Readers may recall that I became a target of Al Gore for getting some press.
From Al Gore’s “Reality Drop” project, the GoreBots were given the orders.
Read the entire interview by James Stafford here to see what got them in a tizzy. And since the “Reality Drop” bot attack to “destroy denial” really didn’t work out so well, the big guns had to be called in.
Yes, the Climate Science Rapid Response Team, headed by John Abraham, has come to the rescue of the Gorebots. As is typical, I’m painted in ways that were never part of the original interview, because Abraham views lack of things he expects to see in print as “denial” on my part, a typical strawman tactic. What Mr. Abraham doesn’t know is that the interview that appeared was edited and shortened, and not all of what I said and referenced was used. Some of the references, like that to the IPCC SREX report on severe weather didn’t make the cut.
A few quotable quotes from the report from Chapter 4: (h/t to Roger Pielke Jr.)
- “There is medium evidence and high agreement that long-term trends in normalized losses have not been attributed to natural or anthropogenic climate change”
- “The statement about the absence of trends in impacts attributable to natural or anthropogenic climate change holds for tropical and extratropical storms and tornados”
- “The absence of an attributable climate change signal in losses also holds for flood losses”
I had to laugh though, at this transparent effort as it seems almost desperate in the tone to quash anything I said that is contrary to his organized views, having a difference of opinion isn’t skepticism according to Mr. Abraham:
The fact is that Mr. Watts is not a pragmatic sceptic. Real scientists are sceptical by nature. We don’t believe what our colleagues tell us until we verify it for ourselves. Scientists honestly develop views of how the world works and they test those views by experimentation. As a result of approximately 150 years of climate science, the vast majority of scientists are convinced that humans are a major cause of climate change. Mr. Watts, on the other hand, dismisses evidence that is counter to his viewpoint. That is not scepticism–that is plain denial.
Yes, he had to get that obligatory smear in there. SOP.
This one is a real howler:
It isn’t surprising that Mr. Watts disagrees with all of these other researchers. What I was surprised by was the fact he seems to disagree with his own research.
Gosh, would science ever advance if we didn’t build on and improve previous research? Is it somehow dishonest that a researcher realizes that an earlier effort had an incomplete or flawed result and then works to build upon that? Mr. Abraham’s framing makes it look dishonest, but then again, that’s what his behind the scenes organization is paid/funded to do. I suppose those years of unfunded work cataloging the national USHCN weather station network used for climate study was not a “We don’t believe what our colleagues tell us until we verify it for ourselves.” but a simple case of “denial”.
We know why the first effort (Fall et al) didn’t see much of a siting signal, so the second effort used a different method endorsed by the WMO, and found a strong signal. We built on the flaws of the first work, and we are preparing a paper for submission that includes dealing with the useful criticisms we learned from the discussion of the preliminary release.
Here’s another of Abraham’s lies of omission:
He didn’t tell you that he actually published a paper on this subject a few years ago where he concluded that temperature sensor siting had no impact on temperature trends.
LOL! Well, right in the abstract it says:
Comparison of observed temperatures with NARR shows that the most poorly sited stations are warmer compared to NARR than are other stations, and a major portion of this bias is associated with the siting classification rather than the geographical distribution of stations. According to the best‐sited stations, the diurnal temperature range in the lower 48 states has no century‐scale trend.
Looks like an effect to me.
And, the Fall et al paper published in JGR is being cited in the scientific community in 12 other papers, so it must be useful.
I can’t imagine oilprice.com sought out this interview, but rather they were likely badgered with emails filled with buzzwords like “false balance” into thinking they had to provide his view as counterpoint.
I do plan a much more detailed response to clear up all of the framing and lies of omission Mr. Abraham told about me, but for now I welcome what readers have to say about the interview and some of the points. You can read it here:
http://oilprice.com/Interviews/Real-Pragmatism-for-Real-Climate-Change-Interview-with-Dr.-John-Abraham.html
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
(Nit alert!): “Wherein” would have been better (in the title line) than “In where.”
Lot of people worry about if we’ve passed Peak Oil.
I’ve wondered if we’ve passed Peak Intelligence. Education is continually dumbed down and watered down, with our native appreciation of hard facts forcibly supplanted with mandated compassionate acceptance of the roiling changeable grey. The undereducated lesser folk breed as always, while the intelligent and elevated are exhorted to be too compassionate about our imperiled planet to even consider passing their superior genetics onto future generations of world savers.
Now I’m worried if we’ve been thrust past Peak Truth. Suppliers of the pure stuff are hard to locate, practically everyone adds their own flavoring and uses special packaging. A lot of what’s out there has been contaminated, adulterated, may even be counterfeit. “You can’t handle the truth!”, and lots of profit is made shoveling out what the pushers have trained us to find palatable. Try comparing the taste of butter flavor microwave popcorn to a buttery cracker, to the real taste of actual unsalted butter.
That’s why I like WUWT and always have. Truth as pure as it can be found, only packaging is sizing to fit a post with a nod to accessibility for the non-geniuses (or is that non-genii?).
And these “Truth™ merchants” don’t like Anthony’s distributing of high-quality high-purity product, that is neither authorized by them nor cooked up using the approved recipes and ingredients, for free?
What a bunch of CliSSRTs!
@John Whitman, thanks for that info, so apparently Abraham can not find a team scientist to provide a response.
He is flailing away at straw man arguments around Anthony, in a desperate pursuit of attention, WUWT being #1 in climate science.
That’s a semi-strawman, because that (AGW) is not what the heart of the debate is about–it’s about CAGW.
Eternal Optimist says:
“I would also like Abraham to list a few ways in which the theory might be falsified, ”
That this falsification test is completely lacking from most of the major purveyors of CAGW tells you everything you need to know about climate “science”
That insinuates that this conclusion has stood the test of time for 150 years. But actually the opinion of climate science on this matter did not become the consensus until about 25 years ago. (It is based on findings that go back 150 years, but that’s not the connotation his words carry.)
Further, most climate scientists are not “scientists” first. Most got into the field, IMO, because it appealed to them as environmentalists or socialists, since it offered the opportunity to employ alarmism to impose environmental regulations on behalf of the global community. If that wasn’t their initial motivation, they were subjected to indoctrination in school and peer pressure afterward to behave as though they were.
Their other motivation is that of blinkered, reductionist “basic” (radiative) physics, like Hansen, who think of the climate system as a black box whose chaotic internals are irrelevant in the long run, and which can only be affected by positive feedbacks, not negative ones.
“Ask him for the numbers on that, starting with the assumption (for the sake of argument) that CO2 is driving climate. Have him explain what humans need to do to get the atmospheric CO2 to level off, then to decline (i.e., lay out the relationship between human CO2 emissions atmospheric CO2 concentration).”
That is the nut of it without doubt. How many gazillions of dollars spent would it take to move the needle at all and how exactly (for the sake of argument) do you measure that. That is the weakest point of their weak arguments and why they always change the subject from cost/benefit to about how the rich pay the freight and the ‘green’ jobs hoo-ha.
Anthony: After reading this interview I was just spewing. The BS is just unbelievable! I do not know even where to start. 95% of it is just warmist crap! I tried to post there but the system would not allow me. ( A. Watts said “The idea that Hurricane Sandy, a minor class 1 storm, was somehow connected to CO2-driven ‘climate change’ is ludicrous.”Well, scientists studying this disagree with him.) Really well Mr Abraham, why do not you ask an expert in this field: Chris Landsea, he will totality disagree with you as it is really impossible to measure. (Many people, Mr. Watts included, are committed to an ideology that precludes the ability to objectively view the science. As a result, they convey incorrect information to their readers who then are not able to make informed decisions.) WTF: This is just another huge lie! Us skeptics as far better informed and read than your average alarmist/warmist. (We concluded that at best, corn-based ethanol is a bridge fuel) Ha ha , a bridge fuel. It is a massive fail! ( When we can show that clean and renewable energy is the engine that will provide economic opportunity in the future) Lol, ha ha, the engine! See more warmist green crap. These people really get me wild!
rogerknights says:
March 27, 2013 at 11:30 am
“Abraham: “As a result of approximately 150 years of climate science, the vast majority of scientists are convinced that humans are a major cause of climate change.”
That insinuates that this conclusion has stood the test of time for 150 years. But actually the opinion of climate science on this matter did not become the consensus until about 25 years ago. (It is based on findings that go back 150 years, but that’s not the connotation his words carry.)”
It is also plain wrong. 150 years ago there was still the debate between the atomists and the non-atomists – the existence of atoms was far from accepted.
kellyhaughton says:
March 27, 2013 at 10:21 am
It might be an overwhelming task, but having an Alternative Climate Science Rapid Response Team would be a good thing…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Think about it – WHY is a Climate Science Rapid Response Team was NEEDED in the first place?
Because most ‘Deniers’ are so well informed about climate science that they can argue circles around the rank and file warmists. Most warmist are young passionate liberal arts types. They have neither the training nor the mental aptitude to deal with the science. Nor do they have the patience (Which is why ScS et al have such an abysmal following.)
This is not a derogatory remark BTW but a scientific fact backed up with my own frustration of trying to switch from the analytical to the artistic side of my brain (takes about an hour min.)
“We don’t believe what our colleagues tell us until we verify it for ourselves”.
The irony is of course that this is precisely what “we” did not do: no climate scientists has spent any time on checking the so called un-assailable physical theory underlying the whole farce. If they had they would have found the flaw in it, the flaw that grossly overestimates the primary effect of an increase in CO2 and hilariously blows the feedback on watervapour out of all proportion, when it is actually negative.
But nature appears to have its own way of pointing out those errors and I look forward to seing these pompous prats eat their hats after a few more winters like this one have made the folly crystal clear for anybody with a brain.
“As a result of approximately 150 years of climate science…”
*
I didn’t think “climate science” had been around that long. Hasn’t it only come into being since CAGW and the attack on CO2? What were they fretting about 150 years ago – too much horse sh!t?
“The proper route to an understanding of the world is an examination of our errors about it.”
Errol Morris
“To call in the statistician after the experiment is done may be no more than asking him to perform a post-mortem examination: he may be able to say what the experiment died of.”
Ronald Fisher
============
I really like the second one 🙂
From Gail Combs on March 27, 2013 at 11:57 am:
In general I’ve found “young passionate” is a primary indicator of a lack of appropriate mental faculties.
A few days back, there was a young actress on a “background noise” TV talk show, I think it was Letterman. She passionately mentioned her gluten-free diet. “What is gluten?” After some stammering brought on by her being forced to put her brain in gear while she was comfortably coasting downhill, and having to stomp the hybrid electric gas pedal to get up to speed, she coughed up something like:
“Gluten… It’s filler. It’s… fat. Gluten is fattening filler.”
Sounds like someone who’s so exceptionally worried about global warming, she’ll conscientiously decide to only own one CO₂-spewing Ferrari, just like any other environmentally responsible citizen of the planet.
The bigger the lies they tell about you, the more effective you are when you remain rational and calm. “Answer not a fool according to his folly.” Keep up the consistent high quality of WUWT and the slanders of these vile people ultimately will fail.
So, what, the “job of science” these days is to have “strike teams” to enforce conformity?
There’s no science there, it’s “academic elite” bullying, just like every self-righteous humanities department chair.
The Climate Sc. Rabid Response Team must have been dealing with a lot of snow shovelling flat earthers recently.
http://www.usnews.com/photos/extreme-winter-weather-hits-europe
Gary Pearse: great photos!
This Welsh farmer is lucky he has a sheepdog with a good nose to dig out his pregnant sheep, some of which had spent 3 days hiding under a drift of Paul Viner: “Children aren’t going to know what snow is!” (but sheep might be able to). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hI053DSGTVo
Kurt in Switzerland
Where is this CSRRT, I don’t recall ever having seen any of them on this blog.
If you wanted to attack CAGW sceptics, this would be a good place to start.
Are they REALLY that GUTLESS ??
Are they that unsure of themselves that they won’t debate in open forum ??
I and two neighbors wore out our snowshovels the last four weeks in Kansas. That’s a consensus for you.
Watts must be very influential for Abrahams to focus on him.
In his interview, Watts provides a very prudent pragmatic perspective, very similar to what I would argue.
Abraham commits equivocation by using “climate change” to mean “majority anthropogenic global warming”. I.e. he implicitly makes the antiscientific presupposition that climate was in equilibrium before industrial CO2, rather than recognizing that climate has been “changing” for billions of years by greater than IPCC’s fears of global warming.
Abraham then makes the Argumentum ad populum logical fallacy of appealing to the majority:
See the NIPCC reports for scientific evidence ignored by the IPCC.
Anthony, if you’re getting flak, you must be over the target.
Keep up the good fight.
By coincidence I was just talking about the SREX report just yesterday:
http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/Crown-Capital-Earth-Management-Fraud-Warriors-Earth-Hour/
Also, lots of fun in this thread as well :
http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/Matt-Ridely-on-the-greening-of-the-planet/
A central premise of many in the climate community is that
This all collapses if an honest difference of opinion is possible. It becomes more than just childish dogma when those in the climate community reach conclusions that are inferior to that which the non-experts claim. Or if they go beyond their narrow confines to other areas where they are not expert.
Well, Jeopardy is coming to their defense also. Alex just asked a contestant–a weather man–if predicting is “more difficult now that we have global warming.”
The answer was “Yes, the variability is much greater.”
I just scrounged up some eggs.
Hard-boiled: 2 eaten, 4 in reserve.
Wanna play ?