Now that “the pause” has come of age, and has exceeded 18 years, it is time to revisit a post a made back in November 2011.
Bill Illis reminded me in comments of this spectacular failure of peer reviewed climate science:
Let’s remember several years ago when all the heavy-weights of climate science produced a paper that said the lower troposphere pause had to be at least 17 years long before a clear signal that human-made CO2 warming theories should start to be questioned.
Carl Mears was the second author on that paper along Ben Santer (lead) [and Tom Wigley, Susan Solomon, Tom Karl, Gerald Meehl, Peter Stott, Peter Thorne, Frank Wentz].
Well, that time has now been exceeded and they all have egg on their face.
http://nldr.library.ucar.edu/repository/assets/osgc/OSGC-000-000-010-476.pdf
Alhough, if you read Carl Mears article carefully, he is starting the discussion that maybe the theories need to be revised. His use of the d’word may be needed just to keep him in the club and not being shown the door by his other compatriots who accept no questioning at all.
Here’s the current lower troposphere temperature from RSS:
Here’s the reminder press release boasting of their discovery. Emphasis mine.
Separating signal and noise in climate warming
LIVERMORE, Calif. — In order to separate human-caused global warming from the “noise” of purely natural climate fluctuations, temperature records must be at least 17 years long, according to climate scientists.
To address criticism of the reliability of thermometer records of surface warming, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory scientists analyzed satellite measurements of the temperature of the lower troposphere (the region of the atmosphere from the surface to roughly five miles above) and saw a clear signal of human-induced warming of the planet.
Satellite measurements of atmospheric temperature are made with microwave radiometers, and are completely independent of surface thermometer measurements. The satellite data indicate that the lower troposphere has warmed by roughly 0.9 degrees Fahrenheit since the beginning of satellite temperature records in 1979. This increase is entirely consistent with the warming of Earth’s surface estimated from thermometer records.
Recently, a number of global warming critics have focused attention on the behavior of Earth’s temperature since 1998. They have argued that there has been little or no warming over the last 10 to 12 years, and that computer models of the climate system are not capable of simulating such short “hiatus periods” when models are run with human-caused changes in greenhouse gases.
“Looking at a single, noisy 10-year period is cherry picking, and does not provide reliable information about the presence or absence of human effects on climate,” said Benjamin Santer, a climate scientist and lead author on an article in the Nov. 17 online edition of the Journal of Geophysical Research (Atmospheres).
Many scientific studies have identified a human “fingerprint” in observations of surface and lower tropospheric temperature changes. These detection and attribution studies look at long, multi-decade observational temperature records. Shorter periods generally have small signal to noise ratios, making it difficult to identify an anthropogenic signal with high statistical confidence, Santer said.
“In fingerprinting, we analyze longer, multi-decadal temperature records, and we beat down the large year-to-year temperature variability caused by purely natural phenomena (like El Niños and La Niñas). This makes it easier to identify a slowly-emerging signal arising from gradual, human-caused changes in atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases,” Santer said.
The LLNL-led research shows that climate models can and do simulate short, 10- to 12-year “hiatus periods” with minimal warming, even when the models are run with historical increases in greenhouse gases and sulfate aerosol particles. They find that tropospheric temperature records must be at least 17 years long to discriminate between internal climate noise and the signal of human-caused changes in the chemical composition of the atmosphere.
“One individual short-term trend doesn’t tell you much about long-term climate change,” Santer said. “A single decade of observational temperature data is inadequate for identifying a slowly evolving human-caused warming signal. In both the satellite observations and in computer models, short, 10-year tropospheric temperature trends are strongly influenced by the large noise of year-to-year climate variability.”
The research team is made up of Santer and Livermore colleagues Charles Doutriaux, Peter Caldwell, Peter Gleckler, Detelina Ivanova, and Karl Taylor, and includes collaborators from Remote Sensing Systems, the National Center for Atmospheric Research, the University of Colorado, the Canadian Centre for Climate Modeling and Analysis, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the U.K. Meteorology Office Hadley Centre, and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
###
Source: http://www.llnl.gov/news/newsreleases/2011/Nov/NR-11-11-03.html
The lower troposphere temperature has been flat now for 18 years on one dataset, RSS. No human effects can be seen. What say you Dr. Santer?
