even up to the extent of making it UNfalsifiable. Sickening!

  68. Eric (skeptic) says:

    RayPierre’s got a squeezebox and McIntyre never sleeps at night.

  69. B.O.B. says:

    Someone please remind my why the IPCC (and who knows how many other grant-sucking entities) should continue to exist?

  70. Gaudenz Mischol says:

    Funny to call others Breitbart (which in German means broad beard) will wearing one himself :-)))))))))

  71. maz2 says:

    More re Humbert and his Lolita: AGW.

    “In a sense, by continuing to read, we admit that Humbert’s story deserves to be read, we admit that we want to know what happens, less out of a concern for Lolita than for a drive to know if he keeps her, if he gets away with it. Disgust is matched by fascination.

    Critics are often divided into love-him or hate-him camps. On one side are those who admire Humbert’s wit and intelligence, his passion and humor in spite of the moral abhorrence, and who focus on Lolita’s immorality, her abject consumerism and rejection of all things literate and intelligent. On the other side we have those who give Humbert no break, taking unrelenting aim at the narcissism and tyranny of his ways and praising Lolita’s bravery and resilience in the face of it.”

    http://www.shmoop.com/lolita/humbert-humbert.html

  72. Pete in Cumbria UK says:

    raypierre should lay off the recreational drugs methinks. How else did he come up with sci-fi story of his? There are few clues otherwise.

    Also, its obviously a very personal rant/rave of his so what exactly is it doing on server at Chicago Uni? That sort of mis-use of public money/services would get you disciplined and banned from using that resource if you persisted. And seeing that the thing is dated ’2005, we’re waiting.

  73. andyd says:

    Well, the balls are defin itely in Ray’s court, it seems.

  74. Julian in Wales says:

    This mentality has a lot in common with the 10:10 video where they blow up children who dare to question.

    One wonders if this lifts the lid on how the conversations go when they are talking together in private?

  75. Atomic Hairdryer says:

    Look on the bright side. When the cAGW gravy train derails, Ray and Deep can still do acoustic sets at green gatherings. What other instruments can the Team play tunes with, and try and make the rest of the world dance to?

  76. stephen richards says:

    I always knew Ray Pierrehumbert had it in him. Merde ?

  77. Robert of Ottawa says:

    This is a humor piece, Anthony? :-)

  78. Craig Loehle says:

    How on Earth do these guys make a claim that the climate is getting more variable? Geologic data either lack annual resolution or are very noisy (or both) so we do not have long records of daily/seasonal/annual data. Looking back on the last ice age, that was a truly variable time (big droughts, strong winds–the loess deposits of the world were built up then), whereas the Holocene reveals itself as much more moderate. Since the models show more warming at the poles, the N-S gradient of temperature will be much less under global warming, and thus the extremes that fuel things like tornados will be less (tornados require a temperature contrast, often a strong cold front riding over a warm air mass).

  79. Pete in Cumbria UK says:

    there’s more..
    From their front page..
    [copy]Department of Geophysical Sciences faculty are a special breed of individuals who are fascinated with the natural processes that shape our world and who admire the skills it takes to study them[/copy]

    ‘a special breed’… we don’t think much of ourselves do we?
    /sarc

    admire the skills it takes to study them
    Does this mean..
    1/ they’re re-iterating that they’re deeply madly in love with themselves?
    or
    2. that they themselves don’t actually possess the skills they admire?

  80. Lichanos says:

    Occasionally they may out something that is technically true, but it is always of minor consequence compared to the noise, and always a distraction from the truly important questions facing society.

    This snip from his comment says so much about the attitude of the AGW scientist-advocates (emphasis) mine. They have vision, a mission, and if we don’t agree, well then, we just don’t get it

  81. Wade says:

    I would like to comment on the quote from the infallible Ray Pierrehumbert:

    We’re drawing attention to the vast body of literature accumulating, which says when it comes to global warming, we may not be just looking at a different climate, but one that is more variable from year to year than our present climate. Think about what would happen if one year we had 105-degree heat waves, then the next decade we had unusually cold winters, and then we had 50 years of drought. It would be very hard to adapt to that kind of climate.”

    In that one statement, they have covered their rear-ends when, not if, the climate does the exact opposite of global warming. The goalposts have moved again! Before, AGW would cause runaway global warming. Now they are “drawing attention” to “more variable” climate! By doing this, when there are several unusually cold years, these so-called scientists can now say “but we predicted wild swings in the climate like this, so we are still right.” Then they will tell us why we need to give up our rights and learn to live a harsher life. These people are not stupid. They will not give up the influence and easy money without a fight and they now have already a plan to say they were right even when things go wrong for them. No matter what happens with the climate, people like Ray Pierrehumbert will always say we are at fault.

  82. LearDog says:

    He reveals himself.

    But isn’t it funny that a) no one seems to make much noise about the ‘unprecedented’ rise in temperatures in the 90s, b) the assertion that it has never been this warm and c) NOAA are quietly going about re-siting their thermometers….

    I wonder why that is….. Hmmmm….why ever could that be…..? /Sarc off

    Minor consequence? Hardly!

  83. Jimbo says:

    “……………and then we had 50 years of drought.”

    He forgot about the megadroughts and monsoons that occured long before the industrial revolution. If the 1930s US dustbowls happened today you can bet your bottom Dollar that attribution would be laid at the foot of man-made global warming. See the current Texas drought compared to the 1950s drought or the

  84. burnside says:

    Anthony, unfortunately some of the critique sticks. I depend on you for substance, and I get it. On the other hand, your appetite for jibes and japes puts you very much in the same pew as Pierrehumbert – his opposite number, if you will.

    One level-headed Svensmark interview at MIT Tech Review accomplished far more than much of what appears here, and not because there’s a significant lack of substance in WUWT posts. He’s serious. And he’s taken seriously.

  85. Les Johnson says:

    ZZZ: Yeah, I saw the “camel toe”. This was quickly followed by several glasses of brain bleach, neat, no mix, to try and obliterate that image.

    Gotta admit, though, the man does have cojones….

  86. Les Francis says:

    Old bearded academics = young 1960′s hippie activists with an agenda – right or wrong?

  87. Les Johnson says:

    Anthony: your

    As for Steve and Ross, well I’m sure they’ll do just fine without needing to join the IPCC too.

    Ummm…they were a part of the IPCC, as expert reviewers….

    REPLY: I was thinking for the next revision coming up, AFAIK they have not been invited. – Anthony

  88. AngusPangus says:

    RPH, a well-connected and no doubt influential scientist, is openly and unashamedly declaring that PUBLISHED CLIMATE SCIENTISTS should be excluded from the IPCC process. If the IPCC was to have any credibility as an impartial summary of the state of the science at a point in time, exclusions should start and end with partisans like RPH. RPH reveals, perhaps, the rotten core at the heart of the IPCC process which has lead us to where we are now: if you’re not “on message”, you’re out. Thus leading to a hopelessly one-sided bad sumamry of science.

  89. Bill Illis says:

    Well, they have completely made up their minds.

    There is no room for anyone to question the scientific assumptions, no room for further evidence to change the assumptions, no room for correcting the obvious mistakes they make.

    Even a cooling climate is consistent with global warming.

    That means the rest of us have to keep doing what we are doing because these guys are not going change their minds or correct their many mistakes.

  90. Frank K. says:

    “…here’s the comment he left at Kloor’s:”

    If you follow the link, I see that our friend, graduate student and GISS summer intern Chris Colose, has weighed in on Steve McIntyre:

    “I cannot think of a single scientific contribution by him that has stood the test of time and has had such a profound impact on our understanding of climate, as many bloggers believe it has.”

