Cliff writes to me to tell me about this essay: Climate Distortion. I’m happy to draw attention to it.
He writes:
This week, with great fanfare, NASA scientist James Hansen and associates released a paper “The Perception of Climate Change” in the journal PNAS that claims that recent heat waves and droughts were caused by human-induced climate change. To quote their abstract:
” It follows that we can state, with a high degree of confidence, that extreme anomalies such as those in Texas and Oklahoma in 2011 and Moscow in 2010 were a consequence of global warming because their likelihood in the absence of global warming was exceedingly small.”
This paper (found here) has been quoted in hundreds, if not thousands, of media outlets and newspapers and has garnered the praise of many environmental advocacy groups.
The problem? Their conclusions are demonstrably false and their characterization of the science and statistics are deceptive at best.
And the problem goes beyond this unfortunate paper. It extends to the way the media has misunderstood and miscommunicated our current state of knowledge of climate change. No wonder the public is confused, skeptic/denier groups hold on to wacky/unscientific theories, and our leaders dither on climate change. And let me repeat something I have said several times….I believe that human-induced global warming is both observed, real, and a serious problem for mankind. So if anyone wants to call me a denier or some other ad hominem name, please refrain from such remarks.
Well worth your time to read the full post: Climate Distortion.
“And let me repeat something I have said several times….I believe that human-induced global warming is both observed, real, and a serious problem for mankind.”
And I believe just the opposite and I have observed data on my side…what little of it we do have. Fine and dandy this ‘scientists’ debunks this paper, but statements like this make me less enthused…a definite ‘eye roller’.
Mr Lynn says:
August 9, 2012 at 1:36 pm
“REPLY: It’s here because I like what he has to say, and he’s an honest scientist. If you have a problem with that, go elsewhere. – Anthony”
“We can understand why you like his deconstruction of Hansen et al., but if he’s such an honest scientist, perhaps you could ask him to produce some evidence that the CAGW speculation (“a serious problem for mankind”) has any validity. Perhaps he could propose a falsifiable hypothesis. “I believe” is not a scientific argument.”
Let’s not try to hold Anthony to a standard of “no warmers.” Anthony is presenting an argument between warmers. We might learn something from it. The warmers might learn something from it. Anyway, courtesy of Anthony, you have your opportunity to criticize the warmers.
http://drtimball.com/2012/nasa-scientist-out-of-control/
My take on Cliff Mass’s paper is: Mass’s paper is akin to a Bootleg with Hail Mary pass.
He knows that the majority of the public has become wise to the AGW SCAM, and that Alarmists like Hansen are killing any chance of keeping the few AGW believers there are. Thus, Mass had little choice but to rebuff Hansen. Otherwise more AGW believers would convert, knowing there was no legitimate scientists involved with AGW.
Cliff hints at this part way through with the following: “And the damage to the credibility of my profession is huge.”
I have little faith in the breathless pronouncements of the doomer gloomers who make hypotheses that are essentially not disprovable (falsifiable, if you will) and therefore not scientific. I only hope that the moderates of this world increasingly ignore these false prophets. Humanity has been quite successful at adapting for millenia and I put my faith in this tried and true ability into the future.
Sooo… Cliff Mass is another uneducated somebody that does not know the difference between an ad hominem and an insult? Sigh…
Mark
I’m not trying to tell Anthony what to publish on his blog. I am most grateful for the education—and entertainment—it has provided. I might have liked a bit of introduction to Prof. Mass, but what I like is really of no account; I’m just a rider on this train. I did find it puzzling that such an obviously astute observer could have come out with such a bold-faced statement of ‘belief’ in CAGW, so I said so. But then, I suppose some things really do transcend empiricism, even for good scientists.
/Mr Lynn
“and a serious problem for mankind”. Unlike the reverse result, every time in recorded and geological history. Takes real faith in the power of linear extrapolation!
“.I believe that human-induced global warming is both observed, real, and a serious problem for mankind.”
I just cannot come to grips with that comment. The information so far suggests that not only is it unmeasurable but it’s effect has yet to be determined. Not only that, the minute percentage of greenhouse gas that CO2 is, cannot be claimed to make such a huge change when it size and effect has not been clearly determined either. So once again, we are still at first base and non the smarter or nothing is remotely clearer.
No “light Bulb” moment at all.
What is wrong at NASA? Why do they allow James ‘Homer’ Hansen to promote climate science controversies? It makes NASA look like a dysfunctional organisation that lacks internal discipline.
Oh how I miss the glory days of NASA. Now I don’t believe anything from them. I wish this latest rover landing was not a hoax.
Well I guess probably the rover thing is true. But I remain skeptical.
I think Hansen and NASA would do well to read the 2004 paper by Gregory J. McCabe called PACIFIC AND ATLANTIC OCEAN INFLUENCES ON MULTIDECADAL DROUGHT FREQUENCY IN THE UNITED STATES. Whenever we have a positive AMO[ warm Atlantic ] and a negative PDO[ more colder water along the east Pacific than in the western or central Pacific ] , there is a higher probabilty of drought in the US SOUTH and US SOUTH WESTand even some of the CENTRAL US states . Similar conditions as now existed in the period 1860-1880 and again 1945-1965 . Bob Tisdale’s blog shows current high July sea surface temperatures for continental US waters like in the 1880’s and 1960’s . There were similar heat waves in the central US[ MISSOURI,KANSAS,ARKANSA S,OKLAHOMA, NEBRASKA in the early to mid 1950’s as we are having now . They seem to ignore the past and claim everything currently is unprecedented when in fact we are having another warm spell like we have had many in the past . Some are warmer and others not so warm. The cooler climate is coming as it came after the 1950’s and after 1880’s. I am surprised at the poor quality of climate research coming out of NASA currently.
