Readers may recall that I became a target of Al Gore for getting some press.
From Al Gore’s “Reality Drop” project, the GoreBots were given the orders.
Read the entire interview by James Stafford here to see what got them in a tizzy. And since the “Reality Drop” bot attack to “destroy denial” really didn’t work out so well, the big guns had to be called in.
Yes, the Climate Science Rapid Response Team, headed by John Abraham, has come to the rescue of the Gorebots. As is typical, I’m painted in ways that were never part of the original interview, because Abraham views lack of things he expects to see in print as “denial” on my part, a typical strawman tactic. What Mr. Abraham doesn’t know is that the interview that appeared was edited and shortened, and not all of what I said and referenced was used. Some of the references, like that to the IPCC SREX report on severe weather didn’t make the cut.
A few quotable quotes from the report from Chapter 4: (h/t to Roger Pielke Jr.)
- “There is medium evidence and high agreement that long-term trends in normalized losses have not been attributed to natural or anthropogenic climate change”
- “The statement about the absence of trends in impacts attributable to natural or anthropogenic climate change holds for tropical and extratropical storms and tornados”
- “The absence of an attributable climate change signal in losses also holds for flood losses”
I had to laugh though, at this transparent effort as it seems almost desperate in the tone to quash anything I said that is contrary to his organized views, having a difference of opinion isn’t skepticism according to Mr. Abraham:
The fact is that Mr. Watts is not a pragmatic sceptic. Real scientists are sceptical by nature. We don’t believe what our colleagues tell us until we verify it for ourselves. Scientists honestly develop views of how the world works and they test those views by experimentation. As a result of approximately 150 years of climate science, the vast majority of scientists are convinced that humans are a major cause of climate change. Mr. Watts, on the other hand, dismisses evidence that is counter to his viewpoint. That is not scepticism–that is plain denial.
Yes, he had to get that obligatory smear in there. SOP.
This one is a real howler:
It isn’t surprising that Mr. Watts disagrees with all of these other researchers. What I was surprised by was the fact he seems to disagree with his own research.
Gosh, would science ever advance if we didn’t build on and improve previous research? Is it somehow dishonest that a researcher realizes that an earlier effort had an incomplete or flawed result and then works to build upon that? Mr. Abraham’s framing makes it look dishonest, but then again, that’s what his behind the scenes organization is paid/funded to do. I suppose those years of unfunded work cataloging the national USHCN weather station network used for climate study was not a “We don’t believe what our colleagues tell us until we verify it for ourselves.” but a simple case of “denial”.
We know why the first effort (Fall et al) didn’t see much of a siting signal, so the second effort used a different method endorsed by the WMO, and found a strong signal. We built on the flaws of the first work, and we are preparing a paper for submission that includes dealing with the useful criticisms we learned from the discussion of the preliminary release.
Here’s another of Abraham’s lies of omission:
He didn’t tell you that he actually published a paper on this subject a few years ago where he concluded that temperature sensor siting had no impact on temperature trends.
LOL! Well, right in the abstract it says:
Comparison of observed temperatures with NARR shows that the most poorly sited stations are warmer compared to NARR than are other stations, and a major portion of this bias is associated with the siting classification rather than the geographical distribution of stations. According to the best‐sited stations, the diurnal temperature range in the lower 48 states has no century‐scale trend.
Looks like an effect to me.
And, the Fall et al paper published in JGR is being cited in the scientific community in 12 other papers, so it must be useful.
I can’t imagine oilprice.com sought out this interview, but rather they were likely badgered with emails filled with buzzwords like “false balance” into thinking they had to provide his view as counterpoint.
I do plan a much more detailed response to clear up all of the framing and lies of omission Mr. Abraham told about me, but for now I welcome what readers have to say about the interview and some of the points. You can read it here:
http://oilprice.com/Interviews/Real-Pragmatism-for-Real-Climate-Change-Interview-with-Dr.-John-Abraham.html
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“What I was surprised by was the fact he seems to disagree with his own research”
John Abraham
“When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”
John Maynard Keynes
We live in worrying times. Science + Politics = fascism.
Oh noes – is that a gun sight? Death threats!!!
Has anyone done an analysis/explanation of the NOAA extreme weather index? I have found the index but no explanation of it.
Good job, Anthony! Don’t let the low-ball attacks get you down!
Somebody should debate this guy. Would you care to, Anthony? Maybe Roy Spencer? Lomborg? Rancourt? I find it amazing that the publication didn’t call him out on the most outlandish of his claims:
“We can do something about [climate change] now, with today’s technology.”