- Ignore your own folly?
- Say your paper was mistaken and publish a new goalpost mover paper saying that we really need 30 years?
- Or, will you simply admit that the posited warming isn’t happening?
I’m guessing you’ll go with #2.
Naval Research Laboratory solar scientist Judith Lean drew a similar line in the sand, stating that if the expected temp progression wasn’t met by the 25 year mark, she’d have to reevaluate her adherence to the global warming orthodoxy. There is no way the numbers are going to work out for her in the remaining few years on that 25 year period.
As more and more of these falsely prophetic statements fall, I expect so much handwaving that surrounding wind farms will actually become a viable alternative power source.
What will happen over the next 15 years if there is statistically significant cooling of a tenth of a degree or two? There are a number of folks who feel that with a cold PDO, a transition to the cool phase of the AMO and a very weak solar cycle, this is inevitable. The politics of the painful solutions for climate change will likely mean they drop off the political radar, particularly if the political proponents of the climate agenda start losing elections and the government largess toward climate science dries up. This means a lot of people working in the area will move on in a game of research funding musical chairs. My question is if the order of people getting into a trendy areas are innovators first, followed by imitators second and idiots taking up the rear, what will be the order of people getting out??
Your point about politics is dead on. Once we start electing skeptics, they can begin to unravel this mess. The scientists are beyond hope. They are brain-dead. We will start to see the change come November. Democrats will be decimated in the United States. When the Republicans control both Houses, Obama will truly be a lame duck and most likely an impeachable lame duck. Australia is already onside. Britain is about to get serious with UKIP. In Canada, Harper is still in charge. China is demanding the moon, knowing full well that the West won’t contribute $100 billion a year! India knows better and actually cares about its poor. By 2016, who will be left to continue the fantasy? If the newly elected conservatives are smart, they will start by firing these so-called scientists, slash their climate research budgets and put these lunatics out on the street where they belong. They have cost us billions and hindered our economic growth.
“China is demanding the moon, knowing full well that the West won’t contribute $100 billion a year!”
That’s one month and 3 days of QE (before the taper), so why not? USA(or, the entire West, USA+EU+Japan) NEEDS ever more debt because every Dollar of debt brings one Dollar of currency into existence.
Reminds me of what the Amazing Randi’s Million Dollar Offer to “psychics” and the like: not matter how many times they fail, it is never their fault.
Well … there’s a solution to their conundrum. It’s quite apparent that the good planet Earth has entered into a new ice age that has being firmly held back by AGW for 17 years which, as the wise AGW folks know, is keeping us all from freezing our derrières off.
@ur momisugly Pedro…..
That seems like no solution either to their conundrum…. if it was they will have already adopt it.
Problem is the observed hiatus.
At their lower estimate of CS=1.5C they are facing a negative feed on the system at about -.1.1C trend from the year around 2000 to 2120-2150 [ESTIMATED TIME FOR 540-560ppm] under the current conditions.
It may look small the -1.1C, but it is a very sharp slope EVEN IN THE CASE of a starting Ice Age, it will be more than the -0.3C to -0.4C slope during the LIA by a factor bigger then X2.
The only thing that could still be claimed IN THE CONTEXT of AGW will be on the lines that while it seems to have failed to hold back the Ice Age it has actually increased its severity especially at the starting point.
With higher CS value, bigger the problem.
That is the paradox with AGW.
Even dropping the value for CS the projections will show that the minimum gained for negative feed is at about -0.9 C from 2000 to 2120-2150, and that is still a big dropp. All projections with any value of CS will project warming for a doubling of CO2.
