From The Senate EPW Jim Inhofe Press Office, well worth your time to watch.
Dr. John Christy, Alabama’s State Climatologist, Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville testified before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works hearing on global warming and stated:
“During the heat wave of late June and early July, high temperature extremes became newsworthy. Claims that there were thousands of records broken each day and that “this is what global warming looks like” got a lot of attention.
However, these headlines were not based on climate science. As shown in Figure 1.3 of my testimony it is scientifically more accurate to say that this is what Mother Nature looks like, since events even worse than these have happened in the past before greenhouse gases were increasing like they are today.
Now, it gives some people great comfort to offer a quick and easy answer when the weather strays from the average rather than to struggle with the real truth, which is, we don’t know enough about the climate to even predict events like this.
A climatologist looking at this heat wave would not be alarmed because the number of daily high temperature records set in the most recent decade was only about half the number set in the 1930s as shown in my written testimony. I suppose most people have forgotten that Oklahoma set a new record low temperature just last year of 31 below. And in the past two years, towns from Alaska to my home state of California established records for snowfall. The recent anomalous weather can’t be blamed on carbon dioxide.
See also his written testimony here
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Poptech says:
August 1, 2012 at 7:02 pm
Mosher is already sand bagging,
http://climateaudit.org/2012/07/31/surface-stations/#comment-345586
“Perhaps, co author Christy should be sent a notice that the results he testified about were not fully baked.”
I am giving a friendly warning to Anthony not to get Mosher involved in any way relating to his paper….
_____________________________
I will second that warning – Never forget the Trojan Horse strategy.
Regarding “my” above string of anti-human quotations by radical enviros:
Credit goes to “Wayne” who published these quotations (and possibly to others for compiling them).
It is not my work, and I cannot take credit for it.
I do believe the quotations are accurate – I was already familiar with many of them.
So by all means, let these quotations go viral – it is time to shed some light on the true intentions of those who have hijacked the environmental movement to further their own odious political objectives.
_____________________________
Further evidence:
Here is an excerpt written by Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace.
Note especially the last two points.
http://www.greenspirit.com/key_issues/the_log.cfm?booknum=12&page=3
The Rise of Eco-Extremism
Two profound events triggered the split between those advocating a pragmatic or “liberal” approach to ecology and the new “zero-tolerance” attitude of the extremists. The first event, mentioned previously, was the widespread adoption of the environmental agenda by the mainstream of business and government. This left environmentalists with the choice of either being drawn into collaboration with their former “enemies” or of taking ever more extreme positions. Many environmentalists chose the latter route. They rejected the concept of “sustainable development” and took a strong “anti-development” stance.
Surprisingly enough the second event that caused the environmental movement to veer to the left was the fall of the Berlin Wall. Suddenly the international peace movement had a lot less to do. Pro-Soviet groups in the West were discredited. Many of their members moved into the environmental movement bringing with them their eco-Marxism and pro-Sandinista sentiments.
These factors have contributed to a new variant of the environmental movement that is so extreme that many people, including myself, believe its agenda is a greater threat to the global environment than that posed by mainstream society. Some of the features of eco-extremism are:
• It is anti-human. The human species is characterized as a “cancer” on the face of the earth. The extremists perpetuate the belief that all human activity is negative whereas the rest of nature is good. This results in alienation from nature and subverts the most important lesson of ecology; that we are all part of nature and interdependent with it. This aspect of environmental extremism leads to disdain and disrespect for fellow humans and the belief that it would be “good” if a disease such as AIDS were to wipe out most of the population.
• It is anti-technology and anti-science. Eco-extremists dream of returning to some kind of technologically primitive society. Horse-logging is the only kind of forestry they can fully support. All large machines are seen as inherently destructive and “unnatural’. The Sierra Club’s recent book, “Clearcut: the Tragedy of Industrial Forestry”, is an excellent example of this perspective. “Western industrial society” is rejected in its entirety as is nearly every known forestry system including shelterwood, seed tree and small group selection. The word “Nature” is capitalized every time it is used and we are encouraged to “find our place” in the world through “shamanic journeying” and “swaying with the trees”. Science is invoked only as a means of justifying the adoption of beliefs that have no basis in science to begin with.
