We weren't lying, we were oversimplifying – the Conversation's latest 'dog ate homework' excuse for climate insanity

Eric Worrall writes about “The Conversation” Austalia’s favorite hangout of climate doomers:

As the great unwinding of the more extreme climate alarmist positions gathers momentum, “The Conversation” provides us with a hilarious new excuse for some of the wild claims made by climate scientists over the years. Apparently they weren’t lying or exaggerating, they were “oversimplifying”.

According to The Conversation;

“To exaggerate is human, and scientists are human. Exaggeration and the complementary art of simplification are the basic rhetorical tools of human intercourse. So yes, scientists do exaggerate. … In general, limiting or extreme results come about because a simplified analysis is missing an important feedback or because an intricate model is being “exercised” by simulating an extreme scenario.”


dog-homework[1]So you see, its not the fault of advocate scientist that anyone took their claims of imminent arctic melting, approaching climatic catastrophe, and irreversible tipping points literally. Its our fault, because our feeble intellects were simply incapable of comprehending that they were just talking about worst case scenarios, which they didn’t expect would actually occur.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
October 18, 2014 6:26 am

(But) WE’RE (still) ALL GONNA DIE!!!!!!
“We’re not wrong. It’s just going to take a little longer than we thought. You just wait ’til warming picks up again and look out! We’re all gonna’ fry!”
Some alarmists will never move on.

Reply to  H.R.
October 18, 2014 8:35 am

So ironic that an article excusing bad science is in a magazine where under the mag title banner (in very small print) it says: “Academic Rigour”.
All my college profs would’ve laughed at that…..you have to wonder what happened to an academia where this sort of stuff is not only excused/ignored but even encouraged.

Darren Potter
Reply to  harkin
October 18, 2014 11:17 am

“you have to wonder what happened to an academia where this sort of stuff is not only excused/ignored”
Decades of students attending high schools and colleges; with increasingly Liberal (L) instructors, with some of those students going on to be next generation of increasingly Liberal (L+1) instructors.
Facts, Truth, Logic, and common sense have been replaced by Exaggeration, Spin, Emotions, and what seems good.

Reply to  harkin
October 18, 2014 12:40 pm

I’m afraid not. Like the press, academia invests a great deal of effort promoting itself. The truth is that the “old times good times” meme is not only absurd but backwards. We are where we are because of where we’ve been. The fact is that the academia has always been a minefield of mediocrity and that, in general, things are improving. The current situation simply shows how far we have to go. But, for those of us that have been in the academia for a long, long time, this is nothing new.

Ursus Augustus
Reply to  harkin
October 18, 2014 2:53 pm

In Australia they threw open the doors of academia back in the mid seventies with free tertiary education. They have partly closed them since with a publicly funded loads scheme (HECS). The initial effect has been maintained which was massive expansion of the academic sector, in practical terms the (f)arts and (in)humanities/inanities ( which of course includes climate ‘science’).
So what happens when you throw open the doors? The insects flood in. What happens when you create a perfect environment for fruitbats and bird brains? The gardens and parks are full of them crapping on those below.
I think that pretty much explains The Conversation as an outcome.

Reply to  harkin
October 19, 2014 11:58 am

“We are where we are because of where we’ve been. The fact is that the academia has always been a minefield of mediocrity and that, in general, things are improving.”
I disagree – When I was in school “social justice” was never introduced into the equation and now it’s not only a core ingredient of the humanities but has also polluted the sciences, climate science being one of the best examples.

Reply to  H.R.
October 18, 2014 8:50 am

Yes, we’re all gonna die. It’s one of sure things in life. It’s just a matter of when …

Reply to  SasjaL
October 18, 2014 10:57 am

And how?(!)

Reply to  SasjaL
October 18, 2014 11:03 am

Hopefully by age and not by fictional causes …

Darren Potter
Reply to  SasjaL
October 18, 2014 11:27 am

“And how?(!)”
Foreign Infections comes to mind…
Open border political correctness have brought us EV-D68 (Pollo like disease) and Ebola (possibly related to Medieval Black Death).
Open borders, brought to us by same politic groupies that brought us AGW scam.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  SasjaL
October 18, 2014 8:20 pm

Darren Potter
October 18, 2014 at 11:27 am
“And how?(!)”
Foreign Infections comes to mind…
Open border political correctness have brought us EV-D68 (Pollo like disease)

Chicken-like disease?

Olaf Koenders
Reply to  H.R.
October 18, 2014 3:33 pm

Notice how utterly lazy warmists are getting?
“Climate Change ©®™ is already impacting us today, just look out your window”.
OK then warmists, point it out to me through your famed “window”. Is it that cloud? That wave? That curious moisture rainbow around the Moon on certain nights? That rare Easterly breeze? No? Then what is it? Do you have any proof whatsoever except blatant lies and lazy rhetoric?
Thought not.

Reply to  H.R.
October 18, 2014 4:54 pm

Scientist are human but they are supposed to be practising science which tests as objectively as possible any theory to achieve the Truth. No excuse at all.

Reply to  H.R.
October 18, 2014 10:08 pm

Since science is based on data, for them to admit they “exaggerate” simply means they fudged/falsified/screwed with the data.
And that’s not science–that’s wrong, especially when global policies impacting billions of poor people the most are determined by that data. And now they want to impact all 7 billion of us.
They admitted to being criminal at most and negligent at least.
But bottom line is this–they are NOT scientists. They should be stripped of that title.

Mac the Knife
Reply to  RockyRoad
October 18, 2014 10:43 pm

Spot On!

Reply to  H.R.
October 19, 2014 2:27 pm

…….and when the inevitable warm weather returns for a couple of decades we’ll all hear……….see we were right all along. Then it’ll cool off again and they”ll say……….it’s just going to take a little longer………and when the inevitable warm weather for a couple of decades we’ll all hear……….see we were right all along. Then it’ll cool off again and they”ll say……….
Meanwhile the grants keep flowing by playing both sides against the middle which sensible people call climate.

Ian H
October 18, 2014 6:32 am

If you read the actual papers they did try to pepper them with “woulds” and “coulds” and uncertainties to try to leave themselves some kind of escape. But it was a pretty prefunctory effort; the mainstream media completely ignored that stuff and reported only worst case scenarios; and nobody made any effort to correct the resulting misleading impression. Now that the storm is upon them and it is time to take to the lifeboats I think they are going to find they don’t have nearly enough of them and those that they do have are far too small and not nearly strong enough enough to weather the coming storm.

Uncle Gus
Reply to  Ian H
October 18, 2014 6:59 am

Reminds me (and stay with me here – It is relevant) of Richard Dawkins’ hit book The Selfish Gene. It was actually about how genes are “selfish”, i.e. evolution works to preserve deserving gene complexes, not deserving individuals. However, it came out at the height of the Yuppy era, and lots of guys in red braces and enormous trousers bought the book because they thought it was about the gene for being selfish, which they believed they had and which made them superior to ordinary mortals. They never found out different, because of course they never read it. Just left it laying around as another prop to their image.
Dawkins had plenty of opportunity to correct this popular misconception, and in fact in one or two interviews he touched on it, but in general he was happy to let it ride and let the money keep rolling in. I’ve never really trusted the man ever since.
My point is that this is a common attitude for scientists to take. (Or maybe I should say, those “working in the field of science”. “Scientist” suggests someone who is interested in the truth.) And why not? They are not trained to be saints. They have a living to make.