I too would not give this person a pass on the “wacky” quote. I’m sorry but as a sceptic, I have not said anything other than what the topnotch science papers have said in their conclusions. That intrinsic natural drivers are poorly understood in models, let alone in terms of their real-time teleconnections with the temperature trend and extreme events, thus the null hypothesis MUST stand. Until further work is done on accurately defining and mechanizing these highly variable oscillating natural drivers, CO2 fudge factors need to be shelved. I challenge Cliff to point out the wacky nature of my oft repeated montra. And apologize here for that insulting remark.
There hasn’t been any global warming for 15 years, there is no tropospheric hot spot over the tropics, ocean temperatures are stable, arctic sea ice hasn’t disappeared, and many glaciers are growing.
Yet the author believes “that human-induced global warming is both observed, real, and a serious problem for mankind.” C’mon.
“I believe that human-induced global warming is both observed, real, and a serious problem for mankind.”
Anthony, as you seem to be on at least cordial email terms with Cliff Mass perhaps you would like to ask him to present his evidence here and debate it?
To artwest….Your last comment is right-on. I am sure there are many here who feel the same..if Mass really believes in this theory does he believe in the models produced by the Climategate conspirators or does he have actual observational proof?
Cliff Mass says:…”No wonder the public is confused, skeptic/denier groups hold on to wacky/unscientific theories, and our leaders dither on climate change.”
As a member of the public I can only voice my own opinion, I’m NOT Confused nor am I part of some skeptic/denier group, I also do not have any such wacky/unscientific theories that I hold on to, tho I do take an interest in science and engineering so when those who actually do try to impose their wacky/unscientific theories on people, Such as the Great Anthropogenic Climate fiddle, Then I do like to support the views of those scientists/engineers that appear to have the same perception to my understanding of the issue.
In other-words with respect go take a long walk of a short plank. 🙂
DavidG says:
August 9, 2012 at 12:59 pm
I, for one don’t see why this piece is here. He believes in fictional man-made global warming and his position is weak. Next!
REPLY: It’s here because I like what he has to say, and he’s an honest scientist. If you have a problem with that, go elsewhere. – Anthony
________________________________
David, it is very important to track the move toward the center by reasonable scientists. This move of course was the whole point of the entire CAGW exercise.
A “Compromise” that leaves the Golden Goose (Tax Payers) a bit leaner and more tattered but still laying those golden eggs (tax dollars) The goal was to milk us for $$$ for funding of universities, scientists, NGOs and select GREEN corporations, Oh and of course the politicians and bankers.
If you understand Shell, BP, ENRON and a bunch of others corporations were behind CAGW from the start you can figure out where it has always been headed.
son of mulder says:
August 9, 2012 at 2:20 pm
…..however I perceive a pattern aligned with Muller’s interview where the underlying takehome message is ‘There are cranks on both sides but please be assured that anthropogenic climate change is real and dangerous despite the loud noises coming from each end of the Climate wars bell curve.’
_________________________
Yes, that was my take home too. See my Comment on the Muller – Shell Oil connection. Shell wants natural gas fracking to displace coal and has been funding the CAGW con from the beginning.
A good demonstration of a “foundational” error for want of a better term. Those in the media DO need some remedial education on subject like this . . . . Like many of us, they are just working stiffs trying to make a living and do not have the “luxery” of parusing the finer arts of deception. Thank you, Cliff Mass very concise and understandable for any one who remembers their statistics 101. Even journalists suffer the effects of “if you don’t use it, you lose it.”
Fine, sorry I meant to say . . of perusing the finer arts of marketing or I suppose I could go with “the complex question”.
I just would like to quote the authors of the paper that I noted above . ” This research indicates that the persistence of the current positive AMO state may lead to continuing above normal frequencies of US drought in the near future , with the pattern of drought modulated by the sign of the PDO” . The positive AMO has now been around for about 17 years and and has very recently gone even more positive .Fortunately for US, the PDO sign went negative in 2007 and the greater amount of cooler water at our western coast compared to the western or central Pacific may have greatly modulated the climate or we could be having the 1930’s dust bowl to day, an even worse drought than the serious one that is still underway today. All these changes have very little to do with Global warming but are purely North American or regional events . To blame all these warm spells and droughts on global warming is climate science at its worst .
Mr Lynn says:
August 9, 2012 at 6:07 pm
Theo Goodwin says:
August 9, 2012 at 4:18 pm
“I did find it puzzling that such an obviously astute observer could have come out with such a bold-faced statement of ‘belief’ in CAGW, so I said so. But then, I suppose some things really do transcend empiricism, even for good scientists.”
Your comment is right on the money. It seems that, when it comes to that all important statement of belief, all warmers are unable to apply their critical skills.
artwest says:
August 10, 2012 at 8:24 am:
“Anthony, as you seem to be on at least cordial email terms with Cliff Mass perhaps you would like to ask him to present his evidence here and debate it?”
=====================================================
Very good idea, let us do it.
DavidG says:
I, for one don’t see why this piece is here. He believes in fictional man-made global warming and his position is weak. Next!
He also belives that Hansen’s most recent propaganda piece is a travesty that abuses science and statistics, and his position on that is quite strong. Better than anything else on the subject that has been posted here to date.
It is the strength of the position, not the person who holds it, that is important.