    Heh! Looks like he’s ready to join “the Team”…

    He follows with an indictment of all skeptics…

    “There has been some lessons learned, but when we zoom out to critical “broad brush” topics like the radiative forcing of atmospheric CO2, climate sensitivity, impacts of ocean acidification or sea level rise, etc, the “skeptic” camp has contributed virtually nothing to help understanding anything.”

  91. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

    McIntyre, McKittrick, and Watts are the Andrew Breitbarts of climate…….

    Andrew Breitbart was right. He exposed Weiner (Footnote: believe me, no pun intended. End of footnote.) and Weiner is now out. Is he saying McIntyre, McKittrick, and Watts are right and they are exposing global warming scientists who will soon be out?

    Or is he saying Andrew Breitbart was wrong for exposing Weiner and thus McIntyre, McKittrick, and Watts are wrong for exposing the corruption in global warming scientists? It looks like that’s what he means.

    I guess right and wrong is relative with hippies.

  92. Typhoon says:

    A gentleman is someone who can play the accordion, but doesn’t..

    A climate scientist is someone who can advocate AGW agitprop, but doesn’t.

  93. Tom in Florida says:

    “from people who know the process and the checks and balances there”

    The known process is they get a huge funding check and it increases their bank balance.

  94. Bratise says:

    Me thinks the AGW is truly over now with the Solar and IPCC story coming now. These guys seem to be a bunch of immature ex-hippies greenies (but this is not an issue), the only problem is they ALL seem to be LOL

  95. John D says:

    There is of course a very important issue that these people need to be held to account for the damage that they have done and legal proceedings may be instituted against them in the future

  96. Jaypan says:

    Such kind of stupid-arrogant behaviour told me years ago that something must be wrong with the AGW theory. Keep going team, dig deeper.

  97. D. Patterson says:

    Pete in Cumbria UK says:
    June 18, 2011 at 4:41 am
    raypierre should lay off the recreational drugs methinks. How else did he come up with sci-fi story of his? There are few clues otherwise.

    Also, its obviously a very personal rant/rave of his so what exactly is it doing on server at Chicago Uni? That sort of mis-use of public money/services would get you disciplined and banned from using that resource if you persisted. And seeing that the thing is dated ’2005, we’re waiting.

    Chicago is one of the locales in which Communism and Socialism has been notably entrenched for a number of decades in the universities and local politics. The University of Chicago, University of California – Berkeley, Columbia University, Harvard, and the University of Hawaii have long been a home for such political activism and training. Saul Alinsky, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Baack Hussein Obama, Bill Ayers, Rahm Emmanuel, and many others have been associated with the Chicago’s Communist and Socialist organizations, educational institutions, and communities. The political corruption has been a key feature of of life in Chicago since its founding, and it has been a fertile ground for recruitment to the Socialist and Communist causes since their beginnings. Chicago and Cook County dominates the political affairs of the State of Illinois, which has had more Governors convicted and sent to prison than all of the other fifty States combined. The younger Mayor Daley and his political organization are in common cause with his friend, Bill Ayers. Consequently, the idea that the authorities at the university would be the least bit concerned about anything supportive of such political propaganda being posted to the university’s Web server is, to put it politely, a total non-starter. On the contrary, scientists in opposition to their publications and desired outcomes will find themselves being denied access to the university resources.

  98. Gary Pearse says:

    So we are in for decade long freezes and a year or two of 105F and 50 yrs of drought. These CAGW guys are going to be able to stay in the game whatever transpires. It at least shows a vast shift in their thinking that isn’t heralded by their gloomy models. They are swallowing bitter pills and keeping a stiff upper lip because they know we are going into a serious cooling period. It also suggests that they can now safely resurrect the LIA, MWP, Roman Warm Period, etc that had to be flattened down to make the hockey stick and all the other ‘unprecedented’ claims. This fight will only end when these guys die.

    From his science fiction paper on his site:
    “Neville Shute’s On the Beach, surely the grimmest novel of nuclear apocalypse ever written. It’s a hard novel to read even now, but in the 60’s when such things seemed terrifyingly possible, it was not for the faint of heart. ”

    Does this wise and witty man not get the irony here? This epitaph for the nuclear winter scenario is just what we can look forward to with the CAGW scenario – hard to read now (50 yrs into the future) but in the1980s- early 2000s when things seemed terrifyingly possible…..

  99. JimBrock says:

    Why is it that scientists love to look like hippies? I recall years ago that one of our inventors was not unkempt but insisted on wearing his shoes without socks. Some kind of rebellious nature?

  100. Luther Wu says:

    “We may…” “Think about what would…”
    ______

    If we had some ham, we could have some ham and eggs, if we had some eggs.

  101. Jessie says:

    Jack Savage says: June 18, 2011 at 12:24 am
    Using that photo to poke fun is to descend to the same level of argument as the fanatical catastrophists. Best avoided.
    I have to admit it is hard to resist……but resisted it should be.
    WHAT RESISTANCE PARTY DO YOU SUGGEST

    This one? http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/

    Robert of Ottawa says: June 18, 2011 at 5:04 am
    This is a humor piece, Anthony? :-)

  102. Latitude says:

    I’ve always heard that drugs make you paranoid…
    ….I guess musically inclined too

    Dr. Pierrehumbert seems to have lost the brain cells that remember increasing rain, that let to farms in the midwest, that led to heat and drought — the dust bowl of the 1930′ – 40′s

    How is his different more variable climate any different than normal?

  103. Matt G says:

    “We’re drawing attention to the vast body of literature accumulating, which says when it comes to global warming, we may not be just looking at a different climate, but one that is more variable from year to year than our present climate. Think about what would happen if one year we had 105-degree heat waves, then the next decade we had unusually cold winters, and then we had 50 years of drought. It would be very hard to adapt to that kind of climate.”

    Many of us must have missed this vast body of literature accumulating, if next year rabbits started falling out of the sky it would become, we’re not looking at just a different climate, but one which is more variable with the possibilty of rabbits falling from the sky on occasions. Sir you just make it up as you go along and showing have little idea about the climate in the first place. All your previous predictions have been wrong so moving the goal post with every little change that occurs opposite to these views. That Sir is not science, but religion, where whatever happens becomes the new part of the prediction. Instead should be looking into why these predictions have not occurred. It is completely ignoring scientific method.

    If you were to look into the climate and notice how weather behaves, the jet stream is where most of the weather action occurs away from the tropics and depends on the difference in global temperatures between the poles and the equator.Without this all the mid-lattitudes and poles would be mostly dry with one massive area of high pressure. The jet stream and La Nina or El Nino that makes the planet more variable year after year, not global warming. While the jetstream had moved further North with warming global temperatures the weather throughout the globe had moved further North, so areas further South had little weather happening at all (ie high pressure). It had become very predictable and boring, but since 2000 this has changed with the jet stream moving further South and global cloud albedo increasing with it. The weather then moves further South again so more mid-lattitude areas start getting more severe weather events again. This is partly shown by the change in the AO and NAO.

    In fact all you have stated there is natural climate change, so now natural climate change is the same as global warming. We can’t tell any difference between the two in that statement, so why don’t you just admit that we won’t beable to tell the difference because nothing unusual is occuring at all and you were wrong.

  104. timetochooseagain says:

    “Brietbarts of Climate” Wow. Proof that the so called “real scientists” are nothing more than leftwing partisan hacks. I’d love to say I’m surprised, but sadly I’m not.