• It is anti-organization. Environmental extremists tend to expect the whole world to adopt anarchism as the model for individual behavior. This is expressed in their dislike of national governments, multinational corporations, and large institutions of all kinds. It would seem that this critique applies to all organizations except the environmental movement itself. Corporations are criticized for taking profits made in one country and investing them in other countries, this being proof that they have no “allegiance” to local communities. Where is the international environmental movements allegiance to local communities? How much of the money raised in the name of aboriginal peoples has been distributed to them? How much is dedicated to helping loggers thrown out of work by environmental campaigns? How much to research silvicultural systems that are environmentally and economically superior?
• It is anti-trade. Eco-extremists are not only opposed to “free trade” but to international trade in general. This is based on the belief that each “bioregion” should be self-sufficient in all its material needs. If it’s too cold to grow bananas – – too bad. Certainly anyone who studies ecology comes to realize the importance of natural geographic units such as watersheds, islands, and estuaries. As foolish as it is to ignore ecosystems it is absurd to put fences around them as if they were independent of their neighbours. In its extreme version, bioregionalism is just another form of ultra-nationalism and gives rise to the same excesses of intolerance and xenophobia.
• It is anti-free enterprise. Despite the fact that communism and state socialism has failed, eco-extremists are basically anti-business. They dislike “competition” and are definitely opposed to profits. Anyone engaging in private business, particularly if they are successful, is characterized as greedy and lacking in morality. The extremists do not seem to find it necessary to put forward an alternative system of organization that would prove efficient at meeting the material needs of society. They are content to set themselves up as the critics of international free enterprise while offering nothing but idealistic platitudes in its place.
• It is anti-democratic. This is perhaps the most dangerous aspect of radical environmentalism. The very foundation of our society, liberal representative democracy, is rejected as being too “human-centered”. In the name of “speaking for the trees and other species” we are faced with a movement that would usher in an era of eco-fascism. The “planetary police” would “answer to no one but Mother Earth herself”.
• It is basically anti-civilization. In its essence, eco-extremism rejects virtually everything about modern life. We are told that nothing short of returning to primitive tribal society can save the earth from ecological collapse. No more cities, no more airplanes, no more polyester suits. It is a naive vision of a return to the Garden of Eden.
***************
I’m agnostic on the whole issue because the data is agnostic. When you have to torture the data in order to maybe derive a potential climate signal you have problems. I seriously doubt that engineers who design automobile brakes torture their safety and performance data in order to get the correct “signal” (at least I hope not). I don’t get excited about heat waves or cold snaps when concerned about climate anymore than a football coach gets excited by a 1st quarter 45 yard run by his tailback – there are stil 3 quarters remaining.
I think from a public perception, memory and habit are more at play than anything else. A 20 year old has been alive during a period of significant warming (if he lived in the US). Winters were generally mild to warm, spring and summers generally hot and uneventful. Yet, if he experienced a truly prolonged late autumn cold snap that were rather the norm in the US during the 1960s and 1970s, he would think the world was coming to an end. The inverse is probably what happened during the 1980s and 1990s when tens of millions of Baby Boomers noticed that the winters were generally getting warmer, drier and shorter. I remember quite a few Chritsmas days where the temps in the Great Lakes were in the low 40s and the ground snow-free. People Like Hansen had an easy time convincing the general public that very soon cold snowy winters would become a thing of the past.
Public perceptions and memory play a big part in the debate. Climate Alarmists over-played their winning hand. They’ve moved the goal posts so often that they do not fully understand what fools they’ve made themselves into.
Allan MacRae
The North commission basically vindicated Mann’s work. They did highlight the uncertainties involved and the strong reliance of the result on the Western North America tree rings, but this is something that Mann et al themselves had already noted in their 1998 paper. They noted that Mann’s PCA method was potentially problematic and should be avoided but that it did not adversely affect the results in this case. (Mann has attempted to address this issue in subsequent work.)
