'Let’s face it. The climate has never been more boring.'

Image from an essay by Cliff Mass on “boring weather” Click

Why you won’t see headlines as climate science enters the doldrums

Guest post by Dr. Robert G. Brown, Physics Department of Duke University (elevated from a  comment on this thread: RSS Reaches Santer’s 17 Years)

This (17 years) is a non-event, just as 15 and 16 years were non-events. Non-events do not make headlines. Other non-events of the year are one of the fewest numbers of tornadoes (especially when corrected for under-reporting in the radar-free past) in at least the recent past (if not the remote past), the lowest number of Atlantic hurricanes since I was 2 years old (I’m 58), the continuation of the longest stretch in recorded history without a category 3 or higher hurricane making landfall in the US (in fact, I don’t recall there being a category 3 hurricane in the North Atlantic this year, although one of the ones that spun out far from land might have gotten there for a few hours).

We (the world) didn’t have an unusual number of floods, we don’t seem to have any major droughts going on, total polar ice is unremarkable, arctic ice bottomed out well within the tolerances slowly being established by its absurdly short baseline, antarctic ice set a maximum record (but just barely, hardly newsworthy) in ITS absurdly short baseline, the LTT temperatures were downright boring, and in spite of the absurdly large spikes in GASTA in GISS vs HADCRUT4 on a so-called “temperature anomaly” relative to a GAST baseline nobody can measure to within a whole degree centigrade, neither one of them did more than bounce around in near-neutral, however much the “trend” in GISS is amplified every second or third month by its extra-high endpoint.

The US spent months of the summer setting cold temperature records, but still, aside from making the summer remarkably pleasant in an anecdotal sort of way (the kind you tell your grandchildren when they experience a more extreme weather, “Eh, sonny, I remember the summer of ’13, aye, that was a good one, gentle as a virgin’s kiss outdoors it was…”) it was unremarked on at the time.

Let’s face it. The climate has never been more boring. Even the weather blogs trying to toe the party line and promote public panic — I mean “awareness” — of global warming are reduced to reporting one of GISS’s excessive spikes as being “the fourth warmest September on record” while quietly neglecting the fact that in HADCRUT4, RSS and UAH it was nothing of the sort and while even more quietly neglecting the fact that if one goes back a few months the report might have been that June was the fourth coldest in 20 years. Reduced to reporting a carefully cherry-picked fourth warmest event? Ho hum.

So, good luck in getting any news agency to report reaching 17 years in any or all of the indices — this isn’t news, it is anti-news. It is old. It is boring.

It is also irrelevant. If GASTA (Global Average Surface Temperature Anomaly) stubbornly refuses to rise for five more years, stretching the interval out to 20 to 22 years in a way that nobody can ignore, does this really disprove GW, AGW, or CAGW? It does not. The only thing that will disprove GW or CGW is reaching 2100 without a climate catastrophe and without significantly more warming or with net cooling. A demonstrated total climate sensitivity of zero beats all predictions or argument. The “A”(nthropogenic) part is actually easier to prove or disprove in a contingent sort of way, although it will probably take decades to do so. Contingent because if there is no observed GW at all, AGW seems difficult to prove. But since we are in the part of the periodic climate cycle observed over the last 150 years where the climate remains neutral to cools around an overall warming trend, we might well see neutral to very slow warming even if AGW is correct, if there is an anthropogenic component to the long term trend and oscillation that we can observe but not really explain over the last 150 years.

The one thing the 33 years of satellite measurements and increasingly precise surface temperature measurements have been able to prove is the one thing that the 17 year interval is truly relevant to. The GCMs used to predict CAGW suck. The GCMs in CMIP5 (Coupled Model Intercomparison Project) that contribute to the conclusions of AR5 are almost without exception terrible predictors of the Earth’s actual climate.

This conclusion is unavoidable. Even if they all cannot be rejected at the “95% confidence level”, almost none of them are close to predicting even GASTA alone, let alone RSS/UAH, global rainfall, frequency and violence of storms, etc. As we leave 2013′s hurricane season behind with almost no chance for an Atlantic storm this year, which GCM predicted the paucity of hurricanes and tornadoes over the last few years? Where are the droughts and floods? Which GCMs actually got the temperature distribution right (when they didn’t get the average or average anomaly right, the answer is almost certainly “none of them”)?