Doug Huffman
Reply to  Uncle Gus
October 18, 2014 7:04 am

Self appointed/designated scientists are not. Science is a practiced way of thought and not a title or epithet.

Reply to  Ian H
October 18, 2014 10:02 am

If you read the actual papers they did try to pepper them with “woulds” and “coulds”
Anything “could” happen. Why would anyone publish a scientific paper with “could” in the conclusions? Why would it be accepted past peer review? It certainly can’t be called science.
A scientific paper should read “we conclude X with Y error at Z probability”. There is no need for would or could, except when the paper isn’t about science at all.

Reply to  Ian H
October 18, 2014 12:43 pm

If you read far back enough, they only starting using the would’s and could’s once the will’s proved mistaken.

Gerry, England
Reply to  Ian H
October 19, 2014 3:53 am

But they made no effort, or made no attempt, to ensure that the uncertainties were included in the press releases that accompanied the papers. The lame legacy media just reported on the press release and didn’t bother reading the paper.

October 18, 2014 6:33 am


October 18, 2014 6:35 am

Scientists really do tend to oversimplify. They call it a spherical horse.
The problem though is that at the track the Scientific approach is a loser.
Just like when Scientists claim that satellite clocks run slower, proving the Theory of Relativity. They are either ignorant, stupid, condescending, or just plain frauds because the clocks in the satellites run faster because there are two relativity theories. Clocks in the Gravity well run slower. The theory of Relativity is fine, but the purveyors of knowledge are….

John A
Reply to  Genghis
October 18, 2014 10:31 am

Yes, you’re a certified moron. I claim my $10

Reply to  John A
October 18, 2014 12:43 pm

John A,
Would you care to place a $10 bet on it? With the money going to WUWT?

Reply to  John A
October 18, 2014 1:10 pm

To save a little time John A so that Anthony can get your money quicker, refer to http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html

Reply to  Genghis
October 19, 2014 7:47 am

Not even wrong.
Your link completely contradicts your claims.

Reply to  Typhoon
October 19, 2014 7:09 pm

No it doesn’t. There is a valuable lesson here that many people (including me) fall into and that is that as soon as you see what you’re expecting to see or want to see then you stop looking.
In this case, had Typhoon kept reading he would have got the full picture which does agree with Ghengis’ claim.

Reply to  Genghis
October 19, 2014 4:23 pm

“They are either ignorant, stupid, condescending, or just plain frauds because the clocks in the satellites run faster because there are two relativity theories. ”
So if we had one theory they would *not* run faster? What if we had three? Would they run backward at that point?

October 18, 2014 6:35 am

I once tried to read a textbook on sociology. It was full of English like that quote. Amazing really, totally content free …

Mr Green Genes
Reply to  Pointman
October 18, 2014 9:23 am

Pointman – I’d go one step beyond (…).
The words may use the English language, in one form or another. However, I’ve been English all my life (57 years and counting) and I’ve learnt that there is a world of difference between words in the language and actual English. Sociology, like much climatastrology, may be written in what is ostensibly English but …

Reply to  Mr Green Genes
October 19, 2014 12:14 pm

I understand your sentiment well. My first remembrance of similar misconstrued and twisted language started around the mid 1960s in San Francisco. I was making very good progress on my search for comprehension, and the beginning of understanding. Yet all around the SF/Bay Area ‘gurus’ were springing up to {mis}guide the unwary seekers. There was Hubbard with his Scientology. Then EST came along. There was Jim Jones, who became very popular for awhile. Anton La Vey was a satanist who lived on California St just off of Fillmore St. He had 2 lions to aid in drawing thrill seekers, and those who wanted to explore the Dark Side. I had friends who became interested in him. In all cases I was an advocate against all of the above, and spoke to quite a few people advising them to look inside first, and then elsewhere for knowledge. I could make effective arguments. The main concept I promoted was to learn to be your own guide. Learn to seek within yourself, within the bounds of traditional studies from recognized streams of wisdom.
In reading pysch material, I felt somewhat similar to the above. I read Menninger, Freud and others. I could comprehend the points they were making, but I always saw much of their thought stream as being subjective. There were limits to how broadly their conclusions could be applied.

Claude Harvey
October 18, 2014 6:36 am

This is a fine example of “snake logic” which goes as follows:
“You cannot blame the snake for being a snake. I’m a snake. I bit you. Get over it!”

Doug Huffman
October 18, 2014 6:37 am

For years I have used Phys.org.com as my ‘science-ish’ news accumulator (that’s the name of its bookmark), but lately they have gone over to the Scientific American side with da’ Convo and similar self-righteous blogs. Like the old farmer said to his horse (or wife, depending), “That’s two!”

Reply to  Doug Huffman
October 18, 2014 9:58 am

Agreed, the religion is strong there.

Reply to  Doug Huffman
October 18, 2014 1:52 pm

It was to the horse. The new wife got the hint and it didn’t go past “one” with her.
SciAm, despite some still-good anthologies, was at “three” for me a long time ago.

Doug and/or Dinsdale Piranha
October 18, 2014 6:37 am

This is pure GOLD, from the article. (I clicked, so you don’t have to)
“A more pertinent question is: does the way in which scientists and politicians speak publicly lead to wild exaggeration? When both are engaged in advocacy, there is little difference; both politicians and scientists will use whatever rhetorical devices they have to win an argument.”
But scientists ARE politicians when they engage in “advocacy”. Got it.
Advocacy scientists need a new label: maybe “Lying scumbag hypocrites”.
Too harsh?

Reply to  Doug and/or Dinsdale Piranha
October 18, 2014 6:46 am

“Lying scumbags” should be enough. There is no hypocrisy involved in lying through exaggeration.

Reply to  JimS
October 18, 2014 12:47 pm

Exaggeration, being shown to be wrong via observations, over-use of caveats (might, could, may) flat out lying is what many sceptics have accused them of over the years. See some scientific and political quotes here.
Arctic death spiral, the oceans will end up the the atmosphere, runaway warming Venus style, if Antarctica all melted……..if Greenland ice cap all melted…..each and every one of these was an example of the double ethical bind as stated by the late Dr. Stephen H. Schneider.

A correction on Lomborg and Schneider’s quotation
By John Rennie Posted: August 13, 2013
It’s long been my contention that no matter how much the Earth’s climate warms, butter will never melt in the mouth of Bjorn Lomborg………..

[Dr. Stephen H. Schneider – 1989]
“On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but—which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.”

