Guest post by David M. Hoffer
In my first two articles on the leaked AR5 Chapter 11 (near-term projections) I looked at the caveats with which the IPCC is now surrounding their projections, and the lengths to which they are going to preserve the alarmist narrative. The caveats go to such ridiculous lengths that there is actually a quote suggesting that reality may well be within, above, or below the range projected by the models. Falsify that! To maintain the alarmist narrative , they characterize record ice extent in the Antarctic as a “slight increase” and make no mention in the executive summary of the projection buried deep in the report that tropical cyclones may decrease in frequency by as much as one third by 2100.
But what of their temperature projections? Do they say how much they expect it to warm up in the next few decades? They do. But these are the high stakes projections for the IPCC because, unlike most of their projections, these ones will be falsified (or not) within the life times of most of this readership. True to form, they’ve surrounded their temperature projections with caveats while taking an interesting approach to maintaining the alarmist narrative.
The projection is for between 0.4 and 1.0 degrees of warming for the period 2016-2035 compared to the period 1986-2005. Now normally when the IPCC gives a range, we expect that their “best guess” is in the centre of the range. But oddly we find this phrase in Chapter 11:
[…] it is more likely than not that actual warming will be closer to the lower bound of 0.4°C than the upper bound of 1.0°C
In fact, they go out of their way elsewhere to suggest that the most likely outcome will be about 0.2 degrees per decade. With 2035 only a smidge over two decades away, how do they justify an upper bound 2.5 times their most likely scenario? While delving into this, I came across some rather interesting information. Here’s the graphs they provide with their projections for the beginning of the reference period (1986-2005) through to the year 2050:
Figure 11.33: Synthesis of near-term projections of global mean surface air temperature. a) 4 Projections of global mean, annual mean surface air temperature (SAT) 1986–2050 (anomalies relative to 1986–2005) under all RCPs from CMIP5 models (grey and coloured lines, one ensemble member per model), with four observational estimates (HadCRUT3: Brohan et al., 2006; ERA-Interim: Simmons et al., 2010; GISTEMP: Hansen et al., 2010; NOAA: Smith et al., 2008) for the period 1986–2011 (black lines); b) as a) but showing the 5–95% range for RCP4.5 (light grey shades, with the multi-model median in white) and all RCPs (dark grey shades) of decadal mean CMIP5 projections using one ensemble member per model, and decadal mean observational estimates (black lines). The maximum and minimum values from CMIP5 are shown by the grey lines. An assessed likely range for the mean of the period 2016–2035 is indicated by the black solid bar. The ‘2°C above pre-industrial’ level is indicated with a thin black line, assuming a warming of global mean SAT prior to 1986–2005 of 0.6°C. c) A synthesis of ranges for the mean SAT for 2016–2035 using SRES CMIP3, RCPs CMIP5, observationally constrained projections (Stott et al., 2012; Rowlands et al., 2012; updated to remove simulations with large future volcanic eruptions), and an overall assessment. The box 1 and whiskers represent the likely (66%) and very likely (90%) ranges. The dots for the CMIP3 and CMIP5 estimates show the maximum and minimum values in the ensemble. The median (or maximum likelihood estimate for Rowlands et al., 2012) are indicated by a greyband.
Is the first graph serious? 154 data plots all scrambled together are supposed to have some meaning? So I started to focus on the second graph which is presented in a fashion that makes it useful. But in examining it, I noticed that something is missing. I’ll give everyone 5 minutes to go back and see if they can spot it for themselves.
Tick
Tick
Tick
Did you spot it?
They hid the decline! In the first graph, observational data ends about 2011 or 12. In the second graph though, it ends about 2007 or 8. There are four or five years of observational data missing from the second graph. Fortunately the two graphs are scaled identically which makes it very easy to use a highly sophisticated tool called “cut and paste” to move the observational data from the first graph to the second graph and see what it should have looked like:
Well oops. Once on brings the observational data up to date, it turns out that we are currently below the entire range of models in the 5% to 95% confidence range across all emission scenarios. The light gray shading is for RCP 4.5, the most likely emission scenario. But we’re also below the dark gray which is all emission scenarios for all models, including the ones where we strangle the global economy.