The Wegman report is not taken seriously by anyone in the field. It was commissioned by the Republican majority on the committee who gave a narrow charge to someone who they knew could be counted on to tell them what they wanted to hear. And, of course, as we now know, there were serious issues of plagiarism involved as well as questions as to the extent that Wegman et al even checked M&M’s work independently versus basically taking their results on faith. (Wegman has also been completely unforthcoming in answering basic questions about what he did, let alone releasing code and so forth, something that apparently matters to you guys in certain contexts.)
Mann’s work did not eliminate the MWP and the LIA. What it found was that the MWP in particular did not have hemispheric-wide warmth as high as the latter part of the 20th century. This is not because there were no periods of warmth in some places…even many places (and most pronounced in Europe)…but rather largely because the warmth in different places was not synchronous and hence when you look hemispherically, what you get is a broad diffuse bump in Northern hemispheric temperatures. While some other studies (like Moberg et al) have shown somewhat greater variability, most of them have also shown temperatures likely lower in the MWP than in modern times.
That paper was such a joke that its publication caused mass resignations of the editorial staff of the journal, including vonStorch, who is no friend of Michael Mann’s. And, even the publisher admitted that the editorial process had failed in that case, the disagreement between him and the editorial staff that resigned being only about whether it represented an isolated problem or more systemic problems in the editorial policies of the journal.
Loved Allan MacRae’s list of anti-human comments and I copied them to use in a future post. He gave h/t to Wayne, but would like to credit both with a link, if they are available…
Incidentally, the UN’s Agenda 21 is all about herding people into cities to leave the countryside open so it can go back to it’s wild, “natural” state. It’s called the Wildlands project, and most of the people listed by MacRae are involved at some level.
Anthony says:
Let’s take the “upside down proxies” example. In fact, the Tiljander proxies were not “upside down”…Their orientation was automatically determined by the algorithm based on its correlation with the temperature.
Now, the claim is that the modern part of those proxies may have been contaminated and that the correlation was thus spurious…and that the correlation with temperature should really go the other way. Mann et al dealt with that issue by demonstrating in their supplementary materials what results they got if they eliminated the Tiljander proxies.
So, the reason “it doesn’t matter” is that they had already addressed the issues surrounding possible contamination of the Tiljander proxies.
REPLY: Steve McIntyre will likely have a different view than yours, or he would not have made such an issue of it. My view is that if orientation of data doesn’t matter, why use it at all? YAD061 is another example of a Team dismissal, but it matters much. – Anthony
I am thoroughly disappointed with Mosher. Since he tagged with Lucia and Zeke he has completely lost the plot. He makes cryptic comments sans valeur. Criticisms without a critique. A few years back he took a break from blogging and I suspect fell in with a bad crowd. Sad really sad.
“Less is more.”
– Mies van der Rohe
“BEST is crap.”
– Allan MacRae
William McClenney says:
August 1, 2012 at 10:27 pm
Intentionally repeating myself, “warmists and skeptics thus find themselves on the mutual, chaotic climate ground where the efficacy of CO2 as a GHG had better be right.”
The “Precautionary Principle” is rather absolute on this point….
_______________________________
The “Precautionary Principle” got tossed out a DECADE ago. The discipline of Risk Assessment is now it’s replacement.
In short, the “precautionary principle” is a notion which supports taking protective action before there is complete scientific proof of a risk; that is, action should not be delayed simply because full scientific information is lacking.
The discipline of risk assessment, one of the basic obligations of the SPS Agreement, was developed to guide action in the face of incomplete knowledge about risks to health. It focuses on probabilities of hazards occurring, and the probable consequences, because complete knowledge is very rare..
Risk analysis has been recognized and validated in World Trade Organization (WTO) decision processes.
From the Internationa Food Safety Network Website
If Risk Assessment instead of the “the meaningless logic of the precautionary principle” is now used to determine what food (and drugs) are safe then the same principle of SCIENTIFIC Risk Assessment should also apply to CAGW.
So far the actual science (not incorrect models) show that:
1. CO2 is a plant food and the biosphere is blooming.
2. We are at the tail end of the Holocene with the overall temperatures trending colder graph.
3. That wind and solar power have adverse effects on the environment and energy grid and only add to certain individuals wealth.