Schneider’s belief, you can see, is that scientists need to try to be both accurate and effective……….
a href=”http://blogs.plos.org/retort/2013/08/13/a-correction-on-lomborg-and-schneiders-quotation/

Why not just tell the truth and forget the bit about being human beings????? It is not up to scientists to play the role of advocates or to dishonestly attempt to influence policy. As the Tsunami of exaggeration goes into retreat many scientists will rue the day they went along with this kind of advice from Schneider.
Schneider, better than anyone else, should have learned his lesson on this. Let me illustrate the issue about making “simplified, dramatic statements.”

Reply to  JimS
October 18, 2014 2:40 pm

Schneider fooled a lot of people, but first he fooled himself.

Reply to  JimS
October 19, 2014 6:13 pm

The hypocrisy comes in when those that advocate that government force us to live poor and stay put through punitive costs of living resulting from energy sourcing mandates or regulations to kill certain lower cost sectors, taxes, or outright travel restrictions, on account of our “carbon footprints” jet off to Bali, and Davos, and other choice destinations often using funds derived from taxes and otherwise enjoy all the fruits of a high-end lifestyle.

Reply to  Doug and/or Dinsdale Piranha
October 18, 2014 8:56 am

“Too harsh?”
Too mild by a long chalk

Eugene S. Conlin
Reply to  Doug and/or Dinsdale Piranha
October 18, 2014 8:58 am

Methinks you should get off the fence and say what you really mean ;¬)

Reply to  Doug and/or Dinsdale Piranha
October 18, 2014 10:10 am

And voting or otherwise supporting any of the two main platforms is like a chicken voting for Don Tyson and Colonel Sanders.

Darren Potter
Reply to  uıʇɹɐɯ pɹɐʍpE
October 18, 2014 11:31 am

Now, now. One is skinless & Grilled and other is breaded & Fried. Big difference. /sarc

Reply to  uıʇɹɐɯ pɹɐʍpE
October 18, 2014 4:25 pm

Darren, ya forgot to pluck that bird first.comment image

Reply to  Doug and/or Dinsdale Piranha
October 18, 2014 11:05 am

Sounds about right.
Let’s ask Mark Steyn.

Darren Potter
Reply to  mikerestin
October 18, 2014 11:37 am

Let’s ask the Mann about his Nobel Peace Prize
Let’s ask the Mann about his Hockey Stick chart
Let’s ask the Mann about his “hide the Decline”
Let’s ask the Mann about his “most influential tree in the world”
Let’s ask the Mann about his “work”

Reply to  mikerestin
October 18, 2014 11:42 am

No, no.
Let us ask Mann WHO were the two proof-reader/pal-reviewing/patters-on-the-back who decided his many papers – and one tree in the Yamal wilderness – that created the Hockey Stick were correct.

October 18, 2014 6:42 am

“So yes, scientists do exaggerate.” Really? My high school chemistry teacher wouldn’t have let me get away with that excuse.
They used models that they just knew were accurate. Because science.
When the models didn’t work they fudged/massaged/smoothed the data.
When that didn’t work they insisted the models just needed more time.
When that didn’t work they’re trying this load of, well, you know what I mean.
Why can’t they just admit the models don’t work? Never mind, I already know the answer…

Pamela Gray
October 18, 2014 6:50 am

In reality, there will be no consequences for these chicken littles. These scientists, with their new fangled way of analyzing data and presenting graphs will be unscathed all due to buck passing. Even better, because this was an international effort, each country gets to pass the buck across the boarder. This will not end up with license to practice revocations, as it was over the vaccine scare, originating in one individual with a charismatic style (and he does indeed have one). He also over simplified plus over reacted, and called out an alarm that the media picked up on and that bled all over front page news reports. Turns out his findings were in need of replication but he let the horse out of the barn too soon (thinking he was doing what was best to possibly have a positive impact on a potentially devastating disorder).
Safety is in numbers and the number of climate warnings out in left field from a cadre of international scientists will unfortunately actually serve to protect them. It is the swarming group of arm chair amateurs like us who will feel the brunt of this, as we go to our graves forever jaded in our now broken beyond repair idealized vision of what science is, or should be. As for me, my only recourse is the vote. Which I will use with fury for sure.

Reply to  Pamela Gray
October 18, 2014 7:59 am

Early and often I hope!!!

Reply to  Pamela Gray
October 18, 2014 11:41 am

In my state voting for who you want was/is not possible for me. A ballot with the circles you fill in with a pencil. I asked for a write-in ballot, she said, “This is all they sent us, you can write in on it but the machine won’t count it.”comment image

R. Shearer
Reply to  uıʇɹɐɯ pɹɐʍpE
October 18, 2014 12:28 pm

People with Dyslexia might check the wrong box.

Reply to  uıʇɹɐɯ pɹɐʍpE
October 18, 2014 2:23 pm

You have a brain-dead meme.

Reply to  uıʇɹɐɯ pɹɐʍpE
October 18, 2014 3:08 pm

If requiring an ID to exercise the Constutionally protected right to vote an undue burden, then wouldn’t it also be an undue burden to have to jump through hoops, get a permit, carry a license AND an ID to exercise your Constitutionally protected right to bear arms?

Reply to  uıʇɹɐɯ pɹɐʍpE
October 18, 2014 10:13 pm

Are we supposed to trust the comments of an inverted name?
No thanks.

Reply to  Pamela Gray
October 18, 2014 4:18 pm

You must be brain dead to vote for either of those parties, you’re voting against your own best interests.

Reply to  uıʇɹɐɯ pɹɐʍpE
October 18, 2014 5:29 pm

Please do not tell me my best interests.

Reply to  uıʇɹɐɯ pɹɐʍpE
October 18, 2014 7:00 pm

Do you mind if I call you nitram prempE? I’m too lazy to tilt my monitor.

Mac the Knife
Reply to  uıʇɹɐɯ pɹɐʍpE
October 18, 2014 11:17 pm

Ahhhh, you found me out.
Brain dead…. with 2 engineering degrees, while hiring and mentoring 2 teams of engineers and technicians, bringing new technologies into my company, publishing the occasional paper, and generously supporting my favorite charities, causes, and candidates.
I’m pushing 60 and I have to show a photo ID to get healthcare, buy beer/wine/liquor, pick up packages at the post office, UPS, Fed-X offices, or get into the DemocRAT convention.
Given that, what’s your point? Is it ‘racism’, when we are asked to provide photo ID for those services?
I have a dream, that one day the right to vote will be as rigorously validated as the right to buy a beer. Ihave a dream…..

Reply to  uıʇɹɐɯ pɹɐʍpE
October 19, 2014 12:25 pm

@ Mac…great answer!

October 18, 2014 6:51 am

Religon = Alarmism = Money

Reply to  Monroe
October 18, 2014 7:30 am

Simplifying rhetoric. Where have I seen that before?

Reply to  Markon
October 18, 2014 7:57 am

On the internet.

Sun Spot
Reply to  Monroe
October 18, 2014 10:15 am

Science/Truthiness + Alarmism + Government = research/Money/grant
Don’t sully religion with the fingerprint of cAGW faith

John A
Reply to  Sun Spot
October 18, 2014 10:33 am

Nope. Sully religion by quoting religion at length. That’s why the Internet is where religions come to die.

