Dr Mojib Latif, one of the world’s top climate modellers, believes predictions of imminent global warming may be wrong and that the Earth could be heading for up to 20 years of cooler temperatures.
Hansen forecast 1C rise over the next 20 years.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_etal.pdf
h/t to Tom Nelson
The Mail article is over a year old, and Latif has spent most the time since trying to get people to understand that it was all bollixed up.
What he actually said was that natural variation could cause periods of cooling temperatures that would mask the overall trend. It was not a prediction for any particular period of time, and certainly not for the next 20 years.
The chart he showed that was misinterpreted as a “prediction” was simply an extrapolation of a rising trend with simulated natural variability added. It was not the result of a model run, and it was not a prediction. It was only intended to show that natural variability could result in cooling trends of a decade or more despite global warming.
Latif’s actual projection, which was presented in the same talk, predicted warming, not cooling, in the coming decade.
Trying to rewrite history again Chris? The Mail report was accurate.
“Forecasts of climate change are about to go seriously out of kilter. One of the world’s top climate modellers said Thursday we could be about to enter one or even two decades during which temperatures cool.”
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17742-worlds-climate-could-cool-first-warm-later.html
Facts are facts, Steve.
Don’t believe what I said? Fine. Watch and listen to his actual presentation, which you can find in in one of Peter Sinclair’s videos. You will hear what he said and see what he showed. You will see how that graph was composed from a rising projection with simulated natural variability superimposed on it to show how we can expect periods of cooling in the face of an overall warming trend. It was not a prediction. This is crystal clear if you just bother to watch the presentation. It was a hypothetical that was misinterpreted as a prediction, first by Fred Pearce in New Scientist and then by the Mail. But don’t take my word for it, watch the presentation for yourself.
No Climatologist makes any prediction because only real scientists make predictions that can be tested. Climatologists make Plausible scenarios of what might happen IF their WAGS are somewhat correct. Being consistent with these scenarios means reality is within 10C plus or minus due to possible Telluric Influences disturbing the Aether while the Climatologist was i a trance communing with the Climate Spirits.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telluric_contamination
Any errors in model output are due to Telluric Contamination during the seance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A9ance
None of this has anything to do with whether or not Latif predicted cooling for “up to 20 years” as Steve says. He did not.
Here is what the 2008 paper by Latif, et al said:
Advancing decadal-scale climate prediction in the North Atlantic sector
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7191/abs/nature06921.html
“Here we apply a simple approach—that uses only sea surface temperature (SST) observations—to partly overcome this difficulty and perform retrospective decadal predictions with a climate model.”
So they use the words prediction and say it is a model in their paper. Both things that ChrisD said were not true.
Maybe the reporter did not get it wrong ChrisD. Maybe you did.
Maybe the reporter did not get it wrong ChrisD. Maybe you did.
OK, I guess that when Latif says that the newspaper reports of his talk were wrong, he doesn’t really know WTF he’s talking about. That makes sense.
So they use the words prediction and say it is a model in their paper. Both things that ChrisD said were not true.
Wrong. The Mail article is not about the Nature paper, it’s about his presentation at the climate conference.
Maybe he was backpeddling from his published paper after getting a bunch of guff about not towing the party line. I don’t know, but I can read what his published paper in Nature said, and it said that they made PREDICTIONS using CLIMATE MODELS. Both things you say are not true.
ChrisD,
Do you know the reporter did not read the 2008 paper as background information for his article? Seems that it is pretty relevant to accurately presenting what the scientist is putting out to the public. That way he cannot have different opinions in different places or to different audiences.
Has Latif asked for a retraction? Has he demanded a correction?
Has Latif asked for a retraction? Has he demanded a correction?
Ask Latif. I guess his point-blank statement that the newspapers misinterpreted him isn’t good enough.
If the article got it wrong, and it could be verified, then why wouldn’t there have been a correction? Maybe it is because of the 2008 publication in Nature. It appears that the Mail article got the facts correct as published in Nature. Since this was public knowledge, it would be pretty hard to compell the report to correct or retract. Since you seem to be arguing that Latif changed his stance, maybe he is not pursuing it because he would have to retract or correct his 2008 Nature publication.