The projections for a CS=1.5C will deviate with the projections of CS=0 [the max dropping possible] only with a 0.1C per century……run by the same GCM. So at the CS=0 the projections will show the same problem we face under a 1.5C CS, no pause projected and sitll the same warming actually projected, …..and while compared with the real actual data [THE PAUSE] will show the same negative feed in play.
Well… the only solution remaining, I think, with AGW, is to surrender and admit that while it was a good starting point it has become meaningless and totally irrational to still persist stubbornly with that line.
cheers
Yes, that paradox is very interesting. The higher the climate sensitivity, the lower the temperature would be without man’s input. We’d better hope the temperature rise has been dominated by Nature, for if it’s been Man, we haven’t enough hydrocarbons left to maintain artificially elevated temps for very long.
===============
Once again the skeptics have been proven correct.
Santer’s clearly written words in defense of climate fanaticism are in the record.
Let’s see what he and his pals do with what that.
Ben Santer will not concede a thing. In a letter to the editor of the Wall Street Journal, he and Thomas Stocker write
“Our best understanding—from observations, basic physics and models—is that the global climate changes observed over the last century are largely human driven. They aren’t “comparable to the intrinsic, natural variability of the climate system itself.”
http://online.wsj.com/articles/we-dont-need-perfect-knowledge-to-act-on-the-climate-letters-to-the-editor-1412195749
‘They aren’t “comparable to the intrinsic, natural variability of the climate system itself.”’ –Santer
Regarding which, he is in almost complete ignorance. I suspect examination of his thought process would reveal that he’s swallowed his own circular argument.
Don B: Excellent reference, I also saw that letter where Santer and Stocker … unsuccessfully … attempted to debunk Dr. Koonin’s recent WSJ article.
Not often, but sometimes, the WSJ entertains letters that rebut the letters of earlier commenters. A suggestion to members of the WUWT community … if someone, more eloquent, knowledgeable, and persuasive that I, could provide such a counter-rebuttal using Santer’s own 17 years pronouncement, it might inform some of our fellow citizens and thereby help diffuse the CAGW scare.
Best
Dan Backman
They were guessing then and they are guessing now.
For updated forecasts of the timing and amount of the probable coming cooling see
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com
Here are the conclusions.
“I have combined the PDO, ,Millennial cycle and neutron trends to estimate the timing and extent of the coming cooling in both the Northern Hemisphere and Globally.
Here are the conclusions of those posts.
1/22/13 NH Forecast
1) The millennial peak is sharp – perhaps 18 years +/-. We have now had 16 years since 1997 with no net warming – and so might expect a sharp drop in a year or two – 2014/16 – with a net cooling by 2035 of about 0.35.Within that time frame however there could well be some exceptional years with NH temperatures +/- 0.25 degrees colder than that.
2) The cooling gradient might be fairly steep down to the Oort minimum equivalent which would occur about 2100. (about 1100 on Fig 5) ( Fig 3 here) with a total cooling in 2100 from the present estimated at about 1.2 +/-.
3) From 2100 on through the Wolf and Sporer minima equivalents with intervening highs to the Maunder Minimum equivalent which could occur from about 2600 – 2700 a further net cooling of about 0.7 degrees could occur for a total drop of 1.9 +/- degrees.
4) The time frame for the significant cooling in 2014 – 2016 is strengthened by recent developments already seen in solar activity. With a time lag of about 12 years between the solar driver proxy and climate we should see the effects of the sharp drop in the Ap Index which took place in 2004/5 in 2016-17.
4/02/13Global Forecast
1 Significant temperature drop at about 2016-17
2 Possible unusual cold snap 2021-22
3 Built in cooling trend until at least 2024
4 Temperature Hadsst3 moving average anomaly 2035 – 0.15
5 Temperature Hadsst3 moving average anomaly 2100 – 0.5
6 General Conclusion – by 2100 all the 20th century temperature rise will have been reversed,
7 By 2650 earth could possibly be back to the depths of another little ice age.
8 The effect of increasing CO2 emissions will be minor but beneficial – they may slightly ameliorate the forecast cooling and help maintain crop yields .