4. What CO2 warming there might be can not be distinguished from the signal noise.
5. The surface temperature data sets are riddled with problems and citizen groups in several countries are challenging those data sets.
6. So far the implementation of CO2 mitigations strategies have starved children and created food riots in over thirty countries. They have caused the deaths of 7,800 people from fuel poverty this winter in the UK alone. They have killed endangered raptors and bats. They have caused major pollution in China turning river so toxic the water can not even be touched.
Risk Assessment would say that adaption is a heck of a lot better than the evils so far visited on earth by the CAGW pushing international corporations and their paid for politicians and scientists.
Joel – you are a waste of breath.
North, under oath, agreed with Wegman’s conclusions. The only question remaining about Mann’s hockey stick is not technical – it is the question of deliberate fraud.
Soon and Baliunas were subjected to political attacks, not technical ones. Your alleged “mass resignations” was a dishonest exercise – a political smokescreen.
Gail Combs says: August 2, 2012 at 7:37 am
Excellent post, thank you Gail.
Statement of James M. Inhofe
Hearing: Full Committee hearing entitled, “Update on the Latest Climate Change Science and Local Adaptation Measures.”
Wednesday, August 1, 2012
I must say it feels like we’re back to the good old days. It may be hard to believe, but it was in February of 2009, during the height of the global warming alarmist movement, that this committee last held a hearing on global warming science. Back then we heard promises from the Obama administration of a clean energy revolution with green jobs propped up by billions in taxpayer dollars to companies like Solyndra.
What came of all those promises? The global warming movement has completely collapsed and cap-and-trade is dead and gone.
I suspect a look back over the past three years will be a little painful for my friends on the other side. In 2009 with a Democratic President, and overwhelming Democratic majorities in the House and the Senate, global warming alarmists were on top of the world – they thought they would finally reach their goal of an international agreement that would eliminate fossil fuels. Yet the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill didn’t happen.
Of course, what drove the collapse of the global warming movement was that the science of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was finally exposed. For years I had warned that the United Nations was a political body, not a scientific body – and finally the mainstream media took notice:
New York Times editorial: “Given the stakes, the IPCC cannot allow more missteps and, at the very least, must tighten procedures and make its deliberations more transparent. The panel’s chairman…is under fire for taking consulting fees from business interests…” (February 17, 2010)
The Washington Post: “Recent revelations about flaws in that seminal IPCC report, ranging from typos in key dates to sloppy sourcing, are undermining confidence not only in the panel’s work but also in projections about climate change.
Newsweek: “Some of the IPCC’s most-quoted data and recommendations were taken straight out of unchecked activist brochures, newspaper articles…”
UK Daily Telegraph on Climategate: “The worst scientific scandal of our generation.”
Just how unpopular is the global warming movement now? The Washington Post recently published a poll revealing that Americans no longer worry about global warming and one of the reasons is because they don’t trust the scientists’ motivations.
The IPCC has even lost the trust of the left. Andrew Revkin of the New York Times recently called for IPCC chair Pachauri to make a choice between global warming activism and leading the IPCC. They are also saying similar things about global warming alarmist James Hansen. As David Roberts of Grist acknowledged, Hansen has “become so politicized that people tend to dismiss him.”
Just one look at this committee and we can see how bad things have gotten for the alarmists: today there are no federal witnesses here to testify about the grave dangers of global warming. President Obama himself never dares to mention global warming and some on the left have noticed: Bill McKibben recently criticized the President for not attending the Rio + 20 sustainability conference noting that, “Unlike George H.W. Bush, who flew in for the first conclave, Barack Obama didn’t even attend.”
It must be very hard for my friends on the left to watch the President who promised he would slow the rise of the oceans posing in front of pipelines in my home state of Oklahoma pretending to support oil and gas.
I imagine they are trying to keep quiet because they know President Obama is still moving forward with his global warming agenda – he just doesn’t want the American people to know about it.
Now what the American people don’t know: President Obama is doing through his bureaucracy what he couldn’t do legislatively. He is spending billions of taxpayer dollars on his global warming agenda. We’ve already identified $68 billion.
