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:
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.
I find that stories about the team are a waste of time. This one is no different.
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
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.
So McIntyre, McKittrick, and Watts are clowns are they? He has lost any credibilty he may have had with that one statement.
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.)
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
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”.
I wonder if Keith realizes them’s fightin’ words.
Them’s really fightin’ words.
Oooh, Cry Me A River! (and hand me a barf bag)
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.
If Steve McIntyre is Andrew Breitbart, Dr. Ray Pierrehumbert is Anthony Weiner.
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.
Dr Ray is the spitting image of one of the homeless winos that hang around parts of the local town centre cadging
grantsmoney from thetaxpayerspublic. Can we arrest him for climate vagrancy?Is this someone more worried about the the balance of his cheques rather than the balance of checks?
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”.
Bill in Vigo says:
June 17, 2011 at 8:55 pm
Just curious but why do they always end up demonizing the opposition.
Robespierrehumbert.
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.
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?
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.
” 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.
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.
===============
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.
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/
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.
“there will never be a place in it for any of these clowns….”
Because they have an endless oversupply of clowns already.
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.
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?