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  Sun Spot
October 18, 2014 10:58 am

Usually attacks on religion are made by blaming the religion for the behaviour of those who claim to be its followers. It has a nice ring of truthiness. It used to be known as guilt by association and is used in a prejudice-building process called ‘othering’. The new and equally vile version is guilt by membership. They think it sounds truthier.
“Are you now or have you ever been a member of a climate science fraud investigation panel…?”
Obviously a nutter.
/sarc for those who still don’t get it

Reply to  Sun Spot
October 18, 2014 12:12 pm

John A, it is worth bearing steadily in mind that the biggest slaughter in history, 100 million plus billions enslaved, was caused by explicitly and adamantly atheistic state socialism.
Modern leftism/environmentalism is a competing moral ideology that has many of the characteristics of a religion, and what a lethal one it is.

Reply to  Sun Spot
October 18, 2014 1:58 pm

John A
Is the internet the cure for Islamofascism?

Reply to  Sun Spot
October 18, 2014 7:03 pm

John A
October 18, 2014 at 10:33 am
“Nope. Sully religion by quoting religion at length. That’s why the Internet is where religions come to die.”
Hehe. Good Luck with that. I never had better access to all Bible translations.

October 18, 2014 7:03 am

“Never murder a man bent on suicide…” Woodrow Wilson. As these snakes eat their tails, there will be time and moments. Patience mes amis.

Reply to  Geoff Gubb
October 18, 2014 2:44 pm

Sorry, the US and the Brits could not just wait for the kamikazes to hit their carriers. The allies shot them down, hit their airfields, and devastated their infrastructure.
As the one vulture said to the other “Patience my a$$, I’m going to kill something.”

Mike Bromley the Kurd
October 18, 2014 7:04 am

Meanwhile, Obama marches on, kissing and hugging nurses that had ebola exposure. Neat, huh?

Reply to  Mike Bromley the Kurd
October 18, 2014 8:11 am

Clever dude that Obama. Many people think that is what he said, and the news media helps heim get away with giving that impression. But what he actually did was hug nurses at the CDC before there were any ebola patients there.

John A
Reply to  Mike Bromley the Kurd
October 18, 2014 10:55 am

Meaning what, exactly? There appears to be a concerted effort on this blog by fake commenters on this blog to be the first to mention President Obama. Failed computer models? Obama. Ebola epidemic? Obama.
Give it a rest. Yes, we know you don’t like Obama.

Reply to  John A
October 18, 2014 1:59 pm

For a lot of reasons.

Reply to  John A
October 18, 2014 10:16 pm

How are they fake, John? Have you researched everybody that’s been critical of Obama?
How do you do that–or you just figure anybody that criticizes him is a racist/idiot/moron/etc./etc.?
Talk about confirmation bias.

Mac the Knife
Reply to  John A
October 18, 2014 11:28 pm

Meaning fakes like you are still trying to defend the indefensible.
Give it a rest.

Michael 2
Reply to  John A
October 19, 2014 3:38 pm

“we know you don’t like Obama.”
We? How many of you are in there?

October 18, 2014 7:06 am

1000 words when 50 would have sufficed. Just like the sophistry of SkS tree hutters when confronted with an unpleasant reality.

David Ramsay Steele
October 18, 2014 7:14 am

It’s unfair to Dawkins to say that “in general he was happy to let it ride”. He explained the metaphorical nature of “selfish gene” until he was blue in the face, not once or twice, or occasionally, but dozens of time and almost every time he had the opportunity. And, of course, he had explained this very clearly in the book itself (a terrific book by the way, which many purchasers did indeed read all the way through because it was so well written). Furthermore, I would say that a high proportion of people who got involved in discussions about the book did clearly understand this point. I don’t think this is at all comparable to climate catastrophism; you can easily find numerous explicit quotes from catastrophists which do predict a climate holocaust. For many of them, it’s not that they failed to point out the unlikely nature of their predictions; it’s that they explicitly denied this. And many of them are still doing it.

October 18, 2014 7:20 am

take Al Gore- the interior of the earth is millions of degrees.

Reply to  richard
October 18, 2014 7:58 am

Degrees, millikelvins, what’s in a name?

Tom in Florida
Reply to  richard
October 18, 2014 10:32 am

take Al Gore ……. Please!

Reply to  richard
October 18, 2014 1:39 pm

“I believe it is appropriate to have an ‘over-representation’ of the facts on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience.”
Al Gore, Club of Rome

Reply to  Jimbo
October 18, 2014 2:47 pm

You mean Gore was saying he liked to use lots of Vaseline.

Jim Watson
October 18, 2014 7:21 am

Unfortunately, this “exaggeration” has diverted TRILLIONS of dollars over the past two decades from mostly well-meaning people and channeled it into dealing with a colossal fairy tale.
What if the world had instead mustered together to find a cure for Ebola or ALS or earthquake retrofitting buildings in Haiti or developing clean drinking water systems for villages in Africa and Latin America or any other number of causes that are, in fact, of genuine concern?

Reply to  Jim Watson
October 18, 2014 10:21 am

Exactly! If wasting tax dollars is the new wave, then spend them on infrastructure that has a positive result for the communities who will benefit and spend those dollars on fixing health rather than patching/masking it with the ills of pills.

October 18, 2014 7:26 am

In general, limiting or extreme results come about because a simplified analysis is missing an important feedback or because an intricate model is being “exercised” by simulating an extreme scenario.

Someone should pass this information on to all of the “scientific” researchers who use these “exercises” to show that all of the various species will disappear within the next umpteen years or that the billions of climate “refugees” will be fighting over the last remnants of food . The “simplified analysis missing an important feedback” forms the sole basis for any credibility of their results.

October 18, 2014 7:32 am

[On this site, do not post a video link without an introduction or description of that video. .mod]

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Admad
October 18, 2014 10:42 am

The first half of the projection isn’t correct either. They had the benefit of being able to revise their earlier stuff as the temperature unfolded.

Reply to  Gary Pearse
October 18, 2014 1:42 pm

And they will continue to do this so it does not look ‘worse than we thought!’ Their unfolding failures had been predicted over the years. Brooker of the the Telegraph said (I paraphrase) “Sceptics have two things on our side, time and the weather.”

Bruce Cobb
October 18, 2014 7:35 am

Ah, so it’s not “the science” that’s wrong, it’s more to do with a failure to communicate “the science” which causes problems. Got it.

Mike Maguire
October 18, 2014 7:44 am

Is it too much to ask our scientists to apply the “scientific method” vs the response above: “To exaggerate is human, and scientists are human”
“The chief characteristic which distinguishes the scientific method from other methods of acquiring knowledge is that scientists seek to let reality speak for itself, supporting a theory when a theory’s predictions are confirmed and challenging a theory when its predictions prove false”
OK, so scientists are human but what they presented to us was not authentic science then was it.
Part of reconciling previous actions/statements with reality/truth that was wrong requires other human traits………integrity, humility and honesty.
So clearly, (climate)scientists not only exaggerate but they also lack integrity, humility and honesty.