It gets worse.
I did a little back of the envelope math (OK, OK, a spreadsheet, who has envelopes anymore these days?) and calculated that, assuming a linear warming starting today, we’d need to get to 1.58 degrees above the reference period to get an average of +1.0 over the course of the reference period itself. If my calcs are correct, extrapolating a straight line from end of current observations through 1.6 degrees in 2035 ought to just catch the top of that black bar showing the “Likely Range” in the centre of the graph:
Hah! Nailed it!
But now it is even worse for the IPCC. To meet the upper bound of their estimated range, the IPCC would need warming that (according to their own data) is below projections for all their models in all emission scenarios to suddenly increase to a rate higher than all their projections from all their models across all emission scenarios. In brief, the upper range of their estimate cannot be supported by their own data from their own models.
In fact, just based on their own graph, we’ve seen less than 0.4 degrees over the last 26 years or so, less than 2 degrees per century. That brown line I’ve drawn in represents a warming trend beginning right now and continuing through 2035 of 6 degrees per century, triple recent rates. Since the range in their own graph already includes scenarios such as drastic reductions in aerosols as well as major increases in CO2, there simply is no justification in their own data and their own models to justify an upper bound of 1.0 degrees.
That’s not to say it is impossible, I suppose it is possible. It is also possible that I will be struck by lightning twice tomorrow and survive, only to die in airplane crash made all the more unlikely by the fact that I’m not flying anywhere tomorrow, so that plane will have to come and find me. Of course with my luck, the winning Powerball ticket will be found in my wallet just to cap things off.
Is it possible? Sure. Is it likely?
Not according to their own data and their own models. The current version of IPCC AR5 Chapter 11 takes deception (intended or otherwise) to new heights. First, by hiding the fact that observational data lies outside the 95% confidence range of their own models, and second by estimating an upper range of warming that their own models say is next to impossible.
Related articles
- IPCC AR5 Chapter 11 – Maintaining the Spin (wattsupwiththat.com)
- IPCC Chapter 11 – Bankruptcy Protection (wattsupwiththat.com)
- The real IPCC AR5 draft bombshell – plus a poll (wattsupwiththat.com)
- An animated analysis of the IPCC AR5 graph shows ‘IPCC analysis methodology and computer models are seriously flawed’ (wattsupwiththat.com)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
All the foregoing is relevant – but what about the Urban Heat factor..? More and more recording instruments are in what could only be described as an ‘urban environment’…
Our tv weather forecasters here in the UK are forever cautioning; ‘It may be 4 degrees C in towns and cities; but could be below freezing in rural areas..’
See..?? Even the meteorologists admit it..!
Martin van Etten;
see also point 5: all the projections rely on climate models to some extent. As emphasised in the Introduction to 11.3.6 there maybe processes operating in the real world that are missing from, or inadequately represented in the models.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yes Martin, I wrote an entire article on the manner in which every single statement in AR5 Ch11 is surrounded by caveats. There’s a quote to the effect that reality may be above, below, or within model estimates. Through the whole document, each estimate, prediction, projection and statement is attached to a caution that reality could be more, less, or the same. So you are pointing to the precise same mealy mouthed weasel words that I already have. No matter what happens in the real world, the IPCC can say they weren’t wrong.
But around the circle we go. They admit the models have problems. They admit that observational results are below model projections. They admit all of these things, but contrive to present the information in such a fashion that it seems the models are credible. They are not, and there isn’t a shred of evidence presented in AR5 Ch11 to suggest they are. Then you present their own quotes suggesting the models could well be wrong as evidence that they didn’t claim that they were right!