  105. Theo Goodwin says:

    Bob Tisdale says:
    June 18, 2011 at 2:36 am
    “I had two reactions when I read Ray Pierrehumbert statement, ” Think about what would happen if one year we had 105-degree heat waves, then the next decade we had unusually cold winters, and then we had 50 years of drought. It would be very hard to adapt to that kind of climate.”

    First, the team is finally looking into natural cycles, and second and foremost, they haven’t a clue.”

    You totally nailed them. Everyone of them are trust fund babies who genuinely do not understand that other people are not. No farmers among these climate experts. Most are Marxists, too, and picked up their Marxism at schools like Michigan, Wisconsin, and Chicago. All of them believe in the Golden Age of Climate that ended just as they were being born (their parents did it – how about that?) and are dedicated to ending the human activities that destroyed the Golden Age. Really, everyone of them believe this BS. And PierreHumbert is a great example of what the cookie cutter can do.

  106. Hoser says:

    Nothing substantial?

    1) Flat global temperature for the last decade despite multiple model predictions based on CO2 found to be wildly inaccurate 20 years or more later.
    2) Revelation that the temperature hockey stick relied upon by bought-and-paid-for climate scientist was bogus, fabricated, and maintained by conspiracy.
    3) Revelation that sea level measurements have been padded to support the claims of global warming.
    4) Expectation that climate will cool over the next several decades as solar activity goes into a slump; possibly like another Maunder minimum. Add to that experiments that support the Svensmark hypothesis of cloud formation by cosmic rays.

    Right. Nothing substantial.

  107. Richard M says:

    I have to thank Ray for wising me up years ago. It was my first ventures to RC that made it obvious to me just how poorly the science of climate was understood. All the Ad homs from Ray and Gavin were a beacon of light that they had little REAL evidence to support their claims.

    I see nothing has changed.

  108. Fred from Canuckistan says:

    The UN is corrupt from the loading dock to the President’s office. Why anyone would think that the IPCC would be honest, would pursue science instead of a political agenda (we are socialist, we are the world) is just dreaming in technicolor.

    Corruption begets corruption.

  109. G. Karst says:

    I have to give credit where credit is due (Keith Kloor). I submitted a rather harsh comment on his blog, thinking to myself, “There is no way in hell, this will get posted”. After about an hour of moderator consideration, it appeared.

    Now that shows some integrity… Raypierre & RC: Take notice. GK

  110. omnologos says:

    I disagree on providing raypierre with a reality check. he’s obviously too emotionally scared to be able to survive that.

  111. Alberta Slim says:

    I think that his name, Pierrehumbert translates to — ListenPeter. [Peterlisten]
    Maybe that is what he should do. Listen to the skeptics instead of
    name calling.

  112. JMcCarthy says:

    Think about what would happen if one day all the electric shavers and razors in the world disappeared, then the next decade all the brewery’s and distillery’s disappeared and all that was left were winery’s , and then we had 50 years where all musical instruments in the world rusted and no longer worked except for the accordion.

    Why if that happen we would all become just like RealClimate founder Dr. Ray Pierrehumbert of the University of Chicago.

  113. GogogoStopSTOP says:

    “Think about what would happen if one year we had 105-degree heat waves, then the next decade we had unusually cold winters, and then we had 50 years of drought.”

    Let me understand. Herr Doctor Professor PierreHumbert is saying: When the world temperature reaches 105d… EVERYWHERE, then the next decade the WORLD TEMPERATURE IS EXCEPTIONALLY COLD & then the next 10 years there are WORLD WIDE DROUGHTS… Well, then us Skeptics will be responsible for the disaster!

    Herr Doctor Professor PierreHumbert… the man being followed by a half glass of wine, is that what you meant. As a Herr Doctor Professor, surely you didn’t mean that. Can you state your case again, as a good Herr Doctor Professor should be able to.

    Remember: C students manage A students. B students become Heir Doctor Professors & attempt to teach. Keep that half glass close by, it’s helping make the Skeptic’s case.

  114. Sean Peake says:

    @ZZZ
    The male equivalent of “The Toe” is called a Moose Knuckle

  115. FergalR says:

    High King of the weird-beards.

  116. D. King says:

    “That’s why, big as the IPCC tent may be, I hope there will never be a place in it for any of these clowns.”

    Agreed, the IPCC circus has enough clowns, bearded ladies, and incandescent light bulb eaters.

  117. Smokey says:

    It is no accident that scientific skeptics look like normal, salt of the earth folks, while the “team” looks like Schmidt, Pierrehumbert, etc [recall that Gavin preposterously blamed his debate loss against the normal looking Michael Crichton on the fact that Schmidt, like Pierrehumbert, is much shorter – as if the debate facts didn't matter].

    We all knew people like Pierrehumbert in high school and college. Those nerds never in their wildest dreams thought they would ever be seen as anything important. But when they got a taste of their unexpected fame and fortune, they instantly jettisoned their professional ethics and the scientific method, and boarded the grant gravy train. They love being superheroes to the deluded, and honest science was the first casualty of their ambition.

  118. jae says:

    LOL. More arm-waving–nah, flailing away, by a “team member” who knows his team has lost the big game. The public gets the gig. Poor fella must be playing some very sad songs on that squeeze box now.

  119. Luboš Motl says:

    This guy is even more similar to Rumcais the Robber, a hero of the Czech cartoons

    http://images.google.cz/images?q=rumcajs&biw=1031&bih=783

    than I used to think. Is it him?

  120. View from the Solent says:

    Typhoon says:
    June 18, 2011 at 5:58 am

    A gentleman is someone who can play the accordion, but doesn’t..
    ======================================================
    In Britain, it’s the bagpipes.

  121. pat says:

    Heh heh. He called you a clown. LOL

  122. Lady in Red says:

    I was particularly struck by this from Dr. Ray:

    “….their character assasination operation against honest, earnest climate scientists…”

    Note there’s nothing about smart, educated, intelligent, thoughtful, accurate, creative, innovative, independent….
    just earnest and so steeped in AGW tea they truly believe they are honest. Sad, sad, sad.

    (On a very tacky side thought, I wonder if there’s a woman in Dr. Ray’s life and, if so, what she’s like.)
    …..Lady in Red

  123. grzenjik says:

    This guy is either really really stupid, or really really smart. Its tough to figure out which.

  124. Luboš Motl says:

    It’s kind of surprising if he really fails to see who are the real people who do technical nontrivial work – like Steve McIntyre (whose name is backed up by something that only a tiny percentage of the population could reproduce) – and who are just the noisemakers.

    Even when he mentions the Glaciergate, it’s clear that finding that the glaciers can’t melt by 2035 is not the hard part. It’s surely not among the most difficult insights about the climate that have been made in recent years. This blunder has been a very serious one – but for the same reason, finding that it was a blunder wasn’t difficult when it comes to the necessary scientific expertise. It may have required some courage, however.

    He’s just trying to badly convince himself that the “team scientists” are the real ones and it must be so despite all the evidence to the contrary. However, the first rule of science is not to fool yourself. Pierrehumbert is constantly violating the rule.

    By the way, I forgot to mention that Pierrehumbert gave a nice PowerPoint presentation here:

    http://www.comein.sk/chat/fotogaleria/user-albums/~Pavel_77/album/2209/fotografia/22735/

  125. bubbagyro says:

    Luboš:
    I think we have here a good contrast. There exist truly elite scientists, like McIntyre, McKittrick, and Watts, who seek the truth using scientific methodology, wherever that may take them, and the elitists, who puff themselves up to mythical proportions, trying to convince others that they are of the elite. An age-old saga: Intelligentsia vs. the intelligent.