Your obsessing over the correction/retraction is nothing short of bizarre. Is it your position that everything that every newspaper gets wrong is subsequently corrected or retracted? Is it a matter of complete indifference to you that Latif himself said that the media got it wrong?
The idea that the story must be correct simply because it was not retracted is not in accord with the reality.
Since you seem to be arguing that Latif changed his stance
I have made no such argument. If you think I have, you have understood neither what I said nor what Latif said. His presentation at the conference was not a prediction and did not in any way conflict with the Nature paper.
If he was smart, he would stick by his prediction.
If there is no difference, why do you keep making a point of saying that the article wasn’t about the Nature Paper? If he said the same thing at the talk that was in the paper, your point is meaningless.
If Latif was outraged, as you have said, that the article got his opinion or conclusions wrong, he would insist that the paper correct it or retract it.
If there is no difference, why do you keep making a point of saying that the article wasn’t about the Nature Paper? If he said the same thing at the talk that was in the paper, your point is meaningless.
Wow, you are being exceptionally obtuse. I didn’t say there was no difference, I said he didn’t change his stance, which is because the Nature paper and the presentation weren’t about the same thing. One contained a prediction. One didn’t. Get it? Different things yet not a change in stance.
And neither one of them said that the earth would be cooling for 20 years.
If Latif was outraged, as you have said, that the article got his opinion or conclusions wrong, he would insist that the paper correct it or retract it.
Stop obsessing about retractions. Whether or not there was a retraction or whether he insisted on a retraction has nothing to do with whether or not the article was right. Zero. He has said flat-out that the presentation was misunderstood and misreported, as is perfectly obvious to anyone who has bothered to listen to it.
ChrisD:
According to the article Steven linked Latif did predict possible cooling for up to 20 years. Any claim of possible future events are predictions if coming from a scientist. If oyu want to claim that Latif and Hansen are not real scientists then you might be right about Latif not predicting cooling for 20 years.
What he said in his presentation was that natural variation could (and will) cause periods of cooling, which is not news and which no one would dispute.
It was not a prediction for any particular future date. It’s the difference between “It will rain someday” and “It will rain tomorrow.” The former is a “prediction” only in the most pedantic sense.
ChrisD:
In the Nature article it was called a prediction by the authors of which Latif was one!
Cute spin.
“we make the following forecast: over the next decade, the current Atlantic meridional overturning circulation will weaken to its long-term mean; moreover, North Atlantic SST and European and North American surface temperatures will cool slightly, whereas tropical Pacific SST will remain almost unchanged.”
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7191/abs/nature06921.html
Hey!
That looks like a prediction to me and they even used the word prediction.
The claim was they were making a decadal prediction to prove their predictive powers.
The problem is they are using the wrong weather pattern so their prediction will be wrong.
That looks like a prediction to me and they even used the word prediction.
You’re just really don’t get it, do you?
This is not what the Daily Mail article is about. What the Daily Mail used as the basis for its claim that he predicted 20 years’ cooling was not a prediction. It was a demonstration. It used simulated natural variability to make a point. There was no attempt to model real natural variability or anything else. It was something you could easily do in Excel.
How many different ways can this be said?
As to the prediction of “cooling” in the Nature paper, have a look at what was actually in the paper. It’s the green curve. Where’s the cooling? There isn’t any. There’s a flattening that ends around 2015, and that’s that.
Anything to distract.
ChrisD:
When I see the word prediction, I think they are talking about a prediction and when I see the words natural cooling I think they are talking about natural cooling.
I did not see the graph on Nature’s summary of the article, so I do not know what pretty pictures they are showing.
This Latif reminds me of THE GAV who is also a modeler at GISS and NASA also pays him to run Surrealclimate. GAV makes the same conflicting statements all the time. I guess it is jst SOP for modelers who use fluid temperature records and fluid predictions that are not predictions because only REAL scientists make predictions.
THE GAV even told me that he does not make predictions. They provide “possible scenarios” based on estimates supported by wild A## guesses. That was my interpretation of what GAV was trying to say. I was trying to read between all the weasel words.