We are told “Catastrophic warming is coming, it is just around the corner”. We ask why and without exception we are told “Because the 30 or more GCMs we carefully built in the 1990′s in response to the CAGW threat and normalized with the warming data from the 70′s and 80′s (not to mention Hansen’s initial model report from the late 1980′s) all say so.” We then quite reasonably ask what they predicted for the last 20 years, and of course we can see that they all did indeed predict shockingly rapid warming. We then compare this to what actually happened, which is almost no warming over the last 20 years — a single warming pulse associated with the 1997/1998 ENSO event and then neutral ever since. We note that the warmest of the models that are still included in the CMIP5 data because nobody ever rejects a model just because it doesn’t work are a whopping 0.5 to 0.6C warmer than reality — they are the models with a total sensitivity of 5 or 6 C by 2100, so they have to warm at 0.5C a decade to get there.

This really is shocking. Shockingly bad science, shockingly dishonest political manipulation of policy makers on the part of scientists who participated in the creation of AR5 and permitted their names to give the report its weight.

As I’ve pointed out once and will point out again, by failing to be honest in AR5, by removing words that expressed honest doubt from the earlier draft and redrawing the figure to obscure the GCM failure, the IPCC has now gone far out on a limb that will end the career of many scientists and politicians before AR6 if there is no significant warming by that time. Not only significant warming, but a resumption of some sort of regular upslope to GASTA. Even if there is another ENSO-related burst of warming (which I’m sure is what they are hoping for) if it is only 0.2 C — and it is difficult to imagine that it could be much more given evidence from the past — it will barely suffice to restore the warming trend to 0.1 C/decade give or take a hair, roughly half of the lowest estimates of climate sensitivity. And they run the very real risk of getting to 2020 with GASTA basically the same as it was in 2000.

At that time, the hottest GCMs are going to be almost a full degree C too hot compared to reality. The people who contribute to the IPCC reports aren’t fools — most of them know perfectly well that the high sensitivity models are trash at this point, and they know equally well that it will no longer be possible to conceal this fact even from ignorant politicians by 2020 if there is no statistically significant warming by that time. Because it is an open secret that there was a cover-up that deliberately concealed this, effectively lying to policy makers, there will be a public scandal. Heads will roll.

The only way the IPCC can possibly avoid this as it proceeds is to issue a correction to AR5. Go back in and eliminate the GCMs with absurdly high sensitivity, the ones that obviously fail a hypothesis test when compared to the actual climate record. Personally I would advise eliminating at a much more generous level than 95% — a complete idiot with experience in computational modeling could go into these models and figure out what is wrong, given an additional 16 years of data — simply retune the models until they can manage both the warming of the late 20th century AND the warming hiatus since. Models for which no tuning can reproduce the actual past go into the dustbin, period — ones that can manage it will all have a vastly lowered climate sensitivity and will produce a much larger fraction of warming from “natural” variability, and less from CO_2. Finally, insist that all models use common numbers for things like CO_2 and aerosol contributions instead of individually tuning the largely cancelling contributions to reproduce an interpolated temperature change.

I’m guessing that over half of the participating models will simply go away at this point. They can then reconstruct figure 1.4 in the SPM, note the good news that even though the remaining models will all still predict more warming than actually occurred the warming that they project by 2100 will be between 0.5 and 1.5 C, not 2.5 C or more. This is almost precisely in line with what was observed in the 19th and 20th century without CO_2, and will grant a far larger role to natural variability (and hence a smaller one to CO_2).

Why should they do this, even though it is near-suicide to do it at this point? Because it is sure thing suicide not to do it. Because it is the right thing to do. Because they have a queasy feeling in their tum-tums every time they look at figure 1.4 in the AR5 SPM and realize that the dent that they made in the car isn’t going to go away and Dad is going to be even more pissed when he finds out if they lie about it. After all, everybody knows that the worst models in CMIP5 are wrong at this point. The people that wrote the models and ran the models, they know that their models are broken at this point. It’s not like the failure of a model is difficult to detect or something.