I’ve visited your web site. It is a collection of alarmist clap trap including several articles on the right hand bar about severe weather and tropical storm Sandy that have not only been debunked as having anything to do with global warming, but they’ve been debunked by the IPCC’s own recent report on severe weather. You seem to be one of those people deeply committed to an existing narrative to the point that the evidence you yourself present which debunks that narrative isn’t apparent to you as a contradiction of your belief system.
Martin van Etten says: January 2, 2013 at 4:39 am
“there is no hope you get rid of me as long as you keep your untenable position ”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We don’t want t get rid of you. You are polite, a welcome change from the usual global warmer who “pelts and runs”. Your comments are welcome.
Concerning the expression “Hide the decline”. This is a quote from the Climategate emails that refers to the disreputable methods of data presentation by certain climate scientists (Michael Mann, etc.) The expression has become a byword for skeptics in describing some of the more dubious techniques of data presentation employed by climate scientists. David Hoffer has clearly identified such dubious presentation techniques in the AR5, and he has given cogent reasons why the presentation is objectionable.
You quote from AR5 SOD: “Over the last to [two?] decades the rate of global warming that has been observed is at the lower end of rates simulated by CMIP 5 models” This statement pretends that the warming trend did not end in 1997, sixteen years ago. The AR5 is due in late 2014, at which time the present trend will have reached eighteen years duration (indeed, with a definite cooling of twelve years duration). It is clear that the language of the final report will obscure this pertinent fact, and pretend that the historic warming trend of 1977-1997 continues to 2014.
“so in my opinion you cannot maintain the position that ‘they’ “are hiding the decline”
It’s even worse than that. To maintain that the latest trend of the temperature record reflects warming and that such falls within the scope of GCM warming projections is incorrect, and to support this error with dubious statistical and presentation methods which are designed to hide the actual temperature trend is tantamount to fabrication.
The final AR5 will be issued in late 2014. That will make it eighteen years without warming. The implication is that the final report will contain such language as above, and the pretense of a continuing warming trend within the scope of GCM warming projections will be maintained in the final report. This is what you defend here.
Thanks for your comments,and the pleasure was mine. A fine year for skating!
The hockey team should do the same thing they do with tree-rings: Calibrate with the temperature record and throw out computer-model-runs that don’t fit. Of course that would substantially lower the expected temperature rise…
@ur momisugly davidmhoffer / January 2, 2013 at 9:03 am
Yes Martin, I wrote an entire article on the manner in which every single statement in AR5 Ch11 is surrounded by caveats.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
David, I did read all your articles here allready before we went into this discussion;
allthough I did’nt agree to (parts) of your reasoning, there was no need for me to formulate objections or whatever;
this specific article of yours however is misinterpreting some scientific research tens of thousands of people participated in including myself, people that wanted to be in the first row to see what is happening in climate science and what questions we have to engage in;
here is the difference between us, I am not so much into the IPCC, for me these reports are too much downsized because of all kind of political reasons;
in fact you are right! caveats! only caveats! what I have seen from the AR5 is not making me happy; you saw my website, alarmist “clap trap”, so you know that I think it is worse than the IPCC says!
