Guest essay by Patrick J. Michaels
Day after day, year after year, the hole that climate scientists have buried themselves in gets deeper and deeper. The longer that they wait to admit their overheated forecasts were wrong, the more they are going to harm all of science.
The story is told in a simple graph, the same one that University of Alabama’s John Christy presented to the House Committee on Natural Resources on May 15.
The picture shows the remarkable disconnect between predicted global warming and the real world.
The red line is the 5-year running average temperature change forecast, beginning in 1979, predicted by the UN’s latest family of climate models, many of which are the handiwork of our own federal science establishment. The forecasts are for the average temperature change in the lower atmosphere, away from the confounding effects of cities, forestry, and agriculture.
The blue circles are the average lower-atmospheric temperature changes from four different analyses of global weather balloon data, and the green squares are the average of the two widely accepted analyses of satellite-sensed temperature. Both of these are thought to be pretty solid because they come from calibrated instruments.
If you look at data through 1995 the forecast appears to be doing quite well. That’s because the computer models appear to have, at least in essence, captured two periods of slight cooling.
The key word is “appear.” The computer models are tuned to account for big volcanoes that are known to induce temporary cooling in the lower atmosphere. These would be the 1982 eruption of El Chichon in Mexico, and 1992’s spectacular Mt. Pinatubo, the biggest natural explosion on earth since Alaska’s Katmai in 1912.
Since Pinatubo, the earth has been pretty quiescent, so that warming from increasing carbon dioxide should proceed unimpeded. Obviously, the spread between forecast and observed temperatures grows pretty much every year, and is now a yawning chasm.
It’s impossible, as a scientist, to look at this graph and not rage at the destruction of science that is being wreaked by the inability of climatologists to look us in the eye and say perhaps the three most important words in life: we were wrong.
This article appeared in TownHall.com on May 29, 2015. Patrick J. Michaels is the director of the Center for the Study of Science at the Cato Institute.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I have a comment on the tactics of argument. In my view it is a mistake to refer to the catastrophists as “the climate scientists”. Every time you do that, you transmit an impression that you are an outsider to science and that you are attacking “science”. Not that there’s necessarily anything wrong with that, but why concede it? You should choose some other phrase to refer to them; even “the majority of climate scientists” would not be as bad as “the climate scientists”. Other possibilities are “the catastrophist climate scientists” or “those scientists dogmatically wedded to CAGW”.
Good advice.
“Climate scientists” are not scientists. They are computer modelers. Climatologists, literally a dying breed, are or were scientists.
The computer gaming charlatans will never, ever admit that they were wrong. They’ll just retire on their ill-gotten gains and die off in their turn.
Geology advanced only when the die-hard opponents of catastrophic floods and “continental drift” retired or died. A few in mid-career did have to admit they were wrong about plate tectonics, once the mechanism of seafloor spreading was discovered, but it took an ungodly long time for them to come around.
And there weren’t the ideological, financial and career incentives in opposing plate tectonics then that now exist in CACCA.
Science advances one funeral at a time, until the former consensus holders are all gone.
Hm. Now I think I know why I never see Milodon Harlani and Sturgis Hooper in the same room… .
#(:))
Hi, John. 😉
The CACA Cultists: (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Alarmists).
MIT Climate Scientist: Global Warming Believers a ‘Cult’
During an appearance on this writer’s radio show Monday, MIT Professor emeritus Richard Lindzen discussed the religious nature of the movement.
“As with any cult, once the mythology of the cult begins falling apart, instead of saying, oh, we were wrong, they get more and more fanatical. I think that’s what’s happening here. Think about it,” he said. “You’ve led an unpleasant life, you haven’t led a very virtuous life, but now you’re told, you get absolution if you watch your carbon footprint. It’s salvation!”
Lindzen, 74, has issued calm dismissals of warmist apocalypse, reducing his critics to sputtering rage.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/01/21/mit-climate-scientist-global-warming-believers-a-cult/
I live in Canada – where’s our global warming?
Just listen to the CBC they seem to have found it.
I can’t help but gloat; it’s on Vancouver Island and it’s fantastic!
That said, the west coast of the island has not been so lucky.
When?
When the sky darkens, and people look up to see squadron upon squadron of winged pigs, soaring in disciplined formation over the frozen wastes of Hell.