Ask him for the numbers on that, starting with the assumption (for the sake of argument) that CO2 is driving climate. Have him explain what humans need to do to get the atmospheric CO2 to level off, then to decline (i.e., lay out the relationship between human CO2 emissions atmospheric CO2 concentration). Have him then explain how he measures the climate “improvement” associated with, say, a 10 ppm reduction or a 50 ppm reduction, or whatever his “target” happens to be.
He might start to get red in the face at this point. A shrewd person might offer him evidence that the variances in the Keeling Curve are primarily dependent on one factor: temperature. This is not surprising, since human CO2 emissions are dwarfed by natural CO2 emissions (ocean outgassing and plant decay).
Then have him offer a WAG as to what his hoped-for CO2 concentration reduction will cost society, to the nearest Quadrillion Dollars. When he’s done with that, he can try to convince remaining believers why we should spend money on something which he can’t even measure when we have many pressing problems, most of which are very clear and very clearly man-made.
Oh, and by the way, did anyone mention that Asia has no intention of reducing its GHG emissions? Or that GHG emissions GROWTH in Asia outpaces GHG emissions REDUCTION in the W. World by about 20:1?
Kurt in Switzerland
So, the placement of surface monitoring stations may have little effect? The external thermometer in my mini-van may not be accurate, but I have noticed that the temperature in the parking lot 100 feet away from a large government research facility is consistently 3F warmer than the temperature 1/2 mile away from the same facility.
I laugh when I see mean temperatures report to 0.01 degree accuracy.
Actually oilprice.com is a pretty reactionary site. They’ve been beating the drum of “Peak Oil!!!” for years now – ooops. Wrong.
http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/03/the-eagle-ford-shale-oil-field-came-out-of-nowhere-and-had-an-61-economic-impact-on-texas-last-year/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=web&utm_campaign=032713
Keep up the great citizen science work Anthony. You’ve got the scoundrels on the run and sounding more desperate than ever!
“I suppose those years of unfunded work cataloging the national USHCN weather station network used for climate study was not a ‘We don’t believe what our colleagues tell us until we verify it for ourselves.’ but a simple case of ‘denial’.”
To them, this isn’t hypocritical. They don’t have to trust their “colleagues” because they’re fellow climate scientists. You’re just a blogger with actual, real-world data. You should shut up and defer to your betters and their infallible models.
I was a “Reality Dropper” for about two days. It gets boring FAST. I was changing the little “factoids” they want you to copy/paste but I realized I’m also just spamming people myself.
Original work that doesn’t support the warmist viewpoint is not original work.
I looked at max temps in the Central UK vs bright sunshine hours (see Talkbloke’s) and proved for myself that what cannot be accounted for by changes in cloud cover matched PDO-AMO cycles so well that only 0.1C/century was unaccounted for. And I made predictions for the near-future (based on what was, will be: a status quo situation that is EXACTLY the IPCC narrative).
But I guess I’m not making the effort too, and have no legitimacy being a sceptic also.
John Abraham suffers from the Unique Solution Syndrome: there is only one (Unique) solution, and once deduce, by definition all other explanations must be wrong.
The practicioner of the Unique Solution Syndrome has this style of argument:
1. If at first you disagree with me, I am not explaining well. So I will explain in a different way.
2. If you still disagree with me,you must be stupid. So I will explain with smaller words.
3. If you disagree with me on the third round, you are being purposely obstinate to piss me off or block my work, so I will become angry, dismiss you to the public as a fool and refuse to speak to you. On anything.
Sound familiar?
Andrew Kerber
Has anyone done an analysis/explanation of the NOAA extreme weather index? I have found the index but no explanation of it.
There’s an analysis here.
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/01/20/how-extreme-was-us-weather-in-2012/
It is heavily weighted to temperatures and precipitation, yet does not even include an index for tornadoes, or other instances of extreme weather such as blizzards.
It is also heavily biased to labelling higher temperatures as “extreme weather”. For instance mild temperatures in winter are rated as “extreme weather”. The index also doubles up on temperature by including separate indices for daytime high temps and nighttime low ones.
There is only so much real people like you Anthony can do. AGW loves to use partial words and twisted Data?
It all comes down to the Government carbon tax has been in the works for some time?
I made first ever tweet to Michael Mann.. My feelings. Instant Block for me to view hit twitter page signed in..
My tweet about sun and hockey Stick
https://mobile.twitter.com/NJSnowFan/status/316944658632695808
He replies.
https://mobile.twitter.com/NJSnowFan/status/316945906505224192
Don’t recall who said it, but:
Bombs away!
Thanks for the information. In my niavete I had assumed it was actually calculated using extreme events, ie floods, droughts, tornadoes, hurricanes, and blizzards. In any case, I wonder how they exclude observation bias. Ie, there are many more locations that now take measurements.