thats why I read the scientific articles, that is why I prefer to speak with scientists, indeed I meet alarmists like Jim Hansen but I also go to listen to sceptics, I even went to Fred Singer when he was in Holland (but he was too much for much;
so my critics were directed at the wording of your article; if you don’t see the problem here, ok for me, but you loose me as a reader, before you make your point I think here they go again these sceptics..;
if you insult me – “Is the first graph serious? 154 data plots all scrambled together are supposed to have some meaning?” – you get me angry, indeed mpainter, we prefer to stay polite;
in a way it was also nice to discuss here because I never went that far in all those statistical discussions; but David, please, the “Ha nailed!” figure, thats not something that you are proud if I hope;
well, I have made my point and said my things; I am a retired biology teacher, and I am very much worried about the future of nature, the loss and change of habitats, the loss of species of plants and animals, including complete ecosystems as tropical forests, icy worlds and sealife – coral – systems by the changes caused by ignorant people polluting the world with their unsensitive way of living;
in fact I have only one question: what will happen with the climate when the carbondioxide concentration is rising so far beyond the Pleistocene boundaries;
and there is not yet the final model for, and they dont make a caveat for that!;
I can recommend to you the article I am going to read now: Infrared radiation and planetary temperature by Raymond T. Pierrehumbert in Physics today from January 2011;
it explains how so less CO2 can have so strong warming effect as people tell me it has, we keep learning;
regards;
I also thank mpainter for his nice remarks I experienced as sparring;
Martin van Etten;
but David, please, the “Ha nailed!” figure, thats not something that you are proud if I hope;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No Martin, the comment was meant to be humorous. The math in this case was trivial, though having that bar on the graph was a quick and easy way to confirm that my math was correct, the IPCC is predicting +1.6 degrees by 2035 versus their reference period. Having demonstrated that observational evidence lies below the lower bounds of the model projections, your conclusion from the evidence you’ve studied is that sensitivity is even higher than both the models and observational evidence suggests? Is that how you taught biology? Ignore the evidence if it conflicts with the theory because the theory has to be right?
Your angst is clearly sincere. You see doom and gloom and dark storms behind ever silver lining. Do you know what I see? I see the cleanest major cities that we’ve had in decades. I see the biggest crop yields in history, the largest human population in history, and starvation that plagued the planet in one place or another for centuries nearly eradicated. I see the lowest infant mortality rate ever, the healthiest, longest lived, and best educated human population ever. I see habitats being protected and recovering even as the human population continues to grow. I see our birth rate falling, perhaps making us the first species in the history of the planet to control our own population growth ensuring that, unlike our less intelligent animal cousins, we will not over run our environment.
Could we do more? We most certainly could. The crops we grow for bio-fuel that results in a net increase in CO2 in stead of a decrease could be used for food instead of burning them. The billions that we’ve pumped into wind mills and solar panels that raise costs as well as pollution while burdening the conventional power sources to the point where they too are inefficient could do so much good if they were instead spent on irrigation, education, and so many other worthwhile projects.
We might even improve our education system to the point where the average student understands that w/m2 varies with T raised to the power of FOUR, which means that the warmest places on earth will warm little while the coldest, in winter, at night, will warm the most and hence do the least possible damage. We might produce students who understand that CO2 is logarithmic, so amounts over 400 ppm are increasingly irrelevant as the law of diminishing returns takes hold. We might even get students who say “hey! if sensitivity was high, the effects would be incredibly obvious by now, and since they aren’t, it makes sense to conclude that sensitivity is probably low”
We could probably improve our students’ understanding of biology as well. For example, they ought to know what happens to the biosphere when CO2 levels fall below 200 ppm. They ought to know enough about evolution that they see the fact that most plants maximize their growth at rates of CO2 in the thousands of ppm as an indication that either the theory of evolution is wrong, or that high levels of CO2 are the natural environment that they evolved in. As you are a biologist teacher, I would encourage you to think about these things.
@ur momisugly
davidmhoffer says:
January 2, 2013 at 9:00 pm
David, thank you. Among all the doom and gloom saying, you provide a breath of fresh air.
They’ve come down to between 0.4 and 1.0 degree of “warming”? That’s totally insignificant. Less than one half to one degree.
Chapter 11 is so apt for this because the IPCC science account is utterly bankrupt. For those outside the USA, google chapter 11 bankruptcy.