  126. Roger Knights says:

    Scott says:
    June 18, 2011 at 12:19 am

    If Steve McIntyre is Andrew Breitbart, Dr. Ray Pierrehumbert is Anthony Weiner.

    The Snake’s Progress: From attack dog to wiener dog.

  127. higley7 says:

    Pierrehumbert said: “Some of the defense of the IPCC may be knee-jerk, but a lot of it is in fact well-considered, from people who know the process and the checks and balances there”

    Er, what checks and balances? The only real check is that the upper level politicians make sure that they have the last chance to alter, insert, or delete anything that does not serve their agenda. The IPCC was never meant to be scientific, but only to appear so to serve as a propaganda machine for the AGW agenda.

    Pierrehumbert is way off as he assumes that the IPCC has any real science to support their claims. Lacking any, they find that they have to draw from pseudoscience produced by activists and journalists who see nothing wrong with making stuff up.

    It’s good to have an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out. It is a bit alarming that Pierrehumbert is a professor at the Univ of Chicago!

  128. James Wesley says:

    Hey How much does the three clowns charge for entertaining a kids party? The rain has finally stopped and I wanna throw a party for my daughter? If not, how much for the handsome devil with the accordion? Awe never mind I don’t think I want him around the kids.

    Seriously he looks like he would have a hard time demonstrating mentos and a 2 liter of coke(the pop).

    Betcha he is a hit at the folk parties though.

  129. Richard deSousa says:

    When the government trough runs dry I can imagine Pierrehumbert on a street corner playing his accordion for a living.

  130. PaddikJ says:

    Several posters have mentioned Dr. Humbug’s wishful/what-if thinking, but has anyone noticed he’s also engaging in the time-honored Team practice of moving the goalposts – but this time in the same sentence?

    “. . . if one year we had 105-degree heat waves, then the next decade we had unusually cold winters, and then we had 50 years of drought. “

    Putting aside for the moment that that is totally Planet Earth BAU, it does seem that the unhinging of The Team is accelerating – the next several years should be really entertaining.

  131. Roger Knights says:

    Mooloo says:
    June 18, 2011 at 3:04 am

    Only an uninvolved lurker but I understood that the glacier thing was detected in the IPPC deliberations at WG1. This was ignored by “those who matter” and progressed into the full report. Experts found it and experts ignored it. Am I wrong?

    A point neatly sidestepped by Mr Pierrehumbert.
    It actually puts the IPCC in much worse light than merely having an error. It shows that there are no effective checks in the IPCC on bollocks – so long as it fits the message.

    I agree—see below.

    Pierrehumbert said:

    “Note that the IPCC blunder on Himalayan glaciers — something that really did reveal problems (though not fatal ones) in IPCC procedures — was outed first by professional glaciologists, both within and outside the IPCC. i.e. REAL SCIENTISTS, not noisemakers.”

    It was noticed first, but it was ignored for years, not only by the IPCC’s officials, but by the climatological community and environmental journalists. If it hadn’t been for the threat of online critics & a renegade journalist truly “outing” the situation (into the larger world), the coverup might (IMO) have continued. (See the boldfaced phrase below.) Therefore, the IPCC’s behavior was worse than a blunder–it was a crime. I.e., a bad-faith suppressio veri effort.

    So Pierrehumbert’s characterization of it as a mere blunder is spin—at best. Below is a summary of the background of the situation that I posted (in separate comments) on WUWT at the time.
    ============

    Wakefield: “The authors of the IPCC report in this regard have admitted the error and did so before the blogosphere got wind of it,”

    It’s true that the error was dug out by Cogley, an IPCC accomplice, and by Fred Pearce, a red-hot warmist journalist who wrote for New Scientist, rather than by a blogger. However, saying the IPCC acted before the blogosphere put them up to it incorrectly hints that the IPCC would have taken action if it hadn’t feared that Pearce or Cogley would go public, perhaps via the bloggers, if a correction wasn’t made. The IPCC’s record prior to that point was one of denial and coverup as long as it thought it could get away with it:

    1. Haisnain, the WWF, and I presume other IPCCers in attendance, ignored glacier expert Gwyn Rees’s 2004 UK-government-funded debunking of rapid-melting claims and his speech warning that Haisnan’s 2035 date was ridiculous. He forced New Scientist to publish a retraction in 2004 after it had published Haisnan’s claim that Rees’s study was alarmist about the melting rate, so this was widely known:

    From The Sunday Times — January 31, 2010
    Panel ignored warnings on glacier error
    Jonathan Leake

    Another warning came from Gwyn Rees, a British hydrologist who oversaw a £300,000 study funded by the UK government in 2001 to assess the claims about rapid melt.

    His findings were published in 2004 — three years before the IPCC report — and also showed there was no risk of rapid melt.

    Rees said: “The sheer size and altitude of these glaciers made it highly unlikely they would melt by 2035.”

    The new revelations follow a report in The Sunday Times this month which forced the IPCC to retract its claim that the glaciers in the Himalayas might be gone by 2035.

    They raise more questions about why the IPCC ever took the claim seriously. It means the UN panel ignored scientific publications rejecting the rapid-melt theory in favour of claims that had been reported only in the non-scientific media and in a report by WWF, a conservation pressure group.

    The saga began with Syed Hasnain, the Indian glaciologist who issued the first warnings about rapid glacier melt in media interviews in 1999. He now works for The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI) in Delhi, which is run by Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC.

    It was those claims that prompted Britain to fund the study by Rees — who recruited Hasnain to help lead it.

    Rees, a water resource scientist at the Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, a government research centre, said Hasnain had signed up to the study’s conclusions. These stated that any suggestions the region’s glaciers might soon melt “would seem unfounded”.

    Hasnain was also in the audience at a seminar sponsored by the EU in 2004 where Rees gave a presentation suggesting there would be some glacial melt, but nothing on the scale suggested by Hasnain. His closing slide read: “It is unlikely that all glaciers will vanish by 2035!”

    That same audience also included representatives from WWF who were compiling their own report on glacier melt. Despite Rees’s warnings, they later decided to include Hasnain’s claims in their report, published in 2005, from where they were picked up by the IPCC.

    In 2004, Rees had assumed the rapid-melt claims would not be repeated, but in May that year Hasnain gave an interview to New Scientist suggesting the UK-funded study had confirmed his claims of rapid glacier melt.

    In it he said: “Global warming has already increased glacier melting by up to 30%. After 40 years, most glaciers will be wiped out and we will have severe water problems.”

    A furious Rees made the magazine publish a retraction in its letters page, describing Hasnain’s comments as a “gross misrepresentation”.

    This weekend it emerged that the leaders of the IPCC had known for weeks and probably months about the error and had even convened private conferences to discuss it.

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7009707.ece

    2. Raised-eyebrow comments during the review process from Japan and others about the source etc. of 2035 were dealt with perfunctorily. Only a citation of the WWF article was added.

    New Documents Show IPCC Ignored Doubts About Himalayan Glacier Scare
    Sunday, 24 January 2010

    The contentious 2035 date appears in the paragraph from lines 13 to 17 on page 46 of the second order draft of Working Group II. The only changes to the draft text in the finally published text are the removal of a short redundant sentence and the addition the reference to (WWF, 2005).

    David Saltz, of the Desert Research Institute, Ben Gurion University made three comments on this short paragraph including one upon the obvious inconsistency of saying first that the likelihood is very high that Himalayan glaciers will “disappear” by 2035 if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate, and then stating “Its total area will shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 km2 by the year 2035”. The Lead Author’s response to the comment on inconsistency was:

    “Missed to clarify this one”.

