I’ve been railing about these mistakes for years—here is a list of articles—but the criticisms never stick. Of course, any sane and correct criticism of global-warming-of-doom doesn’t stick, not in a climate where the government-funded want to criminalize critics’ opinions.
Incidentally, every scientist who signed that “Please, Mr President, Use The RICO Act To Silence Our Opposition” letter ought to have their name engraved on a plaque. I’d like them not to be forgotten. A lasting testament that scientists are not superior human beings and can’t be trusted more than anyone else.
Here’s the start of the article:
There are two stories floating around about the state of the earth’s atmosphere. Both are believed true by government-funded scientists and the environmentally minded. The situation is curious because the stories don’t mesh. Yet, as I said, both are believed. Worse, neither is true.
Story number one is that this year will be the hottest ever. And number two is that the reason it is not hot is because “natural variation” has masked or stalled man-caused global warming.
Which is it? Either it’s hotter than ever or it isn’t. If it is, then (it is implied) man-caused global warming has not “paused.” If it isn’t, if man-caused global warming has “paused,” then it is not growing hotter.
There are two things to keep straight: (1) why these divergent contentions are believed, and (2) why they are incompatible and individually false. The first point is easy. Climatology has become a branch of politics…
Go there to read the rest. And pass it on.
It is not the hottest year ever. “Natural variations” can’t cause a “pause.” And never say “pause” or “hiatus”—it admits global-warming-of-doom is true! Never adopt the language of your enemy.
The Editors at The Stream were particularly patient with me, since this is a long article and my enemies were inserting as many errors as they were removing.
Update So some guy at The Stream commented (all sic; I answer here because I’m not going to sign up for Disqus and be even more tracked all over the web):
You try to draw a distinction between Satellite “measurements” and other temperature measurements on the basis that one of them ( the older ones” ) are “proxies”
Perhaps you dont know that satellites do not measure temperature.
the sensor sits in space. It collects photons….
I want to cry sometimes. Whatever you don’t leave in, somebody points out as a mistake. OF COURSE satellites don’t measure temperature; they estimate it in an inverse problem. Not only do I know that, but I’ve written about it, and provided links in the Stream article to my many, many, many articles on dealing with temperature time series.
Goodness, I had no space to go into the inverse problem.
On the other hand, a True Believer at Twitter (I won’t link to him because links to the coward Greg Laden) claimed “WM Briggs @mattstat thinks dinosaurs read thermometers?” And that made my whole day.
Update “No, Briggs you fool, they said the hottest year on record. Ha!”
I despair sometimes, I really do. Hottest year on record is your argument? On record? Good grief!
I made the point in the article, but it was lost, that a “record” of only 40 to 50 years old is not very exciting. You agree, right? Right? And claims of “records” for the last 120 or so years must be, but are not, accompanied by predictive uncertainty, since anything before satellites is an estimate of disparate sources, places, and methods. Good grief!
And what makes the starting point of 1880, or whatever, so damn special? Only because that’s when the “modern record” begins? Good lord! How egotistical!
And even if considering the last 200 years—see how generous I am!—there was a genuine heat record now, what does that mean? Everybody without warrant assumes that if there was a record now, it must have been caused by man. I want to scream!
If we knew what was causing changes in the atmosphere—and I repeatedly emphasized this point in the article—then we would have made good, skillful predictions. We did not. Therefore we do not know all that is happening. Yes, we know some things. But not all. Sheesh! Not only is there no good evidence that man-caused global-warming-of-doom is so, there is terrific evidence because of model failure that the enhanced feedback of CO2 in the models is false. Why? Because they models can’t make good predictions and that is the most likely culprit for the failure! Why? Because the other physics, like the equations of motion, are found to work fine in, for instance, weather models.
And yesterday, on Twitter, I had an argument with a physicist that said the models predicted ice would melt as well as predicting it would get hotter. I wept!
Buy, say, did you notice something? In yesterday’s drama, nobody (that I noticed) defended that preposterous “natural variability” claim? Interesting, no?
Greenland Ice core shows far warmer times.Chinese study shows no hockey stick.So why demonize those that question agw pic.twitter.com/aawjSBdkcQ
— Joe Bastardi (@BigJoeBastardi) September 24, 2015