October 18, 2014 7:45 am

Exaggerating and simplifying when shooting the bull around the water cooler over who the best pitcher is in the Major leagues is fine. Scientists need to keep their exaggerating and simplifying to water cooler discussion on sports or movies as well.
But Climate Science let the horse out of the barn and they took political power, political advocacy, 15 minutes of fame and grant and book money and left science way behind way long ago.
Trying to walk it back with this kind of statement of “being human” is disconcerting. Yes, being dishonest and unfaithful (to professional ethics) is a “human thing”, it also inexcusable.

Reply to  Alx
October 18, 2014 12:38 pm

And let’s not forget how anyone who suggested that the exaggerated results were exaggerated were berated and labeled as anti-science and worse.
Will they now issue an apology to everyone they labeled for pointing out what they’re now admitting to?

October 18, 2014 8:02 am

Only slightly off topic…do you think this guy is being paid by the click or has he truly drank the Kool-Aid??

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  foryourtablellc
October 18, 2014 9:59 am

When Paul F. is explaining the issues of investing in certificates of deposit (CDs) he doesn’t do too badly. Regarding Earth’s dynamic systems, especially atmosphere and oceans, he is a kook.

Reply to  John F. Hultquist
October 18, 2014 2:49 pm

Rex Nutting too.

Reply to  John F. Hultquist
October 18, 2014 10:03 pm

Agree re both Farrell and nutting. Both unqualified in the GW debate.and ravers to boot.

October 18, 2014 8:03 am

That’s the fault of the media/broadcasters who transmit the views of scientists in a distorting manner.
It’s the fault of Governments continuing to fund based on worst-case scenarios rather than most likely scenarios.
It’s the fault of ‘scientific journals’ publishing extremely distorting headlines and discussion using ‘code’.
Appropriate reporting is telling it straight.
Thing is, media are drugs like heroin, football and alcohol. It’s all about getting people addicted and making them come back for me. Making them emotionally unhealthy promotes that.

October 18, 2014 8:25 am

Climate scientist is an oxymoron like jumbo shrimp or expert novice or over simplification.
Sorry your poorest on the planet can’t have cheap available power but you were too stupid to know we were exaggerating even though when you called us on it we said we wished we could jail you. Yeah it’s your fault.

Steve Oregon
October 18, 2014 8:26 am

I think there were some typos so I fixed them:
“To lie is human, and scientists are human. Falsehoods and the mendacity of public deceit are the basic rhetorical tools of human self interest. So yes, scientists do mislead… In general, fabricated findings come about because honest analysis alone cannot produce the desired results. If the science is missing important evidence the climate models must be exercised to produce extreme scenarios.”
Or they could have said:
“Ok, so were fibbed little. Is that so horrible?
“Yes we have lied but our quality of dishonesty was robust”.
“Is it really lying if all of us and our friends think it is OK to do so?”
“Can we all just move on?”
“Yeah but what about all that other stuff we said that was sorta true?”
“Don’t listen to Watts, he’s been debunked by Wotts?

Reply to  Steve Oregon
October 18, 2014 7:07 pm

“It’s not a lie if you believe it!”

Reply to  DirkH
October 18, 2014 10:17 pm

Of course a tree makes a noise when it falls even if there’s nobody there to hear it.

October 18, 2014 8:27 am

I do hope, though, that claims of scientific exaggeration are seen for what they are: advocacy targeted not just at winning the rhetorical argument but also aimed, rather cynically, at undermining the evidence.
Translation: Scientists lie to the public, but if you call them on it then that’s just a cynical ploy on your part.

Sweet Old Bob
October 18, 2014 8:48 am

Most alarmists are still drinking the Koolaid.They are victims of date rape , but do not realize it because they are still under its influence .
Waking up will be painfull ….

October 18, 2014 8:54 am

Computer models have shown us that flying pigs exist …

October 18, 2014 8:57 am

In Rob MacKenzie’s post ‘Climate change: it’s only human to exaggerate, but science itself does not’ at ‘The Conversation’ blog concludes with this paragraph,
“I do hope, though, that claims of scientific exaggeration are seen for what they are: advocacy targeted not just at winning the rhetorical argument but also aimed, rather cynically, at undermining the evidence.”
For the source of the climate exaggeration, Rob MacKenzie points his finger at everyone other than the climate focused scientists who have been doing the climate focused research. MacKenzie cannot regain modern culture’s lost trust in climate focused science by that strategy; he makes it worse because he makes it appear that science is not self-correcting.
There is exaggeration in the climate science research itself. For evidence of it, one only need to be a part time student of the history of the IPCC processes that gave us the WG1 reports for every one of the five assessment reports.
MacKenzie has artlessly attempted to mislead us by his exaggeration of a false situation when he diverted the responsibility for climate science exaggeration away from climate scientist’s work product.
He should drop the unbelievable strategy that it was somebody else, outside of the community of climate focused scientists, who did the climate focused science exaggeration. He should adopt a more realistic strategy which says that, in exaggerating their climate science research findings, the climate focused scientists were just doing what the IPCC centric type of science needed them to do.

G. Karst
October 18, 2014 9:13 am

Put lipstick on this pig all you want. It is merely more of the end justifying the means. When the end is “saving the planet and our great grandchildren”, then lying and exaggeration is completely justifiable. Millions usually die when such “noble cause” thinking becomes institutionalized and further excused. May gaia save us from such evil. GK

Steve Keohane
October 18, 2014 9:17 am

“They’ll never believe I ate your homework.” because they don’t know I’m a coprophiliac.

Frank K.
October 18, 2014 9:29 am

“Exaggeration and the complementary art of simplification are the basic rhetorical tools of human intercourse. ”
Hey…I thought tools of human intercourse were…well, you know…aww, never mind! 😉

October 18, 2014 9:37 am

What it the different between an exaggeration and a lie? All exaggerations are lies, but not all lies are exaggerations.

Reply to  ferdberple
October 18, 2014 10:37 am

Exaggerating the size of the fish catch is comical amongst friends. The difference is cheating a tax paying society out of billions of dollars with fraudulent science as a means to pad their self interest. A harmless lie about fishing vs a harmful lie that has a global impact on economies and the quality of life. Then blow it off as being human.
In the 1950’s through 1960’s there was a civil defense action to prepare the U.S for a possible nuclear attack. I viewed it as being legitimate. Now we have the CAGW crowd extracting billions and billions of dollars on a false and exaggerated scientific based lie.

Col Klink
October 18, 2014 10:03 am

During the 1950’s, monster movies and sci fi flicks invariably chose atomic power as the cause of all those
monster mutants, powered rocket ships, natural disasters that weren’t really natural, rocket pistols, you name it. Today’s Climate Deniers (those who claim non-existant warming) have latched onto carbon emissions as their go-to evil substance, which they need to defeat, not with Honest John rockets like those used on Universal’s back lot, but with verbal activision, do-able from your couch or recliner. Ahhh, the good old days, when a little sweat was required to save the planet.

