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 always knew Ray Pierrehumbert had it in him. Merde ?
This is a humor piece, Anthony? 🙂
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).
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?
…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
I would like to comment on the quote from the infallible Ray Pierrehumbert:
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.
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!
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
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.
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….
Old bearded academics = young 1960’s hippie activists with an agenda – right or wrong?
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
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.
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.
“…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.”
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.
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.
“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.
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
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
Such kind of stupid-arrogant behaviour told me years ago that something must be wrong with the AGW theory. Keep going team, dig deeper.
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.
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…..
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?
“We may…” “Think about what would…”
______
If we had some ham, we could have some ham and eggs, if we had some eggs.