The 'uncertainty monster' bites back at IPCC scientists

WUWT readers may recall this paper from Dr. Judith Curry where the “uncertainty monster” was given life.

The uncertainty monster has bitten back. It seems that the IPCC botched more than just AR5 in 2013, they also botched their own press conference on the Summary for Policy Makers in Stockholm by not paying attention to their own uncertainty figures, something we saw recently when 2014 was declared the “hottest year ever”, but NASA GISS was really only 38% sure, finally having to concede that point of uncertainty. The author writes in an email communication regarding journalist David Rose and the “ill-posed” question during the IPCC SPM conference:

We refer to the dismissal of your question by Michel Jarraud, and the article you subsequently wrote. While it’s not the central finding of the paper, we state that your question was indeed well-founded and not ‘ill-posed’.


Improving climate change communication: moving beyond scientific certainty

A new report from The University of Nottingham looks at whether climate scientists threaten their own scientific credibility when trying to make their research accessible to members of the public.

In the last 25 years scientists have become increasingly certain that humans are responsible for changes to the climate. However, for many politicians and members of the public, climate change is still not a particularly pressing concern. In a new report ‘Tension between scientific certainty and meaning complicates communication of IPCC reports’ – published on Nature Climate Change’s website, Dr Gregory Hollin and Dr Warren Pearce from the University’s School of Sociology and Social Policy, look at a press conference held by the IPCC in 2013 in order to better understand the ways in which climate scientists attempt to engage the public through the media.

Public credibility

Dr Pearce says:

“Climate science draws on evidence over hundreds of years, way outside of our everyday experience. During the press conference, scientists attempted to supplement this rather abstract knowledge by emphasising a short-term example: that the decade from 2001 onwards was the warmest that had ever been seen. On the surface, this appeared a reasonable communications strategy. Unfortunately, a switch to shorter periods of time made it harder to dismiss media questions about short-term uncertainties in climate science, such as the so-called ‘pause’ in the rate of increase in global mean surface temperature since the late 1990s. The fact that scientists go on to dismiss the journalists’ concerns about the pause – when they themselves drew upon a similar short-term example – made their position inconsistent and led to confusion within the press conference.”

Accepting tensions

Dr Hollin says:

“Climate change communication is anything but straightforward. When trying to engage the public about climate science, communicators need to be aware that there is a tension between expressing scientific certainty and making climate change meaningful. Acknowledging this tension should help to avoid in the future the kind of confusion caused at the press conference.”

Beyond certainty

Climate change is an area where consistent attempts are made to communicate the certainty of the science. As a result, a spotlight on scientific uncertainties may be seen as unwelcome. However, Dr Hollin and Dr Pearce argue that a discussion of uncertainty may be an unavoidable by-product of attempts to make climate change meaningful.

Dr Pearce adds: “In the run-up to the United Nations climate summit in Paris, making climate change meaningful remains a key challenge. Our analysis of the press conference demonstrates that this cannot be achieved by relying on scientific certainty alone. A broader, more inclusive public dialogue will include crucial scientific details that we are far less certain about. These need to be embraced and acknowledged in order to make climate change meaningful.”

To view a full copy of the report see: Hollin and Pearce – 2015 – Tension between scientific certainty and meaning c (PDF)

There is a blogpost by the authors explaining the article on the University of Nottingham’s Making Science Public blog:


There was, however, an inconsistency in the argument of the scientists. Scientists consistently

drew on short-term temperature increases in order to give climate change meaning:

“the decade 2001 onwards having been the hottest, the warmest that we have seen”

(Pachauri L261–263).

However, the scientists also understood these short-term temperature increases to be less

certain than the overall theory of climate change:

“periods of less than around thirty years. . . are less relevant” (Stocker, L582–583).

Thus, the meaningful, short-term, temperature changes were actually incorporated at the

expense of certainty. While the intended move was therefore to the top-right quadrant

(position three), the actual move was to the bottom-right quadrant (position four): meaning

had been added but at the expense of certainty.


Figure 4 | Incoherent attempt to maintain public meaning and certainty. Drawing on temporally local, publicly meaningful information (‘the hottest decade’) proved problematic, as it lent legitimacy to the discussion of other local uncertainties, such as the 15-year ‘pause’. Speakers were repeatedly challenged on the uncertainties connected to this phenomenon: “Your climate change models did not predict there was a slowdown in the warming. How can we be sure about your predicted projections for future warming?” (Harrabin L560–562). Faced with these challenges, speakers retreated from temporally local, publicly meaningful data (position 4) to rearm AGW’s broad certainty (position 2): “we are very clear in our report that it is inappropriate to compare a short-term period of observations with model performance” (Stocker L794–796). This retreat led to confusion, incoherence, and criticism within the press conference.


Drawing on meaningful information like ‘the hottest decade’ proved problematic for the

scientists for it is hard to see why the short-term increase in temperature during ‘hottest

decade’ is very different from the short-term decrease in temperature witnessed during the

15-year ‘pause’. Journalists repeatedly asked scientists about the pause and, in particular,

how they could be increasingly certain about climate change in the face of such an


“Your climate change models did not predict there was a slowdown in the warming.

How can we be sure about your predicted projections for future warming?” (Harrabin


Faced with these questions, scientists insisted that short-term temperature changes were

irrelevant for climate science:

“we are very clear in our report that it is inappropriate to compare a short-term period

of observations with model performance” (Stocker L794–796).

Given the type of statement we saw during phase three it is perhaps unsurprising that this

retreat led to confusion, incoherence, and criticism within the press conference.

David Rose was one of the causalities of that press conference, now vindicated. From the paper:

This `temporal segmentation’ enabled the pause to be dismissed as scientifically irrelevant, suggesting that journalists’ questions on the matter couldbe ignored. Jarraud oered just such a dismissal to Rose’s question, which he claimed was “from a scientific point of view: : : what we would call an ill-posed question” (L827828), essentially dismissing Rose as scientifically illiterate. The terms of this dismissal, however, seem inconsistent with the temporally localized claims made by speakers during the press conference. The speakers oscillated between two positions: one of broad certainty but little public meaning, the other of public meaning but little broad certainty (Fig.4). This striking incoherence was noted by Alex Morales of Bloomberg News who asked why 15-year periods are considered by the speakers if they hold no scientific value (L965969).

When Rose published his article the following day, the quote “your question is ill-posed!” was given headline status, and derided as a misjudged response to “a simple question”. We do not wish to claim here that Rose was particularly sympathetic to the IPCC before the press conference, but in this instance his question was well founded. It exposed how attempts during the press conference to increase public meaning undermined the very scientific certainty that representatives were trying to communicate, and then leverage, to procure public meaning.

Congratulations to journalist David Rose, who because of articles like this one about the IPCC, was labeled ““climate misinformer of the year”, by Media Matters, a label now most certainly, “ill-posed”.

165 thoughts on “The 'uncertainty monster' bites back at IPCC scientists

  1. I’m supposing the IPCC, were it a mouthpiece of history, would most likely deny the existence of the Holocaust seeing as it lasted for a relatively short period……

      • “Godwin’s law is alive and well?”
        That is why it is called a “law”. When a better example comes along it will replace Hitler/Nazi/Holocaust. Hopefully that better example won’t happen in my lifetime.

