In the Climate Deception Game Where The End Justifies the Means, the Objective is the Headline.

Guest Opinion: Dr. Tim Ball

I knew something was wrong when I read the headlines.

  • Earth’s oceans ‘soak up 60% more heat than thought’ and it could mean the planet is warming FASTER than scientists predicted.”
  • World’s oceans have absorbed 60% more heat than previously thought, study finds.”
  • Our oceans are 60% hotter than scientists originally thought, according to a new report.”

They were referring to a Letter published in Nature by Resplandy et al., with 9 other authors. I am automatically wary when there is a multitude of authors. My second wariness was the 60% figure. I am aware of the preposterous and extreme claims made in the exploitation of the environment and climate, but 60% is eye-catching. For me, it signaled something wrong with the science, but for those who produced the number, the headline was all that mattered. Finally, there is the fact that they published the article as a Letter. This format appeared several years ago as a way of floating an idea quickly, establishing proprietary credit, or responding to criticism. In response to the question about peer-review of Letters John Flavin wrote,

Apparently the articles receive less peer review than you would guess. In some cases an article’s illegitimacy is discovered after publication. Springer publishing, (Springer Nature as of 2015), was forced to pull articles that one would think would be screened in advance through the peer review process.

Nature’s history of publishing peer-reviewed papers later found incorrect, is evidence of the porous methods used. The journal’s history reflects the bias of editors to pro-AGW articles and Letters. Of course, they can extend this power by sending material to reviewers who will provide a favorable result – what I call editorial censorship.

It appears there was a rush to get this finding into a headline to support the alarmism of the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This document gives a clear enunciation of extremism in its title.

“Global Warming of 1.5°C, an IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty.”

The Press Release added to the extremism and urgency.

The public understood the epithet global warming skeptic as an insult. The truth is a person is not a scientist if they are not a skeptic. As Thomas Huxley explained,

“The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority, as such. For him, skepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the one unpardonable sin.”

Further urgency included the upcoming Conference of the Parties (COP) 24 in Katowice, Poland. Here is the stated goal.

The key objective of the meeting is to adopt the implementation guidelines of the Paris Climate Change Agreement. This is crucial because it ensures the true potential of the Paris Agreement can be unleashed, including ramping up climate action so that the central goal of the agreement can be achieved, namely to hold the global average temperature to as close as possible to 1.5 degrees Celsius.

Everything is on the line. Polls show the public is not concerned, money is not going into the Green Climate Fund, and Trump pulled US support for the Paris Agreement. Drastic times require drastic actions. This is the science of emotion and politics which justifies the ‘by any means possible’ mentality that drives proponents of AGW.

If skepticism is the highest duty of a scientist, then it applies to all research, including a scientist’s own work. My father taught me the important lesson of being my own hardest critic. Sadly, the misuse of climate for a political agenda makes me cynical. I am now a self-appointed global warming cynic, especially about work produced by scientific bureaucrats and those funded by a government.

Some said that the result was “too good to be true.” Of course, that depends on your objective. For a cynical scientist or even a healthy skeptic, it raises red flags about the data, the method, and the analysis, or all of them. A normal scientist getting even half the 60% difference would check the results many times and get as many objective colleagues as possible to check it. For a person whose perspective and objectivity are badly skewed by financial or political persuasions, it is a superb result.

People are praising one author of the paper Ralph Keeling for acknowledging the error, but there was little choice. When you find an error, you admit it and move on, or you double down on your defense.

There is an interesting parallel with another example of an error in the global warming deception. They published the 60% error paper in Nature after peer-review. It used what one media outlet described as “a novel way to measure the amount of heat being absorbed by the world’s oceans.” Another study, with similar shock potential as the ocean temperature study, also appeared in Nature. In 1998. Mann, Bradley, and Hughes (MBH98) produced a peer-reviewed paper that used a novel statistical technique to achieve its result.

The Wegman Report set up to investigate what happened with MBH98 and the infamous “hockey stick” shows parallels with the Scripps debacle. Here are Wegman’s recommendations.

Recommendation 1. Especially when massive amounts of public monies and human lives are at stake, academic work should have a more intense level of scrutiny and review. It is especially the case that authors of policy-related documents like the IPCC report, Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, should not be the same people as those that constructed the academic papers.

Conclusion 3. As statisticians, we were struck by the isolation of communities such as the paleoclimate community that rely heavily on statistical methods, yet do not seem to be interacting with the mainstream statistical community. The public policy implications of this debate are financially staggering and yet apparently no independent statistical expertise was sought or used.

Recommendation 3. With clinical trials for drugs and devices to be approved for human use by the FDA, review and consultation with statisticians is expected. Indeed, it is standard practice to include statisticians in the application-for-approval process. We judge this to be a good policy when public health and also when substantial amounts of monies are involved, for example, when there are major policy decisions to be made based on statistical assessments. In such cases, evaluation by statisticians should be standard practice. This evaluation phase should be a mandatory part of all grant applications and funded accordingly.

Conclusion 4. While the paleoclimate reconstruction has gathered much publicity because it reinforces a policy agenda, it does not provide insight and understanding of the physical mechanisms of climate change except to the extent that tree ring, ice cores and such give physical evidence such as the prevalence of green-house gases. What is needed is deeper understanding of the physical mechanisms of climate change.

Based on the history of Ralph Keeling and the Scripps Oceanographic Institute, it is difficult to accept that an error of such magnitude with large implications for the human-caused global warming agenda could occur. His father Charles Keeling was a major player from the start of the entire AGW story. One obituary says he

“…set off current concerns of global warming through measurements beginning in the 1950’s that showed steadily rising amounts of carbon dioxide in the air.”

“It became clear very quickly that his measured CO2 increase was proportional to fossil fuel emissions and that humans were the source of the change,” said Dr. James E. Hansen, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York. “He altered our perspectives about the degree to which the earth can absorb the human assault.”

The Keeling family hold the patent for the carbon dioxide measuring instrumentation at Mauna Loa. The annual estimates of atmospheric CO2 are produced and controlled by the IPCC.

In an FAQ section, the IPCC explains,

“Utilising IPCC procedures, nominated experts from around the world draft the reports that are then extensively reviewed twice before approval by the IPCC.”

clip_image002

Ralph Keeling, Naomi Oreskes, and Lynne Talley Photographed at Scripps after notification of Nobel Prize.

Ralph Keeling was a contributing author to the Fifth IPCC Assessment Report (AR5). Naomi Oreskes made unsubstantiated and statistically misleading claims about the ‘consensus’ in the AGW debate. Scripps is an Institute at the heart of the AGW deception to the point where objectivity, mandatory to good science, was never in play.

We are indebted to mathematician Nic Lewis for noticing the mathematical error. He wrote in his article at Judith Curry’s website,

“[j]ust a few hours of analysis and calculations … was sufficient to uncover apparently serious (but surely inadvertent) errors in the underlying calculations.”

This is similar to the discovery of the MBH98 misuse of statistics by Steve McIntyre, who though at the time unfamiliar with climatology, recognized the errors inherent in the plot of the ‘hockey stick’ graph.

At first, McIntyre gave MBH98 the benefit of the doubt, but that gradually changed over time with the reaction he received. Lewis gave the Scripps paper similar benefit when he called them “serious (but surely inadvertent) errors.” This is where the Scripps people differed. MBH98 authors still deny their errors. Ralph Keeling quickly acknowledged the error and submitted a revision to Nature.

All appears resolved, but in my opinion, it is not. The Los Angeles Times quotes Lewis.

“Despite this, a quick review of the first page of the paper was sufficient to raise doubts as to the accuracy of its results.”

This implies the error was obvious. The error was also very large. Both factors suggest that the authors were either incredibly incompetent, so blinded by their bias that it is no longer science, or they believed they could get away with it. Whatever the case, they should no longer hold their positions.

My view is that it is the last option. Keeling and those associated with the deception know that what will remain in the public mind is the original 60% headline. Like all corrections, they never receive the same frontpage headline status as the original story. As far as I could determine, many media outlets did not carry the correction at all. The end justifies the means, and the objective of COP24 is proof that they will continue to pervert and misuse science. We saw that in the leaked emails of Climategate.

However, don’t just take my word for the deeply engrained corruption of science. Consider the words of another Lewis, University of California Emeritus Professor of physics, the late Hal Lewis. In his October 2010 letter of resignation from the American Physical Society (APS) after the executives supported IPCC science without consultation with the members.

“…the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist.”

Advertisements

100 thoughts on “In the Climate Deception Game Where The End Justifies the Means, the Objective is the Headline.

    • And I am even more cynical than Dr. Ball. I first met Dr. Ball 20 years ago when he was the only one that was publicly denouncing the scam. I have a sister who has a post doctorate degree in bio-chemistry. She believes in man made global warming. The corruption of science is complete when a person with an advanced degree in a science doesn’t admit how corrupt science has become.

  1. How to prove it’s a scam…

    The UN/IPCC says an increase in CO2 causes global warming…and global warming is dangerous
    ..yet, 30 years ago the UN/IPCC put a system into place that guarantees CO2 levels will increase
    and it has, China has tripled it’s emissions in 30 years, and is now twice our emissions
    Asia is the largest CO2 emitter

    The second they start equating CO2 emissions with GDP and per capita…you know it’s a scam
    global warming does not care how much money you make, or how many people you have
    ..only how much CO2 you put in the air

    Can your neighbor put more arsenic in the ground because he has more kids and makes less money?

    • Latitude,

      One of the least-cited international agreements is the bi-lateral pact between the U.S Obama administration and China in November 2014 , one year before COP 21 in Paris, whereby the two countries agreed that China would be allowed to increase its CO2 emissions at will until 2030 while the Americans reduced theirs by 26-28% in the same time frame. This pact guaranteed that Cop 21 would be failure. Think India, etc. Who knew?

      This slick sleight of hand is hardly mentioned anywhere but should be a major topic of discussion on WUWT, considering that another costly COP gabfest is at hand in Poland.

  2. That recent Resplandy et al paper was her second first author paper with a major mistake that affected the paper’s core results and conclusions as a Post-Doc in Dr Keeling’s group at Scripps.

    Dr. Keeling, her boss, tried to take the blame for this second one as Dr Resplandy is now on the tenure track as Asst Prof at Princeton U since late 2016. Most tenure reviews come up at 5 years, so she’ll have 3 more years to get her act together. But those two first author papers with major corrections/erratum won’t help her in that review. Sloppy work will be the conclusion. And both her paper’s mistakes made the climate alarmist claims more substantial and thus higher impact to get published. Coincidence?

    • Coincidence?

      No.

      Getting published is absolutely necessary. It’s the only way you’ll have a career. Your findings have to be interesting but, at the same time, not upset any apple carts. Also, there’s no punishment for being wrong (usually). That explains why the vast majority of published research findings are wrong.

      The reason there’s almost never punishment for being wrong is that replication is almost never attempted. The one exception is for drug research. If a drug company finds something they think they can monetize, the first step is to reproduce the results. That’s how we know things are as bad as they are. A dismaying number of scientists can’t even reproduce their own experimental results. link

      When there is a punishment it is, like all punishments, for getting caught. Resplandy et al got greedy. 60% is a ridiculous number. There isn’t enough energy in the system to produce such a result. With a more moderate result, it is quite possible that Nic might have ignored it. There is, after all, such a thing as painting a bullseye on your own back.

    • Sloppy work will be the conclusion. And both her paper’s mistakes made the climate alarmist claims more substantial and thus higher impact to get published

      Considering the extent that warmists have permeated academia, it is quite possible that she will be commended for her work, going the extra mile, skewing the data, to make a headline.

      I hope I’m wrong, but I doubt it.

    • Whilst one co-author, Ralph Keeling, has behaved responsibly and co-operated with Nic Lewis and now Judith Curry, lead author Laure Resplandy has done nothing to show any errors on her Princeton web page, proudly displaying the media and press coverage for the original paper:

      https://environment.princeton.edu/directory/laure-resplandy

      Related Media and Press Coverage:

      “The oceans, the true keepers of climate change, may meet our grimmest estimates” — Mashable (Nov. 2, 2018)
      “The Oceans Are Heating Up Faster Than Expected” – Scientific American (Nov. 1, 2018)
      “Climate change: Oceans ‘soaking up more heat than estimated’” — BBC (Nov. 1, 2018)
      “Earth’s oceans ‘soak up 60% more heat than thought’ and it could mean the planet is warming FASTER than scientists predicted” — Daily Mail (Nov. 1, 2018)
      “Taking the Oceans’ Temperature, Scientists Find Unexpected Heat” — The New York Times (Oct. 31, 2018)