    The Government of Japan commented rather more critically:

    “This seems to be a very important statement, possibly should be in the SPM, but is buried in the middle of this chapter. What is the confidence level/certainty? (i.e.“the likelihood of the glaciers disappearing is very high” is at which level of likelihood? (ref. to Box TS-1, “Description of Likelihood”). Also in this paragraph, the use of “will” is ambiguous and should be replaced with appropriate likelihood/confidence level terminology.”

    The Lead Authors’ response to Government of Japan was:

    “Appropriate revisions and editing made”.

    From what I can see the Lead Authors found none appropriate.

    The paragraph, following the 2035 claim and table 10.10, begins:

    “The receding and thinning of Himalayan glaciers can be attributed primarily to the global warming due to increase in anthropogenic emission of greenhouse gases.”

    Hayley Fowler from Newcastle University commented with citations:

    “I am not sure that this is true for the very large Karakoram glaciers in the western Himalaya. Hewitt (2005) suggests from measurements that these are expanding – and this would certainly be explained by climatic change in preciptiation and temperature trends seen in the Karakoram region (Fowler and Archer, J Climate in press; Archer and Fowler, 2004) You need to quote Barnett et al.’s 2005 Nature paper here – this seems very similar to what they said.”

    The Lead Authors responded:

    “Was unable to get hold of the suggested references will consider in the final version”

    The Government of Japan again noted the lack of any reference and commented rather critically:

    “This statement lacks any reference. Also, the reader wonders, are “global warming” and “climate change” interchangeable? Are we still using “global warming”? Clarification of this would be appreciated.”

    “The use of “will” (again) is ambiguous. The confidence level using IPCC terminology should be stated.”

    The Lead Author’s response to Government of Japan was once again:

    “Appropriate revisions and editing made”.

    But once again none were made either in response to Hayley Fowler or the Government of Japan.

    For the IPCC TSU, Clare Hanson commented that there was only one reference for the whole section. This was Hasnain, 2002. To Clare Hanson the Lead Authors’ response was:

    “More references added”.

    So far as I can tell only Shen et al., 2002 and WWF, 2005 were added.

    http://www.thegwpf.org/international-news/459-new-documents-show-ipcc-ignored-doubts-about-himalayan-glacier-scare.html

    3. Lead Author Georg Kaser’s e-mail to the IPCC’s technical support team prior to publication about 2035 was ignored.

    Roger Pielke, Jr. — 18 January 2010
    Stranger and Stranger

    The fallout from the IPCC Himalayan glacier situation gets stranger and stranger. Now an IPCC lead author has stepped forward claiming that the error has been known by the IPCC all along. From Agence France-Presse:

    A top scientist said Monday he had warned in 2006 that a prediction of catastrophic loss of Himalayan glaciers, published months later by the UN’s Nobel-winning climate panel, was badly wrong.

    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report said in 2007 it was “very likely” that the glaciers, which supply water to more than a billion people across Asia, would vanish by 2035 if global warming trends continued.

    “This number is not just a little bit wrong, but far out of any order of magnitude,” said Georg Kaser, an expert in tropical glaciology at the University of Innsbruck in Austria.

    “It is so wrong that it is not even worth discussing,” he told AFP in an interview.
    …………
    Kaser said some of the scientists from other regional groups took heed of suggestions, and made corrections ahead of final publication in April 2007.

    But the Asia group did not. “I pointed it out,” he said of the implausible prediction on the glaciers.

    “For a reason I do not know, they did not react.”

    http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/01/stranger-and-stranger.html

    Here’s the IPCC’s excuse for how it dropped the ball:

    January 25, 2010, 6:02 pm
    Explanation Offered for Error in U.N. Climate Report
    By JAMES KANTER

    The official, Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, a vice chairman of the climate change panel, said that a glaciologist, Georg Kaser at the University of Innsbruck, in Austria, had sought to correct the information about the glaciers before it was published by the panel but that the correction came too late and never reached the people who could fix the statement.

    “It’s very unfortunate,” Dr. van Ypersele said, because Dr. Kaser “actually provided the correct information, but not to the correct person.”

    The lead authors “didn’t, from my understanding, get the caveats that would have been useful,” Dr. van Ypersele said.

    He added that he had examined records of e-mail messages and found that the authors had never received the pertinent message from Dr. Kaser. Furthermore, Dr. Kaser’s “most pointed criticism” of the findings on glacial melting came after the contents of the report had been completed, Dr. van Ypersele said.

    http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/25/explanation-offered-for-error-in-un-climate-report/

    4. Lead Author Georg Kaser’s letter to Asia group head Dr. Lal was ignored. (Lal said in response that he never got it. A “likely story,” IMO.)

    Glacier scientist: I knew data hadn’t been verified
    By David Rose
    Last updated at 12:54 AM on 24th January 2010

    Last week, Professor Georg Kaser, a glacier expert from Austria, who was lead author of a different chapter in the IPCC report, said when he became aware of the 2035 claim a few months before the report was published, he wrote to Dr Lal, urging him to withdraw it as patently untrue.

    Dr Lal claimed he never received this letter. ‘He didn’t contact me or any of the other authors of the chapter,’ he said.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Glacier-scientists-says-knew-data-verified.html#

    5. In early November ChooChoo scornfully dismissed the correction in the report issued by VK Raina of India’s Geological Survey, calling it voodoo science. Here’s WUWT’s thread on the matter then:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/11/pachauri-claims-indian-scientific-position-arrogant/

    6. Later in November ChooChoo was informed about the error by Pavlia Bagla but he took no action. This is in line with the IPCC’s hear-no-evil precedents described above. Here’s a story by Andrew Bolt summarizing the matter:

    Pachauri lied about Himalayan warning
    Andrew Bolt — Saturday, January 30, 2010

    Rajendra Pachauri, head of the increasingly suspect IPCC, is caught out lying and now must surely go:

    Rajendra Pachauri was told that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment that the glaciers would disappear by 2035 was wrong, but he waited two months to correct it…

    Dr Pachauri … told The [London] Times on January 22 that he had only known about the error for a few days. He said: “I became aware of this when it was reported in the media about ten days ago. Before that, it was really not made known. Nobody brought it to my attention. There were statements, but we never looked at this 2035 number.”

    Asked whether he had deliberately kept silent about the error to avoid embarrassment at (his IPCC) Copenhagen (summit last December), he said: “That’s ridiculous. It never came to my attention before the Copenhagen summit…”

    However, a prominent science journalist said that he had asked Dr Pachauri about the 2035 error last November. Pallava Bagla, who writes for Science journal, said he had asked Dr Pachauri about the error…

    Dr Pachauri had previously dismissed a report by the Indian Government which said that glaciers might not be melting as much as had been feared. He described the report, which did not mention the 2035 error, as “voodoo science”.

    Mr Bagla said he had informed Dr Pachauri that Graham Cogley, a professor at Ontario Trent University and a leading glaciologist, had dismissed the 2035 date as being wrong by at least 300 years. Professor Cogley believed the IPCC had misread the date in a 1996 report which said the glaciers could melt significantly by 2350. [This was his first guess at the source of the error. later he realized it came from Haisnan.--RK]

    Mr Pallava interviewed Dr Pachauri again this week for Science… In the taped interview, Mr Pallava asked: “I pointed it out [the error] to you in several e-mails, several discussions, yet you decided to overlook it. Was that so that you did not want to destabilise what was happening in Copenhagen?”

    As I wrote last week, more telling than even the IPCC’s bizarre Himalayan error has been Pachauri’s instinctive reaction to deny and abuse those pointing out such mistakes.

