This may be the only entry ever made by Bob Tisdale that doesn’t contain a graph. I thank him for the unsolicited notice he gives to WUWT – Anthony
Date: May 11, 2012
Subject: New York Times Op-Ed Titled “Game Over for the Climate”
From: Bob Tisdale
To: James Hansen – NASA GISS
Dear James:
I just finished reading your opinion that appeared in yesterday’s New York Times. I enjoyed the title “Game Over for the Climate” so much that I’m considering changing the title of my book to something similar, like “Game Over for the Manmade Global Warming Scare.” Yes. That’s got a nice ring to it. Thanks for the idea. I’ll have so see how difficult it would be to change the title of the Kindle edition. Yet, while I enjoyed the title, the content of your opinion shows that you’re still hoping to appeal to those who are gullible enough to believe your claim that carbon dioxide is responsible for the recent bout of global warming. I hope you understand that many, many persons have weighed your opinions and found them wanting.
The internet has become the primary medium for discussions of anthropogenic global warming, as I’m sure you’re aware. You have your own blog. Your associate at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies Gavin Schmidt is one of the founders of the once-formidable blog RealClimate. What you may not be aware of is that one of the other contributors to RealClimate Rasmus Benestad in a recent post expressed his feelings that all of their work there might have been for naught [my boldface].
However, if the notion that information makes little impact is correct, one may wonder what the point would be in having a debate about climate change, and why certain organisations would put so much efforts into denial, as described in books such as Heat is on, Climate Cover-up, Republican war on science, Merchants of doubt, and The Hockeystick and Climate Wars. Why then, would there be such things as ‘the Heartland Institute’, ‘NIPCC’, climateaudit, WUWT, climatedepot, and FoS, if they had no effect? And indeed, the IPCC reports and the reports from the National Academy of Sciences? One could even ask whether the effort that we have put into RealClimate has been in vain.
I can understand Rasmus Benestad’s doubts when a website skeptical of manmade global warming, WattsUpWithThat, has gained visitors since 2008 while RealClimate is floundering. The web information company Alexa shows that WattUpWithThat’s daily reach began to surpass RealClimate’s in May 2008. And for the last 6 months, Alexa could no longer rank RealClimatebecause its percentage dropped too low. On the other hand, the daily reach of WattsUpWthThat increased greatly and WattsUpWthThat has become the world’s most-viewed website on global warming and climate change.
Over the past 30 years or longer, James, you’ve created a global surface temperature record called the GISS Land-Ocean Temperature Index. It shows global surface temperatures have warmed since 1880. While there are some problems with that dataset we need to discuss, it is something you can be proud of. But in those 3 decades, you’ve also developed and programmed climate models with the sole intent of showing that manmade greenhouse gases were responsible for that warming. Those models are included, along with dozens of others, in the archives used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for their reports. Unfortunately, your efforts with climate models, and the efforts of the other modeling groups, have not been successful. Far from it. And since your opinions are based on the results of your climate models, one has to conclude that your opinions are as flawed as the models.
I’m one of the independent researchers who study the instrument-based surface temperature record and the output data of the climate models used by the IPCC to simulate those temperatures. Other researchers and I understand two simple and basic facts, which have been presented numerous times on blogs such as WattsUpWithThat. Keep in mind WattUpWithThat reaches a massive audience daily, so anyone who’s interested in global warming and climate change and who takes the time to read those posts also understands those two simple facts.
Fact one: the instrument-based global surface temperature record since 1901 and the IPCC’s climate model simulations of it do not confirm the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming; they contradict it.
The climate models used in the IPCC’s (2007) 4th Assessment Report show surface temperatures should have warmed about 2.9 times faster during the late warming period (1976-2000) than they did during the early warming period (1917-1944). The IPCC acknowledges the existence of those two separate warming periods. The climate model simulations are being driven by climate forcings, including manmade carbon dioxide, which logically show a higher rate during the later warming period. Yet the observed, instrument-based warming rates for the two warming periods are basically the same.