@ur momisugly davidhoffer
the IPCC is predicting +1.6 degrees by 2035 versus their reference period. Having demonstrated that observational evidence lies below the lower bounds of the model projections, your conclusion from the evidence you’ve studied is that sensitivity is even higher than both the models and observational evidence suggests?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
no, no, no, I would calculate in 2012 a new error bar and a new likely range before taking ruler and pencil;
I would study the reasons that temperature is lagging behind: is it the coming iceage? are the thermometers flawed? is it lower irradiance? or is there still a strong negative aerosolforcing?
for sure you know the usual suspects, strange that you mentioned any..? (Its also not the IPCC that predicts but in this case Rowlands cs)
anyway: a beutifull credo you wrote in the next paragraphs; you understand that I am from a different church (metaphorical spoken);
nice opening wuwt had today: finaly a scientific story: large sealevel by 400 ppm CO2;
I interviewed Rohling half year ago, he is a credible sea level specialist; the Carolina’s and these destroyed Jersey beaches should take his words seriously;
David, what would I do with you if I had you in my “eco”class? I probably I would let you count stomata…l (and let you read Deforesting the Earth by Michael Williams)
regards and good day
Mario Lento / January 2, 2013 at 8:09 pm
If we focus on the science, instead of the politics, we could have credible policy in place to limit pollution to acceptable levels without demonizing CO2.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I cannot agree more, but I think we think in a different direction;
Martin van Etten says: January 3, 2013 at 4:32 am
=================================
Such panic over a warmer world. You are a biologist and you should know that life flourishes in a warmer world and that cooling episodes bring a shrinking biota. If you do not, then it is a wonder.
And so I lament the present cooling trend. Do you? or do you welcome it?
Atmospheric CO2 is harmless. If I were Satan, with a satanic desire to confound the environmentalists, I would foster the panic and concern over CO2. See what has happened. All environmental concerns have been pushed aside by a manufactured panic over a harmless gas.
And in fact, the last warming episode was not due to CO2, but to increased insolation because of reduced cloud albedo. This boost is now past. But I do not expect people who are anguished over the future to consider such a possibility. They seem to prefer their anguish.
A happy thought for you: the role of CO2 in determining climate, as put in AGW theory, is pure invention. I promise.
Happy New Year
mpainter
Martin van Etten;
David, what would I do with you if I had you in my “eco”class? I probably I would let you count stomata…
>>>>>>>>>>>>
I notice that you evaded the issue.
And that study you just quoted? Did you READ it? Because it says that between 400 and 650 ppm of CO2 there is almost NO change to sea level. Not that I am endorsing their science, it is shoddy as could be, but it demonstrates what I said earlier about you looking for a storm behind every silver lining. The study yaps on about the IPCC’s supposed safe limit of 450, but the study itself says there is no significant difference to sea level between 400 and 650. But you didn’t notice that part.
@ur momisugly davidmhoffer
reading? not yet; they will send it to me one of these days, first I wait for the PNAS;
before 450 – 600 there is a difference between 280 380 and 400;
temperature is lagging behind, sea level is also;
2 degrees is 20 meters, there is plenty of evidence ‘even’ from the US; but not tomorrow of course; you can sleep without fear; but keep on watching greenland ice losses;
there is a movie with a song “always see the bright side of life”; must be your favorite song!
thanks / bye / I have things to do now;
Martin van Etten:
You conclude your post at January 3, 2013 at 7:46 am saying
I write to ask you to stay.
The excellent article by David M Hoffer can – and does – stand on its merit, but there may be uninformed observers who lack background knowledge to assess that merit. Your posts clearly demonstrate the mindset of warmists, and they have given David M Hoffer the opportunity to rebut your assertions (n.b. you have made many assertions but no arguments). This has ensured that all can see the truths presented in his article.
Your departure would end the opportunities you have provided for David M Hoffer to expose the illogical nonsense of warmist assertions. Please stay.
Richard
Your departure would end the opportunities you have provided for David M Hoffer to expose the illogical nonsense of warmist assertions. Please stay.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
are you drunk? or what?