9 Warning !! There are some signs in the Livingston and Penn Solar data that a sudden drop to the Maunder Minimum Little Ice Age temperatures could be imminent – with a much more rapid and economically disruptive cooling than that forecast above which may turn out to be a best case scenario.”
3.2 2014 Updates and Observations..
3.2.1 Updates
a) NH Forecast- item 4. With regard to timing, closer examination of the Ap Index (Fig13) and Neutron Count (Fig.14) would suggest that the sharpest drop in activity is better placed at 2005/6 with the associated sharp temperature drop now forecast at 2017-18.
b) Global Forecast – item1. Significant temperature drop now forecast for 2017-18.
c) Global Forecast – item 9. Another year of flat Livingston and Penn umbral data suggests that a swift decline into a Maunder Minimum is now very unlikely
People have no idea how fast temperatures can drop. The drop into the LIA was precipitous. Within a matter of years, Europe went from mild to brutally cold. The downturn was exacerbated by greatly increased volcanic activity (which correlates with low solar activity as well) further reducing temperatures. Study history and you learn very quickly that cold kills.
The Anasazi indians of SW Colorado abruptly abandoned their mesa top cliff dwellings around 1250AD. The LIA onset.
Hang on now dawg. You go toooooooo far. Let’s keep it to the near term, like this century.
“7 By 2650 earth could possibly be back to the depths of another little ice age.”
Jimbo as you can see above I also provide shorter term forecasts. The 2650 forecast is perfectly reasonable if you look at the 1000 year quasi- periodicity see Figs 5 and 9 at
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com
I thought that, at least according to the UAH folks, RSS fails to account for a bit of drift that results in them underestimating the temperature in recent years. Is this really the best temperature set to use?
My understanding is that when the next release of UAH ensemble (Ver 6, I believe) is released. UAH and RSS will be even closer than they are today.
The problem with Santer’s paper is that he could only use models to estimate the noise.
The problem there is that the models are not generally speaking noisy enough. On short time scales they fail
to capture the variability. This leads Santer to underestimate the time window. There are some other problems with the paper ( the assumed signal is too strong), but for its time it wasnt a bad effort.
Yes. Using the models to estimate noise is fatal. They don’t reproduce the noise of genuine climate data; they only emulate it. When you don’t know all the variables rigorously, you can’t estimate the variability. You may be right about it not being a bad effort. I’d have said horrible, but you may be correct. Santer is one of the sharper knives in that drawer. And, after all, his paper is three years old, and the science wasn’t settled then, despite myriad claims to the contrary.
What are the error bars on this criticism of Santer? Just how noisy should the models be? Just how strong should the assumed signal be?
Where are the error bars in any “Climate Science?” How is any of it Science at all???
Steven Mosher
October 3, 2014 at 11:42 am
“The problem with Santer’s paper is that he could only use models to estimate the noise.
The problem there is that the models are not generally speaking noisy enough. On short time scales they fail
to capture the variability. ”
What you’re saying is the models are a failure.
Agreement at last.
Hey how about junking them now.
As Mosher says, the models are not noisy enough. Well, that is completely untrue. Spaghetti factory would be a better description of the models.
http://s18.postimg.org/ewzj7flyx/IPCC_AR4_Model_Spread_2000_2020.png
But let’s take the idea that they are not covering enough of the natural climate variables. The noise produced by the ENSO, the volcanoes, the AMO (which is increasingly being recognized as a natural cycle) and the solar cycle (which is very small, but I keep leaving it in.)
And let’s extend the lower troposphere record back to 1958 using the HadAT weather balloon radiosonde measurements for the lower troposphere.
Now, after removing the biggest natural climate cycles/noise factors and going further back than UAH and RSS do, we see the non-warming trend is, in fact, actually 40 years 9 months now.
Yes, all the way back to 1973.
http://s29.postimg.org/9a6aqbpmv/UAH_RSS_Had_AT_Warming_1958_Sept14.png
No Santer paper could fix that problem.