ChrisD:
You really need to find better references than DC’s web site. This is a person who is so sure of their position they need to hide behind a phony name because they are ashamed of their position and they do not want anyone to know it is them writing this garbage. I tried to discuss reality with DC once upon a time and it was like trying to discuss something with you. DC is a troll who found a following of sheep to follow another obedient puppet.
I would not expect to find any truth at that site based on historic writings by DC.
You really need to find better references than DC’s web site
You can find this same information at any number of web sites. That happened to be a handy place to get the graph.
ChrisD:
I am sure there are many Fenton Communication sites that offer writings similar to what DC throws out. I do not visit any of those either.
I am sure there are many Fenton Communication sites that offer writings similar to what DC throws out.
First, like I said, I only linked to DC for the graph.
Second, if you’re going to dismiss DC’s (and pretty much everyone else’s) views on this issue, it would be nice if you could point to something specific that they have wrong. Just saying “It’s DC” doesn’t cut it.
I do not visit any of those either.
Way to keep informed. Visiting only sites you agree with, that’s a good plan. Very broadening.
So James Hansen is out on a limb alone. Easier to hack it off.
No, he isn’t. This is not what Latif said. Watch the presentation.
So you think he agrees with Hansen that temperatures will increase 1C over the next 20 years. Nice
Gosh, Steve, that’s actually not what I said, is it?
I said that he did not predict that “the world could get colder over the next two decades” as the Daily Mail claimed. His prediction called for warming, not cooling. What the Mail and Pearce thought was a prediction was not a prediction, it was a hypothetical. An illustration of a concept.
The title of this post is “Top Climate Modeler Says Hansen Is Wrong”
As usual, you introduce a straw man argument to attempt to distract the discussion. That is your MO.
ChrisD:
That is all that Climatologists provide. There are no predictions from the group and the output is opinions because the process does not reach the Hypothesis stage. It does not even get beyond the SWAG stage. Because it is not related to science it would be the WAG stage!
Your source has shown his ability to do a good job of editing video clips to show another form of reality and rearrange past events to fit his agenda.
But then Peter Sinclair’s occupation was a Video Editor for a PR firm!
Peter Sinclair is also guilty of copyright infringement!
As usual, you introduce a straw man argument to attempt to distract the discussion. That is your MO.
I can read what you wrote:
You wrote that. It is wrong. It is not what he said. If you think a direct refutation of what you explicitly wrote is a “strawman,” so be it.
You are like one-tree Briffa. You can’t see the forest.
ChrisD:
A hypothetical is a prediction on which a theory is based if the prediction can relate to real world events.
Possible Future scenarios are predictions also from a scientific stand point.
If you want to admit they were making Wild A## Guesses and talking out of their A## I might tend to agree with you!
Your source has shown his ability to do a good job of editing video clips to show another form of reality and rearrange past events to fit his agenda.
Bullshit. What Latif said is crystal clear, and Latif himself has confirmed multiple times that it was not a prediction and that he predicts warming, not cooling. Look at how he constructs the “Climate Surprises” graph, which is the one that supposedly predicts cooling. Read his work. You’re the one living in the alternate reality.
Peter Sinclair is also guilty of copyright infringement!
That’s super relevant.
So latif didn’t say what he said and he expects 1C warming over the next twenty years.
ChrisD:
Steven just copied what was written in the article as I did. Contact the Mail and request a retraction. When the retraction is printed please provide a copy. That will prove your position. Using claims by Sinclair who is another discredited source is just passing around manufactured BS propaganda.
So latif didn’t say what he said and he expects 1C warming over the next twenty years.
Latif said what he said. He did not say what the Mail said. Do you understand this at all? Is it too difficult?
he expects 1C warming over the next twenty years
Now, that is a strawman. I made no such statement.
So does he agree with Hansen, or not?
Using claims by Sinclair who is another discredited source is just passing around manufactured BS propaganda.
Holy crap.
It’s not manufactured BS propaganda, it’s AN ACTUAL RECORDING OF THE ACTUAL SESSION ALONG WITH WHAT HE WAS ACTUALLY SHOWING ON THE SCREEN.
Jesus. Get a grip, man.
So does he agree with Hansen, or not?
First, where did I say that he agreed with Hansen in all particulars? Nowhere. A virtual definition of strawman.