If the supposition you peddle was sound, James, manmade carbon dioxide and other anthropogenic greenhouse gases should have warmed the surface of our planet at a much faster rate in recent decades, but they have not. In other words, there’s little evidence that the carbon dioxide you demonize in your op-ed has had any measurable effect on how fast global surface temperatures have warmed. We independent climate researchers have known this for years. It’s a topic that surfaces often, so often that it’s joked about around the blogosphere.
Some independent researchers have taken the time to present how poorly climate models simulate the rates at which global surface temperatures have warmed and cooled since the start of the 20th Century. We do this so that people without technical backgrounds can better understand that very fundament flaw with the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming. I resurrected it again in a two-part post back in December 2011 (see here and here), both of which were cross posted at WattsUpWithThat. I’ve published numerous posts about this since December using different datasets: sea surface temperature, land surface temperature and the combination of the two. I’ve published so many posts that show how poorly the IPCC’s climate models simulate past surface temperatures that it’s not practical to link them all. The posts also include the new and improved climate models that were prepared for the IPCC’s upcoming 5thAssessment Report. Sorry to say, they show no improvement.
Fact two: natural processes are responsible for most if not all if the warming over the past 30 years, a warming that you continue to cite as proof of the effects of greenhouse gases.
In your opinion piece, you mentioned the predictions you made in the journal Science back in 1981. Coincidentally, that’s the year when satellites began to measure the surface temperatures of the global oceans. Those satellites provide much better coverage for the measurement of global sea surface temperatures, from pole to pole. You use a satellite-based dataset as one of the sea surface temperature sources for your GISS Land-Ocean Temperature Index (LOTI) data. That NOAA sea surface temperature dataset is known as Reynolds OI.v2. It is the same dataset I have used to illustrate that natural processes, not greenhouse gases, are responsible for surface temperature warming of the global oceans since 1981. Since land surface temperatures are simply along for the ride, mimicking and exaggerating the changes in sea surface temperatures, the hypothesis you promote has a significant problem. Climate models are once again contradicted by observation-based data.
I’m one of very few independent global warming researchers who study sea surface temperature data and the processes associated with the natural mode of climate variability called El Niño-Southern Oscillation or ENSO. ENSO is a process that is misrepresented by many climate scientists when they use linear regression analysis in attempts to remove an ENSO signal from the global surface temperature record. Those misrepresentations ensure misleading results in some climate science papers.
ENSO is a natural process that you and your associates at GISS exclude in many of the climate model-based studies you publish, because, as you note, your “coarse-resolution ocean model is unable to simulate climate variations associated with El Niño-Southern Oscillation processes.” In fact, there are no climate models used by the IPCC that are capable of recreating the frequency, magnitude and duration of El Niño and La Niña events. And I know of no scientific studies that show any one climate model is capable of correctly simulating all of the fundamental coupled ocean-atmosphere processes associated with ENSO.
If climate models are not able to simulate ENSO, then they do not include a very basic process Mother Nature has devised to increase and slow the distribution of heat from the tropics to the poles. As a result, the climate models exclude the variations in the rates at which the tropical Pacific Ocean releases naturally created heat to the atmosphere and redistributes it within the oceans, and those climate models also exclude the varying rate at which ENSO is responsible through teleconnections for the warming in areas remote to the tropical Pacific.
Climate scientists have to stop treating ENSO as noise, James. The process of ENSO serves as a source of naturally created and stored thermal energy that is discharged, redistributed and recharged periodically. Because these three functions (discharge, redistribution and recharge) all fluctuate (see Note 1), impacts of ENSO on global climate vary on annual, multiyear and multidecadal timescales. Common sense dictates that global surface temperatures will warm over multidecadal periods when the frequency, magnitude and duration of El Niño events outweigh those of La Niña events, causing more heat than normal to be released from the tropical Pacific Ocean to the atmosphere and to be redistributed within the oceans. And the opposite will occur, global surface will cool, when La Niña events dominate ENSO over a multidecadal period. It is no coincidence that that is precisely what has happened since 1917.