October 18, 2014 10:05 am

And now for something completely different. “This parrot isn’t dead, it’s … resting.”

Michael D
October 18, 2014 10:35 am

Hmm, somehow by the time I had completed my PhD in theoretical physics I had been indoctrinated with the necessity of carefully avoiding exaggeration.

October 18, 2014 10:49 am

Funny how the simplified analysis is always missing the negative feedbacks…

October 18, 2014 11:00 am

Before us “deniers” get too much on our high-horse about the warmists’ brazen-hypocrite, agit-prop excesses, we need to be sure “our own house” is clean. And, in that regard, I feel ethically bound to draw attention to the egregious mischaracterization of warmist anatomy that appears in the “Bishop Hill” blog’s otherwise astute, Oct 18 blog post, “Dogs that didn’t bark”.
In particular, the blog-post author grossly mischaracterizes the reaction of warmists, to a GWPF lecture given by Owen Patterson, as the “green blob…stamping its feet a great deal…”, with the suggestion that that activity is a “green blob” show of impatience or something of that sort.
Certainly, we have every right to expect a more scientific accuracy in the blog-posts of a distinguished and prestigious blog like “Bishop Hill”, than seen above. In particular, the canard that the “green blob” “stamps it feet” has long been discredited among thinking people. Rather, the simple truth of the matter is that the so-called “stamping feet”, referred to in the “Bishop HIll” post, are actually the “green blob’s” aptly-named, “jack-boot” cilia, marvelously adapted to stamping on a human face forever, deployed in a threat display.
We can’t afford to have it said that us “deniers” are willing to criticize the “green blob”, but not one of our own.

Michael 2
Reply to  mike
October 19, 2014 3:46 pm

“we need to be sure our own house is clean”
There is no “we”. It appears you are wearing false colors.
You have a house and it is your responsibility to see that it is clean, just as my responsibility is to see that my house is clean. Skeptics are not a group. It is uncertain that we’d get along in person.
There is no “us deniers” either. What (if anything) you “deny” is your choice and quite likely different than what I deny, since I deny very little other than exaggerated claims. Reasonable claims are still on the table; maybe waiting for a bit more evidence before I spend more of your money you don’t have.

Reply to  Michael 2
October 20, 2014 12:04 am

Michael 2,
Coup d’oeil time!!! I’m gonna go out on a limb here and wildly guess that I’m dealing with a “willard”/Lewandowsky wannabe, hive-tyro, brainwashed, post-graduate dumb-kid tryin’ to make a name for himself.
You say, Michael 2, ol’ sport, “…it’s uncertain we’d get along in person”. On the contrary, Michael 2, there’s not the least “uncertainty” about it–we’d most certainly not “get along” ‘cuz I’ve not the slightest interest in being your “buddy-buddy” (the HORROR!!!). What a presumptuous little, zit-impared creep-out you are, Michael 2! But if you’re desperately looking for “a friend”, and apparently you are, I recommend you try the Deltoid blog–I’m sure the ‘toids would just “luv” your little act.
A curious gaffe-booger, your last, Michael 2 (gaffe: an impolitic, maladroit, loose-canon truth, uttered by some doofus, totally clueless, expendable good-comrade that is in gulag-worthy mis-alignment with the hive’s party-line, “Big-Lie” orthodoxy), “Reasonable claims are still on the table, maybe waiting for a bit more evidence before I spend more money you don’t have.” Speaks for itself, right, Michael 2?
C’mon hive-bozos! Quit flickin’ your Rorschach, hot-button provocation-zingers my way, hopin’ for an opening, will yah?–that’s my schtick.

Darren Potter
October 18, 2014 11:03 am

“because our feeble intellects were simply incapable of comprehending that they were just talking about worst case scenarios”
The ones with feeble intellects are those who are incapable of explaining a complex subject to a lay person. How many times do we see people with superior intellects needless using complex terms, ie: AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming), when a perfectly well known term will do ie: Humans would suffice?

Frederick Michael
October 18, 2014 11:06 am

The right response is, “You make my point.”
If exaggerations aren’t science, then …

October 18, 2014 11:09 am

So a scientist can get away with saying 2+2 = 5 nowadays. With exaggeration as an excuse.
We’re doomed.

Reply to  Scarface
October 18, 2014 6:27 pm

For large values of 2, this is true! (See, you must add in some weasel words to make your point.)

Reply to  noaaprogrammer
October 19, 2014 3:24 am

Large values… how could I forget
I stand corrected. Long live AGW 🙂

old construction worker
October 18, 2014 11:10 am

“These models of reality………”
What the……..? Climate Models based on reality. How that’s funny.

October 18, 2014 11:17 am

So you see, its not the fault of advocate scientists … Its our fault, because our feeble intellects were simply incapable of comprehending that they were just talking about worst case scenarios, which they didn’t expect would actually occur.

That’s falsifiable on its face. How many people have lost their jobs for not buying into the hype? How about George Taylor, the state climatologist of Oregon who was fired for saying he didn’t believe humans were responsible for “climate change”? He also lost his job at Oregon State University for the same reason. David Legates in Delaware was asked to step down from the same office for the same reason. And there was Patrick Michaels in Virginia forced out for the same reason.
Not only did these people promulgate impossible “worst case scenarios”, they actively went after the heads of anyone who defied these views. Anyone who dared to state publicly that they had doubts that humans were changing the climate of the planet was ousted. Why? Cash and control. If these people can make the rank and file believe that humans are causing a climate disaster, they can then leverage that fear to extract cash from those people and exercise more control over energy — and when you control energy, you control the entire economy.
Anyone who causes even the slightest doubt on their grab for cash and control must be treated ruthlessly. They have even gone so far as calling for imprisonment. These climate hucksters aren’t just wrong, they are evil.

October 18, 2014 11:35 am

Admitting to exaggeration insults your loyal followers who were convinced, in part, by your professions of honesty and other high moral behaviour. As soon as an MSM gets a high-level CAGW alarmist to admit that hyperbole has been part of the Group to achieve a Nobel Goal, the emphasis shifts to the Nobel Goal. Not a good place to go.
The New York and Californian marches of September 2014 were noticeable for their anit-capitalist, anti-individualis, political, economic and ideological back-story. The MSM may not have spoken about it, but was surely aware of it. The more Oreskes speaks about China being the role model for both governmental authority and control of the indiviudal, all those who want to live their lives to the best of their abilities, and outside intusion by forces who do not represent their interests, thr more the eco-green will alarm their former supporters. Is George Soros really going to say he thinks Oreskes is bang-on, that the Chinese Polituburo should be handed the keys to the homes, jobs and lives of the United States? Retorical question, of course.
There are so many excuses offered for the Pause that the only one to solve the conundrum for the Gore-Greenpeace-Suzuki cabal is that their words (and films) were purposeful and honest as a means to “raise consciousness” and make a Good Thing happen. Their admission would be that the certainty was reall, in the Ideilogical sense, but a little “early” in a technical sense. They still stand behind the direction and importance of their non-fossil fuel future, but agree the time element was a tad too small. But by doing that they revert to the clear ideological slant, and undermine the need to make great socio-politico-economic changes – at least in the near-term. Which is where all the spending is supposed to be done. Which allows nothing to be done while allowing them to save face.
Which, interestingly enough, appears to have happened/will happen at the Paris Feel-Good Conference in the coming week: a consensus that all will agree to submitting Plans,, but without a reall timeframe for those plans to be finalized or perceived as a committment, and with a clause that says any Plans do not means that anyone is tied to a timetable to put the Plans in place, or even be be accountable for not putting the Plan in place.
When Face is being saved, progress is at a glacial pace.