      • Better examples already HAVE come along. One is Communism. It has caused more death and misery then Nasiism, sometimes within a single country. One hopes that CAGW doesn’t become the next, but it certainly has that potential.

      • Bob,
        “Godwin’s law is alive and well?”
        Apparently so, because of the “d e n i e r” label that warmunists seem to utter at the drop of a hat, as a perjoritive towards legitimate scientific skepticism.
        Wouldn’t you agree?

    • One thing is to make the mistake of denying the Holocaust. A different thing is to persist in the mistake.
      Personally, I consider the failure to admit an error far worse than committing an error.
      It is the most important reason why I don’t support organizations such as Green Peace, PETA, and other similar activists organizations. I do agree on some of their fundamentals. But their unapologetic behavior in the face of monstrous transgressions makes them irresponsible and unaccountable. Thus, I’m out.

      • Brute
        I have some information for you about the Holocaust which will probably make you feel righteously angry or extremely uncomfortable. Jews like to publish books and even “encyclopedias” entirely about themselves. You can use the books but the encyclopedias are the easiest. Go to a decent library and you can find the books in those sets stretching back through the years. Read about what the Jews had to say about the “six million” in the early volumes and pass through the years till you reach the latest volumes.
        “Six million” is their sacred number. In the early volumes Jewish deaths by Nazi killing bands is given at about 100,000. Because that method was so inefficient the Nazis established the death camps — so the story goes.
        Well, through the years actual research has been done on how many Jews were actually killed in the death camps. I believe the number finally settled on was around three million plus. (I might be a little low — I have not looked at this stuff in years and surprisingly I have very little interest in this.) Lets just say three and a half million.
        Oops — the figure for dead Jews was about two million and a half below the holy number of six million. So what did the Jews do? Well, they crammed more bodies into some of the smaller death camps that were not as well researched but they could only get away with a pittance. So what was the Jewish “final solution” to killing off more Jews? (God, but I love that last sentence.) Roving Nazi death bands were suddenly claimed to have killed close to two million Jews. From a “documented” 100,000, the Jews, with no supporting data, now say the roving Nazi bands were responsible for the death of two million Jews. What was originally touted as a truly inefficient method of killing Jews (and which caused the Nazis to invent the death camps) now, according to Jewish figures was actually the most efficient method of all!
        So over time who has been the biggest liar about the Holocaust? The Jews.
        Ah, well, over the years one thing I have learned about Jewish culture is that “the truth is the worst kind of anti-Semitism”. How sick is Jewish culture? Telling Jews that two million Jews didn’t die in the Holocaust you would think would be thought joyous news worthy of celebration. Naw, instead Jews do everything they can to fry the ass of anyone who dares to question their holy number of six million.
        And as I said, using strictly Jewish sources you can check out all that I have said above.
        Eugene WR Gallun

      • To the mods
        My little truthful spiel about the Holocaust — do with it as you will. Truth is I wrote it because I am in something of a foul mood.
        i have been writing my Gavin Schmidt poem and had written these lines
        Man is the measure
        Of all things that be
        The Progressive Alliance
        And its New Age Science
        Say I got the data in me
        When it suddenly dawned on me it should be
        Man is the measure
        Of all things that be
        The Progressive Alliance
        And Post Normal Science
        Say I got the data in me
        Can you image how stupid I feel for originally using the phrase “New Age Science” instead of the absolutely obvious “Post Normal Science”? I felt like banging my head against the wall. Since head banging could hurt me I naturally looked for a target other than myself to inflict pain upon. Telling people the truth can be awful painful for them and satisfying to the bearer of the information.
        Anyway I thought you might like a look into my motivation.
        Eugene WR Gallun

      • Eugene, your quibble is ill-considered. Jews died by the millions. Exactly how many is immaterial if the event itself, had there been only one person shot in the head or burned in an oven, makes one sick. That ISIS burned a man in a cage should bring nations to the door of any country who harbors such monsters. That we are not there as a multitude of nations banging on the door with guns drawn also makes me sick.
        So, to chastise you a bit, be equally sick had just one jewish person died.

      • @Eugene WR Gallun
        I wonder if you are aware of the insanity of your comment. You are talking about the extermination of millions of human beings yet focusing your attention on head counting. Take a step back. It’s friendly advice.
        It is heinous to try to diminish the horror of the holocaust. You can add to it but you cannot take away from it. Thus, the holocaust involved the extermination of Jews as well as other ethnic groups. The holocaust was an atrocity that once again brutally highlighted the inhumanity of humanity by adding another inconceivable ethical transgression to an already too long list. And so on. That is what the sane pattern looks like.

      • Eugene. What would posses you to make such a statement? By 1943 there were almost no Jews to kill any longer in Eastern Europe. The genocide of European Jews is one of the best documented events in history. The 6 million number is likely very close to the truth and given more time the Germans would have killed every Jew that was inside their dominion. I see no possible use for your comments except to vent your bizarre, anti-Semitic views. Would 3 million more made them victims in your eyes?
        It also doesn’t take much research to discover that pre-death camp killings far exceed one million, along with Slavs, partisans, Gypsies, mental and physically handicapped, vocal opponents of the regime and millions of Soviet POWS, and that’s from sources other than the evil Jews. Try Babi Yar at Kiev, Warsaw, Odessa and two dozen other major cities not to mention countless villages along the way.
        I hope this is the last time you post here and that you’ll be banned from this blog.
        Save it for Jew hating, revisionist blogs where you’ll be a super star.
        And no, I’m not Jewish. Last name Hillemeyer, which is about as German as you can get.

      • What do you mean “the Holocaust”?. There have been many, almost countless holocausts over time, even many in the last hundred years. Be accurate. To make one special is insulting to countless millions of non-Jews who have suffered in a similar ways to Jews under National Socialists.

      • [snip – this has gone WAAYYYYY off topic, and is an inappropriate topic – it ends now – Anthony]

      • [snip – this has gone WAAYYYYY off topic, and is an inappropriate topic – it ends now – Anthony]

        • Thanks Anthony for busting up the off topic halocaust stuff. I appreciate how you allow dissenting views and unfiltered, instant responses on this site (unlike, say, RealClimate which discourages or eliminates dissent). However, once in a while, you have to step in or it becomes a mess.

      • Grant,
        Did you not read what i wrote? I said go to a decent library and using Jewish sources verify for yourself how the figures making up the six million Jewish dead have kept changing over the last fifty years. Go do it and maybe you will learn something.
        A lot of your spiel, when you get right down to it, consist of ad hominem attacks. Does using ad hominem attacks makes you feel righteous and powerful? Really, it is the sign of an empty head. (Hmmm, i enjoy doing that myself. What’s that say about me?)
        You have called me anti-Semitic and as I also said in what I first wrote — the truth is the worst kind of anti-Semitism. So I am guilty of the worst kind of anti-Semitism — speaking the truth.
        You felt compelled to tell me that you are not Jewish. Why? Do you think I give a damn one way or the other? I got to laugh at you. Emotion rules your head. Go study some real data.
        Just remembered this.This hit the back pages of American newspapers about 15 or 20 years ago. Previously, the total number of Jewish deaths at Aushwitz had been given as about 4 million. (Some of the older people on this site may still remember that figure.) When the researchers got through that number was lowered to something over one million. Oops. That was when the Jews really began making stuff up. The people in charge of Aushwitz changed the sign at its visitors entrance from 4 million to one million.
        Nighty night
        Eugene WR Gallun

      • I have no idea the point to this, but there is something real worth pointing out here. I always found it odd why so many sources focus on 6m jewish folks but at times dont even mention the 6m poles. It isn’t a competition of course, but by pure numbers about as many poles died, and by % of population more gypsies then either of those died.