Note 1: El Niño events (the discharge mode) are not always followed by La Niña events (the recharge mode). Both El Niño and La Niña events can appear in a series of similar phase events like the El Niño events of 2002/03, 2004/05 and 2006/07 and the La Niña events of 2010/11 and 2011/12. El Niño and La Niña events can also last for more than one year, spanning multiple ENSO seasons, like the 1986/87/88 El Niño and the 1998/99/00/01 La Niña. When a strong El Niño is followed by a La Niña like the El Niño events of 1986/87/88 and 1997/98 it is very obvious that two portions of ENSO are acting together and redistributing warm water that’s left over from the El Niño. The results of the combined effects are actually difficult to miss in the sea surface temperature records.
The satellite-era sea surface temperature data reveals that ENSO, not carbon dioxide, is responsible for the warming of global ocean surfaces for the past 30 years, as noted earlier. It illustrates the effects of La Niña events are not the opposite of El Niño events. In fact, the satellite-based sea surface temperature data indicates that, when major El Niño events are followed by La Niña events, they can and do act together to cause upward shifts in the sea surface temperature anomalies of the Atlantic, Indian and West Pacific Oceans. And since the Eastern Pacific Ocean has not warmed in 30 years, those ENSO-induced upward shifts in the Atlantic-Indian-West Pacific data are responsible for practically all of the global sea surface temperature warming for the last 3 decades.
I have been presenting and illustrating those ENSO-caused upward shifts for more than 3 years. I have plotted the data, discussed and animated the process of ENSO using numerous datasets: sea surface temperature, sea level, ocean currents, ocean heat content, depth-averaged temperature, warm water volume, sea level pressure, cloud amount, precipitation, the strength and direction of the trade winds, etc. And since cloud amount for the tropical Pacific impacts downward shortwave radiation (visible light) there, I’ve presented and discussed that relationship as well. The data associated with those variables all confirm how the processes of ENSO work for my readers. They also show and discuss how those upward shifts are caused by processes of ENSO. I’ve written so many posts on ENSO that it is impractical for me to link them here. A very good overview is provided in this post, or you may prefer to read the additional comments on the cross post at WattsUpWithThat.
James, you are more than welcome to use the search function at my website to research the process of ENSO. With all modesty, I have to say there’s a wealth of information there. I’ve assembled that same information in my book If the IPCC was Selling Manmade Global Warming as a Product, Would the FTC Stop their deceptive Ads? You might prefer the book since then you’d have a single source of more detailed discussions on the topics presented in this memo. It also illustrates and discusses how the climate models used by the IPCC in their 4th Assessment Report show no skill at being able to reproduce the global surface temperature record since 1901. Using those IPCC climate models in another group of comparisons, it shows that there are no similarities, none whatsoever, between how the sea surface temperatures of the individual ocean basins have actually warmed over the past 30 years and how the climate models show sea surface temperatures should have warmed if carbon dioxide was the cause. An overview of my book is provided in the above-linked post. Amazon also provides a Kindle preview that runs from the introduction through a good portion of Section 2. That’s about the first 15% of the book. Refer also to the introduction, table of contents, and closing in pdf form here. My book is written for those without technical backgrounds so someone like you with a deep understanding of climate science will easily be able to grasp what’s presented.
In closing, I was sort of surprised to see your May 10, 2012 opinion in the New York Times. I had discussed in the second part of my August 21, 2011 memo to you and Makiko Sato that ENSO, not carbon dioxide, is responsible for the recent 30-year rise in global sea surface temperatures. You must not have read that memo. Hopefully, you’ll read this one.
Sincerely,
Bob Tisdale
“Robbie says:
May 12, 2012 at 1:21 pm
Mr. Tisdale: How would you explain the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum 55 million years ago with the ENSO phenomenon?
And please tell me where did all that (discharged) heat come from (in an already very warm climate)causing (20.000 years to peak) a global 5-6 degrees Celsius rise while the sun was somewhat colder than our current sun?”