Today we should have a fascinating debate. I want to thank climatologist Dr. John Christy for appearing before the Committee to provide his insights. I am also looking forward to the testimony of Dr. Margo Thorning, a noted economist who will discuss the economic pain of the Obama EPA’s current regulations.
We’ve been through this now for the past 3 ½ years and the results are clear: President Obama’s green energy agenda has been a disaster. The time has come to put these tired, failed policies to rest and embrace the US energy boom so that we can put Americans back to work, turn this economy around, become totally energy independent from the Middle East, and ensure energy security for years to come.
###
Any video without the huge introduction?
Can’t share that, no one will survive the first two minutes.
I don’t have time to back-up all my statements, but here is a critical point regarding North agreeing with Wegman:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/18/the-question-put-to-dr-mann-at-disneyland-today/#comment-989861
Here is direct evidence of the facts: Both the Wegman and North Committees condemned the Mann et al methodology.
Excerpts – Wegman Report
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/WegmanReport.pdf
The debate over Dr. Mann’s principal components methodology has been going on for nearly three years. When we got involved, there was no evidence that a single issue was resolved or even nearing resolution. Dr. Mann’s RealClimate.org website said that all of the Mr. McIntyre and Dr. McKitrick claims had been ‘discredited’. UCAR had issued a news release saying that all their claims were ‘unfounded’. Mr. McIntyre replied on the ClimateAudit.org website. The climate science community seemed unable to either refute McIntyre’s claims or accept them. The situation was ripe for a third-party review of the types that we and Dr. North’s NRC panel have done.
While the work of Michael Mann and colleagues presents what appears to be compelling evidence of global temperature change, the criticisms of McIntyre and McKitrick, as well as those of other authors mentioned are indeed valid.
“Where we have commonality, I believe our report and the [NAS] panel essentially agree. We believe that our discussion together with the discussion from the NRC report should take the ‘centering’ issue off the table. [Mann’s] decentred methodology is simply incorrect mathematics …. I am baffled by the claim that the incorrect method doesn’t matter because the answer is correct anyway.
Method Wrong + Answer Correct = Bad Science.
The papers of Mann et al. in themselves are written in a confusing manner, making it difficult for the reader to discern the actual methodology and what uncertainty is actually associated with these reconstructions.
It is not clear that Dr. Mann and his associates even realized that their methodology was faulty at the time of writing the [Mann] paper.
We found MBH98 and MBH99 to be somewhat obscure and incomplete and the criticisms of MM03/05a/05b to be valid and compelling.
Overall, our committee believes that Mann’s assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by his analysis.
[The] fact that their paper fit some policy agendas has greatly enhanced their paper’s visibility… The ‘hockey stick’ reconstruction of temperature graphic dramatically illustrated the global warming issue and was adopted by the IPCC and many governments as the poster graphic. The graphics’ prominence together with the fact that it is based on incorrect use of [principal components analysis] puts Dr. Mann and his co-authors in a difficult face-saving position.
We have been to Michael Mann’s University of Virginia website and downloaded the materials there. Unfortunately, we did not find adequate material to reproduce the MBH98 materials. We have been able to reproduce the results of McIntyre and McKitrick.
Generally speaking, the paleoclimatology community has not recognized the validity of the [McIntyre and McKitrick] papers and has tended dismiss their results as being developed by biased amateurs. The paleoclimatology community seems to be tightly coupled as indicated by our social network analysis, has rallied around the [Mann] position, and has issued an extensive series of alternative assessments most of which appear to support the conclusions of MBH98/99… Our findings from this analysis suggest that authors in the area of paleoclimate studies are closely connected and thus ‘independent studies’ may not be as independent as they might appear on the surface.
It is important to note the isolation of the paleoclimate community; even though they rely heavily on statistical methods they do not seem to be interacting with the statistical community. Additionally, we judge that the sharing of research materials, data and results was haphazardly and grudgingly done. In this case we judge that there was too much reliance on peer review, which was not necessarily independent.