      • Awww Anthony and i was having such fun!
        I can’t believe you clipped my line where I called the Holocaust the Norma Desmond of world tragedies still demanding superstar status and to be first on the red carpet — never realizing that people are snickering at her.
        Anyway, this discussion was certainly off topic and Brute should never have started it. Could you erase his posts also?
        You kept the accusations made against me and erased my rebuttals. That is the sort of thing John Cook-The-Books would do. Just delete everything. That would be much fairer
        Neither climate data nor Holocaust data should ever be altered to meet the political needs of any group.
        Well, with that last statement, having implied that I was defending intellectual integrity (when actually I was merely amusing myself) I sign off.
        Eugene WR Gallun
        PS — Did I ever mention that I do Biblical Hebrew translation?

  2. “Our climate is changing, always has, always will,
    For billions of years it has never stood still.
    As ice ages and warm periods keep on evolving,
    The mysteries of climate we’re no nearer to solving,
    And yet politicians say man’s now in control,
    Denying Mother Nature’s more powerful role.
    Facts being distorted to create the illusion
    That man controls climate, so now there’s confusion
    As people no longer know what to believe.
    Politicians know it is easy to trick and deceive,
    Using fear and ignorance to prove they are right,
    And of the real facts we so quickly lose sight….”
    Read more:

    • Can we get Patrick Stewart to read that on Jimmy Fallon’s Tonight Show? Too bad Leonard Nimoy is gone…

  3. If there is so much uncertainty about “the temperature”, then how could there be any certainty about whether it is “good” or “bad”. ?

  4. It is incredibly inconsistent that the IPCC doesn’t recognize the pause which is now 18 years 6 months according to RSS and very similar to UAH is now nearly as long as the warming which lasted from 1975-1998. Since the pause is likely to continue due to AMO/PDO for at least 10 years more it is likely the pause will exceed the duration of the rise. At some point they will have to publicly admit it is significant.

    • They will adjust it away, like with the most recent Karl paper.
      The subtleties will escape the popular press and most people’s consciousness.
      That is why it is important to keep up the publicity on the problems with the adjustments.
      A congressional inquiry into GISS and NOAA adjustments is in order.

    • Whether there was warming post 1975, is uncertain. Michael Mann’s trees were not showing warming, hence the reason why he had to hide the decline.
      As from 1979 to the run up to the Super El Nino of 1998, according to the satellite data, there was no significant warming. Temperatures during the period 1979 to about 1996/7 were essentially flat.
      There are 2 pauses in the satellite data record, one as from launch in 1979 through to the run up to the Super El Nino of 1998, and one post the Super El Nino of 1998 to date. There is merely a one off isolated warming event, ie., the Super El Nino that released about 0.2/0.25degC of warming into the atmospher which has yet to dissipate. That one off step change in temperature was not manmade but natural and has nothing to do with CO2.

  5. To admit they are “uncertain” rather than “certain” would be a step in the right direction. (The “science” is far from “settled”.)
    But for some of the stuff being spun from the CAGW hypothesis “clueless” might be a better word.

  6. Denial phase followed by backpedaling. Who will be the first insider to break ranks and spill the beans? It’s just a matter of time.

    • I dont think it will happen that way: there will be a period of ‘revising’ of estimates at which point it will ‘become clear’ that after all, they weren’t WRONG, but just a wee bit pessimistic, and then gradually – its actually happening already – mainstream media will back down and quietly drop the whole affair, and all the pre prepared reasons why ‘we are really concerned about climate change, but we dont think renewable energy is the way to address it’ and so on will get trotted out, until in a decade everybody will have moved on, and it will just be ‘well it was never wrong exactly, just a bit of an over reaction, but that was GOOD as it made people aware…’

      • Drax burning US hardwood is already stirring the is renewable all it’s cracked up to be pot.

      • Spot on, many people are coming to the conclusion that it was nonsense in the first place, or they are just tired of it, since it doesn’t seem relevant in day to day lives. That makes it easy to do a slow-walk-back. Yes, we do see that is already happening.

      • The scientiists predicted global cooling and the start of a new ice age within 10 years back in the late 1970.
        Many scientists made the claims and the stories were in Time and Newsweek magazines. The start of a new Ice Age never happened. Today when you point this out the AGW pudits claim it was really only a handful of scientists who made that claim and it was never taken seriously by others anyway. What revisionist b.s. They rewrite history more than the Minsistry of Information changed history everyday in George Orwell’s “1984.”

      • “Drax burning US hardwood…”
        Burning trees for electricity, burning food to run our cars…next we’ll be switching to whale oil lamps.

      • It’s not only the wood that, oil is burnt to ship it several hundreds of miles across the US, to cut down and tranport that word to a chipping plant, chip it and ship it across the Atlantic to the UK. The oil used would be huge. It’s insanity!

  7. This is such a strange era. One of my achievements has been to show how Arctic sea ice evolution is in response of a surface rotation as a function of the orbital behavior of the Earth in an academic world which still tries to explain the seasons using a ’tilting’ Earth.
    As the Earth moves through space it turns to the central Sun as it does so and we get a window into this separate surface rotation at the North/ South poles which are carried around in a circle parallel to the orbital plane – all planets do this –
    The problem,at least up to now, is axial precession which requires an entirely different explanation than the one provided originally by Copernicus insofar as is obstructs the easy to understand observation where our planet turns to the central Sun in two distinct ways.
    The problem is not the proponents of global warming or variations on that theme but the lack of genuine researchers capable of understanding the dynamic behind the appearance and disappearance of Arctic sea ice – perhaps one of the greatest global events known to man.
    The WUWT website is therefore part of the problem.

    • Errrr, you do realise that the precessional circle – the Great Year – is 25,680 years long…? I think your calculations are a little bit out.

      • It is quite an experience to come to a website devoted to global temperatures and discover that participants have difficulties with the orbital dynamic behind sea ice evolution within context of seasonal variations in temperatures across hemispheres, even when imaging of another planet ,in this case Uranus,affirms the new perspective to a 100% observational certainty that two surface rotations to the central Sun are consistent with the separate day/night cycles going on simultaneously.
        The days of saying the Earth ’tilts’ towards and away from the Sun are over as the necessity of explaining the appearance and disappearance of sea ice across an orbital period and in dynamical terms is being obstructed by the flawed notion of axial precession. The Arctic ocean warms and cools in response to the surface rotation as a function of the orbital behavior of the Earth and consequently the evolution of sea ice follows suit. It is therefore impossible to treat the liquid mass of the Earth as a homogenized unit as academics would have it otherwise they lose the explanation for the massive annual event that is sea ice creation and its disappearance.
        Sure you can all continue with the schoolboy notion that the Earth ’tilts’ towards and away from the Sun which effectively ignores the technical details involving dual surface rotations needed to account for dual day/night cycles (with special emphasis on the polar day/night cycle) but of course it means ignoring why the Arctic ocean cools and water freezes at distinct orbital points as the Earth moves through space.

