The AGW scam is so over
Rick Saunders
Scams die hard, but eventually they die, and when they do,
nobody wants to get close to the corpse. You can get all the
hotel rooms you want this week in Cancun.
The global-warming caravan has moved on, bound for a destination
in oblivion. The United Nations is hanging the usual lamb chop
in the window this week in Mexico for the U.N.'s Framework
Convention on Climate Change, but the Washington guests are
staying home. Nobody wants to get the smell of the corpse on
their clothes.
Everybody who imagined himself anybody raced to Copenhagen last
year for the global-warming summit, renamed "climate change"
when the globe began to cool, as it does from time to time. Some
45,000 delegates, "activists," business representatives and the
usual retinue of journalists registered for the party in
Copenhagen. This year, only 1,234 journalists registered for the
Cancun beach party. The only story there is that there's no
story there. The U.N. organizers glumly concede that Cancun
won't amount to anything, even by U.N. standards.
Rep. Henry A. Waxman of California, who wrote and sponsored the
cap-and-trade legislation last year, says he'll be too busy with
congressional business (buying stamps for the Christmas cards
and getting a haircut and a shoeshine) even to think about going
to Cancun. Last year, he joined Speaker Nancy Pelosi and dozens
of other congressmen in taking staffers and spouses to the party
in Copenhagen. The junket cost taxpayers $400,000, but
Copenhagen is a friendly town and a good time was had by all.
This year, they're all staying home, learning to live like lame
ducks.
The Senate's California ladies, cheerleaders for the global-
warming scam only yesterday, can't get far enough away from
Cancun this year. Dianne Feinstein says she's not even thinking
about the weather. "I haven't really thought about [Cancun], to
be honest with you," she tells Politico, the Capitol Hill daily.
She still loves the scam, but "no - no, no, no, it's just that
I'm not on a committee related to it." She's grateful for small
blessings.
Barbara Boxer, who was proud to make global warming her
"signature" issue only last year, obviously regards that
signature now to be a forgery. She would like to be in Cancun,
but she has to stay home to wash her hair. She's not even
sending anyone from her staff, willing as congressional staffers
always are to party on the taxpayer dime. "I'm sending a
statement to Cancun." (Stop the press for that.)
This is another lesson that Washington's swamp fevers inevitably
subside. Who now remembers Smoot-Hawley, Quemoy and Matsu, and
the Teapot Dome? But these were once issues on which the
survival of the known world rested. The only global-warming news
of this week was the announcement that the House Select
Committee on Global Warming would die with the 111th Congress.
Mrs. Pelosi established the committee three years ago to beat
the eardrums of one and all, a platform for endless argle-bargle
about the causes and effects of climate change. The result was
the proposed job-killing national energy tax, but with the
Republican sweep, there's no longer an appetite for killing
jobs.
When the thrill is gone, the thrill is gone, as star-crossed
lovers have learned through the ages, and when a scam
collapses, it stays collapsed. The thought is enough to
warm hearts all across the globe.
Ray Fischer
>http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/dec/2/pruden-turn-out-the-lights-the-party-s-over/
The Washington Times is a right wing rag owned by the Moonies.
>Scams die hard, but eventually they die, and when they do,
>nobody wants to get close to the corpse. You can get all the
>hotel rooms you want this week in Cancun.
>
>The global-warming caravan has moved on,
The only scam is the one pushed by you crazy deniers.
--
Ray Fischer | Mendacracy (n.) government by lying
rfis...@sonic.net | The new GOP ideal
Libtardopia Lost
"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:4cfc3de7$0$1658$742e...@news.sonic.net...
Don't feel bad Ray, the next loony leftist scam is already in the making.
You won't be rudderless for too long!
ah...@no-spam-panix.com
> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/dec/2/pruden-turn-out-the-lights-the-party-s-over/
>
> Scams die hard, but eventually they die, and when they do,
> nobody wants to get close to the corpse. You can get all the
> hotel rooms you want this week in Cancun.
>
Surely you do not believe that global warming is a sham?
