In a recent visit to Steve Goddard’s blog, I came across the post Climate Scientists Always Trying To Rewrite Their Own History. It’s about a Tweet by Greg Laden, in which Laden states:
.@LesJohnsonHrvat @SteveSGoddard @PeterGleick AGW Models do NOT predict southern SEA ICE reduction. You are simply wrong. And confused.
— Greg Laden (@gregladen) December 20, 2013
For those not familiar with Greg Laden, he is a well-known proponent of the hypothesis of human-induced global warming, who writes regularly at ScienceBlogs.
In reality, about Antarctic sea ice, it is Greg Laden who is wrong and confused. Antarctic sea ice has been increasing and climate models say is should be decreasing.
Greg Laden is of course contradicted by the outputs of the CMIP5-archived models. See the post here and the figure below.
And Greg Laden is contradicted by the 5th Assessment Report of the IPCC. See Chapter 9 here, page 6. They write:
Most models simulate a small decreasing trend in Antarctic sea-ice extent, albeit with large inter-model spread, in contrast to the small increasing trend in observations. [9.4.3, Figures 9.22, 9.24]
And on page 45 of Chapter 9, the IPCC writes:
Most CMIP5 models simulate a decrease in Antarctic sea ice extent over the past few decades compared to the small but significant increase observed.
Greg Laden appears to be expressing a belief, not knowledge, which is a common trait among global warming alarmists.
If you believe your own lies, are you still right?
You might laugh or give a quizzical pause, but there is a whole scientific field based on it.
Well, it seems to me that
Greg has Bin Laden down with his deceits over the years…
Rich.
I know for a fact Greg is wrong and has been well known previously over the years represented in the media about sea ice being supported to decline at both poles. Only source for these claims over the years have been computer models.
http://www.thegwpf.org/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-record-high-ipcc-models-predicted-the-opposite/
“The negative SIE trends in most of the model runs over 1979 – 2005 are a continuation of an earlier decline, suggesting that the processes responsible for the observed increase over the last 30 years are not being simulated correctly.”
Bill Marsh says:
December 20, 2013 at 4:47 pm
“Did anyone remind Mr Goddard as to what season it is in the Southern Hemisphere? He’s demnstating a decided ‘norte amricano’ prejudice…..”
Bill , I suggest that you get new glasses or have an eye exam.
Mr. Goddard’s comment said GLOBAL sea ice.
Wise up my man.
Greg Laden has replied via Twitter:
Unfortunately for Greg Laden, it appears he shifted topics after he was corrected by Les Johnson. And that’s as far as I need to take it.
https://twitter.com/LesJohnsonHrvat
AGW promoters have never hesitated to explain away their many failed predictions by simply denying they predictions existed. And typically they turn around and blame the skeptics for pointing out their fibs.
Ian W says:
December 21, 2013 at 12:12 am
It is a psychological condition called ‘projection’
Projection
Projection is a defense mechanism that involves taking our own unacceptable qualities or feelings and ascribing them to other people. For example, if you have a strong dislike for someone, you might instead believe that he or she does not like you. Projection works by allowing the expression of the desire or impulse, but in a way that the ego cannot recognize, therefore reducing anxiety —————————————————————————
Or if you’re a liar, cheat and a thief for your cause you assume everybody else would lie, cheat and steal just like you to destroy your cause.
How un-scientific!
cn
Chuck N…
“How un-scientific is right.
See this; http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2013/12/20/celebrated-physicist-calls-ipcc-summary-deeply-unscientific/
Wyguy says:
December 20, 2013 at 5:34 pm
Bill Marsh says:
December 20, 2013 at 5:12 pm
Goddard kinda cherry picked his starting point for the trend if you ask me.
Gee, I read both of Steven Goddard’s tweets with Laden and I see no reference to a starting point.
==============
You might look at the graphic then.
Greg Laden via Twitter I was also busy doing my hair.
It’s settled then…it’s worse than we thought.
Instead of his hair, I think Laden been’s working on another piece of his above-the-neck inventory.