Just after the third time that happens.
I really do not care if they ever admit they were wrong. FACTS ARE PASSING THEM BY. They are making themselves irrelevant. Let them dig their own professional integrity graves deeper and deeper.
Science realists will stop by once in awhile and holler down, “Want help out of there?” If they say, “Yes,” we’ll toss them a long rope tied to the rear bumper of my brother’s Chevy 4×4, say, “Hang on!” and step on the gas — PETROLEUM heh — and they’ll be out in a jiffy.
“Kinda dirty, there, guys,” we will chuckle, “the showers are over there.”
And they lived happily and honestly ever after.
The End.
#(:))
That said, I want to affirm Mr. Michaels and say that the reckless-disregard-for-the-truth at best, mostly likely lying, AGW pseudo-scientists owe scientists like Dr. Murry Salby and Dr. Willie Soon and the general public an enormous apology. It just doesn’t matter to me whether they make one or not. They just don’t matter to me AT ALL.
What matter is, as another commenter pointed out above, getting the facts about CO2 out there.
Climate Scientists are doing fine = circles and squares
Climate Sociologists = red lined
Have they said they were sorry for the Acid Rain panic?
No need to the scientists got that one right too. Fortunately, regulations that reduced the release of sulfates from power plants averted even greater damage to fresh water aquatic environments, especially in the NE United States.
There never was any acid rain in the first place.
The water acidification was being caused by the re-emergence of the forests in the areas surrounding the lakes and streams.
As always Luke, you fell for the con.
Yea, Luke’s not too bright. Makes for a great sucker, though.
Acid Rain, Ozone Hole, Global Cooling, Population Bomb, Ocean Acidification, Peak Oil, Y2K, on and on and on.
When will they admit they were wrong about Global Warming?
When have they ever admitted they were wrong?
I’d like to see the two satellite records added to that chart.
That would be the green squares then, Mark. Pay attention at the back!
I agree with others; the alarmist ‘climate scientists’ will never say they were wrong.
Pre Paris Rebuttal?
Is there any plan to mount a coordinated PR rebuttal of the climate change scam in advance of the November COP21 / CMP11?
I’m hoping that GWPF, WUWT and many, many other notable bloggers and people such as Lord Monckton have at least an embryonic plan to get some crowd funding in place to mount a counter-attack, based upon real science.
Dear moderators – you have my email address. I am willing, within reason, to help make this happen. I say ‘within reason’ because my only link with big oil is paying it/them rather than the reverse and have only a modest pension; so call it a charitable offer. If this strikes a chord, get in touch, but I am no Superman – this would be a massive team effort.
(the like (“blogs like this could get money in to fund small adverts in National papers which would eventually inform the public”) also proposed by John Barrett, here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/29/when-will-climate-scientists-say-they-were-wrong/#comment-1948344)
It does seem there is a ramp up in the hype, scares, and BS coming out of the warmists.
In my experience, habitual liars do not EVER stop. It’s what they know, it’s how they handle things, and if they’re caught they try and lie their what out of that. AND their capacity for self-justification is nearly super-human.
I’ve had the same experience (ugh — they are HORRIBLE to deal with), Mr. Snider. I can still hear myself saying (and this was common to nearly all the l1ars I’ve dealth with):
“You KNOW that I know what the truth is. There is NO ONE ELSE IN THE ROOM. You know I know you are lying.”
And they just keep it up.
Incredible (and re: “superhuman,” such a diabolical pride or love of l1es comes from a supernatural source, imo).
Wellth! Thith really upthetth me. 🙂
Hi Janice,
I always try to stop commenting, when I realize I’m only talking to myself.
Thanks for that reminder, U.K.. I feel like I’m doing that 90% of the time on WUWT, but, I still have fun writing (even if the thought that no one is reading what I write is often depressing). No doubt, you are the only one who read what I wrote. But, YOU are someone! #(:))
[Snip. Labeling those with a different scientific point of view as “denisers” violates site Policy. You may try again, without the pejoratives. ~mod]
That’s right, Mr. Jennings. How DARE you call me a “Deniser.” That means you are accusing me of letting the air out of the tires of all women named “Denise.” I WOULD NEVER DO THAT!!
http://youtu.be/ahGxiSV_LH0
Wrong is the new “post modern” Right
I think the answer is: the Climate Scientists claiming detectably significant global warming from burning fossil fuels will say they were wrong when the fundamental reason they were wrong is shown to be that they used a pre-science premise as the basis of their research process and that pre-science premise informed their work product conclusions.