      “Earth’s Oceans Have Built up 60% More Heat Than Previously Thought, Researchers Say” — Fortune (Oct. 31, 2018)
      “Startling new research finds large buildup of heat in the oceans, suggesting a faster rate of global warming” — The Washington Post (Oct. 31, 2018)
      “We’ve warmed up the world’s oceans way more than scientists realized, new research suggests — and time to avoid disaster is running out” — Business Insider (Oct. 31, 2018)

      Broadcast
      “Oceans rapidly warming” — Deutsche Welle TV (Nov. 1, 2018)
      BBC World Service (Nov. 1, 2018) – 45:00

      Nature does now point out that the paper has errors. However, rather than retract the paper, they are hoping the authors can still find something scary:

      https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0651-8#change-history
      19 November 2018

      “Editor’s Note: We would like to alert readers that the authors have informed us of errors in the paper. An implication of the errors is that the uncertainties in ocean heat content are substantially underestimated. We are working with the authors to establish the quantitative impact of the errors on the published results, at which point in time we will provide a further update.”

      The tenor of this response suggests that ocean heat could be even higher and certainly doesn’t give the idea that the claim is rubbish. Surely the paper should be withdrawn, not still sitting there in Nature, where it will no doubt be cited by others. As Paul says, it’s the initial headline that counts, the “meme” is implanted and the media, only too willingly, fall in line. Science by Press Release is the order of the day.

      This is yet the latest attempt to find Kevin Trenberth’s missing heat, which he first started looking for in the 90’s and has so far been unsuccessful, perhaps because it was never there.

  3. From the article: “said Dr. James E. Hansen, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York. “He altered our perspectives about the degree to which the earth can absorb the human assault.”

    The “human assault”, huh. I guess we see where Dr. James E. Hansen is coming from.

  4. If/when lawyers misbehave, they can be disbarred. We need a similar system for dealing with faux ‘scientists’ who intentionally reject the scientific method. The Weather Bimbo (Heidi Cullen) demanded that scientists who ‘deny’ global warming have their Professional Registration revoked. While I vehemently disagree that one’s personal opinion should be the basis for revoking their ability to earn a living, I feel strongly that witch doctors who intentionally publish fake science articles should have their Professional Registrations revoked and be banned from publishing ever again.

    • As far as I know there’s no professional registration for scientists. That said, scientists caught falsifying data usually lose their careers. In at least one case, a PhD was revoked. Sadly, the list is rather long. link

      • ” Sadly, the list is rather long.”

        What’s sad is that it’s not about eight names longer.

        Seriousness aside, I do think it’s unreasonable to pretend we demand the same high standards of probity from climate scientists as from, say, lawyers. 😉

        • So appreciate that I finally found this website! I thought, as a regular “citizen” (not a scientist), my telling my 14 grandchildren and great-grandson that this whole media effort (now going on decades) is a scam . It has always stunk to me, not much different than the bool 1984, “2=2=5”. Those investing in green energy patents LOVE IT!! It will cause massive public policy changes from local to federal that gets the patent-holders grants, government R&D subsidies through public universities and salvation-making tax-breaks and tax credits AS they plan to get rich controlling the discourse through a swath of media they well manipulate with their intentionally-paid-for studies. I told my downline of young-uns, move out or stay out of the urbans as soon as possible, learn to grow food (on the roof, vertical, every which was and microgreens in the house), and study and learn to preserve food. Blessings to all who support this website. I feel like I am 30 years younger, what a breath of fresh air and great group kindred spirits who actually THINK!

  5. Ya know this and most everythang else is moot because:

    1) 33 C warmer w/ atmosphere is rubbish,
    2) Up/down/”back” GHG energy loop is thermodynamic nonsense,
    3) BB upwelling LWIR from surface is not possible.

    1 + 2 + 3 = 0 RGHE & 0 GHG warming & 0 CAGW.

    • 1E+99 x 0 , is still = 0.

      But for Liberal’s with Degree’s in music and arts, their math though still thinks it means something.

    • 1) Volokin and Reliez show in their paper that the true number is 90K. They do this by showing that all previous calculations using the SB law is inapplicable to spherical bodies because of Holder’s inequality.
      https://springerplus.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2193-1801-3-723

      2) Low clouds do make the surface warmer, so back radiation must exist in that case. However clouds are constantly on the move and LWIR moves at the speed of light. Each time that a photon gets re-emitted it gets weaker. Collisions between (N2 and O2) and CO2 should thermalize the LWIR. However in an enclosed ordinary room, the collisions don’t increase the temperature of the room. If the latent heat that is released from condensation gets back to the surface, how does that heat escape the atmosphere? Is all heat that escapes to the upper atmosphere in the form of LWIR? A tipping point would seem to be impossible with an open atmosphere. Heat can only build up in a deadly manner in an enclosed stationary car with all the windows closed. It has been proven that in a real greenhouse that has roofs and sides made of an IR transparent materiel, the greenhouse still heats up to the same degree, so it is not the LWIR that heats it up.

      3)Blackbody LWIR from surface must be possible or else sand in a desert would have no way to cool at night.

      • WIKI has an interesting article on heat. There seems to be competing theories of heat. Quote In the macroscopic view: ” It follows that there is no well-founded definition of quantities of energy transferred as heat or as work associated with transfer of matter. ”

        This seems to leave the macroscopic view on very shaky ground.

        WIKI goes on to explain the microscopic view: “What distinguishes transfer as heat is that the transfer is entirely due to disordered, microscopic action, including radiative transfer.”

        So it seems that the microscopic view is on more solid ground. However this involves the existence of phonons. “A phonon is a collective excitation in a periodic, elastic arrangement of atoms or molecules in condensed matter, like solids and some liquids. ” Phonons also come in different wavelengths. “………long-wavelength phonons give rise to sound. The frequencies of acoustic phonons tend to zero with longer wavelength. Shorter-wavelength higher-frequency phonons are responsible for the majority of the thermal capacity of solids. ” DOES THIS MEAN THAT PHONONS CANNOT BE TRANSFERRED BETWEEN ATMOSPHERIC GASES? Do phonons
        have nothing to do with convection?

        More complication arises from the following “Optical phonons are out-of-phase movements of the atoms in the lattice, one atom moving to the left, and its neighbour to the right. This occurs if the lattice basis consists of two or more atoms. They are called optical because in ionic crystals, like sodium chloride, they are excited by infrared radiation.”