      • Here you go –

        About 50 seconds in when the orbital period of Uranus is condensed, you can see the planet turn in two distinct ways to the central Sun. The distance between Earth and Uranus is enormous so you infer the planet’s circle of illumination. Anyone who wishes to consider why the Arctic ocean warms and cools must go through this explanation rather than the older ‘Earth tilts towards and away from the Sun’.
        I turned on the tv this evening to watch the world’s most powerful political leaders go along with a belief that humans can control the planet’s temperature and have to shake my head. The fact is that websites like WUWT facilitate the advancement of an intellectual embarrassment for this era in humanity rather than counter the nonsense and indeed WUWT is as necessary for the global warmers as all the other fiction they subscribe to.
        The problems are generational which make the situation so much more difficult to fix.

      • G Kell 1
        “Sure you can all continue with the schoolboy notion that the Earth ’tilts’ towards and away from the Sun which effectively ignores the technical details involving dual surface rotations needed to account for dual day/night cycles (with special emphasis on the polar day/night cycle) but of course it means ignoring why the Arctic ocean cools and water freezes at distinct orbital points as the Earth moves through space.”
        I am sorry to say that this is the most nonsensical interpretation of Astronomy/Dynamics/Physics and probably every other science I have ever been taught. I would suggest if you are abusing a mind altering substance, then you should stop, before these delusions become permanent.

      • UM, Uranus is a gas planet, you know that, right?
        Do you think the Earth spins more or less than one time per day at certain latitudes, like Uranus?
        This could be the most interesting alternate theory of reality I have heard since that “There is no such thing as water vapor” guy.
        Please, do tell us all that you know. And not in riddles and scornful admonitions that we should all know better, like you do.

    • Gkell1,
      Since you seem to know the answer to the puzzle of Arctic ice, Anthony has an annual contest to predict where it will end up.
      If your hypothesis is valid, you will win that contest, or at least be right at the top with those guessing correctly. I’ll be watching with interest.

      • Contest indeed !. Let me guess, there is little appetite for the explanation as to why there is roughly 6 months of daylight at the North/South poles followed by 6 months of darkness and subsequently why the ocean around those latitudes warm and cool in response to a basic surface rotation leading to sea ice evolution at those latitudes.
        The technical and historical details work against people in this website as they are stuck with the less productive working principles inherited from the original heliocentric astronomers and specifically the flawed notion of axial precession. It is this notion that will always block researchers from actually looking at why we have the seasonal effects such as Arctic sea ice evolution even when common sense should intervene.
        No time for games, as far as I am concerned the explanation as to why the magnificent event of sea ice evolution is bound together with the cause of the polar day/night cycle. If people wish to understand why there is an incremental drift known as the precession of the Equinoxes then they have to go back to the roots of timekeeping and the cyclical references where timekeeping and dynamics merge to a close approximation. That is a very complex journey which I wouldn’t expect anyone to take but it all comes together in the end with a little effort and intelligence.
        By right, the dual surface rotations needed to explain the Earth’s dual day/night cycles should drag humanity away from this ‘greenhouse Earth’ and put climate back where it belongs within astronomy.

      • “Let me guess, there is little appetite for the explanation as to why there is roughly 6 months of daylight at the North/South poles followed by 6 months of darkness and subsequently why the ocean around those latitudes warm and cool in response to a basic surface rotation”
        I cannot figure out from your spiel whether you are simply referring to something which is common knowledge to anyone with a basic awareness of the Earth/Sun relationship, or if you are saying that the celestial mechanics of the orbit of the Earth have been completely misunderstood by anyone but you.
        Can you please tell us all about your “explanation as to why there is roughly 6 months of daylight at the North/South poles followed by 6 months of darkness”?

      • @Gkell1
        Your comments are sadly lacking both detail or a link to somewhere that has detail. I have time to consider any alternative theories in science as long as that theory is properly laid out, both showing where and why the established theory is flawed and why the alternative theory gives a more logical explanation. You have simply made a few assertions backed up with a lot of insults. If you wish to simply feel smug, that’s fine, but if you wish to be taken seriously please provide a link to your work.

      • So Gkell1 the earth tilts towards/away from the sun? This is simply false! The Northern and Southern Hemispheres change orientation but not the Earth. When the Northern Hemisphere tits towards the sun the other Hemisphere tilts away, and vice versa, so the Earth itself does not change its tilt, towards/away are a property of hemispherical relationship with the sun.
        Anyway, aside from that, what are your testable predictions re climate/weather derived from your understandings?

      • In the world I inhabit, the Arctic ocean warms and cools across an orbital period in response to a surface rotation as a function of the planet’s motion through space. The chances are that most of you live with a flawed generational perspective learned through classrooms that the Earth tilts away from the Sun in winter and towards the Sun in summer. Unlike the probabilities which is the focus of this thread, it is a 100% observational certainty that the planet has dual surface rotations to the central Sun and that currently the notion of axial precession prevents researchers from appreciating this new perspective.
        It is all very technical as to why axial precession was posited back 500 years ago in order to account for the precession of the Equinoxes but unfortunately the audience for the necessary modifications is just not around presently as demonstrated in this thread.
        If you can all live with the Earth tilting towards and away from the Sun to explain Arctic sea ice evolution then good for you but the true explanation has yet to make it into wider circulation.

      • Golly Mr. GKell,
        Maybe someday you could see fit to explain it us, even if it is all very technical.
        I am sure that everyone now understands that you are the smartest person ever.
        Or not.

    • Unfortunately, Mr. Gkell1, using Uranus with its observed axial tilt of 94 degrees to disprove the Earth has an axial tilt with respect to the solar ecliptic doesn’t really lead me to any understanding.
      If your undefined ‘dual surface rotation’ explains certain seasonal variations as observed on the surface of Earth, how does it explain the regular seasonal stellar parallax observed in the sky from the surface of the Earth?

      • Unfortunately the forum is struck with intellectual cowardice where the global warmers and their opponents try desperately not to sound like each other but can’t disguise what is effectively a middle class mediocrity .
        The daily daylight/darkness cycle is defined by daily rotation and the polar daylight/darkness cycle is defined by a separate rotation hence dual surface rotations to the central Sun originating from separate causes.

    • Gkell1
      You have done the impossible. You have demonstrated that you can start with an empty glass and then empty it even further. Who could have imagined such a thing!
      Eugene WR Gallun

  8. I guess it is worth a few citations to dress up the bleeding obvious with a bit of jargon and a couple of pointless diagrams.
    The question was simple – “Why isn’t it hot?”.
    The answer : 15 years of warming is significant.
    15 years of NOT warming is NOT significant.
    A bit of a hard sell but I suppose a better answer than any of the other 60 candidates.

  9. Interesting article, but it avoids the elephant in the room:
    “the decade 2001 onwards having been the hottest, the warmest that we have seen”
    (Pachauri L261–263).
    This is not only highly uncertain, it is almost certainly false if “we” includes our Minoan and Roman ancestors. If we are only willing to include our literal selves within the figurative “we”, then a significant percentage of “we” have never experienced a statistically significant climate warming of any kind.

    • Pssst… he’s not talking about climate but about his “sweetheart”. 😉
      However, all in all he’s right, but readers may not be aware of the right emphasis “we have seen” in here, which relates back to 80 years or so. 😉
      Yet again, there are people, who can’t see beyond their own nose. 97% certainty!