That would be astonishing.
--
Andrew Hall
(Now reading Usenet in alt.fan.dan-quayle...)
=======================================================================
I would guess that there's adequate low-income housing in this
country.
-- Ex Vice President Dan Quayle, 10/27/88
(reported in Esquire, 8/92)
Walter Harding
> Rick Saunders <retro_...@yahoo.com> writes:
> >http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/dec/2/pruden-turn-out-the-li...
>
> > Scams die hard, but eventually they die, and when they do,
> > nobody wants to get close to the corpse. You can get all the
> > hotel rooms you want this week in Cancun.
>
> Surely you do not believe that global warming is a sham?
>
> That would be astonishing.
It, it went beyond "scam" years ago. Right now, it's the largest
fraud in world history.
pyjamarama
> "Ray Fischer" <rfisc...@sonic.net> wrote in message
>
> news:4cfc3de7$0$1658$742e...@news.sonic.net...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Rick Saunders <retro_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/dec/2/pruden-turn-out-the-li...
>
> > The Washington Times is a right wing rag owned by the Moonies.
>
> >>Scams die hard, but eventually they die, and when they do,
> >>nobody wants to get close to the corpse. You can get all the
> >>hotel rooms you want this week in Cancun.
>
> >>The global-warming caravan has moved on,
>
> > The only scam is the one pushed by you crazy deniers.
>
> > --
> > Ray Fischer | Mendacracy (n.) government by lying
>
> Don't feel bad Ray, the next loony leftist scam is already in the making.
>
> - Show quoted text -
Maybe they can resurrect the 'alar in the apples' scam...
There's a whole generation of kids out there who don't know how
dangerous their favorite fruit is...
Perhaps Obama could place Washington State and California's Central
Valley growers under federal control to demonstrate the seriousness of
the crisis...
Can't let them go to waste, you know.
First Post
They call those that deny manmade global warming kooks yet the UN
invokes the Mayan Jaguar Goddess to further their cause.
Cancun talks start with a call to the gods
By Juliet Eilperin
With United Nations climate negotiators facing an uphill battle to
advance their goal of reducing emissions linked to global warming,
it's no surprise that the woman steering the talks appealed to a Mayan
goddess Monday.
Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the U.N. Framework
Convention on Climate Change, invoked the ancient jaguar goddess
Ixchel in her opening statement to delegates gathered in Cancun,
Mexico, noting that Ixchel was not only goddess of the moon, but also
"the goddess of reason, creativity and weaving. May she inspire you --
because today, you are gathered in Cancun to weave together the
elements of a solid response to climate change, using both reason and
creativity as your tools."
She called for "a balanced outcome" which would marry financial and
emissions commitments from industrialized countries aimed at combating
climate change with "the understanding of fairness that will guide
long-term mitigation efforts."
"Excellencies, the goddess Ixchel would probably tell you that a
tapestry is the result of the skilful interlacing of many threads,"
said Figueres, who hails from Costa Rica and started her greetings in
Spanish before switching to English. "I am convinced that 20 years
from now, we will admire the policy tapestry that you have woven
together and think back fondly to Cancun and the inspiration of
Ixchel."
Delegates from 193 countries are gathered in Cancun for the two-week
meeting, which kicked off today at 10:20 a.m. local time, or 11:20
a.m. Eastern. Mexican President Felipe Calderon, a major proponent of
action on climate change, attended the opening.
Two weeks from now, we'll have a sense of whether Ixchel -- and the
delegates -- were listening to Figueres's appeal.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/post-carbon/2010/11/cancun_talks_start_with_a_call.html
After that they have no business calling anyone else any kind of kook
for any reason.
Phlip
> It, it went beyond "scam" years ago. Right now, it's the largest
> fraud in world history.
What's truly amazing is, even with 1970s technology, climatologists
were predicting the general rise in average global temperatures that
we since experienced.
Heck of an experiment!
ah...@no-spam-panix.com
Why would you believe something so astoundingly odd?
--
Andrew Hall
(Now reading Usenet in alt.fan.dan-quayle...)
