Perhaps fearing that his fast tracked no hurdles rebuttal to Spencer and Braswell wouldn’t be enough to have it the buzz of the blogosphere, highlighted in Real Climate, and blasted all over the web via compliant MSM via the press release, Dessler has made a video on the paper. Watch it below:
This implies he’s on the warmists’ A-Team. If his argument and attitude is as poor as it appears, they tars the whole team.
These fellowships and awards that warmist scientists get come with cash benefits that go straight to their bottom line (pockets), don’t they? (Unlike the grants Willie Soon got, which go for expenses.)
@Laurie Bowen
2 + 2 = 5.
Unless you’re using a computer model, in which case the answer is 42.
Over the years I have often been struck by the thought that there are no analogs of Einstein and Feynman, i e brilliant original thinkers, in the climate field. After observing this sad spectacle I must conclude that there are also scant few analogs of Antonio Salieri, i e competent journeymen, as well
Is there an award for the most condescending and dishonest video in climatology?
Dessler is condescending, but he is not above the political fray:
http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2011/09/shooting_the_messenger_andrew.html
That would be “per se”. It’s Latin, you may have heard of it.
And Dessler would surely be flummoxed by the existence and use of parasols. Somehow they must warm their users, never cool them.
The bind moggles.
Here is Dessler in 2009 pretending that climate models cannot be validated:
http://www.grist.org/article/Looking-for-validation
As climate models have a numerical time step, simulations can be run as easily forwards as backwards, simply by changing the sign of the time step. When this is done, one finds that the predictive power of the models is negligible, as the models cannot ‘predict’ the past, without being fed the correct answer.
Aware of this, people like Dessler pretending that model validations are impossible, are simply being misleading. (To put it politely).
good grief…..
The book just came out…..and now the movie!
At this rate it will out in video and on Netflix before I can get this typed…………
…………..T-shirts and action figures are on their way to KMart and WallyWorld………
Unfortunately, that also means it will be on TV over and over and over………….
Slight incongruencies between models and real world data are expected, if the models were perfectly consistent that would be unusual. The climate models have 2 sigma significance, and over many decades it is inevitable that real world data, around 5 percent, of the time won’t match the models.
It is dishonest and desperate to seize upon slight deviations between the real world data and the models over short time scales.
The stench of desperation is clear to any informed observer. The more they protest, the greater the certainty they are incorrect, I’m afraid. It has a very similar feel to Dr Mann’s protestations of innocence that are still going on.
CAGW, RIP!
Interesting approach that. Start with the conclusions and kind of work your way back.
Sorry guys, but I support this initiative.
Yes, Dr Desslers tone was a bit condescending, however he isn’t a trained speaker AFAIK and his speaking would normally be giving presentations or lecturing, so this is a minor point.
It would also have been better to show his own plot as well as Dr Spencers one. But I would call this “teething troubles”.
All in all though, I have to applaud the idea of a video “abstract” that covers the high points of a paper. Anything that gets science out to the people is a good idea. Similarly, video abstracts would allow people to quickly compare the findings of papers without wading through the full paper. It would also avoid over hyping of papers as people could see for themselves exactly what the researcher is claiming for the paper.
I think the idea is great and should be developed perhaps in a fashion similar to a news teaser. The video has the high points or major points, for full details and the maths, read the paper.
Jaypan says:
September 6, 2011 at 4:48 pm
Interesting approach that. Start with the conclusions and kind of work your way back.
===============================================================
That’s pretty much all we’ve seen from climatology in the last 20 years.
What’s up with these climate change alarmists. Why do they so often sound like they are talking to 3rd graders. Al Gore constantly does that and so does this guy. It is beyond irritating listening to such arrogant condescension.
Dessler may find the following helpful – (I’m not sure if the hat is important or not, though):
http://youtu.be/U0wMJ-Cq9Ec
This is pathetic.
All he really says is
‘Look Children here’s an equation that looks scary. But I, the Big Scientist understand it. And Lindzen and Spencer are wrong.
Ya Boo!’
Condescending arrogant and without any discussion of science. It might impress Al Gore and the weaker ‘science’ journalists, but wouldn’t pass muster with a bunch of reasonably intelligent 15 year olds.
A little real world of observation should clear the matter up.
Figures 1 and 2 here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/20/the-character-of-climate-change-part-3/
@ZT
That’s a great video. She explains correlation and the associated values well and clearly, Clearly not cut out for a career as a climatologist.
And its a great hat!
When we sit in the sun and a cloud moves over to put us into shade it gets cooler. This is as simple as it gets.
If this gentleman has measured extra heat then he is probably measuring the wrong thing.
Sorry to be condescending in para 1.
Piers Corbyn from Weather Action says its not the clouds!!!
http://www.youtube.com/user/1weatheraction#p/u/0/CfsbKrtVTcU
Go to 08:40
It is quite an extraordinary video since it does not provide any evidence whatsoever for what he says. It is simply a monlogue, and the listener is given nothing with which to make up their own independent mind. In my opinion, it is a complete waste of time since it does nothing more than say ‘I have written a paper that disagrees with S&B; S&B have got things wrong’.
WTF — if Spencer’s graph is wrong, where is the correct graph. Show it you damned fool, instead of just trust me. He thinks that people will go OOH and AHHH if he presents a checkbook balance followed by a barely kindergarten energy balance equation and then followed by “trust me”. What a waste of time
Made this comment on Dessler’s Youtube channel, for him to accept…
Ok, reinforced temp effect (like 0.2 to 0.3 C, due to IPCC) in 11 year solar cycle, or Palle et al (2004) GCR and cloud data…
farm4.static.flickr.com/3472/3374704163_299b77b5c9_o.jpg
…and similar data from other sources irrelevant, because IPCC has said — and Dessler repeat — clouds doesn’t drive temperature, but are positive feedback so when the sun stops shining it isn’t because of clouds, but vice versa! Alice in Wonderland science 😉
(Btw, ranking feature disabled.)
Søren Bundgaard says:
September 7, 2011 at 2:35 am
I’m a “climate denier” blogger, but I’ve promoted Corbyn as authority on climate issues (and refuse to link the blog ClimateRealists, because they promote conspiracy theories and speculate on wrong absurd “theories”). Corbyn’s claim being a forecaster with the best record and virtually no errors is also weird (but a powerful ad, and in long range casting he might very well often be more accurate than Met and other “computer weather model”-based forecasters), and obviously sometimes his predictions too. He’s like a pope with the truth, with confidence in himself (here he says that the effect from GCR on clouds is 0.3%, and lots of the video is about the media trying to deceive us, the money involved in this etc).
I don’t use to argue with Corbyn fans accepting garbage/lack knowledge, and probably it would be wise to continue doing so, but in this video Corbyn in his remark on the cosmoclimatology denies the temperature effect from the 11 year solar cycle. An existing effect so strong it can’t be explained by TSI change is basic-, or knowledge, mentioned by IPCC since the 90s, see e.g TAR Ch 6. AGW apologist skepticalscience.com mention it — a 0.2 C effect in the 11 year solar cycle (but also interpret the large temperature effect as a reinforcement from positive feedback, just like IPCC) — here:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-cycles-global-warming.htm
Btw, a nice post by Nir Shaviv:
http://www.sciencebits.com/calorimeter
/br, Magnus A
No Youtube comments? They are moderated. I can’t see that there would not be one comment so far. Let’s see if he allows my comment.