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.
The Snake’s Progress: From attack dog to wiener dog.
Pierrehumbert said: “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”
Er, what checks and balances? The only real check is that the upper level politicians make sure that they have the last chance to alter, insert, or delete anything that does not serve their agenda. The IPCC was never meant to be scientific, but only to appear so to serve as a propaganda machine for the AGW agenda.
Pierrehumbert is way off as he assumes that the IPCC has any real science to support their claims. Lacking any, they find that they have to draw from pseudoscience produced by activists and journalists who see nothing wrong with making stuff up.
It’s good to have an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out. It is a bit alarming that Pierrehumbert is a professor at the Univ of Chicago!
Hey How much does the three clowns charge for entertaining a kids party? The rain has finally stopped and I wanna throw a party for my daughter? If not, how much for the handsome devil with the accordion? Awe never mind I don’t think I want him around the kids.
Seriously he looks like he would have a hard time demonstrating mentos and a 2 liter of coke(the pop).
Betcha he is a hit at the folk parties though.
When the government trough runs dry I can imagine Pierrehumbert on a street corner playing his accordion for a living.
Several posters have mentioned Dr. Humbug’s wishful/what-if thinking, but has anyone noticed he’s also engaging in the time-honored Team practice of moving the goalposts – but this time in the same sentence?
Putting aside for the moment that that is totally Planet Earth BAU, it does seem that the unhinging of The Team is accelerating – the next several years should be really entertaining.
I agree—see below.
It was noticed first, but it was ignored for years, not only by the IPCC’s officials, but by the climatological community and environmental journalists. If it hadn’t been for the threat of online critics & a renegade journalist truly “outing” the situation (into the larger world), the coverup might (IMO) have continued. (See the boldfaced phrase below.) Therefore, the IPCC’s behavior was worse than a blunder–it was a crime. I.e., a bad-faith suppressio veri effort.
So Pierrehumbert’s characterization of it as a mere blunder is spin—at best. Below is a summary of the background of the situation that I posted (in separate comments) on WUWT at the time.
============
It’s true that the error was dug out by Cogley, an IPCC accomplice, and by Fred Pearce, a red-hot warmist journalist who wrote for New Scientist, rather than by a blogger. However, saying the IPCC acted before the blogosphere put them up to it incorrectly hints that the IPCC would have taken action if it hadn’t feared that Pearce or Cogley would go public, perhaps via the bloggers, if a correction wasn’t made. The IPCC’s record prior to that point was one of denial and coverup as long as it thought it could get away with it:
1. Haisnain, the WWF, and I presume other IPCCers in attendance, ignored glacier expert Gwyn Rees’s 2004 UK-government-funded debunking of rapid-melting claims and his speech warning that Haisnan’s 2035 date was ridiculous. He forced New Scientist to publish a retraction in 2004 after it had published Haisnan’s claim that Rees’s study was alarmist about the melting rate, so this was widely known:
2. Raised-eyebrow comments during the review process from Japan and others about the source etc. of 2035 were dealt with perfunctorily. Only a citation of the WWF article was added.
3. Lead Author Georg Kaser’s e-mail to the IPCC’s technical support team prior to publication about 2035 was ignored.
Here’s the IPCC’s excuse for how it dropped the ball:
4. Lead Author Georg Kaser’s letter to Asia group head Dr. Lal was ignored. (Lal said in response that he never got it. A “likely story,” IMO.)
5. In early November ChooChoo scornfully dismissed the correction in the report issued by VK Raina of India’s Geological Survey, calling it voodoo science. Here’s WUWT’s thread on the matter then:
6. Later in November ChooChoo was informed about the error by Pavlia Bagla but he took no action. This is in line with the IPCC’s hear-no-evil precedents described above. Here’s a story by Andrew Bolt summarizing the matter:
PS: Don’t forget that the IPCC not only printed the wrong date, but backed it up by rating the likelihood of the glaciers disappearing as “very high”—i.e., more than 90 per cent.