If it were “just science”, all of this would have been happening in the literature for some time anyway. People would jump all over models that fail, because in the usual realm of science there is little money on the line and because trial and error and try try again is the normal order of business and what keeps you getting paid. Not so in climate science. Here it is all political. Hundreds of billions of dollars and the directed energy of the entire global civilization ride on the numbers. Here there is a real risk of congressional hearings where a flinty-eyed committee chair grills you by showing you GCM curves selected from figure 1.4 of the AR5 SPM and asks you “Sir, at what point was it obvious to you that this curve was not a good predictor of the future climate?” Because if the answer was “2012″ — and given the REMOVED TEXT from the earlier draft of AR5 everybody knows that it was 2012 at the latest — that’s contempt of congress right there, given that AR5 directs billions of dollars in federal research money and hundreds of billions of dollars of subsidies and misdirected governmental energy at all levels from federal to state to local to personal.

We pay, pay, and pay again in the form of taxes, higher energy prices, neglect of competing services and goals — and what we pay pales to nothing compared to the terrible price paid by the third world for the amelioration of hypothetical CAGW. Millions of people die every year from respiratory diseases alone brought about because they are still cooking on animal dung and charcoal because coal burning power plants are now “unclean” and have artificially inflated price tags at every level.

If CAGW is a true hypothesis, then maybe — just maybe — it is worth sacrificing all of these people, most of them children under five, on the altar to expiate our carbon sins. But given this sort of ongoing catastrophe, this ongoing moral price we pay on the basis of the “projections” of the GCMs, how great is the obligation of the scientists who wrote AR5 towards “mere honesty”, to put down not their own beliefs but to put down the objective support for their beliefs given the data?

For some time the data has been sufficient to prove that the tools that claim the biggest, scariest AGW are simply incorrect, broken, in error, failed. Yet their predictions are still included in AR5 because without them, the “catastrophe” disappears and we are forced to rebalance the cost of gradual accommodation of the warming while continuing to civilize and raise the standard of living of the third world against the ongoing catastrophe of adopting measures that everybody knows will not prevent the catastrophe anyway (if the extreme models are correct) at the cost of a hundred million or more lives and unspeakable poverty, disease, and human misery perpetuated for decades along the way.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Jim Cripwell

Thank you for writing so well, what I have been trying to say for months.

Hideki Motosua

“most of them know perfectly well that the high sensitivity models are trash at this point, and they know equally well that it will no longer be possible to conceal this fact even from ignorant politicians by 2000 if there is no statistically significant warming by that time.”
Should that be 2020?

leon0112

Dr. Brown,
This is a great article. AR5 includes known ****. It should be cleansed.
Thank you for your well done peer review of AR5.

Generally an interesting post. Needs to be read over for typos:
“will no longer be possible to conceal this fact even from ignorant politicians by 2000” [should be 2020?]
“If CAGW is a true hypothesis, them maybe ” [then maybe]
” It is olds. It is boring.” [Not really sure what the first sentence means – is it some idiom?]

John Peter

“most of them know perfectly well that the high sensitivity models are trash at this point, and they know equally well that it will no longer be possible to conceal this fact even from ignorant politicians by 2000 if there is no statistically significant warming by that time. Because it is an open secret that there was a cover-up that deliberately concealed this, effectively lying to policy makers, there will be a public scandal. Heads will roll.” “by 2000” does not sound right to me. Should it be 2020?

RC Saumarez

Absolutely.
We can only hope that flinty eyed politicians will ask the right questions. Unfortunately, in the EU, this seems a remote possibility

Eustace Cranch

Dare I say: CAGW is fast approaching its Obamacare moment?

Hideki Motosua

The oceans boiled in 2020 according to my models therefore we must be in the year 2000

“The GCMs in CIMP5 that contribute to the conclusions of AR5 are almost without exception terrible predictors of the Earth’s actual climate.
This conclusion is unavoidable.”
#########
Actually they are pretty good predictors,compared to everything else. and far superior to a shoulder shrug.
take any metric that has not been tuned for. Lets take sea surface salinity.
I will give you the inputs: concentrations of atmosphere gases and solar.
your task. using those variables generate a hindcast and prediction for sea surface salinity.
When you beat a GCM ( which is not tuned to sea surface salinity ) then you have something interesting to say.
put another way. the average temperature of the earth is around 15C. most climate models get it wrong, ranging from 13.5-16.5C or so.
Now, I’ll give you the same imputs and lets see if you can get within 10%
Given the complexity of the system a model that got within 50% of the right number would be stunning.
Note, this is separate from the question of whether one should use models to set policy.
That said we set defense policy of the nation using models that were much less accurate.