Bill Parsons
October 18, 2014 11:40 am

Well, since you mention it… dogs ARE eating more homework these days, according to the models. Proof of warming!

Harry Passfield
October 18, 2014 12:16 pm

From the Conversation: “Exaggeration and the complementary art of simplification are the basic rhetorical tools of human intercourse.” Nope, not rhetorical tools. What it is, is the Conversation seeks to F* with us,
Now we know they are are on the run: running scared. The ‘Doomers’ are seeing the end of their world. They see the risk of running out of other people’s money, which funds their life-style. In a generation to come history will show our grandchildren how much they were conned by those who could should have known better. Today’s scientists shall enjoy a bitter harvest.

Harry Passfield
October 18, 2014 12:31 pm

Sorry to do a frequent post, but something I read up thread got me thinking: What would you ask Mann?
So, I got to thinking, what about ‘Desert Island Discs’ – a long-running radio programme on BBC where the guest chooses eight records to take to a desert island (duh).
Well, I figure It would be good to have something like eight questions to ask of ‘climate scientists’ (under oath) about their work, and how they see it in truth – assuming they had to take them to a climate-changed world based on their predictions.
Of course, the ‘luxury item and book’ they would be allowed to take would have to be – perhaps – a thermometer and Montford’s ‘The Hockey-Stick Illusion’.

October 18, 2014 12:49 pm

The Conversation, Just one of the Australian academic framework devices to derail dissent delete and mock a comfortable edifice to protect the propaganda from honest and earnest inspection. That academia could even think of erecting such an impediment to science says a lot about Australian Academia and even more about those that tolerate these insidious individuals who seek to control and manipulate. A one sided conversation of an authority structure. I know this because I was one that had to endure the product of their deception, along with many fine scientists who have tried to present real science to the Australian people.
I see these protective barriers put in place to enable closed minds within those organisations to create and maintain propaganda to deal with those who question their authority, A snide vehicle to promote themselves and then be quoted as an academic authority in itself and maintain the frame of respectability and purity of academia and now the rotting flesh is being exposed, to excuse themselves for their part.
The more exposure of their insidious intent the better for all, a scourge that has afflicted all of the Australian Academic institutions. They need to be exposed as now they are becoming a vehicle for the perpetrators to appeal to the public for donations to maintain things like the Climate Council, so those that had automatic prime place at the Taxpayer trough, can now milk the public pocket for their greater good.
They had their day, now time to get rid of the dirty laundry of academia, it stinks!.

Reply to  KenB
October 18, 2014 9:27 pm

I think its just a funding thing. If they can get more grants for spreading more bull, more bull will be spread. We need to develop a formula for paying them for the more truth that emanates.

October 18, 2014 1:00 pm

“they were just talking about worst case scenarios”
I love how the IPCC scenario “C” was the “business as usual” scenario, but now they make their comparisons to scenario “B” as most likely, as if there is a scenario more likely than business as usual.
It makes about as much sense as those who argue proxy truncation is fine because the correspondence is perfect where you don’t know what it is, even though it is clearly awful where you do know what it is.

michael hart
October 18, 2014 2:01 pm

Key points for policy makers:
1) You can’t know the future with certainty.
2) Some funding choices will prove good, others bad.
3) Try to fund things which don’t take a long time to be proven wrong-headed.
4) A dreadful mistake is one that lingers on for decades.

Christopher Hanley
October 18, 2014 2:21 pm

The entire crumbling edifice is built on the unverifiable and unfalsifiable conjecture that “… most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations …”.
The rest is puffery exploiting the boredom of the First World.
As in Cavafy’s poem Waiting for the Barbarians …
… some people have come in from the frontier
and say that there aren’t any more barbarians.
What are we going to do now without the barbarians?
In a way, those people were a solution.

October 18, 2014 2:32 pm

So they’re off the hook, then. Along with Adolf and Hermann and Josef, who also “exaggerated.” It’s the human thing to do.

NZ Willy
October 18, 2014 2:56 pm

I like that: “doomers”. Isn’t that a balanced retort to “deniers”? I think we come out ahead on that.

October 18, 2014 3:03 pm

So they want us to extend the credibility we give to politicians to climate scientists as well.

High Treason
October 18, 2014 3:33 pm

The whole basis for carbon taxes, bird munchers, hideously expensive geo-engineering, abandonment of fossil fuels etc is all based on the chain of exaggeration. “Oh this is terrible” then leads to the “need” to labour the point, so more exaggeration. “Oh, this is terrible” more exaggeration and so on. Eventually, the exaggerations are a shell surrounding an original half-truth, which in this case is shrinking with time as the models and reality diverge. The article pretty well admits that the whole cAGW scene is based on exaggeration. Anyone with half a brain would then realize that all the radical calls for action are simply not warranted. The “just in case” excuse with its radical calls for action mean humanity will suffer the “losses” incurred by the action(eg money wasted which could have been used for things like alleviating world hunger or fresh drinking water in the third world.)
On 13th January 2014 ,IPCC chief, Christiana Figueres stated in the Guardian that Democracy is a poor political system for fighting global warming. Chinese Communism is the best model. Just think, if she had her way, the world would be under the iron fist of world totalitarianism To think this would have been totally unnecessary in terms of climate effect but with the total loss of freedom as a side-effect. Not a good idea at all.

October 18, 2014 4:09 pm

Liars readily admit to Exaggeration and Simplification. Why not?
Thieves only borrow, Liars only exaggerate.

October 18, 2014 4:18 pm

The following is an interesting look at the situation.