Further, although all the experts except Kaser failed to try to get this corrected afterwards (too good a story to spoil?), this was not something that others overlooked:
Incidentally, the passage above continues with some interesting background material:
*****
PPS: Here is a piece of a letter to the London Times. It contradicts Wakefield’s proxy claim that the IPCC made a good-faith error:
Here’s another comment, on dot.earth, that indicates the great usefulness this 2035 “error” had for the alarmist cause:
And here’s a WUWT comment that’s another indication that it was “no accident” that the IPCC made the 2035 “error”:
******
PPPS: Here’s more background info., from an earlier WUWTer:
More criticism of the good-faith-error defense:
Jim, don’t be terrified, because he does not believe a word he says. This is all part of the AGW scam that has run for way too long. It’s falling apart now that’s the reason for the hysteria and arm waving excersises.
“Think about what would happen if one year we had 105-degree heat waves, then the next decade we had unusually cold winters”
I know what would happen, I would look up at the street signs and say “hey, I’m in Chicago”. Good grief…
That picture is a keeper….consider it kept.
Totally meaningless but I couldn’t help but notice that I recognized the name of everybody he mentioned but had never heard of Ray Pierrehumbert. He’s sort of like a labor union leader for climate scientists who earn their living supporting this fraud.
Someone above criticised the choice of a picture of Pierrehumbert that accompanies the posting. No need to apologise, as Pierrehumbert probably fancies it to be on a par with the picture of Richard Feynman playing the bongo drums.
Dr Pierrehumbert’s remark about those outside having no visibility into the IPCC’s “checks and balances” reminds one a little too much of the Watergate-era Nixon administration.
And his attempt to link Steve Mc, Ross, and our host here to Brietbart et al clearly indicates what end of the political spectrum he hangs out on, there may be room to criticize Breitbart’s methods and he has made the occasional very visible error, but he’s certainly been right on the facts more often than he’s been wrong.
To sum up what Roger said, in a nutshell, it is the cover-up that attests to the seriousness of the crime.
So considerate of the Warmistas to give face time to a certifiable whack job like RP. Every time he opens his mouth, the obvious distortions underlying his and the Consensus world-view are exposed for all to see.
Thanks, Weird Warmista! (Really deserves a few seconds of fame in a Red Eye clip, come to think of it …)
Ray Pierrehumbert has managed to turn meteorological and paleo climatological knowledge upside down! More contrasted seasons, weather and climate in a warming world??? How about that novelty… LOL
Come on Ray of sunshine, keep playing the accordeon because as a climate fiddler, you’re a laughable shrill.
That’s quite a summary. Thank you for presenting it.
Pierrehumbert says regarding Anthony, Steve McIntyre and Ross McKittrick
Well that says all you need to know about the good doctor. He is more concerned with his “mission” to save the planet than in engaging in anything resembling actual scientific inquiry.
There is indeed a “clown” in the above article and you wont find the red nose or big shoes on Anthony, Steve or Ross.
In a single second, Earth absorbs 1.22 × 10ee17 joules of energy from the Sun. Distributed uniformly over the mass of the planet, the absorbed energy would raise Earth’s temperature to nearly 800 000 K after a billion years, if Earth had no way of getting rid of it.
– Ray Pierrehumbert
http://climateclash.com/2011/01/15/g6-infrared-radiation-and-planetary-temperature/
Once a man has said something this stupid, it’s safe to ignore anything else he has to say.
The key issue with the predictions like the one above, where every variation in weather is attributed to AGW, is that the theory is not falsifiable. If both warming and cooling are due to AGW – and floods and drought …..
This is no longer science since it cannot be falsified – because the predictions are vaugue enough to cover every eventuality – its astrology.
burnside says:
June 18, 2011 at 5:33 am
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.
I beg to differ, for two reasons.
Firstly, only an elite can read the MIT Tech Review and understand it. When you say “he is taken seriously” you mean by how many of the general public? We went down the road of climate science being an elite subject, and look where it has lead! In fact airing the subject in public is what a democracy needs. Sure there will be some heat generated with the light, but that is a cost of democratic decision making. If WUWT did not expose the ridiculous nature of many AGW proponents, how would the general public know they were foolish? MIT Review won’t do that, not matter how highly the elite regard it.
I note that Anthony does not ridicule every warmist. The Pielkes and Judith Curry, for example, do not say ridiculous things, but back up their arguments with some reason. Even when disagreed with, they are respected. It is Pierrehumbert’s own attitudes that make him foolish, and he needs to be exposed.