DirkH

Steven Mosher says:
November 4, 2013 at 10:26 am
“That said we set defense policy of the nation using models that were much less accurate.”
And it shows. (You’re ruined.)

IanH

What is GASTA? Is it a spelling mistake of GOSTA on the glossary pages?

Lon Hocker

Great Article. A couple of details, though:
“it will no longer be possible to conceal this fact even from ignorant politicians by 2000 if there is no statistically significant warming by that time.” Did you mean 2020?
“if CAGW is a true hypothesis, them maybe — just maybe —” Should be “then” not “them”

Dan in Nevada

” …. there will be a public scandal. Heads will roll.”
Yeah, you’d think. Unfortunately, given the complete obliviousness to the unrelenting mendacity of the powers-that-be, from WMDs, yellowcake uranium, if-you-like-your-insurance-you-can-keep-your-insurance, we-do-not-spy-on-millions-of-Americans, al Assad’s sarin attacks, and so on ad infinitum, I’m not hopeful.

milodonharlani

Steven Mosher says:
November 4, 2013 at 10:26 am
The GIGO models of CACA conspirators are worse than worthless, so a shoulder shrug would be better.
The US doesn’t set defense policy based upon models. This is a ludicrous lie which you keep repeating without any basis in fact.
We war-game plans, but defense policy is set by budgets, which are based upon contention in administrations & Congress among various interest groups. Nominally, we base force structure on being able to fight two, or one & a half regional wars, or whatever, but that’s not a model. Defense policy is largely based upon money & political pull.

Slartibartfast

That said we set defense policy of the nation using models that were much less accurate.

You keep saying this. I do not think it means what you think it means.

JimS

Boring climate is what immediately precedes a major glaciation period, according to my analysis the Milankovich cycles. However, I would imagine that a few centuries of boring climate would qualify as a valid trend.

UK Marcus

Thank you Dr. Brown for your elegant and concise summary.
Sometimes Masterly Inactivity is a sensible course of action. When so much is known and so little is changing wrt climate, for some people to try to persuade us that we must immediately alter our way of life is willfully to ignore the facts. We require disinterested science and honest political leadership, not endless propaganda. I’m not holding my breath…
In the meantime, thank goodness for Anthony, WUWT and the world-wide community of commentators here.

more soylent green!

You wouldn’t know it was boring from the media coverage. Earthquakes! Fires! Floods! Draughts! (OK, droughts, Just seeing if you’re paying attention.)

As I think Judith Curry stated the IPCC models are “not fit for purpose”. For a method and cooling forecast that is fit for purpose see several posts over the last year at:
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com

milodonharlani

IanH says:
November 4, 2013 at 10:29 am
Global Average Surface Temperature Anomaly.

Speed

Steven Mosher wrote, “Now, I’ll give you the same imputs [sic] and lets see if you can get within 10%”
That would be 288 +/- 29 degrees K. Failing that would be catastrophic indeed.

John West

Dr. Robert Brown says:
”simply retune the models until they can manage both the warming of the late 20th century AND the warming hiatus since”
I’d like to see them tuned to a correctly adjusted data set and then see if they would have predicted the hiatus. If Jim Steele is right about the unfortunate adjusting out of natural climate inflections then that might be all that is needed to fix them. This would probably also result in the models putting more weight on natural variation and less weight on CO2.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/25/unwarranted-temperature-adjustments-and-al-gores-unwarranted-call-for-intellectual-tyranny/

Speed

The climatologists look brilliant compared to those who use climate models as inputs to economic models.