Based on the literature we have reviewed, there is no overarching consensus on [Mann’s work]. As analyzed in our social network, there is a tightly knit group of individuals who passionately believe in their thesis. However, our perception is that this group has a self-reinforcing feedback mechanism and, moreover, the work has been sufficiently politicized that they can hardly reassess their public positions without losing credibility.
It is clear that many of the proxies are re-used in most of the papers. It is not surprising that the papers would obtain similar results and so cannot really claim to be independent verifications.”
Especially when massive amounts of public monies and human lives are at stake, academic work should have a more intense level of scrutiny and review. It is especially the case that authors of policy-related documents like the IPCC report, Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, should not be the same people as those that constructed the academic papers.”
Did Wegman and North Disagree?
There’s obviously been a lot of spinning on this subject, since Wegman’s language was much more forthright than North’s. The realclimate crowd have tried to marginalize the clear statements in Wegman and more recently have tried to smear him for plagiarism, for (as I recall) one missing footnote,
At the July 19, 2006 House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee hearing, Barton asked North very precisely whether he disagreed with any Wegman’s findings and North (under oath) said no as follows:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-109hhrg31362/html/CHRG-109hhrg31362.htm
CHAIRMAN BARTON. I understand that. It looks like my time is expired, so I want to ask one more question. Dr. North, do you dispute the conclusions or the methodology of Dr. Wegman’s report?
DR. NORTH. No, we don’t. We don’t disagree with their criticism. In fact, pretty much the same thing is said in our report. But again, just because the claims are made, doesn’t mean they are false.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. I understand that you can have the right conclusion and that it not be–
DR. NORTH. It happens all the time in science.
CHAIRMAN BARTON. Yes, and not be substantiated by what you purport to be the facts but have we established–we know that Dr. Wegman has said that Dr. Mann’s methodology is incorrect. Do you agree with that? I mean, it doesn’t mean Dr. Mann’s conclusions are wrong, but we can stipulate now that we have–and if you want to ask your statistician expert from North Carolina that Dr. Mann’s methodology cannot be documented and cannot be verified by independent review.
DR. NORTH. Do you mind if he speaks?
CHAIRMAN BARTON. Yes, if he would like to come to the microphone.
MR. BLOOMFIELD. Thank you. Yes, Peter Bloomfield. Our committee reviewed the methodology used by Dr. Mann and his coworkers and we felt that some of the choices they made were inappropriate. We had much the same misgivings about his work that was documented at much greater length by Dr. Wegman.
jup says:
August 2, 2012 at 2:54 am
One thing in common that all global warming alarmists share: they are really bad liars. Their lies and fraudulent studies are all too easily taken apart. IPCC has outlived its failed propagandist purpose and should be put down, like a diseased cow….
_______________________
Don’t malign the poor cow. I would be willing to call out the vet to help her.
The IPCC is more like a rabid wolverine.
Dr. Deanster says:
August 2, 2012 at 6:16 am
Hopefully .. With Christie and Spencer heading up a Satelite Operation, and now Watts establishing a protocol to produce a reasonably accurate temperature metric from thermometer data, .. this whole b.s. of Global Warming histeria can be put to rest for good….
___________________________________
Do not count on it. If an industry cartel wants legislation that wipes out their competition and boosts their profits, science, logic and fact get no where. Logic and facts never win against Money, Political Power and propaganda.
The only thing we have going for us is the internet and the MSMs proven bias in a few other issues where the MSM and the Congress Critters ignored public opinion and passed very unpopular laws.
Also many of the progressives/liberals/socialists are actually very caring people. If you can get past the brain washing they do wake up. Only a small minority are rabid people haters like those quoted by Allan MacRae. Unfortunately, since they are generally sheep, you have to use a one on one approach. They are not about to leave the comfort of the herd otherwise.
All the quotes Allan MacRae posted (and much, much more) appear at http://www.green-agenda.com. I discovered the site several years ago, and have mentioned it many times on sceptic blogs. It is a mine of information.
One doesn’t need to be a scientist to learn what ‘they’ are up to!
Allan MacRae says:
Okay…I see how it works for you guys now:
Michael Mann: Technical problems with method; Results verified by other methods = deliberate fraud.