=======================================================================
Would I sell my services to a Third World country? Ask again in six
months.
-- Chief scientist at a Russian nuclear facility,
after the Bush administration dithered on aid to Russia.
Phlip
> invokes the Mayan Jaguar Goddess to further their cause.
Wha'd they pick the wrong God to suit you?
Maybe they should have picked the God who killed almost all of us,
once, then gave us the sign of the Rainbow to promise not to do it
again.
First Post
wrote:
Why are you defending religion all the sudden?
Do you not believe that religion is for kooks?
After all the bitching you on the left have done for so long about how
religion has no place in the world why now suddenly do you feel that
it is suddenly so important?
Are you in reality a worshipper of the jaguar goddess?
As an agnostic I pretty much have the same opinion in regards to
existence of any god(s) when it comes to any and all religions.
But you apparently hold Ixchel up as being the real deal.
So what proof do you have of the existence of that god as opposed to
the one that you on the left despise so dearly?
And why does that god deserve reverence within governing bodies when
you all have bitched so long about "separation of church and state"?
And when has the UN ever envoked the Christian or any other god in any
official assembly or event?
Seems you're quite the hypocrite when the proverbial shoe changes
feet.
chris holt
> Rick Saunders <retro_...@yahoo.com> writes:
> >http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/dec/2/pruden-turn-out-the-li...
>
> > nobody wants to get close to the corpse. You can get all the
> > hotel rooms you want this week in Cancun.
>
> Surely you do not believe that global warming is a sham?
>
> That would be astonishing.
I would guess he believes that lack of political interest in an
issue counts as prima facie evidence that the issue doesn't
deserve consideration. That is not at all astonishing.
Rick Saunders
As usual, you would guess wrong. But then, you're
not terribly interested in a discussion of the recent
leaked emails, for example, which strongly suggest
that AGW is, in fact, something of a scam.
Ernst Blofeld
> Why would you believe something so astoundingly odd?
The evidence in favor of it is thin, often based on models written by
Mountain Dew-fueled grad students at 2 AM and with little in the way
of V&V.
It would be insane to base multi-trillion dollar decisions on the
evidence presented so far.
ah...@no-spam-panix.com
> On Dec 6, 3:33 pm, <ah...@no-spam-panix.com> wrote:
>
>> Why would you believe something so astoundingly odd?
>
> The evidence in favor of it is thin, often based on models written by
> Mountain Dew-fueled grad students at 2 AM and with little in the way
> of V&V.
>
The above is purely a partisan wishful thinking belief, with nothing
to do with science.
> It would be insane to base multi-trillion dollar decisions on the
> evidence presented so far.
It is insane to ignore the serious risks.
--
Andrew Hall
(Now reading Usenet in alt.fan.dan-quayle...)
=======================================================================
Dan Quayle's Top 10 TV complaints: 6. They keep showing the Rodney
King beatings over and over. When are they going to get new episodes?
5847 Dead, 990 since 1/20/09
The far right have been cultivating morons for decades.
Is it a surprise to anyone that they caught some?
Rick Saunders
> Ernst Blofeld <blofel...@hotmail.com> writes:
> > On Dec 6, 3:33 pm, <ah...@no-spam-panix.com> wrote:
>
> >> Why would you believe something so astoundingly odd?
>
> > The evidence in favor of it is thin, often based on models written by
> > Mountain Dew-fueled grad students at 2 AM and with little in the way
> > of V&V.
>
> The above is purely a partisan wishful thinking belief, with nothing
> to do with science.
>
> > It would be insane to base multi-trillion dollar decisions on the
> > evidence presented so far.
>
> It is insane to ignore the serious risks.
There's a huge difference between 'ignoring' and
'committing to multi-trillion-dollar "solutions" that
may not achieve any results.'
Andrew, you're a Wall Street guy; analogize for us
the quality of AGW "evidence" to the quality of
data you would rely on for a huge investment. Are
you 100% convinced that AGW requires an immediate,
decades-long commitment of trillions of dollars?
