Due to the cutbacks in funding for climate science, a new climate model has been introduced to help politicians justify unnecessary laws that regulate carbon dioxide emissions…
Introducing…
Price: $10 Million U.S. – (I only need to sell one to a gullible politician somewhere around the globe.)
[Satire Off]
# # #
UPDATE: This post was prompted by a number of comments around the blogosphere in response to my post Lewandowsky and Oreskes Are Co-Authors of a Paper about ENSO, Climate Models and Sea Surface Temperature Trends (Go Figure!).
an early 20th century graphing computer! Loved them as a kid.
Hm, on second thoughts, I think I like this one better. It has “sliders” instead of “knobs”!
http://biocycle.atmos.colostate.edu/shiny/emissions/
Problem is: they really mean it !
Has GM recalled it yet?
Johan says:
July 23, 2014 at 11:02 am
Try setting the slider at 0% cuts of emissions. Depending on when you apply the 0% cuts, you can can almost singlehandedly reduce temperature increase below 2 C. But time is short–we must make the 0% cut NOW!
I lucked out last night. When the Gong Show rerun ended at 3:30am the infomercial for this product came on. The part where they demonstrated what to do when the observed temperature is way below the predicted value was great. Michael Mann shows Phil Jones a peer reviewed paper on the MWP and Jones starts shaking uncontrollably and drops the unit, completely erasing the original data! Genius! Time consuming shredding of documents and those pesky accidental lab fires in response to FOI subpoenas will be a thing of the past. You can’t find a less secure way to store your data! The best news is that if you order in the next 10 minutes you get a second unit absolutely FREE! Just pay additional shipping and handling. Ask the operator how to get a set of Ginsu steak knives Free with your order. Even if you try to return the unit, the knives are yours to keep!
Order 10 units and you get the Speaking Michael Mann bobble head. Programmed to say, “I won a Nobel Prize, kinda”, “12 is enough” “hide the decline.” And. “Because I said so.”
A 12 cent value it’s free with your extended order.
/ end of satire
[But, isn’t a backslash before the “end of satire” a whole new satire because the “end of satire” was ended before the “end of satire” even began? 8<) .mod]
The science is settled, so we can divert funding to finding a complete solution to “Chinese Checkers”
PiperPaul
Love that sly reference, knobs indeed!
norah4you says:
“ Who or What turned Bob Tisdale away from Theories of Science?”
Science turns scientists away from theories of science. Here’s a no where near complete list of theories of science that science tells me (& Bob Tisdale) should be turned away from:
Spontaneous generation
Transmutation of species
Maternal impression
Miasma theory of disease
Preformationism
Recapitulation theory
Telegony
Vitalism
Out of Asia theory
Caloric theory
Classical elements
Phlogiston theory
Emission theory of vision
Ptolemy’s law of refraction
Luminiferous aether
John Dalton’s model of the atom
Plum pudding model of the atom
Rutherford model of the atom
Ptolemaic system
Geocentric universe
Heliocentric
Rain follows the plow
Expanding Earth theory
Geosyncline theory
Theory of the four bodily humours
Eclectic Medicine
Physiognomy
CAGW
Small print: “Knobs only turn clockwise. Counterclockwise knobs not available in participating university systems.”
Its only a matter of time till some comedian proposes the
‘ice-death-spiral spiro-graph’
oops
Is this the one that is FOIA-free? Just turn it over, give it a shake and – voila, all gone!!
$10 Million dollars what a bargain 😉
This looks like my company’s typical projections for projected revenue from a new product !(I admit I am guilty of it as well!). For you younger people in product development and government funded “climate science”: Always turn the left knob counterclockwise and the right knob clockwise to continue getting funding!
My above instructions were wrong according to Google. Right is left knob clockwise and Up is right knob clockwise.