Second, his actual projection extends only to 2015. He does not project beyond that. Up to 2015 it shows somewhat reduced warming–not cooling–as compared to Hansen’s. So? Is it your position that all scientists’ projections should be identical?
Third, my point in this thread was never that Latif’s and Hansen’s projections are identical in all respects. My point is that Latif never predicted “up to 20 years of cooler temperatures” as you explicitly claim. That is wrong, and that is what I am talking about. You are the one who is attempting to “distract,” not me.
You are like one-tree Briffa. You can’t see the forest.
But I do recognize bullshit when I see it.
So you finally see Hansen’s forecasts for what they are. You are making progress
A hypothetical is a prediction on which a theory is based if the prediction can relate to real world events.
What Latif did was not a prediction. He took a warming curve, superimposed simulated natural variation, showed that there would inevitably be periods of cooling, and pointed out that this would not mean that global warming has stopped. It was not a prediction of actual temperatures. It was a demonstration of a concept. He was specifically addressing the the media’s tendency to see the cessation of global warming when annual temperatures don’t increase monotonically.
If you think otherwise, you either didn’t watch and listen to his presentation or you didn’t understand it. It is just that simple.
Steven just copied what was written in the article as I did.
So, Steve the climate guru has no responsibility to check on whether the stuff he parrots from a tabloid is actually true. That is a remarkably low standard, and it explains quite a lot.
So you claim the Latif made a PREDICTION that warming will continue at a reduced rate through 2015 and warming will accelerate after that. You are claiming everything in the Mail was lies. Yet you can not provide a retraction from the paper. You use a video with doubtful heritage to support your claims. It will not stand up in a court of law!
So you claim the Latif made a PREDICTION that warming will continue at a reduced rate through 2015 and warming will accelerate after that.
I don’t “claim” it, Latif said it. Do you know the difference?
You are claiming everything in the Mail was lies.
No, I said it was wrong. I realize that you “skeptics” have trouble distinguishing between “being wrong” and “lying,” but I can.
Yet you can not provide a retraction from the paper.
Gee, all I can provide is a direct quote from Latif saying that the newspapers got it wrong. Sorry if that’s not good enough.
You use a video with doubtful heritage to support your claims.
It’s only doubtful in your closed minds. Both the audio and the slides came directly from the conference’s web site.
“A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position. To “attack a straw man” is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the “straw man”), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.”
ChrisD refuted your original position and provided a source, there is no strawman argument.
What evidence do you have that Mojib Latif ever said that Hansen was wrong?
Evidence you position or retract it.
SteveS:
I guess you did not read the Mail article that Steven was referring to, so I will provide the Quote:
“Dr Mojib Latif, one of the world’s top climate modellers, believes predictions of imminent global warming may be wrong and that the Earth could be heading for up to 20 years of cooler temperatures.
However, the dip will be temporarily – and the long term trend is still for a warmer planet, he says.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1212442/The-world-colder-decades–hotter-long-run-expert-predicts.html#ixzz14zpU4JmK
According to Hansen’s 1988 prediction before Congress we should be experiencing much warmer temperatures than we are now because Business as usual has continued stronger than Hansen’s prediction but temperatures are not following the prediction. Therefore Hansen is wrong.
Latif specifically said predictions may be wrong and Hansen made a prediction. Hansen was wrong!
That makes ChrisD and you wrong!
I guess you did not read the Mail article that Steven was referring to, so I will provide the Quote:
“Dr Mojib Latif, one of the world’s top climate modellers, believes predictions of imminent global warming may be wrong and that the Earth could be heading for up to 20 years of cooler temperatures.
That is not what Latif said. The Mail got it all wrong. As long as you insist on getting your science from tabloid newspapers instead of directly from the scientists involved, you are going to continue to work with incorrect information. Newspapers do not always get everything right–as you “skeptics” never tire of pointing out.
Seems to be the MO of reality deniers to blame the press for things they said.
You can listen to what Latif actually said. I take it you just can’t be bothered. That’s pretty sad.
Lets see what else was said in the media
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120668812&ft=1&f=1007
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/11/climate-change-global-warming-mojib-latif
Latif says all we are and have experienced is weather because climate requires that long term trends be established rather than looking at short term weather events. We know that longterm regional weather patterns cycle over a period of 40 to 80 years so we can not claim any long term climate trend until we have a couple of cycles to base that claim on.
The is currently not enough evidence to make any predictions and Latif’s claims on BBC and in the other paper are self contradictory BS!
SteveS:
How do you know that is what he really said? It is only what the newspaper claimed he said!!!!!!
Can these computer please let me know the price of Cisco in the year 2100?
http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/quickchart/quickchart.asp?symb=CSCO&sid=6458&o_symb=CSCO&freq=2&time=20
“How do you know that is what he really said? It is only what the newspaper claimed he said!!!!!!”
That was my point. A reply to Steven’s post
“Seems to be the MO of reality deniers to blame the press for things they said.”
The only way to be sure is to listen to the man himself
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khikoh3sJg8
YEP!
This guy is a self contradictory climate propaganda specialist.
In the rest of the world they are called Pathological Liars.
This guy is a self contradictory climate propaganda specialist.
You still don’t get it. He didn’t say anything contradictory.
Hansen’s graph does not agree with his comments and no matter how many times you repeat yourself is not going to change reality.
http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/paintimage3685.jpg
And no matter how many times you whisper the forbidden word “Hansen” it won’t have anything to do with what I’ve said. Latif didn’t contradict himself, and he didn’t predict 20 years of cooling.
And no matter how many times you try to change the subject, the name of this article is “Top Climate Modeler Says Hansen Is Wrong” You are incapable of staying on topic.
Dr Mojib Latif, one of the world’s top climate modellers, believes predictions of imminent global warming may be wrong and that the Earth could be heading for up to 20 years of cooler temperatures.
Is that in your post, or not? Maybe there’s something wrong with my browser, but that text is definitely appearing at the top of the page as I see it.
Hansen’s graph shows continuous warming. Latif obviously disagrees. What part of that don’t you understand?
The part where you think the only thing in your post is his [short-term] disagreement with Hansen and that talking about anything else that is also in your post is off-topic.
It really doesn’t matter what Latif said. If he thinks CO2 is the primary reason for warming, he’s just another CO2 Idiot. If unforeseen natural variability causes actual temperatures to run below predictions, that same UNFORESEEN variability may be part OR ALL of the rise that preceded the decline.
The very fact the models did not predict the current trend FALSIFIES the models.
Exactly, while I find the discussion amusing, it is much akin to arguing which village idiot is dumber. Hansen or Latif. A modeler who doesn’t predict? Really? That would make him about as useful as a fur lined syrup pitcher.
while I find the discussion amusing, it is much akin to arguing which village idiot is dumber. Hansen or Latif.
So you just couldn’t care less that the main “fact” presented in the first paragraph of this post is completely wrong? It doesn’t matter to you at all?
A modeler who doesn’t predict? Really?
Nobody said that. What I said was that this particular chart–the one being used to claim that he predicts cooling over the next 20 years–was not a prediction, as is plainly obvious to anyone who has watched his presentation.
Chris, you’re arguing with the wrong people. If the article got it wrong, and as you said, it is over a year old, then where is the retraction? Where is the outrage? Whether they got it correct or not, I have no way of knowing and have no desire in taking sides in a he said/she said discussion in which I have no direct knowledge. I recall the event, and it seemed to me at the time, they caught Latif in an accidental moment of lucidity. He has since, sought to clarify, but not to the point of demanding a retraction or correction, nor do I believe one was offered. Maybe he doesn’t view it as that important, IDK. Further, it isn’t like the U.K. mail is a skeptical site, so floating the idea that it was a hit job on Latif seems beyond credible, but maybe it was just incompetence on the part of the reporter.
Again, though, if you want my opinion, I think Hansen is the greater village idiot but not through any lack of effort on Latif’s part, so he gets honorable mention.
If the article got it wrong, and as you said, it is over a year old, then where is the retraction? Where is the outrage?
The outrage was all over the Internet. A year ago.
Whether they got it correct or not, I have no way of knowing
Yes, you do. All you have to do is read Latif’s own remarks about this. He says point-blank that the media got it all wrong. Or you could listen to the damn presentation yourself.
