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.
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? 🙂
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?
“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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
I disagree on providing raypierre with a reality check. he’s obviously too emotionally scared to be able to survive that.
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.
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.
“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.
@ZZZ
The male equivalent of “The Toe” is called a Moose Knuckle
High King of the weird-beards.
“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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Heh heh. He called you a clown. LOL
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
This guy is either really really stupid, or really really smart. Its tough to figure out which.
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/
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.