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/pachauri_lied_about_himalayan_warning#66326

    PS: Don’t forget that the IPCC not only printed the wrong date, but backed it up by rating the likelihood of the glaciers disappearing as “very high”—i.e., more than 90 per cent.

    Further, although all the experts except Kaser failed to try to get this corrected afterwards (too good a story to spoil?), this was not something that others overlooked:

    that error has been regurgitated ad nauseam. Although Professor Cogley did not notice it, when the 2007 IPCC report was published, the 2035 date was dutifully reported by newspapers all over the world, and became the subject of much Jeffrey Simpson-style brow-knitting.

    http://www.nationalpost.com/related/links/story.html?id=2461595&p=2
    …………….
    The 2035 date was an alarming, attention-grabbing finding — and many journalists, including Stephan Faris last year in Foreign Policy, cited it as evidence that global warming is an urgent crisis.

    http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/02/09/inside_the_climate_bunker?page=full

    Incidentally, the passage above continues with some interesting background material:

    But, after the Indian government released its own report with conflicting glacier-melt data last fall, glacier scientists went back to the IPCC report and began to raise questions about the 2035 date. The chatter among experts was picked up in Science magazine last year, before spilling into the mainstream media ….

    *****

    PPS: Here is a piece of a letter to the London Times. It contradicts Wakefield’s proxy claim that the IPCC made a good-faith error:

    Sir, Dr Vicky Pope’s defence of the robustness of “the science” of climate change is too comprehensive (Commentary, Jan 28).
    ………………
    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s “mistakes” that Dr Pope refers to are no ordinary errors. They show a deliberate disregard for the principles of scientific objectivity. The IPCC had every reason to know that its account of the Himalayan glacier melting was misleading, just as it had every reason to know that its predictions of hurricane frequency and intensity were both unsubstantiated and implausible.

    Lord Leach of Fairford
    London EC3

    Here’s another comment, on dot.earth, that indicates the great usefulness this 2035 “error” had for the alarmist cause:

    Barry Youngerman

    The big question has always been, is the danger so immediate that we must “do something right now.” For me, that bogus 2035 date is not a minor matter; it gets to the heart of the issue.

    And here’s a WUWT comment that’s another indication that it was “no accident” that the IPCC made the 2035 “error”:

    ScientistForTruth (15:15:06) :

    I demonstrate conclusively that the scientific community knew about these Glaciergate errors by their being exposed in a peer-reviewed journal in 2005, which was essentially the substance of a chapter from a book published in 2004 by an authority on the Himalayas. Syed Hasnain’s pronouncements are shown to be myths, and worse. The paper appeared in Himalayan Journal of Sciences, entitled

    “Himalayan misconceptions and distortions: What are the facts? Himalayan Delusions: Who’s kidding who and why — Science at the service of media, politics and the development agencies.”

    In light of that, I find it almost certain that Pachauri and a lot of others knew that these were lies years before AR4 was published.

    http://buythetruth.wordpress.com/2010/01/26/un-ipcc-rotting-from-the-head-down

    ******

    PPPS: Here’s more background info., from an earlier WUWTer:

    R.S.Brown (00:54:37) :
    Anthony,
    Mr. Rajendra Pachauri was dumping on a paper that utilized data drawn from numerous University, College Departmental studies, Institute reports, and colloquiums done over the years. There are 18 citations toward the end, most of them peer-reviewed (but not by the IPCC “Team”) and written by the folks who have been studying the Himalayan glaciers up close and personally for years.

    Here’s the difficult-to-find link to the Government of India’s Ministry of Environment and Forests Discussion Paper, “Himalayan Glaciers – A State-of-Art Review of Glacial Studies, Glacial Retreat and Climate Change” edited by V.K.Raina, the former Deputy Director of the Geological Survey of India:
    http://moef.nic.in/downloads/public-information/MoEF%20Discussion%20Paper%20_him.pdf
    Raga on. \ / Ray Brown

    More criticism of the good-faith-error defense:

    Economic Times, India: IPCC imperialism on Indian glaciers
    by Swaminathan S Anklesaria Aiyar

    It speaks volumes for the huge biases within IPCC that it took two years for this hoax to be exposed. Any hoax opposing the global warming thesis would be exposed in ten seconds flat. The IPCC is willing to swallow unexamined what it finds convenient, while raising a thousand technical objections to anything inconvenient. This is religious crusading, not objective science. The tactics being used to discredit and destroy heretics is reminiscent of the Spanish Inquisition.

    The Indian panel, headed by V K Raina, looked at 150 years of data gathered by the Geological Survey of India from 25 Himalayan glaciers. It was the first comprehensive study of the region. It concluded that while Himalayan glaciers had long been retreating, there was no recent acceleration of the trend, and nothing to suggest that the glaciers would disappear. In short, the IPCC had perpetrated an alarmist hoax without scientific foundation.
    …..
    Raina said that the mistake made by western scientists “was to apply the rate of glacial loss from other parts of the world to the Himalayas… In the United States the highest glaciers in Alaska are still below the lowest level of Himalayan glaciers. Our 9,500 glaciers are located at very high altitudes. It is a completely different system.”

    http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/opinion/columnists/swaminathan-s-a-aiyar/IPCC-imperialism-on-Indian-glaciers/articleshow/5478293.cms

  132. Jimbo says:

    Jim Cripwell says:
    June 18, 2011 at 3:27 am

    The thing I find to be absolutely terrifying (I wish I could think of a stronger word), is that Dr. Pierrehumbert actually believes that what he writes is the truth; that someone of his intellect and intelligence can believe his own words.

    Jim, don’t be terrified, because he does not believe a word he says. This is all part of the AGW scam that has run for way too long. It’s falling apart now that’s the reason for the hysteria and arm waving excersises.

  133. Don Mcdonald says:

    “Think about what would happen if one year we had 105-degree heat waves, then the next decade we had unusually cold winters”

    I know what would happen, I would look up at the street signs and say “hey, I’m in Chicago”. Good grief…

  134. 3x2 says:

    That picture is a keeper….consider it kept.

  135. Dr. Dave says:

    Totally meaningless but I couldn’t help but notice that I recognized the name of everybody he mentioned but had never heard of Ray Pierrehumbert. He’s sort of like a labor union leader for climate scientists who earn their living supporting this fraud.

  136. alcuin says:

    Someone above criticised the choice of a picture of Pierrehumbert that accompanies the posting. No need to apologise, as Pierrehumbert probably fancies it to be on a par with the picture of Richard Feynman playing the bongo drums.

  137. JEM says:

    Dr Pierrehumbert’s remark about those outside having no visibility into the IPCC’s “checks and balances” reminds one a little too much of the Watergate-era Nixon administration.

    And his attempt to link Steve Mc, Ross, and our host here to Brietbart et al clearly indicates what end of the political spectrum he hangs out on, there may be room to criticize Breitbart’s methods and he has made the occasional very visible error, but he’s certainly been right on the facts more often than he’s been wrong.

  138. bubbagyro says:

    To sum up what Roger said, in a nutshell, it is the cover-up that attests to the seriousness of the crime.

  139. Brian Hall says:

    So considerate of the Warmistas to give face time to a certifiable whack job like RP. Every time he opens his mouth, the obvious distortions underlying his and the Consensus world-view are exposed for all to see.

    Thanks, Weird Warmista! (Really deserves a few seconds of fame in a Red Eye clip, come to think of it …)

  140. TomRude says:

    Ray Pierrehumbert has managed to turn meteorological and paleo climatological knowledge upside down! More contrasted seasons, weather and climate in a warming world??? How about that novelty… LOL
    Come on Ray of sunshine, keep playing the accordeon because as a climate fiddler, you’re a laughable shrill.