Before the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum and rising global temperature of 6 C in 20,000 years, global temperature were much warmer than present global temperature.
Before this large increase in temperature, the Antarctic continent lacked glaciers, nor had the Indian subcontinent colliding with the Asia continent which resulted in the formation of the Himalayas occurred. Himalayas formed about 10 million years ago.
Since we currently have Antarctic with glacier Ice deep miles deep and have the Himalayas- a very large mountain range covered with various glaciers [which are going to melt before 2300 AD], we are obviously in a different world than the world before the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum.
This different world had huge dinosaurs roaming the Oceans and land region. About 65 million year ago a very rock from space slammed into Yucatán Peninsula:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicxulub_crater
The crater it made was more than 180 km (110 mi) in diameter. As for the rock:
“The impactor had an estimated diameter of 10 km (6.2 mi) and delivered an estimated energy equivalent of 96 teratons of TNT (4×1023 J).By contrast, the most powerful man-made explosive device ever detonated, the Tsar Bomba, had a yield of only 50 megatons of TNT (2.1×1017 J), making the Chicxulub impact 2 million times more powerful.”
The US nuclear arsenal had total of 70,000 nuclear war heads which were ever created- most of them being 1/50th of Tsar Bomba. The current US nuclear arsenal is around 10,000. As guess
the power of all them is roughly equal to less than 250 Tsar Bomba. And entire world has less than 1000 Tsar bomba. So this rock had 2000 times the power of all nuclear weapons held by all nations in this world. It should noted that some scientist were worried that one rather tiny nuclear explosion might destroy the world. And before Tsar Bomba was exploded by the soviets, some scientist were probably still somewhat worried about the consequences. I would imagine if any country were to make a nuclear weapon 1000 times more powerful than the Tsar Bomba, most scientist [rightly in my option] would very concerned about the possible global consequence of such a weapon being tested. And of course if such was 2 million times more powerful only a fool would assume and such explosion anywhere on earth would not have serious global consequences. Though only idiots like Hans Blix would say: “I don’t think that anyone seriously fears that the world can be blown to pieces all together.”
http://www.mtv.com/bands/i/iraq/news_feature_031203/index5.jhtml
[Regarding Saddam’s possible nuclear weapons].
Anyhow, one should not ignore an explosion which 2 million times more powerful then largest nuclear weapon ever detonated. But obviously it didn’t heat the planet [in terms of directly increasing global temperatures- in terms of decade/century affect/climatic effect] nor blow the entire planet in pieces, but it could have numerous consequences- certain more consequence than CO2 emission from driving a lot cars. Some the obvious and unavoidable results would be massive earthquakes [globally]. Creating a tsunami or many tsunami, though if you have a wave over km high racing speed fast than jetliner, you might tend to ignore some waves less than 100 meter high. Of course anything in the blast radius is dead. everything on planet which can detect sound, would hear it, boulders rain down over half the planet. Etc.
The fact this has occurred is not in doubt. Though some argue it didn’t cause the extinction dinosaurs.
10 million year later we are in the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum period and question is
how would ENSO phenomenon cause the warming. Was there ENSO phenomenon 40-70 million year ago? It seems unlikely that without mountain of glacier ice, one have much polar sea ice. Or seems would could no Antarctic or Polar sea ice, and still have mountains of glacial ice on Greenland and Antarctic. Iceland has lots of glaciers, it’s not surrounded by sea ice- at any time: “The glaciers and ice caps of Iceland cover 11.1% of the land area of the country”-wiki
And iceland is hothouse compared to Greenland:
“Winter
The Icelandic winter is relatively mild for its latitude. The southerly lowlands of the island average around 0 °C (32 °F) in winter, while the highlands tend to average around −10 °C (14 °F). The lowest temperatures in the northern part of the island range from around -25 to -30 °C (-13 to -22 °F). The lowest temperature on record is −39.7 °C (−39.5 °F). ”
When are glaciers in iceland disappear? Surely the icelanders are in a panic about this?