John Christy: Technical problems with method; Results changed significantly by corrections = revered as “stellar”.
Thanks for setting me straight.
“A climatologist looking at this heat wave would not be alarmed because the number of daily high temperature records set in the most recent decade was only about half the number set in the 1930s.”
This should have been reworded. It varies by location, but most of our recorded weather history starts in the late 1800s. The statement ignores the fact that a high temperature would be more likely to be set in the 1930s because of the much shorter amount of history that had been recorded up to that point.
Now it’s true that even 130 years of history of measurements with a lot of small errors is probably not long enough to pick out a human influenced signal with any accuracy, but that’s a different story than what the statement above is saying.
Allan MacRae compassionately concluded: “You are hanging out with a bad crowd Joel. Try reading more, and thinking for yourself.”
There’s a difference between a youthful fling of a stressed out business man on an overseas trip and the cold calculated deception of a husband who is bedding his wife’s best friend. One is human nature. The other is raw, snide corruption. The youthful stage of the climate debate has long past and now there are no excuses for such ignorance.
Christy has just restored some of my faith in academic science, not so much for the bold content of his statement but for his dorky swagger.
In an era in which this year’s corn crop is being destroyed as a pagan sacrifice to the Earth goddess, calm old world confidence carries the day.
I found the statistical assessment of what – in terms of extreme conditions hot or cold – can be expected to be especially interesting and quite straightforward i.e. 10% of the likely 1000 years worth can be expected somewhere in the world this century and given fairly well-known climate history of the current interglacial they will be likely be as, if not more, extreme than anything we’ve seen to this point. Good to realize that given they way the Foxes are already playing the Chicken Littles.
Allan MacRae says:
It still flabbers my garst just how Joel can continue here with the same easily refuted drivel, day in and day out. “Tiljander was not upside-down” – what a joke. Mia Tiljander herself warned people NOT to use her results because they were contaminated and therefore had nothing to do with temperature, as can clearly be seen by noting their violent change in pattern which in no way corresponds to Finland’s own thermometer records of that period – just as Briffa’s Yamal treemometers are the isolated aliens amongst a family of Russian thermometer records back to 1880. And IIRC, ALL the Team Hockey Sticks depend on Yamal, Tiljander, and/or the bristlecone pines, stripbark extremophiles with huge local variation in tree growth and ring growth rate, which are therefore also known as being totally unsuitable for temperature studies. Superwoman Gergis failed to fly to the rescue.
I’m not going to take more time out to argue with Joel again – just note this strange “water off a ducks back” – whereas I was once an active warmist, who defected on the strength of better evidence, more love of truth, and more courtesy. It took me several weeks of veering horribly back and forth, studying the best evidence on all sides, not knowing who to believe, until I had got to the scientific bottom of all the typical SkSci issues.
To me it’s obvious that Joel’s independend “Nullius In Verba” scientific BS nose (which is what science training should train) is not as highly-trained as his capacity to repeat orthodoxy. Yet still, Joel is courteous and an accredited scientist and claims to have no conflicting interests.
There has to be a conflicting interest somewhere. Perhaps Joel has a horror of even considering the possibility that the WHOLE of Climate Science has been corrupted.
Is Joel in denial? He certainly cannot accuse me of this, since I have been active on both sides.
“This should have been reworded. It varies by location, but most of our recorded weather history starts in the late 1800s. The statement ignores the fact that a high temperature would be more likely to be set in the 1930s because of the much shorter amount of history that had been recorded up to that point.”
He accounts for this. He also submitted several other graphs, one shows records using the previous 10 years of data for each year.
Sincere thanks to A Lovell for: August 2, 2012 at 8:28 am
All the quotes Allan MacRae posted (and much, much more) appear at:
http://www.green-agenda.com
___________
Please go to this post and read it – excellent information.
Here is the first quotation:
“The common enemy of humanity is man.
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,
water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these
dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through
changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”
– Club of Rome,
premier environmental think-tank,
consultants to the United Nations
I hope Dr. Christy is right about CO2 having caused no global warming. I really hope he is right.