  141. D. Patterson says:

    Roger Knights says:
    June 18, 2011 at 11:08 am

    That’s quite a summary. Thank you for presenting it.

  142. Lance says:

    Pierrehumbert says regarding Anthony, Steve McIntyre and Ross McKittrick

    …always a distraction from the truly important questions facing society.

    Well that says all you need to know about the good doctor. He is more concerned with his “mission” to save the planet than in engaging in anything resembling actual scientific inquiry.

    There is indeed a “clown” in the above article and you wont find the red nose or big shoes on Anthony, Steve or Ross.

  143. Ken Coffman says:

    In a single second, Earth absorbs 1.22 × 10ee17 joules of energy from the Sun. Distributed uniformly over the mass of the planet, the absorbed energy would raise Earth’s temperature to nearly 800 000 K after a billion years, if Earth had no way of getting rid of it.
    - Ray Pierrehumbert

    http://climateclash.com/2011/01/15/g6-infrared-radiation-and-planetary-temperature/

    Once a man has said something this stupid, it’s safe to ignore anything else he has to say.

  144. MattA says:

    The key issue with the predictions like the one above, where every variation in weather is attributed to AGW, is that the theory is not falsifiable. If both warming and cooling are due to AGW – and floods and drought …..

    This is no longer science since it cannot be falsified – because the predictions are vaugue enough to cover every eventuality – its astrology.

  145. Mooloo says:

    burnside says:
    June 18, 2011 at 5:33 am

    Anthony, unfortunately some of the critique sticks. I depend on you for substance, and I get it. On the other hand, your appetite for jibes and japes puts you very much in the same pew as Pierrehumbert – his opposite number, if you will.

    One level-headed Svensmark interview at MIT Tech Review accomplished far more than much of what appears here, and not because there’s a significant lack of substance in WUWT posts. He’s serious. And he’s taken seriously.

    I beg to differ, for two reasons.

    Firstly, only an elite can read the MIT Tech Review and understand it. When you say “he is taken seriously” you mean by how many of the general public? We went down the road of climate science being an elite subject, and look where it has lead! In fact airing the subject in public is what a democracy needs. Sure there will be some heat generated with the light, but that is a cost of democratic decision making. If WUWT did not expose the ridiculous nature of many AGW proponents, how would the general public know they were foolish? MIT Review won’t do that, not matter how highly the elite regard it.

    I note that Anthony does not ridicule every warmist. The Pielkes and Judith Curry, for example, do not say ridiculous things, but back up their arguments with some reason. Even when disagreed with, they are respected. It is Pierrehumbert’s own attitudes that make him foolish, and he needs to be exposed.

    Secondly, and much more importantly, you are assuming the AGW proponents will be defeated by science. They won’t be. It is a set of social/political programs for which a veneer of scientific credibility is required. In the end the AGW mantra will be proved or disproved by time and nothing else. For those opposed to it the important thing is to prevent foolish political and social decisions being made in the meantime.

    (We know this because many AGW activists make it quite plain that they will oppose modern economic expansion even if carbon dioxide is shown to be innocent. Their aim is to reduce economic activity, and they make it pretty clear in their non-scientific literature.)

    This does not excuse the ridiculous political assertions made by some comments here (not all people with leftist leanings hate humanity, despite constant assertions to the contrary) but again we get some heat with our light in a society that allows people to have their say.

  146. Pierrehumbert dares to end his post in response to Keith referring to McIntyre et al as “These clowns”.

    It is quite clear that he hasn’t seen himself in a mirror for the last couple of decades. He needs only a red button nose and his speach will make the delight of children in a three ring circus.

    REPLY: Already happened: http://www.cartoonsbyjosh.com/ – A

  147. RiHo08 says:

    Its really hard to retire at the peak of one’s carreer, acolaydes and all. Its usually when one feels the wind in one’s face with the acceleration down the back end of the career slope that it occurs to you that you have other things to say, just no longer relevant to current topics. With the recent loss of Stanford’s and Climate Science “all’s fair in love and war, and make no mistake, we are in a war,” Schneider, I wonder if Chicago’s Ray Pierrehumbert isn’t next in the Max Planck trueism: “science advances one funeral at a time.” But during Max Planck’s time, certain selected elders controlled the peer review process (science knowledge podium). Nothing like information control could possibly occur during the Information Age, with the internet? or could it? Or in this age of artificial life support, maybe Douglas MacArther is more appropo: “Old soldiers never die, they just fade away.” Applicable to a Climate Warrior. God’s speed.

  148. Steve in SC says:

    Ol Rabespierre must be related to the Unabomber.

  149. Bernal says:

    Pierre better watch his back because I know the morons at Ace of Spades do read WUWT and that picture of Ray could set off a hobo hunt.
    Fine if you are the Andrew Breitbart blah blah blah but please no pics of Ray’s bloomers. Actually he looks like he might go commando.
    Don’t poke the Ewok!

  150. Roger Knights says:

    D. Patterson says:
    June 18, 2011 at 2:16 pm

    Roger Knights says:
    June 18, 2011 at 11:08 am

    That’s quite a summary. Thank you for presenting it.

    Thanks. Incidentally, here’s what I posted on dot earth on this topic, in response to a commenter there named Kandler, who wrote:

    “All this speculation about who [at the ICPP] shoulda done what is so much hot air.”

    What they should have done if an error was brought to their attention is not a matter of speculation: They should have made a correction and retraction. If Lal or his flunkies were deep-sixing corrections to AR4, or closing their eyes and ears to them, because the corrections would have blunted its alarming message, that is an indication that its editors were propagandists first, scientists second.

    “The glacier error is really not significant;…”

    On the contrary, it’s one of the seven pillars of alarmism. The supposed threat it posed to the waters of Asia’s masses was trumpeted far and wide — for instance, in Al Gore’s movie. Without this threat, the political mobilization it aroused in Asia to Do Something Now would have been less intense, and attaining a CO2 treaty would have been imperiled.

    “If Kaser didn’t press the issue,it’s probably a sign of its relatively low priority …”

    Well, after the technical support unit ignored him, Kaser flung himself once more into the breech with a personal letter to Lal. It’s been printed that Kaser has stated that he didn’t write to the lead authors directly because they might have taken it the wrong way. He seems to be shy about personal confrontation, as many scientists are. Your “probably” is therefore unlikely — in fact, ridiculous in light of what Kaser has said and of the importance of the error.

    “without the hysterical heat of irrational denialists on his back.”

    I’ll let the reader compare the tone, diction, and cogency of my posts to Kandler’s and “make the call” on this one.

    “AR4 WG2 allows non-peer reviewed literature,which is all referenced BTW, which renders some of the bleating here meaningless.”

    Yes, but only as supplemental sources, not as the major or the only source, as (shockingly) was the case in this instance.

    “to expect it to be error free is deliberately unrealistic.”

    This wasn’t just a typo, or something of that nature. It was a HOWLER. That’s the first strike. Second, the review process, which Pachauri touted only recently as thorough and rigorous, failed to catch it. That’s the next strike. Finally, the IPCC’s staff and officers brushed aside attempts to point out the flaw. (Pachauri’s dismissal of the Indian Government’s report’s attempt to correct the IPCC’s alarmism is of a piece with this pattern of cover-up.) Strike three–you’re out.

    “I find the fact that so many hysterics have finally started to look at the IPCC reports at this late stage very telling.”

    I believe that a few contrarians pointed out this flaw years ago online — IIRC at least one person has posted a claim to this effect already, and I suspect evidence of additional prior warnings will emerge in time. What’s really telling is that the numerous warmists and scientists who read the report (all contributors got free copies, I assume) failed to blow the whistle on this glaring error. It suggests that they didn’t want to rock the boat for one disreputable reason or another.