I can hear him now: “I just washed my brain and I can’t do a thing with it.”
Bill Marsh says:
December 20, 2013 at 5:12 pm
Goddard kinda cherry picked his starting point for the trend if you ask me.
==================
In science, one single contrary example is all that is required to prove a theory wrong.
Science is not a voting system. I have a watch that is exactly right twice a day. If you wait long enough this watch will be correct an infinite number of times. Yet no matter how many times it gets the time right, it is still a broken watch.
This the difference between superstition and science. Superstition is based on counting “right” answers. If it starts raining after you do a dance, it was the dance that caused the rain. Thus rain dancing works.
Greg Laden (via Bob Tisdale):
Pretty sure he’s wrong about this too. Low elevations are predicted to lose snow (so loss of sea ice), high elevations are predicted to gain snow due to increased precipitation from the warmer sea waters near the coast. You can’t get this second effect in a model without a loss of sea ice.
I think it’s also worth emphasizing that the rate of sea ice loss in the Arctic, 2005-now, is not predicted in the models. You can’t use as quantitative confirmation of a model a thing it didn’t predict quantitatively.
I once tried to interact with Greg on his blog. Immediately blocked from access. He lacks the one ingredient that is absolutely necessary in a scientist: an open mind. And, I might add, a curiosity about contrary findings.
Jim: Yes, Greg blocks me once in a while, but then relents and lets me back in. But, I have been thrown out of better places.
I am always polite, and always back my arguments with facts or peer reviewed work.
George Marshall, RC, Joe Romm, Greg Laden, Steve Bloom, Peter Gleick; all have blocked me at one time or another.
In reference to Laden’s comment, how is sea ice related to changes in precipitation? Does anyone know what he is talking about? Does he think that there is not enough water in the oceans to freeze without rain or snow falling on it?
This reminds me of a conversation I had with a warmist on Al Jazeera. In regard to the first snow in Cairo in 112 years, she claimed that AGW predicted more moisture in the air, therefore that extra moisture caused the snow in Cairo. She was able to completely ignore the fact that more moisture simply gets you more rain, unless you have colder air as well.
Wow, that’s some “apology” from Laden. Not enough time, and too busy with hair (was this before or after he did his makeup and nails?).
Unfortunately I’ve lost the link a commenter on another blog provided, but amongst all this Twitter mess, Greg proceeded to tell a skeptic tweeter to “f**k off”.
Classy….
Can anyone else find the link?
Does web-shopping for a toupee’ really qualify as doing one’s hair?
Greg has deletd the more objectionable tweets. Fortunately, having been in this rodeo before, I screen captured his objective and scientific replies. Amongst other things, he told me to FO, kiss his @ss, and that I was a liar, misanthrope and a sophist.
https://twitter.com/LesJohnsonHrvat
You can also still see those replies on my site.
Andy: you can see what remains of the conversation here:
https://twitter.com/gregladen/status/414088959871184896
And possibly the strangest response in the history of science, comes in that exchange couretsy of Rob Honeycutt.
Les Johnson@LesJohnsonHrvat37m
@robhon @gregladen No, I was pointing out Greg’s error. Models projected SH ice decrease. Greg denied the models said this.
Rob Honeycutt@robhon37m
@LesJohnsonHrvat At which point you killed any chance of substantive discussion.
Cheers Les,
I’m sorry that you’ve had to face down Greg’s nastiness.
Greg’s a complete wally, as we say here in the UK.
LdB says:
You’re going to guess his Americian… what?
Greg Laden’s initial response – “AGW Models do NOT predict southern SEA ICE reduction. You are simply wrong.” – precludes there being any possibility that his later answer – “I was referring to the problem of southern sea ice at an entirely different scale; the increase in sea ice related to, according to models, changes in precipitation.” – has any truth to it. By choosing the word “simply” he was saying there is nothing further to consider, no nuances of scale, no misunderstanding. If he thought there was, that later response would have been his 1st.
SR