  10. False science leads to contradictions, while the truth has no end. The contradiction between “the hottest decade” and “15 years is too short” exposed the IPCC position as being false. Surprisingly, the scientists involved could not see the contradiction, but the reporters did.
    It is only now, 2 years later, that another group of researchers has finally discovered the scientists contradicted themselves. The IPCC was not up to the task. It could not discover its own errors.

  11. Climate “scientists” do not behave as scientists. Their closest analog is the behavior of creation “scientists”.

  12. I’m sure the IPCC “scientists” all use nitrogen in their car tires too, because it is of course a consensus, at least amongst tire retailers and service centers offering nitrogen, that pressure in nitrogen-filled tires stays constant as the tire heats-up. And they know what’s best for you.

    • I thought Nitrogen was theoretically better because it is less permeable through rubber, unlike the 21% of O2 in air, it is non reactive and won’t corrode the interior of the rim, and has a lesser propensity to carry humidity. I’ve never heard claims that it defies the Ideal Gas Law.
      Personally I fill my tires from my scuba tank, the air in which is well dried.

      • Tom Crozier the “consensus” (read: sales pitch) amongst those selling nitrogen to the gullible and/or scientifically ignorant public is that it maintains a constant pressure, which improves handling, gas mileage, and their profits. Try buying tires lately without getting pitched to purchase the nitrogen “option.” According to the “experts” it is less permeable, and won’t react with the inside of the tire. My response: After a few refills with good ‘ol air, since the oxygen permeates through the rubber, won’t I eventually be left with nothing but nitrogen in my tires. And why does the oxygen only react with the inside of the tire? What about the outside? Shouldn’t I paint my tires to keep the oxygen away from the rubber? But if I did that, then the oxygen on the inside couldn’t get out. Bummer.
        Those same people buying nitrogen for their tires get their climate information from their favorite actor/actress. And there were a lot of people buying tires the day I was there. Scary.

      • There is an interesting chemical equilibrium 2NO2&lt-&gtN2O4 that was my introduction to IR spectroscopy in gases.

      • Well as I said, I fill my own tires from my scuba tank, the air in which has hopefully been pretty well de-humidified. After I posted my original comment, I realized that I failed to mention the increasing concentration of Nitrogen as the Oxygen migrates out, but I figured someone would recognize my error and explain it far better than I could. Thank you for doing so!

      • Asphalt seems to be the nastiest substance for tires!
        In this study, wallet contents were used as a proxy for energetic exposure of tires to pavement.

    • I’d guess the IPCC “scientists” aren’t even aware that it’s an option. The ability to deal with simple practical tasks seems to escape folks who veer toward politics. I once saw a member of the House of Representatives completely baffled by a FedEx air-bill, even though my 11 year old daughter filled one out online in about 90 seconds, with no errors.

  13. My position because I am in position to do it is I will not let the IPCC influence my opinion on what the climate is doing and where it may be heading. In addition agenda driven data put forth by AGW enthusiast I likewise ignore just like they do with data which is not agenda driven.
    Satellite data,radiosonde data and agencies of the like of Weatherbell is the data I rely on to see where the state of the climate is and where it may be heading.

  14. If they begin with a false premise, “In the last 25 years scientists have become increasingly certain that humans are responsible for changes to the climate.,” their subsequent analysis is certain to be wrong.
    The problem with the public perception of “climate change” is not one of communication. The problem is that the public are well aware of the violent slanders, false accusations, evidence of falsehood itself (climategate; Mann’s hockey stick, temperature jiggery) of AGW alarm-mongers, along with the discorrespondence between insistent predictions of doom in the continuing utter absence doom-laden events, and the objections of legitimate scientists, all of which uniquely, and I mean uniquely, disfigure climate science.
    The public is less blind than journalists and sociologists. Those of the public not committed to an agenda see the turmoil and dishonesty, and come to a very reasonable conclusion that there is much to distrust in the whole AGW-doom enterprise.
    Until sociologists come to grips with the dishonesty obviously rife in climate science, they’ll never come to an explanation for the refractory disinterest of the public despite the huge propaganda effort of government flacks, the IPCC, and the NGOs with their PR mercenaries.

    • “In the last 25 years scientists have become increasingly certain that humans are responsible for changes to the climate.”
      My view of this statement is as follows:
      “In the last 25 years scientists (and the lay-pubic) have become increasingly certain that human-caused FUNDING for climate science has become a massive gravy train for those involved.”

  15. “In the last 25 years scientists have become increasingly certain that humans are responsible for changes to the climate.” Well excuse me for breathing.

    • Whoa! Scott, don’t stop breathing just yet. That statement says nothing about exactly what we humans have been doing over the last 25 years that scientists are certain has changed the climate.

  16. That’s because the ‘Scientific Community’ considers the average person too stupid to comprehend the concept of ‘uncertainty’.

  17. Truth and honesty lead to loss of grants and to ostracism, and so arises the “tension” referenced above.

    • That’s actually a reasonable timescale.
      In 1915 horses were the main source of motive power and factories were still largely run on local external steam combustion engines.
      By the end of the century that had all changed.
      It’s always a good policy to let the stars turn in their course. It requires little input.

      • Yes, agreed.
        I was, though, thinking more-of the implications for the CAGW proponents. The G7 are saying that they will aim for a 40% to 70% reduction in 85 years. I doubt that will sit well with the alarmists. Over and above that, China and India are not G7 members and their fossil fuel use is going up for at least the next 20 years.
        Taking the G7 high estimate of 70%, that represents a less than 1% per decade reduction and again only for the G7 nations.
        I suspect thee will be many distraught Guardian readers. 🙂

      • Jeff, the availability of reasonable cost fossil fuel (even with projected improvements in technology), and the increasing use (especially China and India, but later others) assure that we will be well beyond peak access to these fuels before the end of this century. Thus new alternate transportation, home power, and industrial power energy source technologies will evolve (likely cleaner nuclear, and possibly a new one: E-Cat) if governments don’t get in the way too much. Aiming for a 40% to 70% reduction in 85 years is a joke, as it would be likely that much fossil fuel would NOT still be available, even if nothing is done to reduce it deliberately.

      • “That’s actually a reasonable timescale.”
        You are right for those who proposed it because they will not be around to take any accountability and will not have to really do anything in the near future as they have given themselves 80+ years to do it.
        So it is one of those agreements that is totally meaningless.

      • This is like the fourteen year old who gets an assignment for a ten page term paper in September, which is due by the end of May.

    • Leonard.
      Yes,there is a hard stop somewhere later in this century, maybe next of recoverable fossil fuels. That’s assuming we don’t go back to coal of course. 🙂
      It just amuses me that after the vast amount of effort put in by warmists, all they have from the G7 is some undertaking to reduce fossil fuel use by under 1% per decade – at best.
      I rather think the CAGW crowd were demanding a lot more than that in terms of rapidity and scale of reduction..:)
      See you on the other side of the fabled 2C limit or just maybe, the pause extends. Either way, it’s game over for the warmists.