        If as entrophy increases in the whole universe over time, does this mean that everything turns to heat which dissipates in the void of space? Sound does seem to disappear after you hear it. Do the phonons of sound break down into heat? The answer is YES because sound can heat up a physical body. However you could never boil your cup of coffee by yelling at it as the dissipation of the heat is faster than you can yell at it. So, sound dissipates into some entity that equivilates to heat dissipation. What is the latent heat that becomes sensible heat upon condensation? Does that sensible heat become IR? Or is it phonons? Since every body dissipates LWIR when cooling, the phonons obviously turn into LWIR or create a process inside a physical body that then creates the LWIR. Just to confuse the matter some more, the longest wavelengths of LWIR are radio waves.

        So where does that leave us regarding LWIR? It seems that only LWIR can escape the atmosphere. So all the heat created on earth gets absorbed and eventually the LWIR escapes to space equal to the net solar flux that entered in the 1st place.

      • Alan,

        Low clouds increase thermal resistance/increase U and dT increases. Same reason the room warms up when you draw the drapes across a cold winter window. QED level photon explanations are handwavium nonsense.

        The only way a surface radiates BB is into a vacuum where there are no non-radiative processes participating in the heat transfer. Way to cool at night is through conduction and convection and what little latent there might be. The psychrometric properties of moist air help explain it.
        My modest experiment demonstrates this in the classical scientific tradition.
        https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6394226874976919552

        Emissivity & the Heat Balance
        Emissivity is defined as the amount of radiative heat leaving a surface to the theoretical maximum or BB radiation at the surface temperature. The heat balance defines what enters and leaves a system, i.e.
        Incoming = outgoing, W/m^2 = radiative + conductive + convective + latent
        Emissivity = radiative / total W/m^2 = radiative / (radiative + conductive + convective + latent)

        In a vacuum (conductive + convective + latent) = 0 and emissivity equals 1.0.

        In open air full of molecules other transfer modes reduce radiation’s share and emissivity, e.g.:
        conduction = 15%, convection =35%, latent = 30%, radiation & emissivity = 20%

        • Nick you are mistaken in your description of emissivity, it is unrelated to conduction and convection. Emissivity is defined as the ratio of the energy radiated from a material’s surface to that radiated from a blackbody (a perfect emitter) at the same temperature and wavelength and under the same viewing conditions.

          • Quite right Phil. The interesting bit is that at the phase change of water the amount radiated remains constant although in receipt of of incoming radiation. In this instance the coefficient in the Planck Equation is zero. This coefficient, of course, being termed “ Climate Sensitivity “ in global terms.

  6. Ayn Rand would be having a field day with the IPCC. You may not like Rand, or maybe you do, but she would literally shred this entire Conference of Parties boondoggle. Beginning with her oft-asserted and brutally true “The means must justify the end”.

    Dr. Tim, thanks for all you do to reveal the depth to which these fools will descend in pursuit of their ends.

    • It is the depths that their willing helpers will go which is of the greater concern. So many jobs now depend on this deception. I am being currently vilified by a mindless rottweiler on at least three sites which spring to mind every time I question unfounded claims. In not one case will the troll engage in a discussion about the voracity of the data I quote to contradict the assertion I am challenging. It is all personal about me. Very left wing, but like watching a good horror movie…not easy to not be affected by it

  7. How to prove it’s a scam?

    We don’t have any way to measure the oceans’ temperature.

    ‘“Our oceans are 60% hotter than scientists originally thought, according to a new report.”

    What does that even mean? An imprecise assertion, at best. What did they think it was? What do they think it is now? What is their data? How can you get 60% with temperatures? A change from 285K to 295K – a radical change – is not 60%.

    • When I go swimming there are “hot spots” and “cold spots” galore. How in the world could anyone (or anyone with a sense of right and wrong) claim they know the temperature of the oceans to a tenth of a degree?

      No way.

  8. Tim you are blaming on corruption what is easily accounted for as incompetence on a field that has been unwilling to apply standards. The Climate Science community is made up those of biological science background or refugees from other non science fields like English and Geology. The bottom line is in those fields they don’t apply hard science standards because it really doesn’t matter there is no immediacy about whether a paper is right or not time is your friend.

    • LdB

      If this was error rather than corruption then the results would be random. As it is, almost all the “errors” are in one direction – to encourage global warming hysteria – to stampede the sheep.

      In general, I call both incompetence AND corruption among the usual suspects who promote catastrophic man-made global warming.

    • LdB,
      You insulted “refugees from other non science fields like English and Geology.” English I would agree with. However, as a graduate geologist, I took the same undergraduate ‘washout’ courses that the physics and engineering majors took. There may be a distinction in technical backgrounds between those with B.A. and B.S. degrees. But, it is my personal experience that geology majors effectively have one of the broadest science backgrounds because it necessarily encompasses math, physics, and chemistry, besides the geology. I also took courses in historical geology, oceanography, meteorology, surveying, field mapping, and became more than familiar with the interaction of polarized light with solids through four semester courses of optical mineralogy and optical petrology. We also learned to use advanced technology like X-ray diffraction to determine the lattice structure of crystals. Geologists are one of the few professions that are usually required to read (and understand) Chamberlain’s Method of Multiple Working Hypotheses.

      You know not of what you speak!

      • It’s too bad that geologists are such a quiet lot, most of them have known and when asked, have posited that CAGW is an utter hoax for decades

        • Mike,
          It is my impression that, compared to the general population, there is a disproportionate number of geologists on this blog. Also, while I may be biased because of what I read here, I suspect that AGW skeptics are more than adequately represented by geologists. That is probably because we look at the situation from the viewpoint of what happens over millions of years, instead of a couple of human generations. And, we are taught how to measure things with attention paid to precision, unlike mathematicians who are used to assuming all numbers are exact.

    • non science fields like English and Geology

      As I heard many times in my old country, most often on a Saturday night: “Are you looking for a fight, Jimmy?”

  9. Scientific error can occur in matters of logic as well as statistics. The following is, in my opinion, an example:

    This is the IPCC AR4 definition of Radiative Forcing. (essentially similar in AR5)

    The definition of RF from the TAR and earlier IPCC assessment reports is retained. Ramaswamy et al. (2001) define it as ‘the change in net (down minus up) irradiance (solar plus longwave; in W m–2) at the tropopause after allowing for stratospheric temperatures to readjust to radiative equilibrium, but with surface and tropospheric temperatures and state held fixed at the unperturbed values’. Radiative forcing is used to assess and compare the anthropogenic and natural drivers of climate change. The concept arose from early studies of the climate response to
    changes in solar insolation and CO2, simple radiative-convective models.

    My reaction to this definition was as follows:

    The above definition does NOT comply with thermodynamic law, in that it defines Radiative Forcing (RF) as an energy flux (Watts/sq.m) moving from one thermodynamic system to another without a change of energy state in the recipient system.

    The logical error here is that the definition should have been in terms of a potential or force NOT energy, where later it is given a value of some 1.6 Watts/sq.m.

    Analogies are rarely entirely satisfactory; but electrics may suffice:

    A voltage potential connected to a resistance results in a flow of amps which determines the energy flux. The resistance generates a back EMF to balance the potential and hence controls the energy flux.
    A change in either the voltage or the resistance will change the flux.
    Therefore defining a change in voltage as a flux precludes change in resistance. (as in the definition)

    In climate terms the value of some 1.6 Watts/sq.m is thus specific to but one climate situation and should not be used where other situations and reactions prevail; for the actual flux is determined by the reactive processes currently in play. An unknown where prediction is involved.

    I suspect that the result of this error has been that this value of 1.6 Watts;sq.m has been subsequently used in calculations of predictions quite inappropriately.

    I am not sure that I have explained this error well; but invite comment etc.

    • The difference between the electric circuit analogy and climate is the resistance to RF (radiative forcing) is has no analog. Clouds are not either inherently resistive or permissive out of the context of their type and altitude within the adiabat.

      However, EE feedback theory does inform and thus becomes critical to understanding the system response to impulses, ramp functions, and other forms of input.

      Christopher Monckton has frequently made use of EE feedback theory (here at WUW) to demonstrate how badly mainstream climate science has failed to consider system feedbacks on control of surface temperatures.

      • Joel O’Bryan – “The difference between the electric circuit analogy and climate is the resistance to RF (radiative forcing) is has no analog. Clouds are not either inherently resistive or permissive out of the context of their type and altitude within the adiabat.”

        I do not think that is correct. If the incoming solar radiation is treated as the difference in potential (voltage), the total flux (current flow) is not possible to determine without knowing the impediment to the flow (resistance).
        I would think the impediment (resistance analogue) in this case would be absorbtion and re-emission delay caused by the seas and atmosphere, as well as the planetary mass.
        It is difficult to compare as electrical circuits operate at light speed and reach equilibrium rather quickly, while temperature is much much slower.
        So the discussion of temperature means that all of those factors must be artificially calculated to obtain a simplified result using an imaginary equilibrium.
        And this is even more complicated by the higher internal heat of the planet.

        Oh dear that is not very clear, but is that correct?

        • Electrical resistance requires a voltage difference.
          Hydraulic resistance requires a pressure difference.
          Thermal resistance requires a temperature difference.

          Q = U A dT.
          Clouds act like the curtains that open and close across my south facing windows.
          The atmosphere is no different from the insulated walls, windows, weather stripping of a house.

        • Mark Gilbert,
          You said, “…all of those factors must be artificially calculated to obtain a simplified result using an imaginary equilibrium.”

          And to make comparisons with electrical circuits, and handle impedance and phase differences, using imaginary numbers. It perhaps says something about the maturity of climatology when most climatologists act as if they have never heard of an imaginary number and rely heavily upon statistics to relate the science.

  10. Wait!? Am I correct in understanding that the … ahem, scientist responsible for this massive error … is a Nobel Prize winner?! Did I read this wrong?

  11. Tim Ball etal: You folks have made a scientific study of climate into items of interest to this layman. When considering the news icons my website I often click on WUWT before the general news.
    Thank you
    Ron Gillis

  12. I posted the actual retraction on Reddit and while the retraction was by the same authors it was attacked and derided by the general public as a “hit piece” etc.

    People are hilariously stupid if hilarity is jumping on fire off a bridge because some idiot on the internet linked you a fake article.

  13. In a twitter world, it’s the tweet (initial headline) that wins the game. People neither read nor understand the retraction, but they remember the headline.

    As evidence of human caused warming has faded, the terminology changed to avoid measurable quantities, and the shrill, dire predictions keep getting worse.

    There is no science involved any longer. Science is a search for truth. What we have is pure Goebbels-style public relations.

  14. Tim Ball said:

    “In the Climate Deception Game Where The End Justifies the Means, the Objective is the Headline.”

    “This implies the error was obvious. The error was also very large. Both factors suggest that the authors were either incredibly incompetent, so blinded by their bias that it is no longer science, or they believed they could get away with it. Whatever the case, they should no longer hold their positions.

    My view is that it is the last option. Keeling and those associated with the deception know that what will remain in the public mind is the original 60% headline. Like all corrections, they never receive the same frontpage headline status as the original story. As far as I could determine, many media outlets did not carry the correction at all. The end justifies the means, and the objective of COP24 is proof that they will continue to pervert and misuse science. We saw that in the leaked emails of Climategate.”

    Well, what about this headline from WUWT:

    “Study: Wind Farms Kill Off 75% Of Buzzards, Hawks And Kites That Live Nearby”

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/11/06/study-wind-farms-kill-off-75-of-buzzards-hawks-and-kites-that-live-nearby/

    The study in question doesn’t even pretend to measure how many dead bird there are or what killed them. So, how did that end up being the headline? Does your logic apply there too? Should we assume malice because of how basic the mistake was from someone who should know better?

    I notice that headline hasn’t been corrected in spite of multiple people pointing out that the study doesn’t provide the information necessary to make such a statement.

    • From the author of the study:

      https://phys.org/news/2018-11-farm-predator-effect-ecosystems.html

      “”They trigger changes to the balance of animals in an ecosystem as if they were top predators,” she said.

      “They are the ‘predators’ of raptors—not in the sense of killing them, but by reducing the presence of raptors in those areas.””

      Headline here:

      “Study: Wind Farms Kill Off 75% Of Buzzards, Hawks And Kites That Live Nearby”

      Watts up with that???

      Watts up with that?

      • Philip,
        Perhaps your point is valid but how about getting back to the topic, namely alleged legitimate climate scientists publishing an egregiously flawed letter in a premier scientific journal. Should not these alleged experts be held to a higher standard than the denizens of WUWT? Or do you give them a “get out of jail free card” if their intentions are politically correct and thus noble.

    • The study showed a 75% decrease in the number of raptors in windfarm areas. Are you suggesting that they emigrated away from there? I might point out that there are a number of other studies showing large-scale raptor kills by windfarms e. g. from Norway and Spain.

      • tty said:

        “The study showed a 75% decrease in the number of raptors in windfarm areas. Are you suggesting that they emigrated away from there? I might point out that there are a number of other studies showing large-scale raptor kills by windfarms e. g. from Norway and Spain.”

        Even if you believe that to be true, it isn’t what the study says, and the headline is still incorrect. The study says no such thing.

  15. The thing that is shocking (as a scientist) is that awareness of Confirmation Bias didn’t give them pause. They were wholly unaware. Never sought to question it. Not their reviewers.

    A classic example of believing your own shit, not seeking to falsify your own results.

    • Yes, agreed. I don’t think that “they thought they could get away with it” fits the evidence. They would have contemplated the personal downside of being found out, and in this case the error is large, clear, and unambiguous, so they would have realised that there could be no fudging, no defence. The conclusion is that they did NOT know of their error, with all that that says about confirmation bias, peer review, and the state of the Scripps science setup.

  16. There is copious proof that the world has become greener thanks to the extra CO2. Surely, open minded scientists would think of this as the source of the extra O2 before refuting year 7 science fact that warmer water rises and would always register in the ARGO buoy data in spite of the fact that it has been corrupted by the unintended increasing addition of SURFACE SHIPS TEMP. READINGS. Cyclones/ hurricanes/typhoons have become rarer,which indicates cooler ocean surface except during El Ninos.

  17. To LbD
    You write …”non science fields like English and Geology.”
    You don’t know what you are thinking about. Or you have had too much to drink or smoke.
    Bob Hoye, BSc. Geophysics

    • That’s not right, or fair. I don’t think anybody is seriously questioning the CO2 ppm figures, or even the trend. Plenty of non-Mauna Loa data. Palaeo figures, maybe not so secure.

      • But scientists should be questioning them and demanding to see the raw data. I’ve seen raw data from desert sites and they vary by 100ppm during the day randomly. Keelings cutely wavy graph is just too neat by comparison. And any method that automatically rejects 80% of the data is immediately suspect. If engineers used this rejection rate for fatigue curves then there would be a lot more engineering disasters. The proper method should keep all the data then find the normal distribution at each time-point and from that determine the 3-sigma minimum. Maybe it would still show an increase but it would then be correctly done and verifiable. Like most in the climate clique Keeling obviously doesn’t look too hard to find errors if the graph goes the way he prefers.

        • Jasg,

          The data have been replicated at multiple sites around the world. There is no reason whatsoever to question them.

          My uncle was director at Mauna Loa for years. He has described to me the constant calibration the instrument goes through, and the ways that readings are checked to avoid contamination from stray volcanic gases (though usually that’s not a problem because of where the intake is situated).

          The Keeling curve is good data. You’re just looking for problems.

  18. “…to hold the global average temperature to as close as possible to 1.5 degrees Celsius.”

    Good heavens, I hope not.

  19. So Ralph Keeling, Naomi Oreskes, and Lynne Talley, are the oceans ‘warming up’ or are they acquiring infrared energy or just gaining ‘more energy’. Maybe their ‘temperatures’ are changing with the molecules becoming a little more/less energetic is its transferred/transformed chemically to the living biota in ocean, or transferred to the rocky oceanic base?

    Can any of these people understand that energy is often highly mobile, being transferred and transformed across many domains?

  20. Could we go back and start over again with properly designed and monitored experiments on black body radiation, back radiation, the effect of cloud cover etc to see whether the assumptions being made for the greenhouse effect stand up to proper scrutiny?
    Would it be too expensive, or are there too many skeletons hidden in research cupboards?

    • Black body radiation and back radiation are well understood (though “back radiation” is consistently misapplied). The effect of cloud cover is a wicked problem since it varies geographically, with the time of day and the type and altitude of clouds. Recently it was found that even the form of the ice-crystals in high clouds is very important.

  21. The issue is that the behavior seen in this paper is not the exception in climate ‘science’ rather it is the rule and a rule set by those leading the area and one when followed ‘well’ is rewarded.
    Its long been the case that the facts have come second to the ‘impact ‘ and been clear that getting that balance ‘wrong ‘ can have serious implications for a persons career .

    Frankly I do not understand why an area can be called a science at all , when its professional standards so often fall short of those expected of an undergraduate handing in an essay .

    • From article… There is no benefit to the public….

      “MERCHANT VS. RELIABILITY

      Jessome points out that all three projects are merchant lines – that is, they’re being developed for clean-energy goals and to make money for Hydro-Quebec and their builders. They aren’t so-called reliability projects; they’re not needed to keep the lights on in New England. ”

      • More:

        “Northern Pass offered what it called the Forward NH Plan, promising $200 million for economic development, tourism and clean energy. But the money seemed like a bribe to some. That sense was amplified last year when Maine ski-area developer Les Otten, who’s currently redeveloping the Balsams Resort in New Hampshire, acknowledged that a $5 million loan he got came with an agreement that he testify in favor of the power line before regulators.”

  22. “The Keeling family hold the patent for the carbon dioxide measuring instrumentation at Mauna Loa. The annual estimates of atmospheric CO2 are produced and controlled by the IPCC.”
    And in the link provided in the article about the IPCC winning the Nobel prize:
    “Scripps’s Jeff Severinghaus and Ralph Keeling contributed as reviewers.”(of the IPCC report)
    That would be seen as a conflict of interest in any other field of endeavor.

  23. The fact that shoddy or inaccurate or down right wrong work gets through a process which in any other filed would stop bad work dead in it’s tracks is telling. That the flag wavers for AGM amongst them the PC BBC made a big deal about this and then when it was found to be incorrect was completely silent is also telling.
    The headlines as you correctly say are all that matters in this charlatan’s potmess of corrupt self interest and pseudo science.

  24. Perhaps the location of the measurements of CO2 should be removed from the volcanos of Hawaia to the mountains of the West coast of Tasmania, a near perfect location.

    MJE

    • There are several other measuring stations for CO2, Mauna Loa has the longest series, Barrow (Alaska) since 1973 & Cape Grim, Tasmania in 1991 (Or earlier? 1977?) Then there’s Bermuda (1989?) They all are increasing at a similar rate. So allegations of “We’re just measuring CO2 from a volcano” don’t hold water.

  25. Ok I did not read the Letter….so take this from there:

    60% hotter than WHAT? Let’s just play that game for a sec shall we?

    Let’s say for argument’s sake that you could get the average temperature of the entire ocean column–accounting for cold water sink, upwellings, mid level turbulence, mid level currents, bottom variations, surface temperature variations, time of year, rotation of the Earth AND let’s not forget standardizing the sun’s output…let’s just pretend that the ENTIRE ocean’s temperature was taken and it revealed that a true average temperature of the ocean pretty close to some arbitrary degrees C with a margin of error of say, 40%. BUT WAIT, there’s more! In their vast and unchallenged research to uncover what had already been done, they discover that the margin of error previously was only 24%, now that margin of error is 40% and BAM! 60% hotter oceans………Nightly News here we come!

    Ya know…..this shtick makes me really, really, really sad I have a BS degree in Marine Biology. Actually this entire political agenda from an institution that is really trying to understand the oceans makes me sick to even associate myself with a degree that I love, with the knowledge I gain, and with my use of the Oxford Comma. 🙂

    Has anyone ever thought that maybe…just MAYBE….these political agenda fund seeking Chicken Little climatologists(and NEWS OUTLETS) should oh I dunno, take a class in Chemical Oceanography? Even an introductory class for non-majors would blow everything they have said about the ocean into space. Hell, I’d even settle for a grade school class in basic BIOLOGY or even better, BOTANY.

    I want to see a headline that reads: CAGW UNMASKED AS SNAKEOIL! With a caption that says: after hundreds of millions of dollars fleeced, the IPCC RICO trial reveals a global organized crime syndicate.

  26. About media coverage for the correction, in fairness, Tim Ball could have linked to CBC Mortillaro correction, a very rare occurrence on the CBC worthy to be highlighted here. And yes, they frame it the way it serves them and took a while to publish it. Let’s recall, they kept silent on the O’Donnell paper back 8 years ago…
    https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/peer-reviews-1.4907377

    Correction to climate change study highlights flaws in peer-review process
    Recent study on ocean warming had mathematical error
    Nicole Mortillaro · CBC News · Posted: Nov 16, 2018 4:00 AM ET | Last Updated: November 16

  27. I knew something was wrong when I read the headlines.

    “Earth’s oceans ‘soak up 60% more heat than thought’ and it could mean the planet is warming FASTER than scientists predicted.”
    “World’s oceans have absorbed 60% more heat than previously thought, study finds.”
    “Our oceans are 60% hotter than scientists originally thought, according to a new report.”

    Has anyone even bother to prove that CO2 and LWIR between 13 and 18 microns can warm water? A microwave can cook a turkey, but leave the air in the microwave nice and cool. LWIR between 13 and 18 microns have certain physical properties as well, but no one has asked can they warm water?

    A Nobel Prize in Science Winning Climate Experiment; An Open Challenge to Settle the Science
    https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/11/17/a-nobel-prize-in-science-winning-climate-science-experiment/

  28. For a decade now I have been claiming in public that most climate literature is hugely deficient in understanding and calculating errors and uncertainty in measurement data.
    I have suggested that some high percent, like 90%, of climate papers would not be published if their errors were properly calculated. The is loosely because noise is being confused with actual physical effects.
    The paper by Resplandy et al is a copybook example of just this scientific ignorance.
    If there were more Nic Lewis people looking at more and more climate papers, I would expect them to find a rejection rate like that guessed-at 90%.
    (Part of the problem is lack of strong accountability in climate research. In some scientific endeavours, errors like the Resplandy ones would have the direct potential to cause death or destruction. In climate work, the frivolous treatment of errors has to replaced by serious re-education, lifting the standard of science and rather tough punishment for offenders.)
    Geoff

  29. To understand in a broader sense Dr. Tim Ball’s reference in his headline for this article about “means and ends”, I recently wrote a brief Op Ed for our local weekly paper here on the that subject as it applies to many issues of our day and where it may lead us. I present it below:

    ———————————————————————————–

    Does The End Justify the Means? November 2018
    by Doug Ferguson

    There is a fundamental philosophy underlying much of what goes on in the world today. It doesn’t matter if it deals with climate change, national or international political power, inner city violence, poverty, the environment or any other issue endlessly dramatized by our mainstream media, politicians and many of the so called “experts” in our midst. It accounts for the humorlessness, confusion, rancor, hatred, and in many cases, the episodes of outright anarchy we see in our country and the world.

    It is a wholesale endorsement of this idea: If you believe your cause is good, noble or profitable or you just want raw power, then the end justifies the means. If the means is exaggerating, falsifying or even damaging the opposition’s reputation by doing these things for your cause, then it is justified. Limiting your opponent’s freedom to speak in whatever means possible is justified. Even physical violence can be justified for your cause.

    This philosophy was codified by Saul Alinski in his “Rules for Radicals” published in 1971 summarizing methods he had used over his long career in Chicago as the original “community organizer” where he founded the Industrial Areas Foundation to train future followers of his methods. In his book he devoted a whole chapter to justify his tactics as “—anything is fair in war”. Using his complicated explanation of “just causes” and “greater good”, today’s proponents view most of their issues as “justifiable wars”.

    The fundamental concept is by no means a new one. Ideas of Machiavelli and many other schemers in history come to mind. However, Alinski’s methods took old ideas and adapted them to modern conditions in the USA and have been endorsed by many powerful people. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton as young politicians both endorsed his methods if not his goals. Obama’s original move from New York to Chicago as a young man was to join Alinski’s foundation and become a “community organizer”.

    The problem is once you adopt this philosophy, you eventually change the noble “ends” you wanted to achieve. This happens through the principle of unintended consequences and ignoring real and potentially solvable social, economic and environmental problems through civil means. You also create new problems that were not anticipated. Wars, no matter how justified they may be, always have had negative and unseen destructive consequences. Wars also create problems even after they have been won. History abounds with examples.

    That is why stable societies have elections, civil laws and representative governments to resolve issues and problems. Either that or they must resort to some form of enforceable dictatorship. A safe society that provides for its member’s basic stability needs cannot have anarchy. Wars create anarchy during their duration and, in most cases, long after they are over.

    As more and more organizations and movements endorse these “Rules for Radicals” methods we will see more and more anarchy in our country and throughout the world. Unless the trend to devalue civility, honesty and truth is reversed in our country, it inevitably will lead to more violence and either to a police state or civil war.

    We can hope and pray for the best, but first we must see the problem for what it is.