I also take issue with “the models are not generally speaking noisy enough”.
this is a nonsense. climate science is statistical rubbish, based on the mistaken idea that average are representative of the population.
you cannot compute the noise of the original signal from the average of the signal. it is mathematically impossible. here is a simple example:
If you make a model of human beings, based on the average human being, they have < 2 arms, < 2 legs, 1 tit, 1 nut, 1/2 a penis and 1/2 a vagina. they are self-fertilizing and are 5'5" tall, brown-yellow in color, with straight curly hair.
Tell us how much noise there is from this information. You cannot, because you only have the average. using averages was the only choice 50 years ago when computers were expensive. it is a complete nonsense today.
No.
The problem with Santer’s paper is that he chose to write a paper when he could only use models to estimate the noise. He wrote a shitty paper because they needed a paper – and a shitty one would do – to provide cover for the then failing “we only need to worry after 15 years of this pause” story that had previously been ginned up for cover.
No.
The problem there is that the models are generally speaking too noisy, and the nose is interpreted as signal if it conforms to the political imperative.
No.
Santer did not underestimate the time window. He did not estimate the time window at all. All he did was fix the lower sill of the time window to a point in the conveniently near future, and use “at least” to avoid having to define the upper bound. And what lead him to do that was the political imperative. He had to give a lower bound to shore up the politics. But had he given an estimate of the upper end of the time window, he would have had to do one of two things:
1. Commit to a date within the timeframe of his career upon which he would have to accept and admit to falsification of the substance of said career, or
2. Push the “we wont know about this CAGW thing until then” date out to a point so far into the future that no one on the planet would give a rats ass about the substance of said career.
Both screw him professionally, and both screw the political imperative. So he did what he had to do. He punted with a shitty stalling tactic of a paper, betting that Mother Nature would bail him out.
Steven, wake up please,… GCMs are not weather models, try to understand the difference between climate and weather.
In principle a GCM’s projection is expected to not match exactly the short term climate data, but the difference in a so considered correct projection must be as such as not to be more than due to the noise of short term variability…and the long term projection not considered so out of mark with reality as in the case of the hiatus. The hiatus is not due to a noise factor, neither due to a natural noise in the real data and neither because of no enough noise spoken by the GCMs, …that could have been a case at about 7 years ago… but not anymore.
The discrepancy between real climate and the projections is far too wide at this point, and no noise can cover that whatever way or acrobatics you play with the noise factor.
cheers
They need a salary for the coming 18 years at least.
Isn’t that past retirement age for most of ’em?
yeah, thats what gets me steamed!!
they wont be fired or jailed
theyll be given MORE MONEY! and allowed to continue their merry way,
and I doubt they would even consider an apology or quitting.
such a pity hari kiri didnt catch on as a means of amends. :-0
So can we rename “climate change” to “climate stability”? Hmmm…I don’t think it works to say that disasters are caused by man-made climate stability.
Climate Stability isn’t scary enough. “Climate Stagnation”! Now that’s scary. Stagnation as we all know is a breeding ground for disease and foulness of all sorts.
“Climate Stagnation”!
You have the winner. This is the sort of phrase that could show legs. WUWT needs an article on “Climate Stagnation”!
Here’s what the authors of that 17 year statement have to say about it now:
Tom Wigley, “_________________”
Susan Solomon, “____________________________”
Tom Karl, “_______”
Gerald Meehl, “____________”
Peter Stott, “____________________”
Peter Thorne, “__________”
Frank Wentz, “________________”
Ben Santer, “I agree with all the other authors”
/sarc
Reality check.
The ‘RSS data pause’ has reached 18 years. Warming of the globe (the so-called ‘Global Warming’) continues……
I have lived a long life and for the first time in my life, I had to wear my winter coat in the month of August for a couple of days because it had gotten so cold outside. That was unprecedented, but of course, that was just weather. However, when global warming does start to happen, wake me up.