    • Jeff, MCourtney and RossP
      You each make good points. 80+ tears is a “reasonable timescale” that requires no real action so “is totally meaningless”.
      But the G7 agreement needs to be a wake-up call to opponents of the global warming scare.
      Politicians never openly admit they were wrong but – as in this case – they often pretend to be continuing a policy they have abandoned. And their pretending often provides a serious problem. The global warming scare was killed in Copenhagen in 2009 and this year in Paris there will be attempts to ensure the damage the scare causes will be made permanent while politicians are pretending they still support the scare so they won’t object.
      We need to ensure the damage from the global warming scare is not made permanent by COP21 in Paris in December of this year.
      I remind that very soon after the Copenhagen fiasco I wrote this.

      The AGW-scare was killed at the failed 2009 IPCC Conference in Copenhagen. I said then that the scare would continue to move as though alive in similar manner to a beheaded chicken running around a farmyard. It continues to provide the movements of life but it is already dead. And its deathly movements provide an especial problem.
      Nobody will declare the AGW-scare dead: it will slowly fade away. This is similar to the ‘acid rain’ scare of the 1980s. Few remember that scare unless reminded of it but its effects still have effects; e.g. the Large Combustion Plant Directive (LCPD) exists. Importantly, the bureaucracy which the EU established to operate the LCPD still exists. And those bureaucrats justify their jobs by imposing ever more stringent, always more pointless, and extremely expensive emission limits which are causing enforced closure of UK power stations.
      Bureaucracies are difficult to eradicate and impossible to nullify.
      As the AGW-scare fades away those in ‘prime positions’ will attempt to establish rules and bureaucracies to impose those rules which provide immortality to their objectives. Guarding against those attempts now needs to be a serious activity.

      The G7 announcement concurs with that opinion from 5+ years ago.

  18. Has anyone noticed that the definition of ‘scientific certainty’ is “too far away to test”.
    And has anyone noticed that the definition of ‘climate change over a couple of decades’ is “overwhelmed by noise and so without meaningful test”.
    In climate science nothing is testable.
    So is it science or faith?

    • Not being testable is a pretty big issue, but modeling has been tested by decades of model results stacked up against real world climate. It is true before any testing took place they acted like nincompoops declaring the awesome accuracy of their models was beyond refute. That was pretty stupid. And dishonest. And delusional. And unscientific.
      Looking at string theory they are still trying to figure out a practical way to test the theory, they can prove it with maths which they have high confidence in, but it remains 100% not accepted until proven.
      Meteorologists test their forecasting ability daily and when they say 20% chance of rain it is based on decades of testing improving their forecast ability, but more importantly understanding their forecasting limitations. Hence we are spared meteorologists stating they have 98% certainty of 20% certainty of rain, instead they cut right to chase, 20% chance of rain.
      Climate modelers have decades of testing that should be telling them 2 things. 1. Their models suck and 2. They do not understand how climate works. Instead they lower the bar for passing real world tests, and then raise the bar in using denial of reality to make more outlandish claims.

    • Here’s a bumper sticker for them to display:
      Follow Me to…
      The Church of the Omnipotent Greenhouse in Carbon
      (Humanitatis Culpa Synod)
      “Believe or be prosecuted.”

  19. It’s time for the people who pay for the IPCC and GISS and the NOAA to somehow gain control over these institutions that are using slight of hand, adjustments, and post hoc corrections to their media circuses.
    These institutions would be under investigation if they were in the private sector! Why are they getting a free pass when we control them? Things have gone way to far and we have been far too patient with this nonsense.
    Time to end the patience.

  20. 97% of climate scientist agree that humans are the cause of the majority of warming… with 8% certainty.

  21. “A new report from The University of Nottingham looks at whether climate scientists threaten their own scientific credibility” What’s that, then?

  22. “increase public meaning…”
    Oh goody.
    Meanwhile I am 98% certain of my 38% uncertainty and 100% certain of the certainty of my uncertainty. making me pretty certain about just about everything.

    • This really should be a guest main post.
      I don’t like the f-word but the graph tells a shady story.

      • In discussing Karl et al elsewhere, just a few hours before I found the above I posted:

        As Richard Feynman pointed out, when your physical model is not consistent with the facts it’s time to look for a better model. It is the increasing divergence between prediction and reality that is troubling for climate science, a divergence that is starting to invalidate many models on normal statistical criteria. That is why we see climate scientists offering fresh explanations for the deviation between model and observation – which is precisely what they should be doing. It’s a process akin to adding more deferents to a medieval orrery, which is probably a good analogy for the state of climate science.
        Sadly, one of the great temptations for scientists is to fiddle the data or observation methodology to fit their prior beliefs: there have been many famous cases in different branches of science over the years – consider the history of the measurement of the electric charge first done by Millikan to pick one example that is well away from climate science. If we are to make genuine progress in the underlying science we must be careful to avoid such pitfalls, which is why it is important to scrutinise papers such as Karl et al with particular care.

        I agree it should be a main post: I imagine Tony Heller may be in transit.

  23. “the decade 2001 onwards having been the hottest, the warmest that we have seen”
    (Pachauri L261–263).

    He might have been talking about women, not climate.

  24. Article sez: “the decade 2001 onwards having been the hottest, the warmest that we have seen”
    (Pachauri L261–263).”
    One has to wonder if Pachy is referring to the temperature or his misguided attempted sexual exploits.

  25. They are only “38% sure 2014 was the warmest on record”. Well, I’m 100% sure it wasn’t. The Wood For Trees Index combines all the major temp indexes which ensures that you don’t just cherry pick from your favorite. WFTI was nowhere close to a record in 2014.
    The five year moving average is near the highest ever… but it has only gone up 0.31 deg C in 31 years… exactly a rate of 1.0 deg per century.

      • “As the saying goes: “what goes up, must come down””
        That’s how the saying goes, but physics don’t work that way. If the atmosphere’s sum of positive forcings is greater than the negative forcings, then it will warm

  26. “…However, for many politicians and members of the public, climate change is still not a particularly pressing concern…”
    In that case, you might wonder how the leaders of the G7 are going to explain to their adoring public the agreement they just made today to completely phase out the use of all fossil fuels by 2100.

    • The year 100 is deliberately chosen to be meaningless, just too far into the future.

  27. Same old story — they are still trying to figure out what size lie people will swallow. Eugene WR Gallun

  28. So, what is the upshot of all this? Climate scientists cannot discuss temperature changes over short periods of time. Why? Is there some accepted theoretical position that explains this? No. The explanation is that any such discussion cannot but reveal the incoherence in what climate scientists call their theory.

  29. Well, we tried to convince everybody that total gullibility was the only option.
    By linking reasoned investigation and the asking of sensible questions with holocaust denial and nutjob conspiracy ideation.
    You lot were supposed to have been stigmatized and disenfranchised and to have given up by now.
    Instead, you are still poring over the science and forcing us to declare that we can only have “low confidence” for any association between extreme weather events and AGW.
    “Low confidence”!! Do you have any idea how feeble that makes it all sound.
    You’ve basically ruined everything.
    We don’t have a frightening hockey stick to show people. All that we are now able to say is that some irrelevant crap may happen to some stuff that people don’t really care about, possibly, in the long term future and with low confidence.
    Pretty soon smart people are going to figure out that that rising weather-related insurance claims graph simply results from people insuring more stuff at higher values.
    And if society doesn’t shift away from fossil fuels then how are we going to explain the fact that the weather isn’t doing anything very scary or remarkable?
    The way that we planned it we were going to be able to explain that the normal weather was the result of the mitigation that we had proposed and stage-managed.
    We were going to be heralded as the saviours of civilization.
    If there is no mitigation then how are we going to explain the normal weather of the future.
    These days people are more afraid of ISIS.
    And yet what have they done? They don’t even have a detailed report containing scary graphs.
    We did everything possible to play on the tendency of humans to misattribute normal weather variability to an over-arching multi-decadal trend.
    They already do that, anyway. It’s an already existing cognitive bias.
    So this should have been like feeding candy to babies.
    And we would have gotten away with it all, if it hadn’t been for you pesky skeptics.
    (Correction: Apparently, ISIS do have a report containing scary graphs. So well done to them. Credit where credit is due.)