Scientific studies have shown that atmospheric Carbon Dioxide in past eras reached concentrations that were 20 times higher than the current concentration. Recent investigations have shown that the current change of climate is part of a larger cycle known as climatic lowstand phase which precedes a sequential warming period known as transgression phase. The purpose of this evaluation is to demonstrate that the Earth is actually cooling, in the context of the total geological timescale, and that the current change is equivalent to a serial climate phase known as lowstand.
In the last 20 years, public interest in climate phenomena has grown, especially since the UN-IPCC began its campaign warning of catastrophic climate changes ahead. At Biology Cabinet, we maintain that the changes that we have observed since 1985 have been natural and that human beings cannot delay or stop the advance of these changes, but can only adapt to them. In addition, we have shown that the changes that we observe at present are the result of natural cycles which have occurred many times before. …

I have maintained for decades that humans had precious little impact on the total climate and that the whole climate engine was far bigger than mankind. CO2 is, at best, a bit player of marginal import.
We can not even discount the possibility that the earth has had large impacts in the past that may have done tremendous damage and caused gigantic changes in the climate. Some even reckon that something may have ripped part of the earth’s and all of the moon’s atmosphere away in a large impact or near encounter in the past. Do I believe that? I do believe it is possible that the uniformitarianism view is fatally flawed.
One thing I know for darn sure: the present knowledge of our climate history and its causes matches a puppies understanding of nuclear physics. (and that is no insult to puppies)

October 18, 2014 4:20 pm

Mods. Can you tell me what word in my last post got it stuck in moderation? For the life of me I can’t see it. The worst I said was “darn”.

Reply to  markstoval
October 19, 2014 2:31 am

Testing: “transgression”

Reply to  rogerknights
October 19, 2014 2:32 am

Nope–that word wasn’t moderated.

Reply to  rogerknights
October 19, 2014 3:03 am

It could have been the all caps words.

Charles Nelson
October 18, 2014 4:46 pm

Australian Warmists are in acute distress at the moment for a number of reasons amongst which are no major droughts, floods, fires or cyclones for them to attribute. And of course the Abbot Government which is stripping funding away from them.
Amongst ordinary people the CAGW panic is fading fast.
It’s morning in Australia!

Reply to  Charles Nelson
October 18, 2014 6:17 pm

… as well as the approval of coal by our Prime Minister Abbott ! 😉

Reply to  Charles Nelson
October 18, 2014 11:59 pm

I disagree. There are some really odd people here in Aus supporting the CAGW scare. While we have seen many stories claiming companies etc are divesting from fossil fuel industries, we have a bunch of people closing their bank accounts becuase the bank loaned money to businesses involved in the fossil fuel industry. Seriously, the climate change brain rot is well and truely set in here in Aus.

High Treason
Reply to  Patrick
October 19, 2014 1:37 am

These nitwits are putting their deposits in to Bendigo Bank, which funds building mosques in new areas to spread Islamic influence. These morons will be surplus to requirements when crunch time comes. Unfortunately these nitwits will take the rest of us down with them.

Reply to  Patrick
October 19, 2014 2:08 am

Bendigo bank came about because ANZ pulled out of rural areas in the late 90’s.

Bob in Castlemaine
October 18, 2014 5:21 pm

From Prof MacKenzie’s second last paragraph (my emphasis):

Is UK energy policy informed solely by the exaggerations of advocacy – political or scientific – or, at least in part, by the exaggeration-phobic scientific literature? As a taxpayer I would like to believe that physical and computer models provide evidence to politicians who use it to assess the strength of the arguments of the various advocacy groups. I am not so politically naïve as to believe that all policy is, or even should be, based solely on objective evidence.

Seeing that around 95% of model projections have been demonstrated to be hopelessly wrong maybe it’s this treating model projections as “evidence” that has caused UK politicians to get energy policy so hopelessly wrong? I would have thought also that for scientists to continue to accept such model projections as “evidence” long after they have been found to have little or no useful predictive skill, ceases to be science and is in fact nothing more than blatant ideological advocacy.

Reply to  Bob in Castlemaine
October 18, 2014 7:14 pm

“Seeing that around 95% of model projections have been demonstrated to be hopelessly wrong”
That paints an overly optimistic picture – because you don’t know WHICH 95% are hopelessly wrong beforehand. Which means that 100% of them are useless.

October 18, 2014 6:16 pm

I often wonder of the fiduciary duty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiduciary) of the climate scientists (TM) to the general public.

Reply to  Streetcred
October 18, 2014 7:15 pm

It’s about time some tort lawyers get to work.

bit chilly
October 18, 2014 6:26 pm

the backpedaling gathers pace . the next year or so should be interesting ,looking at the increasing volume of papers deviating from the meme.

Reply to  bit chilly
October 18, 2014 6:37 pm

There needs to be some numerical way for capturing this backpedaling that is bound to come.

Krudd Gillard of the Commondebt of Australia
October 18, 2014 7:16 pm

I am starting to get a little annoyed that Aussie PM Abbott hasn’t moved faster to lance the boil on the body politic known as the Australian Broadcasting Commission.

October 18, 2014 8:10 pm

Perhaps Richard Windsor / Lisa Jackson only exaggerated a little. Was there no harm done? Was it just a tiny insignificant fib?
Or could it be one worthy of incarceration?

High Treason
Reply to  eyesonu
October 19, 2014 1:40 am

Liars always regard their monster whopper lies as just little white lies.

October 18, 2014 8:15 pm

One not write one’s homework assignment on a strip of beef jerky.

October 18, 2014 8:25 pm

I think when you call someone a liar, you better be really sure.

October 18, 2014 9:29 pm

“Exaggeration and the complementary art of simplification are the basic rhetorical tools of human intercourse. So yes, scientists do exaggerate.”
I know, I know, I know. And that makes an interesting study in whether human scientists can eventually actually slip lower than dogs, who at least feel guilty! 🙂
Guilty Dog Is So Guilty

October 19, 2014 12:08 am

Three comments,
1 : Backpedaling by the current and most vocal “warmists”, They are not worried at all they’ve made their $$ of our backs (tax $$),
2 : Most of you Guys and Ladies on this site are well rounded intelligent people and scientists and leave me with great insight that have helped me a lot and understand about not only climate but also how to communicate (thanks AW).
3 : The sad thing is that most of us seem to be of an age where education was still part of our upbringing and there are few or any on this ( and other similar sites) site that are young and still engaged with today’s problems they seem more interested in the next version of a video game.
I hope that will change when the blinders come off.

October 19, 2014 9:32 am

October 18, 2014 at 10:05 am
And now for something completely different. “This parrot isn’t dead, it’s … resting.”
“It’s pining for the fjords”
Sorry, I just couldn’t resist.

Reply to  TomR,Worc,Ma,USA
October 19, 2014 10:31 am

Ee’s a Norwegian Blue, Beautiful ee is.

October 19, 2014 2:59 pm

Maybe it is not the scientists fault. Maybe they should blame it on the climate activist groups who shouted down any critical questions. Or the alarmist bloggers, who resorted to name-calling.

Clovis Marcus
Reply to  manicbeancounter
October 20, 2014 3:43 am

@manicbeancounter I think the scientists don’t get off that easily. They still have questions to be answered:
Where were they when they saw their work being misrepresented by sensational journalism and activists? Were they shouting and screaming and asking for corrections? Why not?

Robert W Turner
October 20, 2014 8:30 am

“To exaggerate is human, and scientists are human.”
Well it’s nice to see they’re making some progress. Now if they would realize that there are scientists that are good at what they do and ones that are bad at what they do. The ones that exaggerate and sensationalize, take a guess as to which category they fall into.

%d bloggers like this: