Roger Pielke Jr. describes the distorting of climate science

By Larry Kummer. From the Fabius Maximus website

Summary: Scientists and journalists play a vital role in the public policy debate about climate change, explaining the reports of the major climate agencies. Here Roger Pielke Jr. describes an example of how they too often misrepresent those findings, distorting the debate and feeding the public’s loss of confidence in science as an institution.

About those exaggerations in the media about climate.

Pielke on Climate” – part 2 of 3.

About the misreporting of experts’ reports.

By Roger Pielke Jr. at The Climate Fix.

Posted with his generous permission.

Lightly edited.

Introduction.

Welcome to issue #7 of my occasional newsletter on climate and energy issues. As a reminder, my day-to-day research or writing is focused on sports governance and various issues of science policy. But I’ve written a fair bit on the topics of climate and energy over the past 25 years, including two recent books and a boatload of academic papers, and I’m paying attention. So caveat lector {reader beware}! …

The US National Climate Assessment and Weather Extremes.

The 4th US National Climate Assessment {NCA} was published a few weeks ago, and it is worth reviewing what it says about trends in extreme weather events. In short, the NCA supports arguments I’ve been making for many years.

  • “Cold extremes have become less severe over the past century.”
  • “Changes in warm extremes are more nuanced than changes in cold extremes.” (Yes, you read that correctly.)

Here are trends in cold spells, warm spells and heat waves 1900 to present from the report.

“The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC’s) Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) concluded that it is very likely that human influence has contributed to the observed changes in frequency and intensity of temperature extremes on the global scale since the mid-20th century. …In general, however, results for the contiguous United States are not as compelling as for global land areas , in part because detection of changes in U.S. regional temperature extremes is affected by extreme temperature in the 1930s.”

Emphasis added, and yes, that means weak attribution. {Ed. – See the graphs!}

“Figure 6.4. Observed changes in cold and heat waves in the contiguous United States. The top panel depicts changes in the frequency of cold waves; the middle panel depicts changes in the frequency of heat waves; and the bottom panel depicts changes in the intensity of heat waves. …”

Figure 6.4: Observed changes in cold waves in the contiguous United States.

Figure 6.4: Observed changes in warm waves in the contiguous US.Figure 6.4: Observed changes in heat waves in the contiguous US.

  • “…there is still low confidence that any reported long-term (multidecadal to centennial) increases in TC {tropical cyclone} activity are robust are robust, after accounting for past changes in observing capabilities …
  • “A particular challenge in quantifying the existence and intensity of {tornado} events arises from the data source …
  • “Analysis of {winter} storm tracks indicates that there has been an increase in winter storm frequency and intensity since 1950. …
  • “drought statistics over the entire CONUS have declined …
  • “no detectable change in meteorological drought at the global scale. …
  • “Western North America …where determining if observed recent droughts were unusual compared to natural variability was particularly difficult …
  • “IPCC AR5 did not attribute changes in flooding to anthropogenic influence nor report detectable changes in flooding magnitude, duration, or frequency …
  • “{In the US| increasing & decreasing flooding magnitude but does not provide robust evidence that these trends are attributable to human influences… no formal attribution of observed flooding changes to anthropogenic forcing has been claimed …
  • “a number of precipitation metrics over the continental United States has been examined; however trends identified for the U.S. regions have not been clearly attributed to anthropogenic forcing …”

The data says what it says. There is precious little evidence that extremes have become worse in the US since at least 1900, with the exception of more winter storms since 1950 and overall fewer cold spells. Attribution {for these trends} is weak to nonexistent.

Despite the evidence there is a drumbeat of news stories and various claims that weather disasters are getting worse. For instance, the New York Times article on the release of the report contained this statement…

“In the United States, the report finds that every part of the country has been touched by warming, from droughts in the Southeast to flooding in the Midwest …”

{In it} Michael Mann, the same professor suing his critics for being wrong about scientific claims says this:

“Whether we’re talking about unprecedented heat waves, increasingly destructive hurricanes, epic drought and inundation of our coastal cities, the impacts of climate change are no longer subtle“

Both the NYT characterization of the report and Mann’s claims are irrefutably incorrect according to the report. These are just a few of many similar examples of claims that are contrary to the NCA related to extreme weather.

Claiming that the weather has gotten worse is today an important cultural shibboleth related to climate science. It’s not supported by the evidence but it serves an important role in the political debate over climate. Another weakened norm, I suppose.

————– Tune in tomorrow for the concluding chapter of this article. ————–

Roger Pielke Jr

Roger Pielke Jr.

About the author

Roger Pielke, Jr. is a Professor of Environmental Studies at the U of CO-Boulder. He was Director of the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research. He is now Director of the Sports Governance Center in the Dept of Athletics. Before joining the faculty of the U of CO, from 1993-2001 he was a Scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research.

His research focuses on science, innovation and politics. He holds degrees in mathematics, public policy and political science from the University of Colorado. In 2006 he received the Eduard Brückner Prize in Munich for outstanding achievement in interdisciplinary climate research. In 2012 Roger was awarded an honorary doctorate from Linköping University in Sweden and the Public Service Award of the Geological Society of America.

His page at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research has his bio, CV, and links to some of his publications. His website has links to his works, and essays about the many subjects on which he works.

He is also author, co-author or co-editor of seven books, including The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics (2007), The Climate Fix: What Scientists and Politicians Won’t Tell You About Global Warming (2010), The Rightful Place of Science: Disasters and Climate Change (2014), and The Edge: The War against Cheating and Corruption in the Cutthroat World of Elite Sports (2016).

For More Information

For more information see The keys to understanding climate change, all posts about Roger Pielke Jr., and My posts about climate change, and especially these …

  1. Important: climate scientists can restart the climate change debate – & win.
  2. How we broke the climate change debates. Lessons learned for the future.
  3. A status report on global warming. Much depends on the next few years.
  4. Good news for the New Year! Salon explains that the global climate emergency is over.
  5. A story of the climate change debate. How it ran; why it failed.
  6. News misreporting a big GAO report about climate change.

 

Advertisements

131 thoughts on “Roger Pielke Jr. describes the distorting of climate science

  1. “(I)rrefutably incorrect” gave me a pause, but I think I get it. Mann’s claims are incorrect because they are easily refuted.

      • IN no way is Mann wrong about anything and Pielke is a clueless hack who hasn’t been involved with climate science for over 15 years. The idea that you think Mann is wrong suggest youre a tool.

      • And just why do you conclude The Infallible Oracle, the Sage of Treemometers, He who is able to rewrite a thousand years of history, The Blessed Michael Mann is a reliable source on climate?

      • Name 3 working climate scientist who DO NOT agree with the hockey stick. They must have made such STATEMENT within the past 3 years. Good luck finding even ONE. Why do you believe lips that are moving for any reason? I don’t. Without major literature and evidence to back up ANYTHING he says, I will not believe what he says. There is ZERO evidence we do NOT have a major warming issue. Z E R O
        And there are ZERO working climate scientist who DO NOT think is getting warmer. Even weird idealogues like Curry do not deny the issue.

      • Arguing with someone with your Weltanschaaung is like Zeno’s paradox. As you will define “climate scientist” as only those who are True Believers in CAGW, of course they don’t exist. And if you accept the definition of motion used by Zeno. . .

      • Did you just suggest that I peruse a 2007 article? lol
        If you want to show me something important from the last 2 or 3 years, please let me know.
        NO climate scientists is suggesting Mann is wrong. If you know of one, let me know that as well.

      • “There is ZERO evidence we do NOT have a major warming issue”

        There has been NO WARMING in the whole satellite temperature era apart from El Nino events

        Even the 2015 El Nino looks like dropping back to where it started, as a La Nina starts to form.

        NO warming from 1980-1997

        NO warming from 2002-2015.

        There is ZERO evidence of any CO2 based warming, ANYWHERE.

        So little D.. go back to your AGW kool-aide drip-feed and plug yourself in… its all you have in your life.

      • All of my lights are LEDs and I was one of the first to go hybrid with my 09 Camry that averaged 37 mpg in all driving situations. I am planning to ditch living in a house next year after I get a battery powered van.

      • I bet you are yet another one of these inner city greenie ghetto types, who’s whole insignificant life revolves around the use of fossil fuels.

        Choose to live somewhere warm, with plenty of fossil fuel harvested and delivered food at your local supermarket. Fossil fuel heating and cooling. Everything around you is there because of fossil fuels.

        But do keep up the mindless hypocritical yapping..

        ..its funny to see someone so brain-washed that they still “believe” in Mickey Mann’s farcical graphs.

      • Posted in the wrong place,here it is:

        The 2007 article was about the Wegman and North reports into Dr. Manns creative use of math. It is not out of date at all,not only that there are now many published science papers that doesn’t agree with Dr. Manns absurd paper anyway.

        Update: The 2017 Explosion Of Non-Hockey Stick Graphs Continues

        http://notrickszone.com/2017/09/28/update-the-2017-explosion-of-non-hockey-stick-graphs-continues/#sthash.8sevFxOK.dpbs

        You are so out of date.

      • Led, made using FF

        batteries made using FF charged with FF

        Van….. steel or aluminium ?

        Camry FF’s .. pollution.

        All that food, still delivered with FF

        Your attempts are puerile and minimal at best

        Hypocritical twerp.

      • You do not understand what that word means. It sounds like you think that I don’t live according to my desire to use less energy? That’s ridiculous in the extreme. However I do plan on going off grid in a few months and then stop using FF altogether before I die. I should have access to local food and food grown without FF by 2025 or 2030 latest. All tractors and other farm equipment manufactured after 2025 will be battery powered. Coal is gone by 2030 and all FF for transportation by 2040

      • So funny that the MOD won’t let me post ‘over the top’, but it is perfectly fine for you all to call me names. Especially in light of how clueless most of you are.

      • There is no graph by Hansen that suggest 2016 is not as warm as 1998 (the last 3 quarters of 1998 and the first quarter of 1999 to be exact). You seem to have trouble with the reading of graphs.
        If you want to know what’s happening, look at the graphs from this year. Its not quite as warm as the brutal last 2 years.
        https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

      • Not sure why you would suggest I dont’ know how much pollution I emit? I am probably more aware than anyone you have ever met that runs a home business. Do you know how many watts you use for lighting? I do. Do you study your electric bill every month to see how much you used on an hourly basis? I do
        Do you generate less than 5 pounds of trash a week? I do Do you spend several minutes a day opening and closing windows to keep the air fresh and cool so you don’t have to use the AC? I do Do you wear warm cloths on cold days so you can keep the heater at 65 degrees? I do

      • It appears that little d, wants everyone to ignore what Andy stated,to rush to the worst data set on the planet going back to 1880,while Andy was using SATELLITE data, that goes back to late 1979.

        “There has been NO WARMING in the whole satellite temperature era apart from El Nino events

        Even the 2015 El Nino looks like dropping back to where it started, as a La Nina starts to form.

        NO warming from 1980-1997”

        and,

        “NO warming from 2002-2015.”

        you are pathetic

      • NO CO2 signal in the satellite temperature data

        NO CO2 signal in sea level rise.

        NO CO2 warming signature ANYWHERE.

        NO empirical proof that CO2 causes warming in a convectively controlled atmosphere.

      • The few testable predictions/projections based on the AGW conjecture have ALL failed.

        Per Decade warming Trend– FAIL!
        Troposphere “hot spot”- FAIL!
        Positive Feedback Loop-FAIL!

      • “that runs a home business. ”

        roflmao!!

        Runs a home business, and thinks he knows more than a Professor of Environmental Studies at the U of CO-Boulder

        I doubt have ever seen someone so FULL of himself, with absolutely nothing to back up his ego.

        Typical pseudo-greenie! Totally dependant on fossil fuels for his existence, and doesn’t even know it.

        Thinks his puerile efforts at minimising his CO2 (driven by minimal income, no doubt) actually means something.

        HILARIOUS. !!

        I drive a V8, I live in a climate where I don’t need to use heating or cooling that much, but I more than make up for it in other forms of electricity use.

        I bet I easily count for your feeble efforts at CO2 reduction. :-)

        Now off you trot, little d, and talk to Big Al about his carbon footprint.. leaves your hypocrisy for dead. !!

    • IOW, Man and the NYT report exactly the opposite of what the report says.
      Problem is, most of the public will never hear anything other than what the NYT and other MSM fake news sources have reported to be in it.
      In still other words…they are big fat lying liars, lying through their teeth.

  2. I can confirm from the other side of the Atlantic Ocean in Finland that the front line media keeps telling how the exceptional wheather events have been increasing steadily because of climate change. This phenomenon is living its own life without any statisical evidence. People think of course that it is true. Politicians keep telling it. There is nowbody, who dares to question it. Except some people in social media but who cares. They are climate deniers anyway.

    • Commonly known as a zombie fact. No matter how many times you lop its head off with a spade it just keeps on coming. At this point we are pretty much screwed. The people who have been backing the charade for decades cannot afford to lose it. They are now in full Goebbels mode and just keep on repeating the same lies in the full knowledge that they are lies and all backed to the hilt by the media.

      We need a few more Chris Bookers and some major media outlets who are prepared to report on this very obvious fr@ud going on daily.

      • Fox News Channel ought to have Mark Steyn do a special report on Climate Change. I can’t think of a better person to do such a special, and Steyn is already a contributor to Fox News.

        The rest of the Fox News crew don’t seem to be up on the subject of Climate Change other than maybe Jesse Watters or Gutfield. They don’t really discuss the subject much on Fox so it is hard to tell who is in the know and who is not.

        Tucker Carlson didn’t seem to be too up on the subject when he talked to an alarmist about flooding in Miami which the alarmist attributed to CAGW and Tucker really didn’t have a good rebuttal. Steyn would have destroyed this argument.

        Fox News was the only alternative to the Leftwing Media when it came online in 1996. The Leftwing News Media had a monopoly on the “truth” up until then. Not any more!

        Now Fox News needs to be the voice of the CAGW Skeptics! Fox needs to counter this CAGW propaganda just like they have countered the Leftwing MSM’s propaganda all these years and Mark Steyn is just the guy to do it.

        Thank God for Fox News Channel!

      • “The people who have been backing the charade for decades cannot afford to lose it. They are now in full Goebbels mode and just keep on repeating the same lies in the full knowledge that they are lies and all backed to the hilt by the media.” Well said!
        Here’a perfect example out of Queen’s Park in Ontario just yesterday. Copy the title below in your search.

        MPP McNaughton Questions Minister of Energy on Wind Turbines, November 20, 2017

        This is frightening.

  3. “”“The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC’s) Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) concluded that it is very likely that human influence has contributed to the observed changes in frequency and intensity of temperature extremes on the global scale since the mid-20th century. …””

    Did they really just say the human influence is making the climate milder?…less extremes?

  4. The problem with Roger Pielke, jr and his case is that it is based on actual records, not computer models, so the green blob will reject it out of hand.

      • Why would you suggest I won’t debate anything? The only thing I can think of would be religion because I know way too much to make it interesting. My skepticism makes me superior to normal humans. lol

      • If you want a debate, present some interesting info. Something a working climate scientist has said in the last 24 months. Otherwise why should I waste my time educating you?

      • By the way little d, you have yet to address his post. When are you going to wow the rest of us about what Dr. Pielke wrote here?

      • The moderator doesn’t want you to know that Pielke is NOT a climate scientist and has not been for over 15 years. He does not have a PHD in any climate science. I don’t even know if he has taken the time to read all the studies and keep up with the science.

        [Sorry, you are dead wrong there. The mod snipped you about your language. Also, you are wrong about titles. There’s no PhD in “climate science” offered at any University. Mann doesn’t have one, Hansen doesn’t have one, etc. All of them, like Roger Pielke Jr. have PhD’s in other disciplines. -Anthony]

      • little d, now employs another NO debate comment, attack the man instead,while COMPLETELY avoid what he writes here about.

        By the way he IS a scientist as shown right here in the blog post you keep avoiding:

        “About the author

        Roger Pielke, Jr. is a Professor of Environmental Studies at the U of CO-Boulder. He was Director of the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research. He is now Director of the Sports Governance Center in the Dept of Athletics. Before joining the faculty of the U of CO, from 1993-2001 he was a Scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research.

        His research focuses on science, innovation and politics. He holds degrees in mathematics, public policy and political science from the University of Colorado. In 2006 he received the Eduard Brückner Prize in Munich for outstanding achievement in interdisciplinary climate research. In 2012 Roger was awarded an honorary doctorate from Linköping University in Sweden and the Public Service Award of the Geological Society of America.”

        You are STUPID as hell!

      • So you would rather call me names than debate?
        Roger A. Pielke Jr. is an American political scientist and professor and the director of the Sports Governance Center within the Department of Athletics at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado Boulder
        He studies sports. His education is in politics. He might know a littel about math. He does NOT have a PHD in a climate related field.

      • Big D dishonestly writes,

        “So you would rather call me names than debate?
        Roger A. Pielke Jr. is an American political scientist and professor and the director of the Sports Governance Center within the Department of Athletics at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado Boulder
        He studies sports. His education is in politics. He might know a littel about math. He does NOT have a PHD in a climate related field.”

        here is what Anthony wrote in reply to you,that I agree completely,

        “[Sorry, you are dead wrong there. The mod snipped you about your language. Also, you are wrong about titles. There’s no PhD in “climate science” offered at any University. Mann doesn’t have one, Hansen doesn’t have one, etc. All of them, like Roger Pielke Jr. have PhD’s in other disciplines. -Anthony]”

        You have not debated anything once, just post stupid deflecting comments,while completely avoiding what Dr. Pielke says in the blog post.

        You have employed fallacies,deflection,insulting commentary,snobbery all the while you avoid a real debate.

        Your comments are stupid and shallow.

      • I can guarantee he knows more about science, climate or otherwise than most so-called “climate scientists” , who are mostly failed numerical modellers.

        And MAGNITUDES more than YOU will ever know.

      • I can guarantee that he knows more about science, climate or otherwise, than most of the so-called climate scientists, who are often just failed numerical modeller.

        And certainly he would know MAGNITUDES MORE than you will ever know.

        NO CO2 warming signature in the whole of the satellite temperature data.

        NO CO2 warming signature in sea level rise.

        NO CO2 warming signature ANYWHERE.

        (plenty of AGW agenda /scàm signature, though… the stuff that gullible nil-educated get sucked in by.)

  5. The whole thing is modern Lysenkoism. This field of ‘science’ has been (almost) completely corrupted and they’re still pumping out a steady stream of university indoctrinated and easily compromised ‘scientutes.’

    • hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
      I got your Lysenkoism right here. Its not very modern, I’m afraid.
      Few climate scientist are as corrupted as you seem to be.

  6. The term “low confidence” should be read as “no confidence” or “without confidence”. When they say a prediction has low confidence, and then go about making it — That’ becomes pseudo-science crap.

    And then where do they get “high confidence” for the future, they pull it out of their models. Parameterized models that is. IOW, they pull it out of their input biases. (all the models use parameterizations of precipitation rates – i.e. circular logic)

    There is this little “gem” reading in the NCA on extreme hydrologic events and uncertainties.

    “A key issue (uncertainty) is the ability of climate models to simulate precipitation. This is one of the more challenging aspects of modeling of the climate system because precipitation involves not only large-scale processes that are well-resolved by models but also small-scale process, such as convection, that must be parameterized in the current generation of global and regional climate models. ”

    —–
    “Confidence is high that further increases in the frequency and intensity of extreme precipitation events are projected for most U.S. areas, given the evidence base and uncertainties.

    So basically on the basis of parameterized climate model output s (i.e junk science), they have “high confidence” that heavy downpours will continue to increase in the future. Pulled that right out of their collective arses they did.

      • They know that people have poor recall on most technical things they read. And then they exploit that with “no confidence projections” in the affirmative direction for CC.

        A real scientist would say: “We have low confidence in precipitation projections under climate change model scenarios. Therefore we can’t assess if precipitation will increase or decrease or stay the same. ”

        Climateers would say: “We have low confidence in precipitation projections under climate change scenarios. There is still not enough evidence yet to assess if extreme precipitation will increase under climate change.”

        Not the nuanced difference in those two statements.

      • Actually, those confidence evaluations mean nothing since they are only based on the gut instinct of the evaluator. .

    • It is so rich with junk science that precipitation behavior is tuned into the models as an input.
      See here for example:

      source: “The Art and Science of Climate Model Tuning,” 2017. Hourdin, et. al. BAMS, March 2017.

      And then the NCA claims “Confidence is high that further increases in the frequency and intensity of extreme precipitation events are projected for most U.S. areas, given the evidence base and uncertainties. ”

      That like going to watch the movie Thor: Ragnarok, and then leaving the theater and thinking the physics on display in that computer-generated fantasy have a valid basis in the real world. The climate models “projections” on precipitation are similar to CGI fantasy, they are just programmed fantasy.

      The authors of the NCA clearly must know this as some are climateer modelers themselves. That they pass off this fantasy in the NCA as some kind of high confidence science tells me what they really are.

    • And then where do they get “high confidence” for the future, they pull it out of their models.

      That is not where they pull it out of. I would explain, but this is a family blog.

  7. Check this out.
    NOAA have a press release on their web site dated 17 th March 3017 which states that Co2 increased in the atmosphere by 3 ppm in 2015 and 2016 .I checked the NOAA archives and the increase for 2015 was 2.95 ppm and for 2016 it was 2.86 ppm .
    I then checked Mauna Loa and by taking the average CO2 reading for December from the next December average the figures are 2.94 ppm for 2015 and 2.57ppm for 2016.
    This press release was picked up by Greanpeace and they used it to ramp up interest in the climate conference that has been held in Germany
    This is deliberate fudging of data .

    • 2.94 ppm and 2.57 ppm both round to 3 ppm to one significant digit. Rounding the rate of increase up helps the “cause”, so the NOAA does it. If the increase had been 3.2 ppm in 2015 and 3.4 ppm in 2016, NOAA would have kept the extra digit (they would not have rounded down to 3 ppm), and said that the rate of CO2 accumulation is accelerating.

      Based on the actual data, the rate of increase of CO2 concentration slowed down from 2015 to 2016. Of course, the NOAA won’t say that, because we’re all supposed to be afraid of runaway warming, and runaway increase of CO2 in the atmosphere.

      SHHHH! Trees are working to remove CO2 from the atmosphere (like they always do)! But don’t tell anybody the good news!

  8. And remember that in the Third Draft of the National Climate Assessment, those revealing charts of cold and heatwaves were prominent in the Executive Summary

    In the final version, they have been removed, and only shown in the Technical Chapters.

    The original screenshots are here.

    https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2017/08/09/us-climate-report-edits-out-highly-embarrassing-section/

    Certainly the media have distorted the science, but the Report’s authors have been guilty of the same.

    • One graph was switched to ratio metric IIRC. That was hide the fact the denominator metric declined, and not that (hoped for) the numerator metric had increased.

      I remember years ago, my PI-mentor warned me to watch the use of ratios in graphs in presentations as they can easily be used to hide inconvenient results.

      • It was a struggle on my dissertation to accurately discuss results that are normally expressed as ratios (dB relative to a known reference). Signal processing requires it, but things get squirrelly when the numbers are small, pushing precision and noise limits.

  9. l have a record of the dates of the first winter snowfalls for a area in lowland England for the last 40 years.
    What this record suggests is that any warming in English winters during this time has been due to a decrease in cold weather during the winters and maybe the springs starting earlier. But with little if any change to the start of the winter season. Because l see little in the way of change of the first snow becoming later in the season.
    Here are the stats for the first 20 years and the last 20 years of the record on the number of times the first snow fell was before Dec 1st.
    From 77-97 it was 10 times and from 97-17 it was 9 times.
    And the number of times it fell after Dec 31st for 77-97 is 4 times and for 97-17 it is 3 times.

    This suggests that there has been little movement to the start of the winter season over these years and l feel that in part this has been to the fact. That the Arctic over these years has only been warming during the winter months and not during the short summer. Because the only likely area for cold air to come from early in the season here in England is the Arctic.

    • “correction”
      The number of times the first snow fell after 31st was 3 times between 77-97 and 4 times between 97-17.

  10. Well, there scientist who study climate and then there are “Climate Scientist”.
    The former are driven by a desire to learn and maybe understand a bit more.
    The latter are driven by many things. Pride. Profit. A desire to change the political climate. Other motives may drive them. (Some are just pawns of those pull those strings.)
    Whatever drives them, admission of being wrong is not an option.

    • Gunga Din
      November 20, 2017 at 3:14 pm

      Yes, “Climate Scientists” are actually Climate Political Scientists. Which means they are not real scientists at all…as readers of WUWT know only too well.

    • I don’t personally believe we are capable of measuring whatever needs to be measured to state one way or another what is happening.

  11. http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2017/11/07/1716222114.full

    I am writing this from the middle of where Harvey struck and where their mathematical model, reference recently posted by TWTW, simulated a weird path. May not be much different than my great-grandson’s video game, maybe simpler, Ok cheap shot. While I have no standing in atmospheric or computer science, I have decades of experience evaluating such reports in related subjects and have been around and in more than a few hurricanes since 1957, some fairly dry, including Celia, 1970, the last serious one here. I wrote this before seeing who was acknowledged.
    A few quotes—
    “The relative rarity of rainfall of this magnitude compromises the accuracy of statistical risk assessments.”
    “The return period of at least 500 mm of rainfall in the state of Texas is about 100 y, in the climate of the period 1981–2000.”
    “Even global models can now be run for thousands of years, providing far more robust statistics than most historical records, and any sampling issues are modest by comparison.”
    I taught oceanography and such a paper with so many errors, logical and otherwise, from a student would deserve a D– by standards of the day, possibly better nowadays, maybe something different in a computer science class. I can only say that while 13 for their number of references may have some significance, 19 years is a little shorter period than I have been retired and in that time have been in a 400mm+ non hurricane rainfall within where Harvey’s eye was, average rainfall around 60% of Houston’s.

    The authors probably do not know about another when in less than four days at the end of June an estimated 2000+ square miles from Hearne to just above Waco was covered with 30 inches of rain (Hazen, H. A. 1899. Extraordinary rainfall in Texas. Monthly Weather Revew. 27(6):249 ). I had to get my meter stick out to make sure who was dreaming.

    Readers may also find this of interest. The photo shows the back of a renovated historic house with a Widow’s Walk, considerable adjacent vegetation removed. Bayside sits on a high bluff without the somewhat buffering effect from strong live oaks as exist in Rockport. Exceptionally damaged, but a town wiped off the map seems a little exaggerated, trailers and RVs excepted. Metz is a good meteorologist, living in a hurricane hiatus, who once told me he had never been in a hurricane, to which I replied, you will be. Wish I had been wrong. Google Earth has a view shortly after the storm, the historic house on Copano Bay Drive between Cooke and Wood, a lot of these built strongly long ago with Louisiana cypress.

    http://thecoastalbendchronicle.com/25222/307737/a/nws-administrator-talks-hurricane-harvey-data-and-historical-firsts-several-mete#.WhI0o5nVfQZ.facebook

  12. If you want to see MSM distortion, examine the media reports on NOAA’s forecast for this winter (2017-2018). NOOA’s maps show colder than average for Northwest U.S,. average for the upper Midwest and the Northeast, and warmer than average for the South and Southwest. Most media reports stated that NOAA was forecasting a warmer than average winter for the U.S. The crime is that NOAA made no effort to correct the misreporting. As an aside, Joe Bastardi is forecasting much colder than average for the Midwest and Northeast. I trust Joe!

  13. How can you have abundance of heat extremes in the 40s yet this is deemed not the hottest decade? Especially now as adjustments have taken care off that.

    That’s quite an obvious flaw in the argument. Some workers in the Ministry of Truth will be working overtime.

  14. Sure there are a few “scientists” who have convinced themselves that CAGW is real. They look for any little tidbit that supports their position. Yet the majority today on the CAGW side do not care whether or not the science is real or their predictions accurate. It is why, regardless of the glaring problems with computer modeling, that they bow down to the models. They make no attempt to correct gross and misleading mistakes in the national medias. This is all about the transfer of wealth. While I know for certain some believe in some form of socialist/ fascist world government for the future and CAGW they believe is the tools to get there, I still do not understand why they want to destroy the Western democracies. “Joke” is that there is this very large monotheist religious organization that is also seeking world dominance. Weakening the democracies through CAGW hysteria will only benefit the goals of the Islamists.

  15. From the article: “The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC’s) Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) concluded that it is very likely that human influence has contributed to the observed changes in frequency and intensity of temperature extremes on the global scale since the mid-20th century. …In general, however, results for the contiguous United States are not as compelling as for global land areas , in part because detection of changes in U.S. regional temperature extremes is affected by extreme temperature in the 1930s.”

    The “global land areas” are just as affected by extreme temperature in the 1930’s, as was the U.S.

    Unmodified temperature charts from all over the world show the same temperature profile as the unmodified U.S. surface temperature chart, i.e., the 1930’s are as hot or hotter than subsequent years.

    Here’s a chart from Iceland. The yellow is unmodified data which shows that the 1930’s was as hot or hotter than subsequent years, just like the U.S. chart, and the blue line is the bastardization of the chart done by Climate Charlatans to erase the heat of the 1930’s.

    There are numerous unmodified charts from all over the globe that show the same temperature profile as the unmodified U.S. chart, so the unmodified U.S. chart is a good proxy for the entire globe.

    Here is the Hansen 1999 chart showing the 1930’s as hotter than subsequent years (0.5C hotter than 1998) and included is the bastardization of this chart by NASA to remove the 1930’s heat.

    Take the Hansen 1999 chart and add the UAH satellite chart (1978 to present) and you will have the true temperature profile of the globe (or as true as we can get with current information).

    As I said, Hansen shows 1998 as 0.5C cooler than the hottest parts of the 1930’s, which make 2016, NASA’s “Hottest Year Evah!” 0.4C cooler than the 1930’s, which means the U.S. and the world have been in a temperature downtrend since the 1930’s. We are NOT getting hotter and hotter with each succeding year as the Climate Charlatans claim. The temperature will have to increase at least 0.4C to break this temperature downtrend.

    Climate alarmists should come back and see us if we ever break through the downtrend. It may be a while before that happens, if it ever does.

  16. Imagine the human caused catastrophic climate change field day if the weather of the 1930’s in the United States was occurring now?

    But it isn’t and for most life on this planet, the last 40 years has featured the best weather/climate in the last 1,000 years…….since the Medieval Warm Period that was this warm globally.

    With the additional beneficial CO2 dialed in, it’s no surprise that the planet is greening up and humans continue to grow record crops.

    Sorry to post these links again but why would we continue to put so much weight on models that have been wrong and are based on a speculative theory projecting conditions for the next century, when we have convincing empirical data screaming loudly and clearly in front of us. That information is telling us profoundly about how CO2 is effecting a key aspect of life on this planet…….maybe the most important as all animals either eat plants or something that ate plants down the line.

    http://www.fao.org/worldfoodsituation/csdb/en/

    https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth

    Give me a scientist that believes that man made global warming will cause problems for humans……….but acknowledges the trillions in benefits from CO2 and the booming biosphere and takes that into consideration………..and I’ll give you an honest/objective scientist.

    Regardless of how “bad” one thinks it “might” get 50 or 100 years from now, that does not excuse anybody from ignoring how GOOD it really has been and is right now. Not in spite of increasing CO2/global temperatures…….but because of them.

    • Sorry, but “a scientist that believes that man made global warming will cause problems for humans,” no matter how much he/she might “acknowledge” benefits from CO2, is anything but an “honest/objective scientist,” because there is no “belief” required in science, just the ability to accurately observe, measure and interpret. As soon as we stray into “beliefs” and those “beliefs” are not only unsupported by, but are quite frequently contradicted by, observations, we’re no longer dealing with a “scientist” but with an “advocate” for a “cause.”

      And therein lies the problem – too many “advocates” and not enough “scientists.”

      • Your first sentence is ridiculous. There is almost no benefit from more CO2 than even 300ppm. If more CO2 would cause more plants, why aren’t there more plants now than 50 years ago?

      • Are you trying to be clueless? Do a web search on “global greening”, or on CO2 levels in commercial greenhouses, but of course you will not. Trolls just want links (that they never actually read).

      • I know more about CO2 added to greenhouses than you will EVER know. I spend over 10 hours a week looking up information spewed by ignorant deniers such as yourself. I would stake my life on what I know in a heartbeat. Would you?
        You seem to think that you know something, and yet you don’t seem to know anything. How many peer reviewed articles have been written by a WORKING climate scientist in the last 2 years that suggest what you think? none
        How many have been written suggesting we have a major problem? Over 50,000.

        (You need to tone down the snotty attitude) MOD

      • FYI : I keep my greenhouse at about 1000ppm CO2.
        ANYTHING you want to know about climate, I am happy to enlighten you.

        (SNIPPED)

        (You continued to make over the top condescending attitude in your comments,I will have to snip you for it) MOD

      • I am waiting patiently for an intelligent rebuttal to any of my post and then you ask that question? hahahahahahahahahahahahaha

        Could it be that I have plants growing in my garage? Who could have guessed?

      • weld shop? Weld shop supplier? What a weird question. Look it up if you need to get some. I have 3 tanks I get filled often
        You won’t be driving that 8 banger forever. Maybe till 2030 if youre stuborn

      • Big D, continues to make bad comments,here are two of HIS comments about CO2 and plants:

        First you said this earlier today,

        ” Big D
        November 22, 2017 at 12:37 pm Edit

        Your first sentence is ridiculous. There is almost no benefit from more CO2 than even 300ppm. If more CO2 would cause more plants, why aren’t there more plants now than 50 years ago?:

        now you say this in reply to AndyG55,

        ” Big D
        November 22, 2017 at 4:39 pm Edit

        I am waiting patiently for an intelligent rebuttal to any of my post and then you ask that question? hahahahahahahahahahahahaha

        Could it be that I have plants growing in my garage? Who could have guessed?”

        Also you wrote this,

        ” Big D
        November 22, 2017 at 12:58 pm Edit

        FYI : I keep my greenhouse at about 1000ppm CO2.
        ANYTHING you want to know about climate, I am happy to enlighten you.”

        AndyG55, asked you about having 1000 ppm in your greenhouse or was it the garage…..

        “Now WHY would you do that ? ;-)”

        First you say plants hardly benefit from additional CO2 above 300 ppm,then you say you keep your greenhouse/garage about 1,000 ppm for those plants you are on record saying that anything over 300 has little benefit to the plants.

        I actually expected you to make a reply to Andy’s question,but didn’t expect your answer to be truly stupid.

      • Why would I argue with a POLITICAL SCIENTIST?
        I argue with climate scientist. Political Science has ZERO to do with climate science. How much chemistry do you need to take to get a PS degree? How many years of field work in environmental science did he do?

      • So you get it from working with metal

        Made using COAL.. Thanks :-)

        Gees Carbon is such useful stuff isn’t it :-)

      • So hilariously funny.

        Everything little d does is TOTALLY dependant on fossil fuels.. and he doesn’t even realise it.

        Tell us, little d, what gases are used in this weld shop. ?

        You know, to make that CO2 that you feed into your greenhouse to stop your plants from growing. ;-)

        I think you are just making “stuff” up on the fly, inner city greenie ghetto dweller is my bet.

      • “I have 3 tanks I get filled often”

        So you actually spend money on CO2.. for your plants.

        Is that correct?

        roflmao !!!!!

        And you sell the buds from home?

      • “I argue with climate scientist.”

        I doubt you have ever met a real scientist, let alone had a rational discussion with one.

        You seem devoid of any sort of actual science.

      • Give me the names of 3 working climate scientist that are ON RECORD in the last 24 months suggesting manmade CO2 is not a major problem. You cannot.

      • “You won’t be driving that 8 banger forever… 2030…..”

        Another 12 years.. YIPPEEEE

        Then I’ll need to get another one. :-)

        Fossil fuels will be around for a long long time.

        China “says” they will peak coal use in 2030.

        1600 new coal fired power stations being built around the world, 40% emission increase

        Each of those will have a 50 year plus lifespan.

        Heck.. with any luck, you won’t need to keep buying in that CO2 to feed to your plants..

        ….. you will be able to get the same results using atmospheric CO2. :-)

      • NO CO2 warming signal in the satellite temperature

        No CO2 warming signal in sea level rise

        NO CO2 warming signal ANYWHERE.

        poor little d. !!

    • Right here in front of you:

      “The US National Climate Assessment and Weather Extremes.

      The 4th US National Climate Assessment {NCA} was published a few weeks ago, and it is worth reviewing what it says about trends in extreme weather events. In short, the NCA supports arguments I’ve been making for many years.”

  17. This is what TROLL Big D idea of a debate, where he avoids what Tom Hall and myself states in some detail,with his condescending replies.

    “Big D
    November 22, 2017 at 12:37 pm Edit

    Your first sentence is ridiculous. There is almost no benefit from more CO2 than even 300ppm. If more CO2 would cause more plants, why aren’t there more plants now than 50 years ago?

    Tom Halla
    November 22, 2017 at 12:42 pm Edit

    Are you trying to be clueless? Do a web search on “global greening”, or on CO2 levels in commercial greenhouses, but of course you will not. Trolls just want links (that they never actually read).

    Big D
    November 22, 2017 at 12:53 pm Edit

    I know more about CO2 added to greenhouses than you will EVER know. I spend over 10 hours a week looking up information spewed by ignorant deniers such as yourself. I would stake my life on what I know in a heartbeat. Would you?
    You seem to think that you know something, and yet you don’t seem to know anything. How many peer reviewed articles have been written by a WORKING climate scientist in the last 2 years that suggest what you think? none
    How many have been written suggesting we have a major problem? Over 50,000.

    Sunsettommy
    November 22, 2017 at 1:38 pm

    Big D, there are many published papers showing that plants indeed grows better with more CO2 around:

    Plant Growth Database

    http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/plantgrowth.php

    somehow you missed a lot of science research on this, Snicker.”

    I post a link to a place where there are MANY published science papers are listed showing varying improvement in plant growth with additional CO2 added.

    Dig D, ignored two reference and no more replies.

    I wonder if this a 12 year old troll in search of a computer pellet snack?

    • You say I am stupid and maybe a 12 year old? And keep calling me little d, (even though I can lift you above my 6’5″ head). Great MOD you got here.
      So you think you can educate me about CO2? That is so silly, considering I have to monitor it 24/7. I know how many PPM of CO2 are in my garage right now – plus or minus 1 ppm. I just checked and at this moment it is 643 ppm.
      Either read my post or refrain from replying.

      • Bwahahahahahahahaha!!!

        another debate free comment from you.

        You have completely ignored a couple of links,in my replies to you.

        The Wegman and North Reports for Newbies

        https://climateaudit.org/2007/11/06/the-wegman-and-north-reports-for-newbies

        ======
        Plant Growth Database

        http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/plantgrowth.php

        You have ignored posting a counterpoint to Dr. Pielke, instead you make fallacious statements about his academic background. You made a personal attack on him too.

        ” Big D
        November 22, 2017 at 11:12 am Edit

        IN no way is Mann wrong about anything and Pielke is a clueless hack who hasn’t been involved with climate science for over 15 years. The idea that you think Mann is wrong suggest youre a tool.”

        You have been condescending,arrogant and snobbish in replies.

        You have been moderated several times,by at least two mods.

        Here is one example,

        “[Sorry, you are dead wrong there. The mod snipped you about your language. Also, you are wrong about titles. There’s no PhD in “climate science” offered at any University. Mann doesn’t have one, Hansen doesn’t have one, etc. All of them, like Roger Pielke Jr. have PhD’s in other disciplines. -Anthony]”

        It is clear you have no idea what a debate is.

        I stand by my calling you Stupid,shallow and a troll.

      • Your post are getting sillier by the minute. You seem to think you can educate me about something, but I can’t see what that could be, other than calling me stupid. Does that make you feel better? Why would you want to debate someone whom you say doesn’t understand debate?
        I have used ZERO foul language. Good luck with your delusions. Especially the one where an honorary degree suggests you know a lot.

      • Another debate free reply,no attempt to post a counterpoint to Dr. Pielke’s blog post,no attempt to counter my comments with a cogent reply,whines about name calling he actually earns,while calling Dr. Pielke a,

        “Clueless hack”

        Who didn’t deserve it.

        ” Big D
        November 22, 2017 at 11:12 am Edit

        IN no way is Mann wrong about anything and Pielke is a clueless hack who hasn’t been involved with climate science for over 15 years. The idea that you think Mann is wrong suggest youre a tool.”

        while you never once showed where he is wrong in what he wrote here,maybe it is YOU who is a clueless hack, since you have shown no visible debate skills at all. You have yet to support your name calling with a cogent reply to his post.

        You keep digging a bigger hole with your stupid condescending,snobbish comments.

      • “suggests you know a lot.”

        Its ok little d, NO-ONE is very going to suggest you know much at all…

        … except maybe you.

      • “You seem to think you can educate me about something,”

        Pretty sure that would be basically impossible.

        Where to even start ? !!!

    • Pielke does NOT have a PHD in ANY subject. He has an honorary degree in a NON – climate science field. If I suggested he did not have a PHD in climate science, I would have been wrong. No PHD in a climate science related field is the correct description

      • Oh my you are even dumber than I thought,

        From Wikepedia

        “Education and background
        Pielke earned a B.A. in mathematics (1990), an M.A. in public policy (1992), and a Ph.D. in political science, all from the University of Colorado Boulder.”

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_A._Pielke_Jr.

        FROM THE BLOG POST YOU WERE SHOWN ONCE ALREADY:

        “About the author

        Roger Pielke, Jr. is a Professor of Environmental Studies at the U of CO-Boulder.”

        Only people who have a doctorate degree can be called a professor.

        You need to slink away…..

  18. Wow!, you are incredibly ignorant about the role of a Political Scientist.

    You wrote,

    ” Big D
    November 22, 2017 at 5:17 pm Edit

    Why would I argue with a POLITICAL SCIENTIST?
    I argue with climate scientist. Political Science has ZERO to do with climate science. How much chemistry do you need to take to get a PS degree? How many years of field work in environmental science did he do?”

    You are so ignorant and stupid,since his blog post addresses the very problem YOU vividly present so well here,the deliberate distortion and refusal to debate anything.Make snobbish,condescending comments to anyone.You talk like a know it all,an immature jackass, your refusal to debate the topic.

    YOU have already posted here,with no actual debate on anything.The very behavior that most of the Media does so openly. They attack free speech,attack skeptics,even advocate to jail or kill them. They post dishonest or misleading claims over weather events that doesn’t support the global warming paradigm.

    Dr. Pielke writes,

    “About those exaggerations in the media about climate.

    “Pielke on Climate” – part 2 of 3.
    About the misreporting of experts’ reports.
    By Roger Pielke Jr. at The Climate Fix.
    Posted with his generous permission.
    Lightly edited.
    Introduction.

    Welcome to issue #7 of my occasional newsletter on climate and energy issues. As a reminder, my day-to-day research or writing is focused on sports governance and various issues of science policy. But I’ve written a fair bit on the topics of climate and energy over the past 25 years, including two recent books and a boatload of academic papers, and I’m paying attention. So caveat lector {reader beware}! …”

    He goes on to talk about the science says from TWO sources, the IPCC and the NCA about long term climatic extremes of weather events:

    “The US National Climate Assessment and Weather Extremes.

    The 4th US National Climate Assessment {NCA} was published a few weeks ago, and it is worth reviewing what it says about trends in extreme weather events. In short, the NCA supports arguments I’ve been making for many years.

    “Cold extremes have become less severe over the past century.”
    “Changes in warm extremes are more nuanced than changes in cold extremes.” (Yes, you read that correctly.)”

    The IPCC report also show extremes getting smaller or not getting worse.

    Meanwhile the MEDIA grossly distorts such reports with bile that glaringly contradicts the science.
    \
    Roger goes on,

    “The data says what it says. There is precious little evidence that extremes have become worse in the US since at least 1900, with the exception of more winter storms since 1950 and overall fewer cold spells. Attribution {for these trends} is weak to nonexistent.

    Despite the evidence there is a drumbeat of news stories and various claims that weather disasters are getting worse. For instance, the New York Times article on the release of the report contained this statement…”

    Most warmists who read such claims,tends to swallow it so deeply, that they refuse to allow for the possibility that they are being deceived.

    He finishes with this,

    “Both the NYT characterization of the report and Mann’s claims are irrefutably incorrect according to the report. These are just a few of many similar examples of claims that are contrary to the NCA related to extreme weather.

    Claiming that the weather has gotten worse is today an important cultural shibboleth related to climate science. It’s not supported by the evidence but it serves an important role in the political debate over climate. Another weakened norm, I suppose.”

    I am very confident to say he knows a LOT more about this stuff than you do,who has yet to post a cogent comment in the thread.

Comments are closed.