Ian Hoder says:
March 27, 2013 at 9:25 am
I was a “Reality Dropper” for about two days. It gets boring FAST. I was changing the little “factoids” they want you to copy/paste but I realized I’m also just spamming people myself.
———————–
Me too. I tried, but I just couldn’t bring myself to continue propagating spam after doing it for a day, not even to mock it.
What is the Climate Science Rapid Response Team (CSRRT)?
It is this process:
– – – – – – – – –
“An authoritative response” => On whose authority is the “authoritative response” claimed to be authoritative? Well, it is the 4Ms (four matchmakers) at CSRRT who decide who is the authority. It is the 4Ms who are the arbiter of climate science authority. They have claimed authority in the essentially non-authoritative process of science. No man can be an authority is science, only what nature shows us (observations) can be authoritative. Literally, their ‘authority’ is just a belief in what they assume is the truth.
“those scientists with the most appropriate expertise” => Who decides the expert(s) in climate science? Well, again, it is the 4Ms at CSRRT who decide expertise. Are the CSRRT experts in areas where they judge expertise? No.
“These four “matchmakers” “ are “Dr. John Abraham, Prof. Scott Mandia, Professor Michael Ashley and Dr. Jan Dash” => This is an ad hoc volunteer group of individuals who want to inform others about what they believe is the true science; to tell it to the media and public communities. They also assign people to claim truth in science at the discussions of the wonderfully independent and realistically focused open scientific venues such as WUWT.
The CSRRT process in flawed when viewed from any perspective found in the history of the philosophy of science. The CSRRT process is simply mocking / imitating both the established science processes and the dialog of the general scientific community. The other word for mocking / imitating is ‘pseudo’. The CSRRT wishes to place their pseudo-process as equivalent to the honored scientific process. Feynman explained that there are ‘cargo-cult’ science believers who are mocking / imitating science. The CSRRT process has the elements of ‘cargo-cult’ science.
If the CSRRT were to be part of the real scientific dialog that is inherent in the established science processes then they would simply have a blog based on principles like CA, WUWT, etc., etc., etc.
John
‘the vast majority of scientists are convinced that humans are a major cause of climate change.’
No matter how many times this is claimed=, the reality is no one knows what the majority of scientists really think becasue no one has ever asked them . The ‘surveys’ that have been done represent a tiny minority of people some of which where not even ‘scientists’ .
I continue to be amazed that the ‘standards ‘ within climate science remain so poor .
Abraham: “As a result of approximately 150 years of climate science, the vast majority of scientists are convinced that humans are a major cause of climate change.”
BBC Interview with Phil Jones
Interviewer: “N – When scientists say “the debate on climate change is over”, what exactly do they mean – and what don’t they mean?”
Phil Jones: “It would be supposition on my behalf to know whether all scientists who say the debate is over are saying that for the same reason. I don’t believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this. This is not my view. There is still much that needs to be undertaken to reduce uncertainties, not just for the future, but for the instrumental (and especially the palaeoclimatic) past as well.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm
So Abraham is a skeptic who doubts his colleagues and performs experiments to verify their work ?
I would love to see the results of those experiments.
I would also like Abraham to list a few ways in which the theory might be falsified, after all, if we have the technology to alter the climate, we must have the technology to conduct those experiments
It might be an overwhelming task, but having an Alternative Climate Science Rapid Response Team would be a good thing. I guess Steve McIntyre is the expert on hockey sticks. Perhaps Bob Tisdale on ocean related things. The problem is that Jonestown Team is so well financed that it is tough to keep up.
So Dr. Abraham says “Ironically, ‘climate change’ is a better description of what is happening, and climate scientists [now] use it to be more accurate.” While he proceeds to beat up Anthony for “disagreeing with his own research”, he concurrently confirms that he has changed his own opinion by moving from “global warming” to “climate change.” Seems like 14 years without a temperature increase must have “disagreed” with his prior notions about ever increasing warming and forced him to be “more accurate.” Funny how his disagreement with past conclusions about warming is not perceived the same way on his side of the fence.
Anthony – While you probably needn’t respond to Dr. Abraham’s tripe, I look forward to his well-deserved butt-kickin’!
It may be more correct to say
“Wherein” than
” In where”
Your call.
RR
John Whitman says:
March 27, 2013 at 9:59 am
What is the Climate Science Rapid Response Team (CSRRT)?
________________________________________________________
Thank you for that information.
MatchMakers?
I found that quite funny and reminiscent of an old game played some years back. They too had technical difficulties that needed rapid responses due to their poor preparation skills and lack of testing 🙂
I have a new headline for the story: “In where I get targeted by the Climate Science Rabid Response Team:. Given the response of late, Rabid is much more descriptive.