    • Angela Merkel is SO not going to appoint you her next Minister of the Environment!

      • Actually, I am Merkel’s current minister for the environment.
        Why do you think that I am not using my real name.
        Having to pretend for years that my country was the world leader in renewables whilst sinking hundred’s of billions of euros into ineffective subsidies. And this disaster, whilst noting all along that my country is still burning as much coal per year as it was two decades ago. This nightmarish disaster has certainly caused me to ask some serious questions.
        And even our impressive sounding renewables figure is mostly padded out with biomass and waste incineration. What is so wunderbar about biomass? Have not, always, people burned trees? This is not progress. How can we go on pretending?
        People out there, still believe the stupid facebook memes saying that we get 50% of our electricity from solar. The reality is that it’s barely 5% of our total electricity consumption. And now we have the most expensive electricity in the world. We have to grant special subsidies to industrial plants, just so that they can still afford to run a kettle to make tea.
        Every day, I feel like a total fraud.
        However I must, of course, keep schtum about my growing doubts.
        Or I too, will be labelled as a denier.
        We have retreated to the bunker now.
        We can hear the sound of skeptics pounding our defenses with their awkward questions.
        These days all I have to console myself, is anonymous trolling on WUWT!!

  30. If the comment “38% certainty” had been accompanied by “62% uncertainty” the public would have been “communicated to” a lot more forthrightly.
    So it turns out that not all people who can think are climate scientists. Some are reporters.

  31. I think the climate scientists dismiss the pause because not enough time has elapsed since the pause has or is occuring. They have not had enough time to do repeated revisions to the data to make a significant rising pattern appear. In the year 2000 James Hansen’s assessment of the temperature trend in the US for the 20th century was essentially that there was a pause, in that there was no significant trend in the temperature. Now, 15 years later, after many revisions to the data, the temperature data for the US in the 80s and 90s has a significant warming trend. Just give the climate guys time, in another decade or two this current “pause” will be revised slowly but surely into a rising pattern that is much more conducive to selling support for global warming study funding to the public and to our governments. The only hurdle they have is getting the RSS data thrown under the bus as corrupt data, then all we will have is their adjusted and revised ground data.

    • The only hurdle they have is getting the RSS data thrown under the bus as corrupt data, then all we will have is their adjusted and revised ground data.
      Show them the UAH (skeptics) and RSS (alamists) graphs from 2001 or 2002. Then comment that maybe those results might suggest that they are both being as honest as they know how. Then average the two.
      All reasonable ground freely given, trend results copacetic. Like the man says, you got to know how to communicate with these (my) people.

  32. “the decade 2001 onwards having been the hottest, the warmest that we have seen”
    (Pachauri L261–263).
    Fair enough. And so what, if it is? We have some fairly reasonable estimates of global temp. records since 1850. I would expect that most decades since 1850 were the warmest ever seen since the depths of the LIA. Probably with the notable exceptions of the 40’s and 50’s which were cooler than the 30’s.
    If you have a gradual upward trend then you tend to find yourself living in the warmest decade seen. Because each successive decade tends to be slightly warmer than the one before, on average.
    The people of the 1870’s or the 1930’s were living in the warmest decades seen at that time.
    Thank god that the people of 1870 didn’t panic and decide to stop exploiting fossil fuels in order to prevent the a massive ecological catastrophe 100 years later.
    Here we all are. Still having warmest decades ever.
    So what?
    Honestly, hiatus schmiatus.
    None of this has any bearing on the real questions.
    Questions like, do we really want to be told how to live our lives by idiots?

  33. Does anybody know what the uncertainty ranges associated with annual temperature anomalies represent? For example, NASA says that the land temperatures for 2014 have an uncertainty of +- 0.2C while the ocean temps have an uncertainty of +- 0.04C. That our vast network of land thermometers over 30% of the globe produce a less certain result (5 times more uncertain) than a sporadic network over 70% of the globe seems pretty counter-intuitive to me. We can’t possibly be taking temperature readings in the oceans at the geographical resolution we are on land. Is this just instrumental uncertainty or is there actually a calculation of error that results from the statistical interpolation of temperatures over 2D areas and over time?
    Is there an assumption that spatial and/or temporal variation of ocean temperatures is so much less than land that you can get away with fewer readings? Do the ocean temperature readings come in 24 times a day compared to only max and min temps recorded on land?
    Everything I’ve read indicates that the ocean temperature record is a mess of unreliable and contaminated data sources mixed all together, where only recently have we had the capability to reliably measure a temperature at a particular spot. Even assuming that the 2014 ocean temps have a low instrumental uncertainty, how could that low uncertainty translate to a long-term anomaly where you have to compute an average temperature using unreliable measurements?

  34. Bullcrap. It’s not that the scientists can’t communicate their certainty. The scientists have no certainty, either. They just pretend to have it.
    You know what they have? They have arbitrary accuracy, pretend precision, and convenient certainty.
    They know very well how uncertain the temperature record is, especially after homogenization.
    We can see the evidence on GISS’s own website:
    “In 99.9% of the cases you’ll find that anomalies are exactly what you need, not absolute temperatures. In the remaining cases, you have to pick one of the available climatologies and add the anomalies (with respect to the proper base period) to it. For the global mean, the most trusted models produce a value of roughly 14°C, i.e. 57.2°F, but it may easily be anywhere between 56 and 58°F and regionally, let alone locally, the situation is even worse.”
    They’ll admit in a FAQ that they don’t even know the GMST of the base period with accuracy to a degree Fahrenheit. But they sure won’t say that in a press release or a news conference.
    Odd, isn’t it, how they never get asked about that. It’s like the stenographers… I mean, the reporters… don’t read up on the subject beforehand.
    And the uncertainty is even larger, they admit, for regional or local temperature records. How they have more certainty for the entire globe than they do, say, for a city is something of a mystery to me…………

    • Well, I always use anomalized data (I do it myself). You have to if there are missing datapoints or station dropout (so it’s not needed for the adjusted stuff). But I have always thought it was bogus (yet not strictly inaccurate) to peg it to a baseline. Anomalize the durn thing to itself, only. That tells you how much it cooled and warmed (and you you have one less cheap excuse to paint the whole map red). And the trends, of course, are identical to the raw data.

  35. A broader, more inclusive public dialogue will include crucial scientific details that we are far less certain about. These need to be embraced and acknowledged in order to make climate change meaningful.
    And that, chilluns, is called the Dialectic. Hegel used it to define truths and prevent riots.
    His successors use it to spread falsehoods and incite riots. And they do not appreciate it when their own weapons are turned upon them. They can dish it out, but they can’t take it.