  151. Jessie says:

    D. Patterson says: June 18, 2011 at 6:34 am

    Thank you for that overview.
    Aren’t the institutions of higher learning you mention purveyors of the model ‘action research’? Used by community developers and organisers (Alinsky-style) and now internationally. Historically they used mal-distribution (‘exclusion’ from the earth’s material riches) but then moved on to culture as a proxy means to an end. As much, universal access to the ‘equal richness of culture[s]‘ has been the end result.

    If so, Northern Australia has been blighted by a similar approach from their visiting academia. The results are easily seen [and measured] by outcome replicability; across each and every social petri dish created.

    Now that their hybrid carbon trading model (schema) is on the back burner they have turned their attention to industrial affairs with the live trade export and are now suggesting northern abattoirs. And all the associated ‘well meaning and inclusion’. Problem is that they were involved in the demise of this very industry and many, many livelihoods decades ago. Technology changed the outback and much has since moved on for many others.

    A book of interest, but no longer in print, Red over Black, Geoff McDonald (1982).
    http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/1814216

  152. Jessie says:

    Thank you Mooloo for your analysis, most insightful.

  153. Bulldust says:

    Pompous git is what we call people like that ’round ‘ere. Got to wonder what delusional parallel universe these people inhabit to think that the IPCC represents good ole honest working climate scientists doing their level best to present the best, unbiased work they can… seriously. His comments remiond me of the Black Knight in The Holy Grail. How many more “flesh wounds” can the IPCC take?

  154. Bill Hunter says:

    nobody in particular says:
    June 17, 2011 at 8:48 pm
    “Just how is that any more variable than the way things already have been for longer than we’ve even been around…?”

    You will need to forgive Ray. They have not shut the air conditioning off in this ivory tower . . . .ever. . . .yet.

  155. groweg says:

    As a U. of Chicago alum with an interest in the global warming debate I communicated with Prof. Pirrehumbert a few times about the global warming issue. I presented him with what I felt were reasoned and scientific objections to global warming. His responses amounted to saying that I must be against science and that “There aren’t any scientific reasons for not ‘believing’ in global warming.” My impression was that he is completely incapable of seriously considering or responding to anyone who disagrees with his position. He was either unable or unwilling to respond intelligently to arguments against global warming. He is all pomposity and hot air. I believe that McIntyre, McKittrick, or Watts would trounce him in a debate on global warming. For that matter, I believe almost all of the posters on this site could too.

  156. Frank K. says:

    groweg says:
    June 18, 2011 at 6:40 pm

    “My impression was that he is completely incapable of seriously considering or responding to anyone who disagrees with his position.”

    This comment speaks for most of the “Team” along with their ardent fans and media enablers.

    Unfortunately, it probably is a lost cause to try to reason with these people, so we will have to fight and defeat them politically before they have a chance to irrevocably damage our society…

  157. Jerry says:

    This is a very enlightening post. The departmental website is quite revealing. What a bunch of lunatics! For years I have been interested in pursuing a master’s degree in geology, but stuff like this gives me pause. There is no way I’m going subject myself to flagrantly political nonsense like that for two or more years, while taking out loans to do it. There must be a better place to study geology. Someplace that has not been contaminated by gov’t funding and IPCC pseudo science. Or are all the geology departments like that nowadays?

  158. Ed Barbar says:

    This person isn’t a scientist. He isn’t a truth seeker. He is a prophet. He knows how to tend his flock.

    Truth doesn’t have anything to do with it. It’s creating a forum to cement the notions of people who want something to believe in, as opposed to people like A. Watts and R. Muller who seem to me to be truth seekers, seeking an explanation to the (insanely) complex world around us.

  159. Brian Hall says:

    Mooloo sez, “This does not excuse the ridiculous political assertions made by some comments here (not all people with leftist leanings hate humanity, despite constant assertions to the contrary)”. True, as long as the humanity is of the collaborative, low-tech, obedient sort, led by enlightened elites such as themselves.

    The rest (of us) are beyond the pale, and deserve all the extinguishing and deletion they are reluctantly eager to dish out

  160. Brian Macker says:

    The myth on the left is that Breitbart is the equivalent of Michael Moore. Moore actually manipulates his movies to distort the truth. Breitbart has not actually done that. I doubt his ability to properly analyze the science is any better if he relies on third hand take downs on Breitbart. Isn’t he aware that Breitbart ran the entire video of Shirley Sherrod and the point was to show what a bunch of racist the audience was, not Sherrod.

  161. TimM says:

    “McIntyre, McKittrick, and Watts are the Andrew Breitbarts of climate. ”

    Someone needs to keep the bastards honest.

  162. Patrick Kelly says:

    I get the feeling that not enough readers followed the link and read the essay. This guy is living in a fantasy world. He displays an unhealthy preoccupation with Science fiction disaster scenarios. is it any wonder he holds the views that he does.
    Go on. Give it a read.

  163. P Wilson says:

    That is a purely sententious missive from Dr. Ray Pierrehumbert. The only problem with rhetoric, is that science and rhetoric are like chalk and cheese.

  164. Typhoon says:

    Mr. Pierrehumbert’s appearance and passion for the accordion are irrelevant.

    However, his dogmatic position on AGW makes him the scientific equivalent of a clown.

    Sad to see a science dept at the Univ of Chicago become so degenerate.

  165. Jerry says:

    Oh dear god!

    I just read his science fiction essay.

    Among the assorted nonsense, something caught my eye. Does he honestly think that adding moisture to a (fictional) planet like Dune would cause runaway heating? This reveals his bias to AGW and modeling–he obviously does not understand heat transfer by cloud formation and the negative feedback it causes.

  166. HankHenry says:

    It’s an amusing picture. Does this fellow spend a lot of time in the field? Adopting an unkempt appearance in which one doesn’t care how you appear to others seems to have become a way of making a statement. If that’s what’s going on in this picture I’d like to recommend that a little effort put into grooming oneself is not a bad thing for social creatures to undertake. Appearance is a superficial matter but we all have one, regardless. Thinking you can not tend to appearance at all and escape the superficiality of it is a mistake. It’s a huge distraction for someone expecting to be taken seriously in public debate (or the classroom) to adopt such a look. Scruffy beards are fine for a Tolstoy or Walt Whitman but they weren’t debating at the public square. It’s hard not to want to laugh seeing a person making such drastic pronouncements about the future and expecting humankind to remould itself coming to the debate looking as common as homeless person. Is it all a joke?

  167. Darren Parker says:

    “Think about what would happen if one year we had 105-degree heat waves, then the next decade we had unusually cold winters, and then we had 50 years of drought.”

    Welcome to Australia

  168. Ryan says:

    “Think about what would happen if one year we had 105-degree heat waves, then the next decade we had unusually cold winters,”

    It would be terrible. It would be like living in Germany.

  169. reason says:

    “If Steve McIntyre is Andrew Breitbart, Dr. Ray Pierrehumbert is Anthony Weiner.”

    I really don’t want to think about this man Tweeting pictures of his…er…concertina…

  170. Brian Hall says:

    FatBigot;
    And how does the stool stand when all 3 of its legs are broken?
    At least that way it won’t “tip”. :)

  171. Mike Wryley says:

    Duude,

    don’t Breitbart that Weiner my friend,,,,twit him over to me, let’s see who had the facts in that situation ?

    Ray P is another example of the result of the public dole,

    did I mention that Granby, Colorado got six inches of snow today, June 20, 2011 ???

Comments are closed.