In other words, they will say they were wrong when they think that they are starting to be demarcated as outside of valid science by objective scientific debate of the broader community; namely, they will say they were wrong when they are about to be categorized as ‘pre-scientific’ people.
Then, as opportunity allows, they will start championing the ‘CO2 isn’t a significantly detectable driver of climate’ position.
But what of the ideology that created the ‘pre-science’ premise that distorted the scientists’ process and product? Well, the ideology remains active in our culture to be used as the next ‘pre-scientific’ basis of the next social movement that wants to mimic having the support of science.
John
They’re relying on a pure radiative physics viewpoint. Undermining that would move many of them.
Rogerknights, you have it. But the “re-Radiative” premise doesn’t like it when you table convection. On a cold day, run a bath of hot water, then watch the heat escape from high concentration to low. What am I missing? I feel we get confused when dishing out terms like “greenhouse” where a poly layer acts as a thermal layer…there is actually no real world equivalent to this effect in atmospheric terms.
Some physicists demonstrate little regard for what has been observed. In Dr. Balls debate with Dr. Keating, Keating slammed Ball as having published little toward actual climate science. How does that square? I was under the assumption that climate science drew from more than just physics
rogerknights on May 29, 2015 at 6:32 pm
– – – – – –
rogerknights,
If they are relying on a pure radiative physic viewpoint as you indicate, then is their assumption that all else in the complex EAS (Earth Atmosphere System) remains equal as the radiative phenomena plays out?
If so, then they fail to integrate the whole system dynamics, in favor of CO2 from fossil fuels as an isolated and sufficient cause through radiative processes of the non-observed significant warming above natural variations in temps.
John
The IPCC was set up to find the evidence of human involvement in the mild warming detected at that time
NOT to detect the real causes – that was not the endgame. The dice were already loaded.
Easy money – who can challenge anything the UN created monster said – they are both judge, jury and government adviser.
Climate ‘scientists’ merely supplied the ‘evidence’ they had been paid to provide in order to frame CO2 for a ‘crime’ it didn’t commit.
Surprise, surprise when confronted with enforced UN funding for themselves, their universities and their NGO
friends it was impossible to resist. They all took the funding and ran for as long as they could get away with it.
Some will have hoped their hippie prejudices would come true, some will have known they were very likely wrong all along but with creative data manipulation the scam could be kept going beyond their lifetimes or at least beyond dependance on their new found security of tenure and influence.
Additionally and more worryingly, the elected and unelected elites with other agendas of a far more sinister kind chose to use the greed of the ‘scientists’, their simplistic ‘green friends’ and the lefty twitterati in Hollywood to pursue their own plans for a UN led One-World Governance.
They tried it in Copenhagen and will try again.
Whilst claiming the semi-religious higher ground in saving humanity from itself they also display that desire to control everything and everyone through the medium of “Climatism” while feathering their own nests at the same time – it’s all for your own good of course – just pay up and be grateful that such fine superior beings
are in your midst. (or at least looking down on you from their ivory towers – laughing – for now)
“When Will Climate Scientists Say They Were Wrong?”
Those responsible for perpetrating this scam will almost certainly never admit it. They’ve already proven themselves to be so dishonest, why would anyone think they would have a sudden ethical change?
Do you really think the likes of Joe Romm, Katherine Hayhoe, Micheal Mann, Andrew Dessler, etc will ever admit they were full of it?
Rah! Stay safe out on that stormy, flooding, slow-poke-in-the-fast-lane/rude-jerk-cutting-me-off-again road. (every day (praying). #(:))
And
1. I would not think so.
2. No.
🙂
Thank you Janice. This year I’ve had no weather problems since winter ended. Been to Texas twice so far this year but both times were before it got really wet down there. My only weather problem is that there was no rain in the forecast here in central Indiana but just as I was putting my shoes on to mow my acre of a pop up thunderstorm soaked us. But now the roads are dry so at least I can take a little cruise on my motorcycle.