  30. My bad! I copied an uncorrected version of my article. All references should be spelled “Saul Alinsky”!

    Doug Ferguson

  31. Reminds me, whatever happened to that genius who was going to kayak across the North Pole?

    Guess it doesn’t matter: he got his headline.

  32. “The public understood the epithet global warming skeptic as an insult.”

    Ha ha! No, I don’t think that’s right. I think many people think “skeptic” is a misuse of the word precisely because science is a discipline of skepticism, when that is not really what “skeptics” like Dr. Ball practice. There are far too many instances of “skeptics” simply not believing science because it doesn’t fit their ideas, and because there’s a pervasive idea promulgated by people like Dr. Ball that climate scientists are not credible. I’m not saying this is the case among all skeptics, and I’m not saying that alarmists are unbiased. Nor do I suggest that there’s no reason for skepticism – true skepticism is a good thing. But it should be practiced equally whether the research supports or refutes what one wants to believe. That’s the ideal. It’s hard to achieve. Dr. Ball is not a good role model. Is there ANY post he writes that doesn’t take time to bash the hockey stick, or bring up the “climategate” emails?

    “Mann, Bradley, and Hughes (MBH98) produced a peer-reviewed paper that used a novel statistical technique to achieve its result.

    The Wegman Report set up to investigate what happened with MBH98 and the infamous “hockey stick” shows parallels with the Scripps debacle.”

    OY! The Wegman Report. Egad. Besides simply reproducing some of M&M’s work, it contained plagiarism. Hardly a credible source. And, of course, there is no mention of the fact that M&M’s analyses of Mann et al. were themselves flawed, which is apparently unknown to a lot of skeptics. How can that be, after all these years? One side of the story is presented, and that’s what is taken for Truth.

    ‘The Keeling family hold the patent for the carbon dioxide measuring instrumentation at Mauna Loa. The annual estimates of atmospheric CO2 are produced and controlled by the IPCC.”

    Is Dr. Ball insane? How does the IPCC control CO2 estimates? And who cares who owns the patent? What’s wrong with having a patent? My uncle was the station director of Mauna Loa for years. He’s an atmospheric physicist who studies aerosols. He has two patents. Shame on him!

    Dr. Ball gives “skepticism” a bad name. If skeptics want to be respected by the scientific community at large, or if they want their ideas to become more plausible to the rest of the world, they need to start differentiating between healthy skepticism and propagandist tripe. They need practice the former without sliding into denialism, and to recognize and name the latter for what it is. There are many very intelligent skeptics out there, many who know far more than I about climate. It’s hard for me to understand why they don’t rebel against propaganda.

    • Why don’t you rebel against propaganda, Kristi? Sadly, you aren’t even aware that the propaganda has worked on you so effectively.

      I love irony, especially when those experiencing it haven’t the slightest. Hahahahaha Winning!!

    • Kristi,

      ““The public understood the epithet global warming skeptic as an insult.”

      Ha ha! No, I don’t think that’s right.”

      It might not have been ‘right’ in ancient Greece but it’s ‘right’ here and now, in 2018.

      That’s why the Governor of California said that in five years “even the worst skeptics will be believers.”

      If you can read English, you know that the Governor tacitly assumes that being a skeptic is a bad thing in and of itself.

      He might say “even the worst criminals” or “even the worst wildfires.”

      But he’d never say “even the worst believers in science” or “even the worst puppy-dogs” or “even the worst rainbows.”

      “There are many very intelligent skeptics out there, many who know far more than I about climate. It’s hard for me to understand why they don’t rebel against propaganda.”

      You don’t say. It’s always hard to understand things that aren’t true, Kristi.

      “OY! The Wegman Report. Egad. Besides simply reproducing some of M&M’s work, it contained plagiarism. Hardly a credible source.”

      Please explain to those of us who actually know how science works why it is that you think plagiarism (by Wegman’s grad student, who copied boilerplate introductory text off Wikipedia rather than reinvent the wheel by putting it in his own words) affects the credibility of a statistical study.

    • Kristi,

      You asked, “Is there ANY post he writes that doesn’t take time to bash the hockey stick, or bring up the “climategate” emails?”

      There are some ‘sins’ that are too egregious to forgive or forget.

      You also said, “It’s hard for me to understand why they don’t rebel against propaganda.”

      Perhaps it is because it is only you who consider it to be propaganda. Sometimes, Truth, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

      The most profound thing that you said was, “There are many very intelligent skeptics out there, many who know far more than I about climate.”

  33. Kristi Silber says “M&M’s analyses of Mann et al. were themselves flawed” when she probably meant to say “M&M’s analyses of Mann et al. was itself flawed”
    Freudian slip? M&M were flawed, not their analyses of the fakey stick. The whole CAGW edifice was brought into question by M&M and it’s all because only flawed individuals would question our tireless scientists trying to save the planet.

    • “Kristi Silber says “M&M’s analyses of Mann et al. were themselves flawed” when she probably meant to say “M&M’s analyses of Mann et al. was itself flawed””

      The word “analyses” is plural, so Kristi’s wording (and not yours) was correct, grammatically.

      Semantically, on the other hand, her sentence is almost completely vacuous. Inane. Jejune. Empty rhetorical calories.

      The only way to falsify it would be if M&M had written a flawless paper (which would have represented a first in human history).

      All papers are flawed, but some are useless. MBH98 being a case in point.

  34. Question: How many “climate scientists” does it take to publish a peer-reviewed, mathematically-correct climate paper to a supposedly well-respected science magazine?

    Answer: More than 9, at least.

  35. “Charles Keeling was a major player from the start of the entire AGW story. One obituary says he … in the air.”

    CO2 increase was proportional to fossil fuel emissions and that humans were the source of the change. ”

    Don’t forget to take into account the increase in diaper production paralleling the rise in sea levels.

  36. Sure there’s a tipping point where the rise in diaper production will destroy the world as we know it.

  37. “Charles Keeling was a major player from the start of the entire AGW story. One obituary says he … in the air.”

    CO2 increase was proportional to fossil fuel emissions and that humans were the source of the change. ”

    Don’t forget to take into account the increase in diaper production paralleling the rise in sea levels.

    Experts have a terminus technicus for such mystic emergencies: correlation !

  38. What problems with “errors”.

    On the beach with ice cream with them chick’s where’s the “error”.

    The Mann always can change from “Greenland ice bergs” to ice cream.

    I scream.

Comments are closed.