Yeh, nothing I’d like better to do than listen to some ramblings of an alarmist accused of heresy, well maybe more than bamboo thrust under my fingernails, but, sadly, I’m at work and don’t have the continuity of time required to watch, perhaps I will when I get home. Still, odd there was never a correction or retraction. Weird huh?
All that outrage all over the internet, yet no correction or retraction. Just a statement that they got it wrong. Funny how what is now being characterized as wrong is consistent with Latif’s published paper in 2008.
We’ve seen situations like this before: One of the climate faithful has the audacity to make a few statements of lucidity, recognizing natural variability, only to be assaulted by the warming cabal to the point they back peddle on the only rational part of their findings, and return to chanting the mantra with their brethren.
I see Chris is making an idiot of himself again.
A useful and cogent post, well argued.
Now point to what I said that was incorrect. Be specific. Begin.
They already did that….. several times.
LOL
Just compare the claims you have made in this thread to the Science article and your own “greenman” video. Be as specific as you wish.
They already did that….. several times.
Nope.
LOL
Just compare the claims you have made in this thread to the Science article and your own “greenman” video. Be as specific as you wish.
It is not about the Science (actually, Nature) paper. This post comes from the Daily Mail article, which is about his presentation at the climate conference, not the Nature paper. His remarks at that conference were misinterpreted as a prediction, which they clearly and unmistakably were not. The foundation of the claims made in the Mail and in this post was fundamentally wrong.
Those remarks were taken as the basis to say that he predicts cooling for the next 20 years, i.e, from 2009-2029. He has made no such prediction, either at the conference or anywhere else. The only explicit prediction he has made ends in 2015 (it is actually a prediction for the decadal average for the decade 2005-2015). In his own words from the NPR interview: “Well, we did only forecasts for the time until 2015.”
And were his forecasts right or wrong. Maybe you misinterpreted his prediction for remarks.
Apparently he misinterpreted his own remarks, too.
There’s no news like old news!
Hansen et al 2005 also claimed that 10 years of OHC (1993-2003) data was sufficient to refer to it as “the smoking gun” for AGW caused by rising levels of greenhouse gases, mainly CO2 and a few others. He also stated OHC is the appropriate metric to use to measure global warming, and that his analysis was based on “precise measurements” (accuracy was not mentioned).
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2005/Imbalance_20050415.pdf
http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/sea-level-rise/slr-research-summary-2008/2005_Hansen_etal_1.pdf
So it is now 2010. According to NODC’s latest OHC data derived from ARGO which is said to be far more accurate than prior to 2003, Hansen’s “smoking gun” was obviously shooting blanks.
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/index.html
As water as a liquid holds 1000x more heat than in a gaseous state, one would think even his defenders would question the hypothesis of AGW (caused by rising CO2 levels) as presented by Dr. Hansen. However, this is now post-normal science and irrefutable hypotheses are the norm for climate “science” and observational evidence is no longer a requirement to test them.
How does CO2 warm oceans again? And how does CO2 control ENSO? CO2 must also drive cloud dynamics. An amazing minor gas CO2 is to do all that with no evidence to support it.
Further reading:
http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~douglass/papers/KD_InPress_final.pdf
Old news that Dr. Mojib Latif has said is misleading. He told the Guardian: “It comes as a surprise to me that people would try to use my statements to try to dispute the nature of global warming. I believe in manmade global warming. I have said that if my name was not Mojib Latif it would be global warming.”
He added: “There is no doubt within the scientific community that we are affecting the climate, that the climate is changing and responding to our emissions of greenhouse gases.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/11/climate-change-global-warming-mojib-latif
If you have an actual quote where he mentions Hansen in the terms that your post suggests, lets all see it.
now THIS thread is the most fun I have had since I started reading Steve.
The rest is private for Chris so PLEASE NO ONE ELSE READ WHAT FOLLOWS!
CHRIS. you DON’T get it. You are a straight man. You are Abbott to the merry band of Costello’s. You are Hardy to these modern day Laurel’s. You are Dick to Steve’s Tommy. Except they are vicious as the comedy duos were in the other direction. If you take the responses you get seriously you will be emotionally damaged.