Good! And… bummer (wet grass) … and GOOD (bike)! Take care.
Wrong is OK for a scientist. Irresponsible is not. I think many climate scientists have been irresponsible with their headstrong promotion of a weak supposition that our CO2 could wreak havoc. By all means entertain the possibility, but those who pushed it as all but certain have failed as responsible adults. Not least in failing to make clear efforts to restrain the political activists who went over the top with the opportunities that this scare presented them with.
A follow-up question: When will those that were wrong, knew they were wrong, but nevertheless published their results, be prosecuted for perjury?
They will never say they are wrong.
When did any of you say you were wrong?
Perhaps you are always right. But do you or anyone else seriously believe that?
So, who is the first to say I’ve been wrong?
Don’t hold your breathe.
No one admits they were wrong. Any volunteers?
As Max Planck said
“Truth never triumphs — its opponents just die out. Science advances one funeral at a time”
Mike B.! Maybe I am just extra bumbling, but I have admitted I was wrong many times (and also, sometimes, out of cowardice, have not) — even on WUWT (if I could remember where, I’d link to my comment). Reason: Until I do, there is a wound (even just a small wound by a small mistake) that needs healing in the one I’ve wronged — and that matters. Very much.
There is a saying from the movie “Love Story:” “Love means never having to say you’re sorry.” Nonsense! Okay, yes, I agree, when you love someone, you so readily forgive their wrongs that they really don’t need to say they are sorry, but we still should. It says that you value them highly enough to give them that courtesy. To apologize, in short, is to say, “I care.” And if you love, you care — very much. And we are not super-human. Most relationships will FALL APART if the partners do not admit wrong and ask for forgiveness when they mess up.
Back to AGW…
I don’t think they care.
Aaaaand, lol, neither do I!
Have fun in the swamp of junk science, “scientists”! lololol
Truth has moved on!
I thought Svaalgard was a warmist? He states above quotes: “but just as the Climate Scientists you will probably never admits that you could be wrong, ever” This seems to be a huge shift on his part. So he is saying AGW was crapula after all.
Nonsense, Eliza. That you think so does not make it so.
Did you? Why did you think that? You’ve clearly never followed the discussions properly.
It is a prerogative for a scientist to be wrong (and we often are), but it is not OK for a true believer to be wrong. By definition (s)he cannot be wrong.
Exactly.
When Dawkins was asked what would change his mind on Evolution, he quickly said, “Evidence.”. When a presuppositionalist was asked what would change their mind, just as quickly the answer was, “Nothing.”
If the science cannot be wrong it is not science.
Dr. S’s dictum: while a true scientist is sometimes wrong, the rest of us are wrong all of the time.
Speak for yourself Vuk.
“Wrong” is holding an opinion contrary to the evidence.
“Wrong” is holding an opinion contrary to the evidence.
“Wrong” is holding an opinion contrary to the prevailing interpretation of the evidence.
Well said Leif !
I have contended with Leif on various occasions, but my impression has always been that he’s a scientist with an extra opinion, rather than an opinion looking for scientific cover. He really pwnd some folks this time.
It was claimed that “Total Solar Irradiance [is] off [by] .15% or more”, and Leif responded with real data.
I’d say I agree, but there is very little opinion in this. It’s mostly raw facts, and one can’t agree with facts, one can only acknowledge that they are true. One can also admire the skill in summarizing the whole state of the underlying science in a mere 84 words. Brevity is the soul of wit.
Of course AGW is crapula!! … but so is the Solar Hypothesis.
I remember a paper covered here published by Stanford, talking about how temps were similar as today millions of years ago when the sun was shining at 70% power or so compared to today. The punch line … the oceans absorbed the heat, and kept the place warm.
To date, the SCIENCE says [err .. or the lack of scientific evidence that proves anything otherwise] … Climate is a chaotic process, .. and is not under control of anything!!! To say the least, if it is controlled by something … we ain’t figured it out yet!!!
I think, Eliza, that Dr. Svalgaard very carefully refuses to take a public position on the issue. You’ll note on re-reading that quote of his in your comment that he says that the “Climate Scientists {} will probably never admit{} {they} could be wrong … .”