Remedial Instructions for Michael Mann:
1) Zoom in on Medieval warm period
2) Turn upside down and shake vigorously
3) Turn back over and continue turning both knobs clockwise with eyes closed
I would like to see someone qualified to plot all noted models (e.g., CMIP5’s) without accoriding any sensitivity variable as to CO2 at all. Do they all use the same input? Wouldn’t it be remarkable if the following plottings looked “like” the recent temps history? I would not be surprised really. Such could validate everything else about the models, which would be exciting! But scientifically pursuing the otherwise obvious-for-scrutiny issue of sensitivity predictions has the deleterious effect of damaging carbon pricing, so no “Climate Scientist” will do likely do it, unless it is a particularly crazed one who is not hip to the money games.
===================================================================
Perhaps Bob Tisdale has succumbed to “consensus science”? /SARC!
Has “climate science” become that much of a joke? I remember a time when they at least seemed to make an effort. But with the pause, the failure of the carbon tax, the growing Antarctica ice, the missing hot spot, the lowering of the max climate sensitivity, the ship of fools to Antarctica, the bogus 97% claims (actually being 0.3% LOL), upside down proxies, climategate, hide the decline, etc… it’s just all too easy to mock. And rightly so. Etch-a-Sketch is indeed the perfect analogy.
Nobs been twisted, just got off the tractor here in Delta County, Texas. Can see a big bunch of thunder heads just to the North and East, clear it is there will be wind and rain soon. Got to get every thing shut down and closed up before it gets here.
A cold front from the North East here this time of year is very, very not normal.
So who is at the nobs, can not be Mike Mann for sure.
Mine is better 🙂
http://www.newclimatemodel.com/new-climate-model/
“Has “climate science” become that much of a joke? I remember a time when they at least seemed to make an effort.”
I remember reading H.H. Lamb’s 1982 book and thinking that this young science was going to amount to something. But then something wicked became of the “science”. I predict it will be at least two generations before climate “science” even is a science again. (they stop thinking computer models trumps real world observations)
Thanks, Justthinking.
My typing is terrible today.
Too focussed in work instead of play – I need to get my priorities righter..
Does this imply that if all funding is cut from modeling we’ll be back to reality?
Oh, my!
(Don’t ya just love the theorem of limts?)
Bob. Your IPCC ETCH A GLOBAL TEMPERATURE MODEL just won’t work. The best and worst case model projections are not identified, which means the can’t be replicated. That means it is not SCIENCE. Or was that the point?
On the other hand the knobs should have pictures on them. I suggest Lewandowsky and Oreskes. They are both knobs. (see urban dictionary… take your pick)
Maybe you should include a roll of Lewpaper to clean the screen.
Seriously Bob, thank you for all that you do,
@Johan & Lance Wallace
What a hoot!
As near as I can figure, if poor and rich countries cut 0% of emissions and ramp down from 2005 to 2010, it’s the best case of all. Typical climate modeling, I guess.
@Bob Tisdale
You’re going to have to simplify your climate control machine for “real klimate skientists.” Maybe something with just an On/Off switch.
ON: WE’RE ALL GONNA D-I-I-I-I-I-E!!!!!!
OFF: WE’RE ALL GONNA D-I-I-I-I-I-E!!!!!!
just as funny.
EU agree 30%; CAGW activists wanted 40%. agreement is non-binding; activists wanted binding; can’t reduce energy use or it might mess with the ETS;
you can’t make this stuff up:
23 July: Reuters: Barbara Lewis: EU Commission agrees 30 percent energy savings goal for 2030: sources
The European Commission agreed on Wednesday to put forward a target to improve energy efficiency by 30 percent as part of a package of climate and energy policy for 2030, EU sources said.
Member states will decide whether the target should be binding on individual nations or at an EU-wide level, said two sources, requesting anonymity as they are not authorized to speak to the media…
Britain and many business interests have pushed hard for a single goal on cutting greenhouse gases, complemented by a strengthened EU Emissions Trading System (ETS).
The ETS is meant to be the European Union’s flagship policy for tackling climate change but prices of only around 6 euros ($8) per ton are too weak to drive investment in lower-carbon technology…
***Reducing energy use can have the effect of adding to the existing surplus of carbon allowances and lowering their price still further…
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/23/us-eu-energy-efficiency-idUSKBN0FS1AL20140723