Let’s ask google:
“Icelandic glaciologist Helgi Bjornsson believes all Iceland’s melting glaciers will be gone within 150 to 200 years. This includes Europe’s largest glacier, Vatnajokull.”
http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2009/12/01/melting-glaciers-in-iceland-to-disappear-in-150-200-years/
And:
“Many researchers believe that glaciers disappeared from Iceland during the relatively mild climatic optimum c. 5000–8000 years ago. Will it be long before the glaciers in Iceland disappear again?”
To review, Iceland is a highly volcanic region, in the warm gulf stream, in which many researchers believe it’s present glaciers formed 5000–8000 years ago, some think it’s possible
that this ice could melt within 150 years.
Summary recent iceland glacier:
“Icelandic glaciers are presently retreating – Glaciers on Iceland had their maximum Little Ice Age extension by 1890-1920. Glacier variations in Iceland since 1930 show a clear response to variations in climate during this period: Most non-surging glaciers retreated strongly during the early half of the monitoring period, following the warm climate between 1930 and 1940. A cooling climate after 1940 led to a slowing of the retreat and many glaciers started to advance around 1970.Warming climate since 1985 led to an increased number of retreating glaciers, and all Icelandic outlet glaciers are retreating presently…”
https://notendur.hi.is/oi/icelandic_glaciers.htm
It interesting that Vatnajökull the largest glacier [covering large area and gets 1000 meter thick] is on a volcanic hotspot, so unless there is some major unexpected volcanic eruption, no thinks it’s going disappear within a century [or earliest stated is 150 years, though smaller one could disappear “if warming continues” in few decades].
One thing, what ocean temperature 55 million years ago:
“Here we identify the Palaeocene/Eocene thermal maximum in a marine sedimentary sequence obtained during the Arctic Coring Expedition. We show that sea surface temperatures near the North Pole increased from18.8˚C to over 23.8˚C during this event. Such warm values imply the absence of ice and thus exclude the influence of ice-albedo feedbacks on this Arctic warming.”
http://climate.yale.edu/publications/subtropical-arctic-ocean-temperatures-during-palaeoceneeocene-thermal-maximum
And:
Around 55 million years ago took place one of the most rapid and extreme global warming events recorded in geologic history. Sea surface temperatures rose between 5 and 8 degrees C over a period of a few thousand years.
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Global-warming-55-million-years-ago-shifted-ocean-currents-15862.shtml
Oh, here:
“Kennett’s and Stott’s analysis of 55 million-year-old forams from Antarctic waters showed that, just before the Paleocene closed, the bottom waters were at 50 degrees, considerably warmer than today’s near-freezing temperatures but still quite chilly. Then something forced the temperature of those waters to rise nearly 20 degrees, possibly in less than 10,000 years. Meanwhile, surface waters also warmed, although somewhat less, from 57 to 70 degrees.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/horizon/sept98/sea.htm
So the deep ocean water was warmer than it currently, prior to strong warming period of Palaeocene/Eocene thermal maximum. Therefore one wasn’t getting cold water from poles and therefore probably would not have ENSO phenomenon. Therefore if all polar ice were to melt and possible have polar region so warm that ice doesn’t form at all during the winter, and you have million of years of this, you get some like the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum.
Though the most obvious thing about PETM is it proves the a venus type greenhouse effect is not possible to occur {and impossible in human timescale [10,000 years]} and that it does not have a runaway affect- it’s much cooler now than back then, if one has runaway with CO2 as dominating global temperature, one gets ever increases global temperature, or it could not be cooler now.
May 12, 2012 at 4:18 pm | imbo says: Hansen has Venus on the brain.
———————
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x360gk_shocking-blue-venus-l-original_news
Fred Berple:
“Computers are very good at predicting what the experts will predict. ”
Encapsulates it all beautifully – thanks.
Why is this an unsent memo? Hansen’s contact details are public.
Bob This is all a waste of time you will not need this because temperatures will not rise or fall within 0.5C for the next 100 years when we will all be six meters under the ground. This has occurred before about 100000 times.