When Dr. Svalgaard argues that variations in TSI do not drive major climate shifts, he sometimes appears to be supporting AGW. Actually, he never does positively support AGW — he just does not positively support the anti-AGW side of the argument which sometimes makes him appear hostile to the arguments of us science realists (as I characterize those of us arguing against AGW).
I bother to write this because I want to prevent actual warmists from taking away the impression that they have a genuine, eminent, scientist like Dr. Svalgaard on their side: they do not.
So it appears the jury is still out for Dr. Svalgaard which is probably the most reasonable position to take. A variation on the position “We don’t know”, in which there is much science does not yet know and freely admits to not knowing.
However this statement, “Climate Scientists {} will probably never admit{} {they} could be wrong … .”, is a damning rebuke of climate science. With this stance they are effectively not practicing science but some kind of hybrid political-activism-high-priest-papal-infallibility science.
Who knows in a hundred years we could be extinct due to CO2 causing some kind of Eco-system chain reaction or we can be entering a new age of enlightenment and prosperity with good weather and even cheaper and more available energy. Don’t know and anyone who thinks they can use science to predict this with certainty is not a scientist but a charlatan.
– – – – – – – –
Janice Moore,
Leif is more circumspect and sophisticated than that.
John
It looks to me as if Dr. S is in the AGW camp. His campaign to revise SSNs may well represent a disinterested pursuit of improving science, but it also just happens to serve the agenda of his grantors in the government.
He sounded hopeful that the “Blob” or warm water in the NE Pacific might signal the end of the “Pause”, as it’s called by AGW advocates, thus undercutting one of the skeptics’ strongest arguments. I wonder if he is disappointed that notwithstanding the Blob, the warming standstill plateau still stretches toward the horizon, arguably now with a slight downward slope.
@ur momisugly John Whitman — If you want me to understand what you wrote to me about Dr. Svalgaard, you’ll have to explain further. I don’t see how what you wrote follows from what I wrote.
In the meantime sign me,
Wondering,
Janice
– – – – – – – –
Janice Moore,
As a preface to this reply to you, it is a little odd for you to talk about Leif in your comment (the one that I was critical of) when Leif was participating in this thread prior you your comment about him.
You superimposed terminology like ‘warmist’ and a discussion of Leif’s public views. Leif has demonstrated over many years that he is pretty consistently sophisticated enough to not be involved in the use of that kind of tribal language (which includes terms: de-nier, lukewarmer, global warming, climate change, skeptics, etc, etc). That you use the terms in your comment seems to link Leif as someone who uses such terms.
Leif is very disciplined to distain from overemphasis on any one aspect of the very complex nature of the EAS (Earth Atmospheric System) in the face of you isolating his views on just one aspect (solar) of the impacts on the EAS. I find him more circumspect than you seem to have conveyed.
Leif, I apologize for talking about you in your presence instead of at you. I shall desist from doing it any more.
John
Well said Janice. Unlike politics, In science, there are no “sides”. People like MarkW can’t imagine a discussion without “sides”. In the words of Dr. S, he is a “true believer”. He’ll probably be by here shortly to denounce me to the thought police for agreeing with a rabid Eurasian like Dr. S. Very suspicious of me. I hope MarkW doesn’t find out that I’ve been writing in a journal and taking walks alone…
well the impression I am left with is that “them” are not wrong at all, rather it is all part of a dastardly plot ( I wouldn’t have thought people that devious )
or
It is all a green induced wrongness ( I wouldn’t have thought people that misguided )
I have sometimes wondered if there might be a popular consciousness, in that ideas are propagated through some sort of mental airspace.
This would explain fashion. fortunately I seem to be immune, as anybody who has seen my attire will attest.
It strikes me as odd that the original graph does not show 1998 as the hottest year in either the avg, balloon data sets or the avg. satellite data sets.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/plot/uah
The link you provide is for the lower troposphere. Christy’s graph is for the mid troposphere. It is odd that he chose that dataset. I wonder if it is because the lower troposphere (28,000 ft and lower – where people actually live) has a much better fit with the models.
I am not aware that the UAH has a different data set for lower and mid troposphere. My understanding is that the satellites have a difficult time differentiating layers and they give us a reading on everything below the MSU instrument. Obviously I could be mistaken.