Alan Millar

“Steven Mosher says:
November 4, 2013 at 10:26 am
“The GCMs in CIMP5 that contribute to the conclusions of AR5 are almost without exception terrible predictors of the Earth’s actual climate.
This conclusion is unavoidable.”
#########
Actually they are pretty good predictors,compared to everything else. and far superior to a shoulder shrug.
take any metric that has not been tuned for. Lets take sea surface salinity.
I will give you the inputs: concentrations of atmosphere gases and solar.
your task. using those variables generate a hindcast and prediction for sea surface salinity.
When you beat a GCM ( which is not tuned to sea surface salinity ) then you have something interesting to say.
put another way. the average temperature of the earth is around 15C. most climate models get it wrong, ranging from 13.5-16.5C or so.
Now, I’ll give you the same imputs and lets see if you can get within 10%
Given the complexity of the system a model that got within 50% of the right number would be stunning.
Note, this is separate from the question of whether one should use models to set policy.
That said we set defense policy of the nation using models that were much less accurate.!”
What a load of crap!
Are you an idiot?
Send me 1000 random spins of a roulette wheel and I will send you a model that shows you can win money by varying your bets. Send me 100 sets of these spins and i will give you a model every time that shows you can win.
All these models will have the same basic construction but may vary a bit in bet size and period.
However, they will all agree……..you can win money at Roulette by varying your bets.
According to your distorted thinking you plank, there is some utility in these models and it would be in peoples interest to act as if they were accurate.
Well is it?
Alan

lurker, passing through laughing

Yes. CO2 is a trivial player in the climate, if we are to judge by actual evidence.

John West

IanH says:
”What is GASTA?”
I read it as: Global Average Surface Temperature Anomaly .

Toto

Steven Mosher says:
Actually they are pretty good predictors,compared to everything else. and far superior to a shoulder shrug.
But can they be improved? Are their developers interested in making them better predictors? Where are the skeptic GCM developers?

Doug Proctor

A hiatus is not damning of severe GCM warming models IF a hiatus is considered the result of an unexpected STRONG, natural cooling event. Then the strong net radiative forcing of CO2 is merely hidden; once the natural cooling event ends with a natural neutral or (worse!) warming event, the world will writhe with a fever.
With the above line of reasoning, it is too early to discard the high-end temperature range GCM models. As the modellers struggle to explain the hiatus, they can be comfortable that nature is not MORE powerful than CO2. This “comfort” comes from their perception that CO2 is more powerful than natural warmings and coolings, and its effects will worsen over the next 20 years. 350 ppm is what McKibben may prefer, but we can live with 400, 450 ppm, perhaps, but it is 500+ that will kill us. If the perceived relatively weak nature is more powerful than CO2, then the threat of 500+ is not as terrible as projected.
The worst thing the warmist can have happen is a 0.2C drop in global temperatures over the next two years, a decline in line with sunspot and GCR theorists. Then natural forces will be proven by their own models to be stronger than CO2; either they then say that nature is more important than thought (which makes you question the orignin of pre-2000 temperature rises), or CO2 is less important than thought (which truly kills the top end GCMs, and drops the bottom end GCMs into a negative state – imagine that, CO2 makes things get cooler!).
GCMs are dominated by CO2 influences. If nature is random (a statement I would disagree with), then the ups-and-downs-and-flatlines are not material to a linear, long-term result. Which is why a 17-year hiatus does not obviate the high-end GCMs. A new, recognized PATTERN to nature is a big problem and does obviate the “truth” of high-end GCMs, however, as the pattern has to be applied to the history of the last 150 years (you don’t need to be smart to be right, just lucky).
“-0.02 in 2”: that will end scary GCMs, Al Gore and CAGW, nothing less.

Geo

We haven’t had a Category 2 hurricane in the North Atlantic this year, let alone a Cat. 3. 980mb was the lowest pressure in the Atlantic Basin……thus far…

Geo

Doug,
Just go back a few years (up to a decade) and you’ll see the claims (consensus) that “CO2 forcing will overwhelm any ongoing cooling”…so while your insight maybe true, it is a back pedal from the consensus stance just a while back….

Resourceguy

Unfortunately, boring is not good enough to stop pre-fabricated science and interconnected policy distortion.

John West

Steven Mosher says:
”the average temperature of the earth is around 15C. most climate models get it wrong, ranging from 13.5-16.5C or so.
Now, I’ll give you the same imputs and lets see if you can get within 10%”

Easy! Assume Energy In = Energy Out = Emission proportional to Temperature per Stefan-Boltzmann Law
Tune emissivity to result in 15 degrees Celsius
Qin = Qout =340.2 W/m^2
T = (340.2/(5.670373(21)×10−8)(0.87))^1/4
T = 288.17 K = 15.02 degrees Celsius.

richardscourtney

Steven Mosher:
In your post at November 4, 2013 at 10:26 am you say of the GCMs

Actually they are pretty good predictors,compared to everything else. and far superior to a shoulder shrug.

Actually, No, there are several predictors of GASTA that are demonstrated to be better than GCMs, for example, this one
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/09/syun-akasofus-work-provokes-journal-resignation/
And, since the outputs of GCMs are demonstrated to be misleading, a “shoulder shrug” is preferable to considering those outputs. This is because admitting you don’t know is less risky than acting on an unfounded assumption that you do know (if you doubt this then try rolling over in bed and asking, “How was it for you, Darling?”).
Clearly, you have never played Contract Bridge: deciding to ‘No Bid’ is much safer than “Seven Spades” when you don’t know what your opponents hold. And nobody knows what the future climate has up its sleeve.
Richard

Gil Dewart

Well, maybe if fossil fuel burning is outlawed in this country our fossil fuels will go to Africa, and that continent will rise and prosper.

Don

The Emperor’s New Clothes Thong
by Robert Brown
edited by Steve Mosher

Mosher @10:26
For a better prediction method see the comment at 4/11:00

Bloke down the pub

I think most people would pick rgb for their team.

milodonharlani

The GIGO GC models do have some utility. They show that high climate sensitivity is an epic fail, hence no worries about CACA are justified.

Great article.
Pity about all the acronyms – this would be a good one to share with the uninitiated. A little glossary at the bottom would be sweet. lol Or somewhere on the site.
Anyway, I posted about this on FB, FWIW, saying:

I’ve often said with few exceptions, climate scientists are glorified social workers. Not in the sense that they have the same job (although they are both creatures of government), but in the sense that they have about the same degree of intellectual rigour: they are both guided by a desired policy result, not the pursuit of truth per se.
As a general rule, physicists are a different animal. One explains in pretty plain terms what is wrong with the mainstream climate models’ continual overestimation of global warming. CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas, sure, emphasis on weak. Natural climate change factors are by far dominant and, frankly, the climate now is wholly unremarkable.

Jeff L

Love the sign / photo at the beginning …. Boring , Oregon, possibly ??
45.429781,-122.355294

Reg Nelson

Steven Mosher says:
November 4, 2013 at 10:26 am
Note, this is separate from the question of whether one should use models to set policy.
————————————————-
But this is exactly what they are used for. If these papers had a disclaimer like:
“The results of this paper are intended for entertainment purposes only. Any relation to actual future climate conditions is purely coincidental.”
Then you might have a point.
But instead we have people like Muller (BEST) doing a media PR tour before the ink was even dry on the paper, and well before it was peer-reviewed and published over a year later in an Indian pay-for-play website journal.
BTW weren’t you involved with that project? Do you feel Muller behaved professionally and ethically?
I certainly don’t.

milodonharlani

Jeff L says:
November 4, 2013 at 12:24 pm
Yes, it’s Boring, OR.

waterside4

Brilliant summation Dr Brown.
Sadly with AGW being a political boon doggle, there is little chance of any of the turkeys voting for Christmas.
I liked your photo at the top.
As a matter of interest Boring is twinned with a little hamlet in Perthshire Scotland called Dull, It is being ripped to pieces by a giant power line stretching the lengeth of the pristine Highlands to tie into the useless windmills which our ‘Furrherr’ Alec Salmond is building.