I have said my things, and the waiting is now for an apology for some of the personal insults in Mr Hoffers article and also for the answers to some my questions;
in the mean time I will visit some other blogs, there is more to read on the matter of temparatures and modelling;
this came today to my attention:
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/01/03/1378431/contrary-to-contrarian-claims-ipcc-temperature-projections-have-been-exceptionally-accurate/
first I will study this all before I ask humbly again so much of Mr Hoffer’s valuable time;
****
@Martin Van Etten:
You wrote:
I cannot agree more, but I think we think in a different direction;
+++
Martin it is healthy to want to learn from others’ view points. I’m trying here not to sound arrogant… that is not my intention –so stay with me.
“Thinking” involves reasoning… and reasoning leads to learning. The problem is that many people substitute the meaning of “believing” for thinking. I am not sure what you “think” because you have positions instilled in your comments which as richardscourtney says, you do not support [with reason].
You’re kind enough that you will not be too much abused here. If you can not come up with arguments that past muster, then perhaps your views could change. I often say that when I am proven wrong, I learn more than believing I am right.
For example, you would learn something if you no longer consider CO2 as a bad/dangerous gas, even though you still want clean air. Wrapping your head around what CO2 is could set you free. Perhaps you are afraid of the climate and want there to be a way to control it. I believe that people who want you to be afraid have won to some extent… and can therefore they use nice people like you to march to their cause.
Enlightenment has shown me that most of the people who march to the cause really believe CO2 is bad –and they feel they can help save us from that bad by doing (or not doing) something. The political scientists mostly know (or should know) that they are part of a staged witch hunt. Science is based on using what we know about physics, chemistry and math to figure things out. (This is my off the cuff definition). You could certainly learn something here… and I ask those of us who are smarter than me to help you along. Are you open to that? Please ask some hard questions… the hardest ones you can… and then be open to exploration of truth – rather than holding on to beliefs.
Martin van Etten;
are you drunk? or what?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You complain of personal insults contained in an article that has some sarcastic remarks in it, but hardly insults. Then you complain that these insults you imagine are directed at your personally. Wow, that’s some assumption on your part…. and you want an apology. You complain that your questions haven’t been answered, which is true, since you didn’t ask any. You made any number of assertions that were replied to, you responded by evading the issue or posting links to articles that were not directly relevant to the topic at hand. In one of your attempts, you actually linked to an article that you seemed to think is forecasting doom and gloom when in fact it says that from 400 ppm (which is almost exactly where we are now) to 650, nothing much is going to happen. Now you are quoting still another article which is contradicted by the evidence that I’ve already presented directly from AR5 itself. Ah, but you already said you think AR5 is wrong, it is worse than they think.
And you think richardscourtney might be drunk?
Well, I cannot rule the possibility out… but LOL. The evidence suggests someone is inebriated all right…
I am still waiting for hard questions… Martin is sensitive. He needs to stop thinking that believing is thinking…
@ur momisugly Davidmhoffer @ur momisugly richardscourtney:
richardscourtney: “Your departure would end the opportunities you have provided for David M Hoffer to expose the illogical nonsense of warmist assertions. Please stay”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
My question: are you drunk? or what?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You must be a noodle in psychology if you don’t see the hostility in the remarks of richardscourtney;
Since some people here pretend (mpainter) that that we are nicely communicating with each other, what can be the reason for such a remark?
I do not see the LOL of this: inebriety was the friendliest expression I could find for richardscourtney’s, in my opinion sick remarks;
You expect people to behave nicely here, well, get rid of those that do not;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
‘Then you complain that these insults you imagine are directed at your personally. Wow, that’s some assumption on your part…. and you want an apology.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Why not apologize, if you actively insult me and thousands of others (my part is only 1/250.000, the apology is also to the rest)
Personally?: this is what I wrote: ”the ‘spaghetti’ you are laughing about is made of individual climate model runs that came out from the so called climateprediction.net project run by climate scientists from the UK in cooperation with the BBC and tens of thousands private persons how provided their local computers for the modeling”;
It really is difficult to argue, if apologizing for something you did wrong, even if it meant to be sarcastic, is a so-basic-human-affairs-matter…,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You complain that your questions haven’t been answered, which is true, since you didn’t ask any.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You want me to summarize? Well just look through the thread above;
Regards;
1990 is a good starting year. This is when the IPCC got going, the ENSO and the AMO ocean cycles were very close to neutral in that year and the Pinatubo volcano did not go off until June 1991.