Jimbo says:
Since the topic here is material that make up the IPCC Working Group I report (“The Scientific Basis”), the issue of whether there was some use of non-peer-reviewed work for the subjects covered by Working Group II and III on impacts, mitigation, etc. isn’t really relevant.
I think things like Bob Tisdale’s letter here make nice exhibits as to why the “AGW skeptic” community is not going to be taken seriously by the scientific community. If you are seriously interested in influencing scientific opinion, you would not be doing such things. Are you guys really unable to recognize this?!?
Can’t Tisdale’s letter to Hansen can be sort of a proxy test for any alarmist?
Just change the “Dear James” to Dear Gavin, Dead Ray, Dear Phil, Dear Ben, Dear David or any other alarmist and challenge them any of them to repsond.
Wait that’s what posting it on WUWT does.
OK so let’s hear your responses. We all know you are all reading this.
Bring it.
Bob great letter.
Hanson and gang will never surrender but 5 things will slow them down to a trickle.
1: The Climate it’s cooling and time isn’t on Hanson’s side.
2: An army of skeptics presenting believable and provable facts and data.
3: A growing skepticism amongst the voting population that are twisting the brought and paid for politicians inside out.
4: The western world is on the biggest financial down slide since the great depression, there ain’t no money and global warming Ponzi schemes is a luxury that only health/wealthy economy’s can afford.
5: The biggest fear mongers in the world of global warming repression against the average citizen, are going down one by one. I predict Obama will be a one hit wonder. Juliar Gillard of Australia is burnt toast next year she’s gone. The UK Conservatives( in name only) have screwed themselves royally, bankrupting the UK with insane energy policy’s, talk about shooting yourself in the foot. The EU has got a very short shelf life and will slowly melt into a broken bankrupt backwater.
There lots more but that’s enough to put this Gang of climate huckster’s out to pasture for a long time. In the meantime keep up the good work Bob and fellow seekers of truth!
A proud skeptic.
Dave.
James Hansen read something about Venus and its atmosphere when he was too young to accept it emotionally. He has been fighting the resulting hobgoblins and hoos for the rest of his life.
In an earlier era he would have been institutionalized. No long-sleeved shirts necessary because he isn’t violent, at least not in that way. I think it’s charming to imagine him walking round the grounds of the asylum muttering about carbon dioxide and the Venusian atmosphere, carefully avoiding all the Napoleon delusionals. The rest of us would be better off, for sure.
Bob One more reason The Global warming hoax is on it’s last leg’s irrespective of the climate hot or cold. The once great economic power house and engine /banker of Europe is committing Hari-Kari (Economic suicide)
The German Bundesnetzagentur (Federal Network Agency) issued a press release warning that the national power grid is in serious trouble and that something needs to be done urgently. Germany’s once impeccably stable world-class power grid has been transformed and is today just one step away from being a developing-world laughing stock. This has all been accomplished in just a few short years – thanks to the country’s reckless and uncontrolled rush to renewable energies, wind and sun, all spurred on by a blind environmental movement and hysteria with respect to nuclear power. –P Gosslin, NoTricksZone, 11 May 2012
http://notrickszone.com/2012/05/11/germanys-federal-network-agency-power-grid-on-the-brink-thanks-to-renewable-energies/
Nick says:
May 12, 2012 at 7:26 pm
Let the CAGW riff-raff come to the kings of science; about time we got this pecking order right.
Wow, Mr. Tisdale
Succinct and to the point.
Most importantly, done with class, vigor, and honesty.
I truly enjoy coming to this site when possible. Learning is fundamental and required for life in general. No matter who or what you are, no?
Now, Mr. Watts, I have attempted to assist in enhancing this sites appeal and reach with investment twice. Not sure if using the “contact us” part is the problem.
I envision, just with this particular post, having a video from the messenger stating the same.
The impact of multimedia can enhance messages. We must take the liberty do so!