One must question the data when three other data sets are not agreeing with it.
One must always question the data. That’s why AGW is in trouble…
I think I have got you figured out, Village Idiot.
You are not a global warmer. You are a skeptic who apes the global warmer point of view in order to discredit them. That is why you have adopted the blog name “village idiot” so to make plain the idiocy of the comment. WELL DONE
You mean pretending to be a warmist is the new nerd-glasses?
Reality Check:
Ice bergs and massive floes in the Great Lakes obstructed shipping and navigation into June of 2014. Frost depths reached 9 feet in areas of Wisconsin in the winter of 2013-14. A late, cold and wet spring delayed crop planting across the norther tier of the USA. Many areas of Wisconsin set all time records for average low temperature records:
http://www.wqow.com/story/24859849/2014/03/01/record-cold-winter-of-2014-tops-the-list
Please show unadjusted data demonstrating your claim of ‘global warming continues’….
Reality trumps adjusted data and computer models, every time.
Option 4: 17 years STARTING from 2001, which means another 3 1/4 years.
Like the bumper sticker says – his “Karma ran over his dogma”
The global temperature anomaly data HADCRUT4.3.0.0.monthly.ns_avg.txt have been published for August 2014 (http://www.metoffice.gov.uk). When I use the absolute temperature data “absolute.nc” published at http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk to transform the anomaly data to absolute temperatures, I get 16.4 °C for Aug 2014. The same procedure for NOOA NCDC global leads to 16.4 °C, and for GISTEMP LOTI to 16.3 °C. On the global scale, July (16.4 °C) is the hottest month, while Jan (12.6 °C) is coldest. This is caused by the unequal distribution of land and oceans on the northern and the southern hemisphere, respectively. Therefore it is better to use annual means for specifying global temperatures. I found for the 201309-201408 interval, 14.5 °C for HADCRUT4, 14.6°C for GISTEMP, and 14.5 °C for NOOA, respectively. This maximum value was also measured in the periods 200909-201008(E), 200609-200708 (E), 200109-200208, and 199709-199808 (E).(El Nino years are marked by (E). Reference: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/index.html)
As the forecasts made by modeling the climate were not very successful in the recent decade, I have tried to make my own forecasts of the. global temperature. My forecast is based on the historical temperature data. The idea behind is that the forcings of the climate (sun irradiation, albedo, GHG, land-use, oceans, etc.) are varying slowly in time and the “inertia” of the global climate is large.( As El-Nino-La-Nina events have a short periodicity of some years these are smoothed by using a 5 year means of the temperature data.). Simple least squares fitting is used with several choices of fitting functions. The aim is to find a function with fitting parameters which are stable in time. That means: When you go back in the past and make a forecast to now the best fitting function will have the smallest deviation from the measured data. If I define an error level of 0.1 °C I determined the time span in the past with a deviation smaller than the error level. This time interval is assumed to be the time span valid for the forecast.
The best fitting function for the temperature was found to be T(t) = c0+c1*t+c2*t^2+c3*sin(c4*t+c5) The ci are fitting parameters. HADCRUT4 is better than NOOA NCDC and GISS, because this dataset goes back to 1850, while NOOA and GISS start from 1880. The gridded dataset of HADCRUT4 worked better than the published global dataset, because I made an estimate for missing temperatures in the gridded dataset ( i.e. Arctica and Antarctica) before averaging over the globe.
As a result of my analysis the 5yr means global temperature is expected to rise from 14.5 to 15.5 °C in the next 60 years This is a temperature increase of 1.0 °C. For comparison, the temperature increase during the last 60 years was 0.7 °C.
Details of my calculations can be found on my Website (in German). When you download KlimaGlobal.zip you will get a Windows exe file (in English) together with the datasets. After loading one of the datasets, you can click forecasts to start your own analysis.
It’s too bad you don’t have real data to work with instead of works of fiction. You can’t expect a fit to flawed data to actually have any predictive skill.
