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.
D. Patterson says: June 18, 2011 at 6:34 am
Thank you for that overview.
Aren’t the institutions of higher learning you mention purveyors of the model ‘action research’? Used by community developers and organisers (Alinsky-style) and now internationally. Historically they used mal-distribution (‘exclusion’ from the earth’s material riches) but then moved on to culture as a proxy means to an end. As much, universal access to the ‘equal richness of culture[s]’ has been the end result.
If so, Northern Australia has been blighted by a similar approach from their visiting academia. The results are easily seen [and measured] by outcome replicability; across each and every social petri dish created.
Now that their hybrid carbon trading model (schema) is on the back burner they have turned their attention to industrial affairs with the live trade export and are now suggesting northern abattoirs. And all the associated ‘well meaning and inclusion’. Problem is that they were involved in the demise of this very industry and many, many livelihoods decades ago. Technology changed the outback and much has since moved on for many others.
A book of interest, but no longer in print, Red over Black, Geoff McDonald (1982).
http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/1814216
Thank you Mooloo for your analysis, most insightful.
Pompous git is what we call people like that ’round ‘ere. Got to wonder what delusional parallel universe these people inhabit to think that the IPCC represents good ole honest working climate scientists doing their level best to present the best, unbiased work they can… seriously. His comments remiond me of the Black Knight in The Holy Grail. How many more “flesh wounds” can the IPCC take?
nobody in particular says:
June 17, 2011 at 8:48 pm
“Just how is that any more variable than the way things already have been for longer than we’ve even been around…?”
You will need to forgive Ray. They have not shut the air conditioning off in this ivory tower . . . .ever. . . .yet.
As a U. of Chicago alum with an interest in the global warming debate I communicated with Prof. Pirrehumbert a few times about the global warming issue. I presented him with what I felt were reasoned and scientific objections to global warming. His responses amounted to saying that I must be against science and that “There aren’t any scientific reasons for not ‘believing’ in global warming.” My impression was that he is completely incapable of seriously considering or responding to anyone who disagrees with his position. He was either unable or unwilling to respond intelligently to arguments against global warming. He is all pomposity and hot air. I believe that McIntyre, McKittrick, or Watts would trounce him in a debate on global warming. For that matter, I believe almost all of the posters on this site could too.
Oxymoron!
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/BikePicSmall.jpg
groweg says:
June 18, 2011 at 6:40 pm
“My impression was that he is completely incapable of seriously considering or responding to anyone who disagrees with his position.”
This comment speaks for most of the “Team” along with their ardent fans and media enablers.
Unfortunately, it probably is a lost cause to try to reason with these people, so we will have to fight and defeat them politically before they have a chance to irrevocably damage our society…
This is a very enlightening post. The departmental website is quite revealing. What a bunch of lunatics! For years I have been interested in pursuing a master’s degree in geology, but stuff like this gives me pause. There is no way I’m going subject myself to flagrantly political nonsense like that for two or more years, while taking out loans to do it. There must be a better place to study geology. Someplace that has not been contaminated by gov’t funding and IPCC pseudo science. Or are all the geology departments like that nowadays?
This person isn’t a scientist. He isn’t a truth seeker. He is a prophet. He knows how to tend his flock.
Truth doesn’t have anything to do with it. It’s creating a forum to cement the notions of people who want something to believe in, as opposed to people like A. Watts and R. Muller who seem to me to be truth seekers, seeking an explanation to the (insanely) complex world around us.
Mooloo sez, “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)”. True, as long as the humanity is of the collaborative, low-tech, obedient sort, led by enlightened elites such as themselves.
The rest (of us) are beyond the pale, and deserve all the extinguishing and deletion they are reluctantly eager to dish out
The myth on the left is that Breitbart is the equivalent of Michael Moore. Moore actually manipulates his movies to distort the truth. Breitbart has not actually done that. I doubt his ability to properly analyze the science is any better if he relies on third hand take downs on Breitbart. Isn’t he aware that Breitbart ran the entire video of Shirley Sherrod and the point was to show what a bunch of racist the audience was, not Sherrod.
“McIntyre, McKittrick, and Watts are the Andrew Breitbarts of climate. ”
Someone needs to keep the bastards honest.
I get the feeling that not enough readers followed the link and read the essay. This guy is living in a fantasy world. He displays an unhealthy preoccupation with Science fiction disaster scenarios. is it any wonder he holds the views that he does.
Go on. Give it a read.
That is a purely sententious missive from Dr. Ray Pierrehumbert. The only problem with rhetoric, is that science and rhetoric are like chalk and cheese.
Mr. Pierrehumbert’s appearance and passion for the accordion are irrelevant.
However, his dogmatic position on AGW makes him the scientific equivalent of a clown.
Sad to see a science dept at the Univ of Chicago become so degenerate.
Oh dear god!
I just read his science fiction essay.
Among the assorted nonsense, something caught my eye. Does he honestly think that adding moisture to a (fictional) planet like Dune would cause runaway heating? This reveals his bias to AGW and modeling–he obviously does not understand heat transfer by cloud formation and the negative feedback it causes.
It’s an amusing picture. Does this fellow spend a lot of time in the field? Adopting an unkempt appearance in which one doesn’t care how you appear to others seems to have become a way of making a statement. If that’s what’s going on in this picture I’d like to recommend that a little effort put into grooming oneself is not a bad thing for social creatures to undertake. Appearance is a superficial matter but we all have one, regardless. Thinking you can not tend to appearance at all and escape the superficiality of it is a mistake. It’s a huge distraction for someone expecting to be taken seriously in public debate (or the classroom) to adopt such a look. Scruffy beards are fine for a Tolstoy or Walt Whitman but they weren’t debating at the public square. It’s hard not to want to laugh seeing a person making such drastic pronouncements about the future and expecting humankind to remould itself coming to the debate looking as common as homeless person. Is it all a joke?
“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.”
Welcome to Australia
“Think about what would happen if one year we had 105-degree heat waves, then the next decade we had unusually cold winters,”
It would be terrible. It would be like living in Germany.
“If Steve McIntyre is Andrew Breitbart, Dr. Ray Pierrehumbert is Anthony Weiner.”
I really don’t want to think about this man Tweeting pictures of his…er…concertina…
FatBigot;
And how does the stool stand when all 3 of its legs are broken?
At least that way it won’t “tip”. 🙂
Duude,
don’t Breitbart that Weiner my friend,,,,twit him over to me, let’s see who had the facts in that situation ?
Ray P is another example of the result of the public dole,
did I mention that Granby, Colorado got six inches of snow today, June 20, 2011 ???