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’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.
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.)
I hope he’s good enough to earn some money as a pavement musician. He’s not much of a scientist.
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.
“tent”, “clowns”, ah, now I understand!
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.
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.
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]
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.
“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.
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.
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
“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.
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.
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”.
I thought Prince Lvov murdered Rasputin years ago!
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!
RayPierre’s got a squeezebox and McIntyre never sleeps at night.
Someone please remind my why the IPCC (and who knows how many other grant-sucking entities) should continue to exist?
Funny to call others Breitbart (which in German means broad beard) will wearing one himself :-)))))))))
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
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.
Well, the balls are defin itely in Ray’s court, it seems.
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?
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?