Steve is obsessed that one climate scientist made a prediction near the beginning of the serious modeling of climate science. A prediction that was based on information that was not nearly as sophisticated as now, and it was a little off. He still clearly predicted warming and gave very good explanations for why, and it happened. His prediction was accurate but imprecise, which to Steve and his minions PROVES he is the antichrist.
Chris, I can see you getting bluer and bluer in the face as you state the most obvious reality, and it is turned around contemptuously into the opposite of what it is. This is called projection. They claim climate science is a cult, when they exhibit all the qualities of a cult. Take this post. You correctly, over and over state the reality. Steve’s post is just inaccurate. Easily verifiable. you do that by providing direct video confirmation of the inaccuracy. You get assailed because the newspaper was not forced to print a retraction. You post Sinclair’s completely clear video showing how the deniers do EXACTLY what Latif said would happen. Steve jumps up and down waving his arms, “But Hansen said 1° and it is only .7°”, which as you point out has nothing to do with anything you said. Then Mike jumps in with Climate scientists always hedge their predictions because they are frauds. When he makes NO predictions at all, because he relies on the deity of natural cycles, that cause whatever temperature change happens no matter what because he won’t specify how the cycles interact.
you can’t WIN any argument here. You notice not one person will criticize Beck or the other rightwing nutjobs in Sinclair’s video even though they clearly are totally misrepresenting Latif, on purpose, in order to create the totally false impression that climate scientists are about to abandon Climate change. If they criticize ANYONE who supports their position they will be opening the seeds of doubt.
If a scientist makes a distinct prediction, if it is not absolutely correct, that proves he is a fraud. if scientists make scientific predictions with parameters, then they are incompetent and trying to hide that they know nothing.
if you come into this thinking you are going to change someone mind about even the most obvious error, even one as obvious as this, you are not being rational.
As I have pointed out in other posts. They CANNOT be wrong about ANYTHING. They can’t admit being wrong about anything, because that would again create a seed of doubt, and they have to be absolutely sure they are right, because the warmists are evil and have to be stopped.
I am quite willing to be wrong. I would be happy if ACC was not happening. I would still support many of the positions I hold, but they would not be so critical. I do think that there is a possibility of some homeostatic process as yet not known, or fully understood, that will mitigate the effects of the massive increase in CO2 in such a short time frame. Maybe Lindzen’s iris theory or some serendipitous decrease in solar radiation, or even some concatenation of natural cycles. Maybe bacteria or some other biotic source evens things out. But I know the scientists aren’t idiots, and I know there is no conspiracy, so I can have fun with a bunch of people who have convinced themselves that one of the two is reality. People who think that their ramblings on a blog with absolutely NO rigorous analysis constitutes some truth that they are presenting to save the world. It is messianic in a rather beautiful , if twisted, way.
Steve. Chill, enjoy the ride, not where it takes you.
I know none of you read it except Chris, but I meant “Chris. Chill , Enjoy the ride!”
Oh, I know all this, Tony. 🙂 I’ve been doing this for a long time.
Here’s the thing: Steve says–and this is one of the very few things he says that I have no reason to doubt–that the traffic on this blog is pretty heavy. A lot of people are coming here, and probably reading the comments because the posts themselves typically don’t have much meat.
But who’s posting the comments? The vast bulk of them are from the same dozen or so people, over and over. So we have a lot of people who are reading the comments but never saying anything.
Those are the people I’m really trying to reach. My hope is that some of them will that what the ‘skeptics” mostly do is bloviate, slap each others’ backs, fixate on the same few tired issues over and over and over (“Hockey stick! Manhattan! Hide the decline!”), post immature ad hominems and silly blanket condemnations of scientists, and rarely, rarely address any actual science.
Then I hope they’ll contrast those comments with those who take things a little more seriously. I hope they’ll see which side really got religion. You never know who you’ll reach.
Thanks for the comment. It does get a little lonely here at times. 🙂
“My hope is that some of them will observe that what the ‘skeptics” mostly do is ….”
What skeptics do is post actual data, rather than nonsensical forecasts and corrupted proxies.
You are indeed an arrogant fool.
Seems like every 2nd post here is a ChrisD?
or me.