The article states, “The forecasts are for the average temperature change in the lower atmosphere, away from the confounding effects of cities, forestry, and agriculture.
The blue circles are the average lower-atmospheric temperature changes from four different analyses of global weather balloon data, and the green squares are the average of the two widely accepted analyses of satellite-sensed temperature.” So lower troposphere for all. Apples to apples.
I do see your point though, since the link to Dr. Christy’s testimony shows mid-troposphere. Now I’m confused.
Yes…There are a number of problems with the mid-tropospheric data, which is actually what Christy shows. One problem is that there is a very significant disagreement iin trends between the two satellite estimates for the mid-tropospheric temperatures because it is very hard to deal with the fact that the channel has significant weight in the stratosphere too. By averaging the two estimates, Christy has given the illusion that the data sets are in close agreement but it is only an illusion.
There are other issues with the various radiosonde data sets…and some have undergone multiple versions that have had signficantly different trends. And, AGW skeptics have tended to cherrypick which versions they use.
There is a good reason why Christy has chosen to show only the averages over the two satellite data sets and the averages over the 4 radiosonde data sets (with no specification of which versions were used).
As usual, people who call themselves “skeptics” seems to have abandoned all skepticism when data is massaged to confirm what they want to believe.
As usual, people who call themselves “skeptics” seems to have abandoned all skepticism when data is massaged to confirm what they want to believe.
I am a skeptic. If the facts change, or new facts are produced which change things, I am perfectly willing to change my mind.
That’s the difference between skeptics and True Believers like joelshore. Nothing can convince joelshore that ‘dangerous man-made global warming’ is happening. Certainly, the fact that global warming stopped many years ago can’t convince him. I wonder what would or could convince joelshore that his world view is wrong?
Anything? Or is dMMGW his Religion?
Instead of waiting for these folks to admit that their predictions are wrong, which they aren’t going to do, stop communicating with them. We all have things to do. We all have demands on our time and attention. These charlatans are a waste of precious time. Let it be known moving forward that you, we, don’t have time to engage in counterproductive debates with con artists.
– – – – – – – –
If the climatologists (who are claiming / claimed detectably significant global warming from burning fossil fuels) admit they are wrong, they probably would say in their admission something like,
Although they would admit their research product was wrong, they will never admit their ideology is wrong; where the ideology is the one that corrupted their climate science research product.
John
Christy’s graph is for the mid-troposphere (29,000 – 50,000ft).
http://naturalresources.house.gov/uploadedfiles/christytestimonyemr.pdf
Michaels claims his reproduction is for the “lower atmosphere”
You have to wonder why Christy didn’t compare the lower troposphere (where humans actually live) to model predictions and why Michaels tries to pretend Christy actually did.
I read the article you linked to and it defined the troposphere as being the surface of Earth to 50,000ft.
“A very basic metric for climate studies is the temperature of the bulk atmospheric layer known as the troposphere, roughly from the surface to 50,000 ft altitude.”
So wouldn’t mid-tropospheric mean: from the surface to 25,000ft?
The models predict the behavior of the whole atmosphere, and the ‘fingerprint’ of it is the tropical tropospheric hotspot. Christy highlights that because in fact it shows how 1) models are hypotheses
2) you have to check models with data 3) there is a clear mis-match.
And from this Christy concludes the models are not reliable enough to be used for predictions.
There is a distinct lack of tropical mid-troposphere warming, models are wrong, and it turns out that is likely a signal that Lindzen was right about an “Iris effect”, as the model corrections that fix the discrepancy happen to be ones that incorporate an Iris effect (Stevens 2015 paper).
“The longer that they wait to admit their overheated forecasts were wrong, the more they are going to harm all of science.”
Science is not harmed by fanatics being proven wrong…. science is harmed when said fanatics go unpunished and are welcomed back into the science community to do it again and keep the ill gotten gains they’ve made.
Further science would be greatly harm if science doesn’t come out and say that evil deniers(many of whom have no “officially” approved science degrees) were right all along and that only by this tiny core group of people who refuse to give up the scientific method saved the planet from these fanatics.
The global warming scam can not be allowed to end like so many other science scams of the past… people must be jailed and some should in places like the US be charged with treason.