David, UK

@ Mosh: Don’t be silly. I mean, really.

clipe

Briefly put, when I had to balance the interests of my own safety, privacy\career of a few scientists, and the well-being of billions of people living in the coming several decades, the first two weren’t the decisive concern.
It was me or nobody, now or never. Combination of several rather improbable prerequisites just wouldn’t occur again for anyone else in the foreseeable future. The circus was about to arrive in Copenhagen. Later on it could be too late.
Most would agree that climate science has already directed where humanity puts its capability, innovation, mental and material “might”. The scale will grow ever grander in the coming decades if things go according to script. We’re dealing with $trillions and potentially drastic influence on practically everyone.
Wealth of the surrounding society tends to draw the major brushstrokes of a newborn’s future life. It makes a huge difference whether humanity uses its assets to achieve progress, or whether it strives to stop and reverse it, essentially sacrificing the less fortunate to the climate gods.
We can’t pour trillions in this massive hole-digging-and-filling-up endeavor and pretend it’s not away from something and someone else.
If the economy of a region, a country, a city, etc. deteriorates, what happens among the poorest? Does that usually improve their prospects? No, they will take the hardest hit. No amount of magical climate thinking can turn this one upside-down.
It’s easy for many of us in the western world to accept a tiny green inconvenience and then wallow in that righteous feeling, surrounded by our “clean” technology and energy that is only slightly more expensive if adequately subsidized.
Those millions and billions already struggling with malnutrition, sickness, violence, illiteracy, etc. don’t have that luxury. The price of “climate protection” with its cumulative and collateral effects is bound to destroy and debilitate in great numbers, for decades and generations.
Conversely, a “game-changer” could have a beneficial effect encompassing a similar scope.
If I had a chance to accomplish even a fraction of that, I’d have to try. I couldn’t morally afford inaction. Even if I risked everything, would never get personal compensation, and could probably never talk about it with anyone.
I took what I deemed the most defensible course of action, and would do it again (although with slight alterations — trying to publish something truthful on RealClimate was clearly too grandiose of a plan ;-).
Even if I have it all wrong and these scientists had some good reason to mislead us (instead of making a strong case with real data) I think disseminating the truth is still the safest bet by far.

Mr.FOIA

Stephen Richards

Steven Mosher says:
November 4, 2013 at 10:26 am
Steven, stop being stupid. What on earth changed you into this blathering idiot. A few years back you at least could challenged people with a sound cogent argument. What made you throw it all away? Funding?

Walt The Physicist

“This really is shocking. Shockingly bad science, shockingly dishonest political manipulation of policy makers on the part of scientists who participated in the creation of AR5 and permitted their names to give the report its weight.”
====================================================================
It is shocking indeed. As I am scientist, frequently laymen and more frequently laywomen ask me at the parties of what is the reason for highly educated scientists and academics to commit such fraud. I have no answer. It would be interesting to know what Dr. Brown as well as this blog participants think. Is this necessity of producing research funding and vain of awards and prizes that drives Mann, Schmidt, Hansen, Caldeira and multitudes others from Center for Climate Risk Management (CLIMA), Center for Solutions to Weather and Climate Risk, Department of Global Ecology, Climate Change Research Center, Climate System Research Center, etc.? Is this dishonesty unique to the climate science, or similar situations are prevailing in all sciences – the proponents of an idea “choke” all competition and the idea finally becomes a dogma supported by fraudulent “science”?

MattN

Dr. Brown, do you ever get a chance to get over and try to talk sense into Dr. Chameides (www.thegreengrok.com)

Jeremy

Good article. However, if the models do not work then I am not sure that re-tuning them is the answer – you seem to propose that the climate clowns keep up the whole pretense that there is something of value to their garbage GCM science.
Garbage is Garbage. There is nothing of value in having these incompetents continue. You know it and they know it. They will continue to lie and lie and lie until we throw them out of our research departments,Universities, and political spheres of influence.

M Courtney

The counter arguments to Steven Mosher have been:
1 If you roll enough dice you will get any number you want eventually. It doesn’t prove that that model which is good for that parameter is right for the right reasons.
2 Even if it did get it right for the right reasons you couldn’t know that and you would still be making unjustified assumptions.
3 It is exactly the stated confidence (worth of making policy upon) that is objected to. It can’t be waved away with an aside at the end.
Also, however, there have been many personal attacks on Steven Mosher. Even questioning his integrity. That is unjustifiable.
It destroys the debate.
Let’s try harder.