It is a necessary step in communication now in today’s world … _ _ _ …
It works
A video example from our past that can be applied to the current conditions of our world.
As a follow up, it is all about energy in the end 🙂
Peer-review. So 20th century. Consider, at a minimum, the ousted editors……the re-defined peer-review process.
By posting this here, Bob has merely acknowledged the many facts of this new century. We are now the peers. More or less. And these are the fora in this instance, the NYT and WUWT. And you have a voice.
Isn’t it fascinating that the AGW meme was born more than half a decade before the major oceanic oscillations (AMDO/PDO) were recognized (in 1996)? Well, at least by some. And isn’t it interesting that the AGW meme coincides with the latest AMDO/PDO positive cycle? And isn’t it interesting that public opinion of the AGW meme is decaying as both go negative with the sun gone all quiet on us?
I, for one, would be very interested in reading Bob’s musings on the phasing of El Nino/La Nina and the AMDO/PDO. Apologies if he has already done so and I have not evolved there yet.
Bob thanks for all your hard work. I have learned a lot about the oceans’ interactions from you. Thanks again.
How about, “Game Over for the Hockey Team”?
ENSO does not add heat to Earth’s radiative budget. JP
An excellent article, but it would carry more weight if someone other than the author had proof read it for silly mistakes before sending to WUWT.
I’m afraid that man’s ego seldom allows him to stop digging his hole before events overcome him and he is shown for the fool he is to keep digging.
There have been so very many examples – Hitler, Ghaddafi, Hansen.
The AGW followers must be living in terror that the holes they are digging will soon be filled in by saner minds.
The truth will ALWAYS come out in the end. That is its nature.
Is a debate between “policy based science” and “science based policy” possible?
Nick says:
May 12, 2012 at 7:26 pm
Why is this an unsent memo? Hansen’s contact details are public.
Because Mr. Tisdale chose to use the epistolary style for his post.
Have you written to C.S. Lewis asking why he never mailed all those letters to poor Wormwood?
atarsinc says: “ENSO does not add heat to Earth’s radiative budget. JP”
I believe you would find the data contradicts your statement, but please expand on your statement. Why doesn’t ENSO add heat to the Earth’s radiative budget?
Excellent Sir.
My advice would be to send it to him?
Regards
S
Mike says: “An excellent article, but it would carry more weight if someone other than the author had proof read [sic] it for silly mistakes before sending to WUWT.”
What “silly mistakes” did MS Word and my proofreading miss? BTW, the verb proofread is a compound word.
blackswhitewash.com says: @ur momisugly May 12, 2012 at 1:26 pm
Call me a sceptic, but this seems to be more about promoting a book than a genuine attempt to contact anyone.
_____________________________________
SO?? BFD!
Where the heck else is Bob T. going to advertise? More important where else are those of us who might be interested in reading his book going to find out the book is available?
Advertising a product or service is darn hard these days and expensive, ask any small business person. If Anthony wants to bring a certain book to our attention by having it mentioned in his blog, fine by me. Heck he even “Advertised” Mann’s new book!
Rhoda R says:
May 12, 2012 at 4:15 pm
To Robbie and all those who natter on about pal-reviewed publishing: …..Anyone who is brave enough to post scientific data/findings here is automatically be reviewed by experts from a lot of fields and probably more thoroughly than any normal review. Even as the print media is tanking (partially due to their attempt to ‘gate keep’ what is presented to their publications) I would suspect that the specialty printing from scientific journals will also fail – for much the same reason.
___________________________________
Well said and my thoughts exactly. More than one person has posted a paper here for vetting before it has gone on to be “Pal-reviewed” .
I will have to say I really liked Bob T.’s rebuttal to pal-reviewed publishing, I had to clean my morning tea off my screen again.
Most of us who have been here at WUWT for a while and looked at some of the pal-reviewed papers – Dinosaur Farts comes quickly to mind – have long ago quit blindly accepting pal-reviewed publishing as some sort of gold standard. Hard to consider something a gold standard when it has Dinosaur Farts mixed in. paleotootology