Since 1990, …
NCDC global temperatures are up about 0.18C or 0.08C / decade.
GISTemp is up about 0.17C or 0.075C / decade.
Hadcrut4 is up about 0.16C or 0.07C / decade.
RSS is up about 0.13C or 0.06C / decade.
UAH is up about 0.18C or 0.08C / decade.
By Contrast, …
Hansen’s Scenario B forecast is up 0.62C or 0.28C / decade.
IPCC FAR is up 0.66C or 0.3C / decade.
IPCC TAR is up 0.43C or 0.19C / decade
IPCC AR4 is up 0.44C or 0.19C / decade.
So actual temperatures are rising at about one-third of that projected by the climate models. This shows up in just about every category of projections.
@Martin van Etten: You essentially imply that you are insulted because you believe something different than some other people. How about the tangible insult that we tax payers have to fund the illegitamate works, which you endorse without understanding? These IPCC reports literally lead to summaries for policy makers that directly take away our freedom to thrive. Somehow you have convinced yourself that you are a victom because you have beliefs, which you obtain without understanding.
None of your comments are constructive… none at all.
“You must be a noodle in psychology if you don’t see the hostility in the remarks of
richardscourtney;”
Is this an explanation? Is this the limit of your ability to articulate your concerns?
The thoughts you write down have been implanted within you. You say things without understanding the fundamental aspects of your statements so it seems.
Martin van Etten;
Why not apologize, if you actively insult me and thousands of others (my part is only 1/250.000, the apology is also to the rest)
Personally?: this is what I wrote: ”the ‘spaghetti’ you are laughing about is made of individual climate model runs that came out from the so called climateprediction.net project run by climate scientists from the UK in cooperation with the BBC and tens of thousands private persons how provided their local computers for the modeling”;
It really is difficult to argue, if apologizing for something you did wrong, even if it meant to be sarcastic, is a so-basic-human-affairs-matter…,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Martin, I apologize. I’m very sorry that you and 250,000 other people worked so hard to produce a totally useless spaghetti graph.
Do you suppose that Martin van Etten really imagines that all of that spaghetti means something?
Is it possible that he puts any stock in that? If he does, if indeed he is serious, it goes a long way toward explaining why his feelings are hurt.
Martin van Etten:
I ignored your reply to my request for you to stay to participate in this thread because your reply was too silly for words. But you have tried to justify the nonsense when you write at January 4, 2013 at 3:28 am
My post was clear and reasoned. It was sincere for the reasons it stated.
I was not and I am not “drunk” (actually, Methodist Preachers have a prejudice which inhibits us getting drunk).
Clearly, I “must be a noodle in psychology” because I did not – and I do not – see any “hostility” in my request to you. It seems to me that you need to consider your own “psychology” if you think anybody who does not automatically accept your evidence-free assertions is “drunk” and/or exhibiting “hostility”.
I sincerely suggest that you would benefit from your making such a consideration of your own “psychology”. Your continued debate of your assertions and your reasons for them in this thread would be a good start in your making that consideration.
Also, as further advice, I inform you that you do not gain credibility by complaining that you have been insulted while you make false assertions of inebriation and hostility against those who do not provide unquestioning acceptance of your assertions.
Richard
@ur momisugly mario lente and other CO2 lovers
pigs and CO2 in some not understandable European language, but you will understand when CO2 enters the space of the pig;