You can’t even expect a fit to perfect data to have any predictive skill if the underlying dynamics is chaotic.
the ocean tides are chaotic, yet we predict them with great accuracy, using a methodology similar to astrology.
this was how humans first learned to predict the seasons, long before we understood the cause of the seasons.
yet climate science ignores the obvious. you cannot reliably predict a chaotic system from first principles using existing technology. it doesn’t work for the tides and it certainly isn’t working for climate.
Time to get the crane out and move those goalposts.
Those were always mobile goalposts, sir–no need for a crane. Half a dozen “climate scientists” with gloves to hide the data is sufficient.
” must be at least 17 years long” – “at least” being the key words in there that allow them wiggle room. Wait and see they will now say 17 wasn’t a hard and fast number. It was more of a vague ballpark thingy …
So now that we are between 14 and 18 years, depending on which dataset you choose, they will point out errors with the longest running ones and claim they have another 3 years. When that comes and goes they will then claim that the only truly reliable measurements are from the U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN) and it is only at 10 years so you’ll all have to wait another 7 for it.
By then they will all have retired and taken up learning the Spanish language in Paraguay to avoid extradition.
They should have known better. Nature
will humble you every time!
Yep, and She is not loath about sending reminders.
So what? It takes 17 years to identify human influence. They just produce a paper showing the natural cooling that would have occurred without anthropogenic forcing and voila, they we right all along. Oh, wait ….
Had they waited for “at least 17 years” of warming before before Hansen proclaimed the catastrophe of AGW back in the mid/late 80’s? I’d really like to know the answer to this…
No
17 years?
25 years?
Did I really say 30 years? (or drawing on my pension, whichever is sooner…).
The entire way the whole global warming industry tries (and generally succeeds) to deflect scrutiny is EXACTLY what we expect from serial liars. Everyone has had to deal with such liars-lies to support lies, ever more absurd excuses. Like the liars, once scientists are caught up in the lies for funding, they are essentially under obligation to continue the lie until they do not need the funding any more(retirement or death.) Like liars, they have to continue the deception to the bitter end. They know that when the deception is eventually uncovered, the repercussions are severe. For the compliant scientists, it is instant loss of a job and livelihood. The revelations that they are involved with scientific fraud will also mean they will excluded from academia and have to try to find employment elsewhere, which will also be difficult.
Note to the liars- make sure that any predictions with a defined time component are dated to be after you are dead or long retired and deemed too old to be punished. Perhaps this is the reason why all the predictions now are for 2100, when one would assume that the writers of the BS are long gone. Of course, predictions that are for times closer to the present have more sway with the media and the gullible public in general.
Now to work out the strategy to flush the liars out.
“Note to the liars- make sure that any predictions with a defined time component are dated to be after you are dead or long retired and deemed too old to be punished. Perhaps this is the reason why all the predictions now are for 2100”
Ye,s let’s flush those liars out!!
Sir Christopher cracked the climate sensitivity riddle in one weekend:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/09/sensitivity-schmensitivity/
“Frankly, I was suspicious about what that footnote might be hiding. So, since my feet are not yet fit to walk on, I have spent a quiet weekend doing some research.”
“That gives my best estimate of expected anthropogenic global warming from now to 2100: three-quarters of a Celsius degree.”
And he’s trying to seduce us all to do the same thing:
“Your mission, gentle reader, should you choose to accept it, is to let me know in comments your own best estimate of global warming by 2100 compared with the present. The Lord Monckton Foundation will archive your predictions. Our descendants 85 years hence will be able to amuse themselves comparing them with what happened in the real world.”
Yes, let’s flush out those liars!!
What say you Dr. Santer?
He says … I said “at least” …. which infers that it should be longer.
Problem is, the “hiatus” in the satellite data is now about as long as the “Global Warming” period in the data. Global Warming scare quickly reaches the limits of suspension of disbelief.
It was all a Matte painting.
Meaning he didn’t know then and doesn’t know now. He is a self-documenting ignorance machine.