Secondly, and much more importantly, you are assuming the AGW proponents will be defeated by science. They won’t be. It is a set of social/political programs for which a veneer of scientific credibility is required. In the end the AGW mantra will be proved or disproved by time and nothing else. For those opposed to it the important thing is to prevent foolish political and social decisions being made in the meantime.
(We know this because many AGW activists make it quite plain that they will oppose modern economic expansion even if carbon dioxide is shown to be innocent. Their aim is to reduce economic activity, and they make it pretty clear in their non-scientific literature.)
This does not excuse the ridiculous political assertions made by some comments here (not all people with leftist leanings hate humanity, despite constant assertions to the contrary) but again we get some heat with our light in a society that allows people to have their say.
Pierrehumbert dares to end his post in response to Keith referring to McIntyre et al as “These clowns”.
It is quite clear that he hasn’t seen himself in a mirror for the last couple of decades. He needs only a red button nose and his speach will make the delight of children in a three ring circus.
REPLY: Already happened: http://www.cartoonsbyjosh.com/ – A
Its really hard to retire at the peak of one’s carreer, acolaydes and all. Its usually when one feels the wind in one’s face with the acceleration down the back end of the career slope that it occurs to you that you have other things to say, just no longer relevant to current topics. With the recent loss of Stanford’s and Climate Science “all’s fair in love and war, and make no mistake, we are in a war,” Schneider, I wonder if Chicago’s Ray Pierrehumbert isn’t next in the Max Planck trueism: “science advances one funeral at a time.” But during Max Planck’s time, certain selected elders controlled the peer review process (science knowledge podium). Nothing like information control could possibly occur during the Information Age, with the internet? or could it? Or in this age of artificial life support, maybe Douglas MacArther is more appropo: “Old soldiers never die, they just fade away.” Applicable to a Climate Warrior. God’s speed.
Ol Rabespierre must be related to the Unabomber.
Pierre better watch his back because I know the morons at Ace of Spades do read WUWT and that picture of Ray could set off a hobo hunt.
Fine if you are the Andrew Breitbart blah blah blah but please no pics of Ray’s bloomers. Actually he looks like he might go commando.
Don’t poke the Ewok!
Thanks. Incidentally, here’s what I posted on dot earth on this topic, in response to a commenter there named Kandler, who wrote:
What they should have done if an error was brought to their attention is not a matter of speculation: They should have made a correction and retraction. If Lal or his flunkies were deep-sixing corrections to AR4, or closing their eyes and ears to them, because the corrections would have blunted its alarming message, that is an indication that its editors were propagandists first, scientists second.
On the contrary, it’s one of the seven pillars of alarmism. The supposed threat it posed to the waters of Asia’s masses was trumpeted far and wide — for instance, in Al Gore’s movie. Without this threat, the political mobilization it aroused in Asia to Do Something Now would have been less intense, and attaining a CO2 treaty would have been imperiled.
Well, after the technical support unit ignored him, Kaser flung himself once more into the breech with a personal letter to Lal. It’s been printed that Kaser has stated that he didn’t write to the lead authors directly because they might have taken it the wrong way. He seems to be shy about personal confrontation, as many scientists are. Your “probably” is therefore unlikely — in fact, ridiculous in light of what Kaser has said and of the importance of the error.
I’ll let the reader compare the tone, diction, and cogency of my posts to Kandler’s and “make the call” on this one.
Yes, but only as supplemental sources, not as the major or the only source, as (shockingly) was the case in this instance.
This wasn’t just a typo, or something of that nature. It was a HOWLER. That’s the first strike. Second, the review process, which Pachauri touted only recently as thorough and rigorous, failed to catch it. That’s the next strike. Finally, the IPCC’s staff and officers brushed aside attempts to point out the flaw. (Pachauri’s dismissal of the Indian Government’s report’s attempt to correct the IPCC’s alarmism is of a piece with this pattern of cover-up.) Strike three–you’re out.
I believe that a few contrarians pointed out this flaw years ago online — IIRC at least one person has posted a claim to this effect already, and I suspect evidence of additional prior warnings will emerge in time. What’s really telling is that the numerous warmists and scientists who read the report (all contributors got free copies, I assume) failed to blow the whistle on this glaring error. It suggests that they didn’t want to rock the boat for one disreputable reason or another.