  36. “Climate science draws on evidence over hundreds of years, way outside of our everyday experience. ”
    And then scientists either ignore it or try to remove it from the record. Preferring to point alarmist fingers at any recent changes in living memory, and ignoring the short term cyclical nature of the climate within the long term cycles to sell their argument to the public who are led to believe their everyday experience has somehow changed because of their actions in their lifetime.
    Twice in the past month i’ve heard marine biologists on the BBC claiming (slightly) warmer seas around the UK are evidence of climate change in the past 30 years (barnacle growth), or might be because of climate change (whale migration). So nothing to do with the AMO being positive then?

  37. The Warmistas spend far to much energy on getting the propaganda right to lead one to the impression that perhaps it is all a lie.

    • Exactly. “Improving climate change communication.” That means “Try to make the message more effective.” Now why would any bona fide scientists have a “message”? Because they are not true scientists at all; they are trying to convince the public to join them in a Cause. To the point where they are perfectly happy to have their Scholastic scribes “adjust” (i.e. falsify) the data.
      They Priests don’t need to falsify the data to convince the public; all they have to do is make emphatic claims, like “The Earth is the warmest it’s ever been!” The Scribes have to to falsify the data to befuddle the skeptical scientists, the real scientists, who will be predictably swamped in endless arguments about minutiae: “Was that adjustment correct? But what if. . .?” The Scholastics will be preoccupied with whether you can homogenize some of the angels to make them fit on the pin with the others or whether we should use a different pin. The High Priests will ignore than and exhort the Faithful to follow them and prevent the awful Climate Apocalypse to come.
      “Improving climate change communication” also means dealing with the heretics—suppressing them, punishing them. The tyranny of the Believers begins with ostracism, and then. . .
      /Mr Lynn

      • Correction: “The High Priests will ignore all that and exhort the Faithful to follow them and prevent the awful Climate Apocalypse to come.”

      • “The High Priests will ignore all that and exhort the Faithful to follow them and prevent the awful Climate Apocalypse to come.”
        this is the trend
        beau-ti-ful trend, my friend
        this is the trend
        the Tmean trend, to end
        I’ll never win the nobel prize again
        I’ll never homogenize again.

  38. In the real world, if a corporation were to express such extreme confidence in their projections and made as many “adjustments” to their books as the IPCC has done to the raw data, and their projections didn’t come close to guidance, then the company would be sued for malfeasance and fraud and many of the executives would go to jail.
    The IPCC has absolutely NO justification to be 95% confident that man’s CO2 emissions have caused more than 50% of all global warming since 1950. NONE!
    The empirical evidence shows that since 1850, CO2 has PERHAPS contributed 0.2C to the 0.8C of warming over the last 165 years, and manmade CO2 may add another 0.3~0.8C of CO2 induced warming by 2100; most likely closer to 0.3C~0.4C…
    Regardless of the Karl 2015 shenanigans, RSS, UAH and Radiosonde empirical evidence show almost NO warming trend for 19 years and counting. Moreover, the RSS/UAH and radiosonde evidence are now 2+ standard deviations off from CAGW model mean projections and perhaps will be over 3+ SDs off within 5 years.
    CAGW is dead. Just to get to their low-end “best guess” estimate of 3C by 2100 would require a global temperature trend of 0.26C/decade for the next 85 straight years, starting from tomorrow…. That AIN’T gonna happen…
    Just to hit 2C by 2100 would require a global warming trend of 0.14C/decade for the next 85 straight years, starting from tomorrow, which also isn’t going to happen; not with what’s happening with the weak solar cycles and the PDO/AMO cool cycles in effect or coming soon…
    The IPCC knows this, which is why they’re desperately “fixing” the numbers to delay the inevitable CAGW disconfirmation.
    It’s infuriating to see science corrupted in this manner and the $TRILLIONS being wasted by governments around the world to address a fabricated non-issue…

    • If the maximum attributable temperature rise since 1850 that is due to CO2 is 0.2C, then the maximum future attributable temperature rise must not exceed this amount for the next 120ppm rise. If it did we would be looking at a compounding relationship which would take projections into the realm of nonsensical very quickly. Current projections already suffer this fatal flaw. One only needs to extend the trajectory of doomsday graphs past the surface temperature of Venus, yet below the concentration of an exhaled breath to see this.

    • “The empirical evidence shows that since 1850, CO2 has PERHAPS contributed 0.2C to the 0.8C of warming over the last 165 years”
      Source? How did you come by this ?

      • Mary– The peer reviewed paper Lindzen & Choi 2011 estimates about 0.2C of CO2 induced warming by 2100.
        Given the forcing effect of CO2 per doubling, if there are no negatives feedbacks, then ECS is approximately 1.C per CO2 doubling. It’s becoming increasing clear that negative cloud cover feedbacks from added CO2 induced warming cuts Net CO2 induced warming by 20~50%.
        Nobody knows for certain how big this negative cloud feedback mechanism is, but there being absolutely no discernible global warming trend for the past 19 years, despite 30% of all manmade CO2 emissions since 1750 being made over the 19 years doesn’t bode well for CAGW’s assumption of climate’s super sensitivity to CO2.
        Model projections are already off by 2 standard deviations and within 5 years or so, reality will deviate from projections by 3+ SDs, which is sufficient duration and disparity to disconfirm the CAGW hypothesis.

  39. The average person who knows from life’s experience that we can’t predict the weather well, and only give an estimate of future weather patterns that are what we consider is normal or there are variables within any seasonal climate change. Even radar can only give some indication of where rain will fall. I’ve seen storms approaching and never hit us but 50 km away they are suffering a deluge. It could be raining hard down the hill from where I live and we are getting just a bit. A bad hail storm hit Armidale some years ago, it swept past my home but a few kms away there was terrible damage. That’s the truth.

  40. “However, for many politicians and members of the public, climate change is still not a particularly pressing concern.”! Really? Tell that to Obama et al.

  41. Opening up Climate Science to questions of uncertainty, is Like Mikael Gorbachev opening up the Soviet Union to reform. Once started, the damn will break and the flood gates will open!

  42. So now it is periods of 30 years that present significant degrees of uncertainty. Of course it has to be more than periods of 20 or so years, because if it were 20 or so years the game would be up and the certainty in. Only problem is that I have heard these figures in the past, but when it was not near twelve years flatline, the figure for a statistically significant flatline was approx. twelve years, and as that neared it became 16 years, and in another ten years it’ll be 50 years, etc etc etc.
    It is great to watch the developments in statistics over the years, obviously a field undergoing rapid change and development, as the figures for uncertainty become more and more refined. This clearly could not be done without computers…

  43. Perhaps Warren Pearce and Dr Karl should open a fudge factory…Karl & Pearce Fantastic Fudge. Contains 98% hot air with a sprinkle of chocolate facts.

  44. Dr Pearce adds: “In the run-up to the United Nations climate summit in Paris, making climate change meaningful remains a key challenge.”

    Is it just me, or does the linkage between the Paris summit and the need to make climate change “meaningful” simply continue to subordinate scientific research to serve a pre-selected political goal?
    It would seem that what upsets Dr. Pearce is not that climate science is done poorly, but that the public are too often figuring that out.

Comments are closed.