5847 Dead, 990 since 1/20/09
The Chinese already have done just that. They have committed to 650
gigawatts in alternative energy by 2020, and 8,000 miles of high speed
rail.
ah...@no-spam-panix.com
This is far surer than any bet we made when I was working.
This is good science, the planet and all the humans are in
grave danger. The bets we made were great if we had 55-60%
chance of success. If we ignore climate change the probability
of catastrophe is in the high nineties.
--
Andrew Hall
(Now reading Usenet in alt.fan.dan-quayle...)
=======================================================================
I have made good judgments in the Past.
I have made good judgments in the Future.
Ernst Blofeld
> > Andrew, you're a Wall Street guy; analogize for us
> > the quality of AGW "evidence" to the quality of
> > data you would rely on for a huge investment. Are
> > you 100% convinced that AGW requires an immediate,
> > decades-long commitment of trillions of dollars?
>
> This is far surer than any bet we made when I was working.
<Diplomatic_understatement> I think it's fair to say that the
financial industry's modeling of the behavior of mortgage-backed
securities was severely lacking. </Diplomatic_understatement>
We don't have Uncle Sugar to bail us out in this situation.
The code exposed in the ClimateGate comments shows a coder struggling
against a patchwork of ugly data and with liberal doses of
guesstimates. The discussions by the PIs show an awful lot of agenda-
driven politicking.
Much of the case for AGW rests on computer models. Many of them can't
be replicated by their own authors, let alone by others, so no one can
say they're verified. ("The dog ate my data" is not model
verification.) And they're not validated against actual climate
behavior, as opposed to being tuned to predict past data. In fact,
it's something of a mini-scandal in itself that recent climate
behavior has not been predicted by the climate models of a few years
ago, when, likewise, it was claimed that "the science is
settled." (There's an email to this effect in the CRU archive.) And
let's not get into the whole hockey stick controversy, in which the
models didn't explain the medieval warm period, causing a effort to
argue the MWP out of existence. You're supposed to change your model
to predict the system, not change the system to preserve your model.
And even if AGW were true, it's not at all clear that the appropriate
response would be vaporizing a few trillion dollars of wealth in
carbon reduction, as opposed to doing other things with it. That's
basically Lomberg's point.
The CRU papers didn't refute global warming. But the positive case for
it took a severe blow. No one can look at those papers and be at all
confident in the results the authors claim in public.
ah...@no-spam-panix.com
> On Dec 7, 3:32 pm, <ah...@no-spam-panix.com> wrote:
>> > Andrew, you're a Wall Street guy; analogize for us
>> > the quality of AGW "evidence" to the quality of
>> > data you would rely on for a huge investment. Are
>> > you 100% convinced that AGW requires an immediate,
>> > decades-long commitment of trillions of dollars?
>>
>> This is far surer than any bet we made when I was working.
>
> <Diplomatic_understatement> I think it's fair to say that the
> financial industry's modeling of the behavior of mortgage-backed
> securities was severely lacking. </Diplomatic_understatement>
>
For many yes, but in many cases it was the assumptions going in.
Our unit was very leary of the home equity (sub-prime) sector.
We combed over deals with great care, using loan level data we
acquired at great expense and labor. We bought none of the new
deals, filled with neg-am ARMs, and underwritten in 2005+ when
the standards got particularly lax (clearly crossing the line to
fraud in many cases). We bought only the senior tranches in those
deals. We modeled them with expected losses conditioned on a general
downturn in housing prices (tricky, as most of the data we used to
build the models were collected in rising home price eras, but possible,
if one looked closely. We bought bonds that would have performed very
will with expected home price depreciation of 5-10% nation wide (worst
since the 1930s. They did not perform well with the 4-5 sigma event
of a 20-25% nationwide downturn. (Of course we went way out of our
way to get geographic diversification...).
Most models break down when having to extrapolate too far. This can
add to the problem, as the models work so well in more moderate markets
that people get a lot of confidence in them, just when they stop to work
well.
> We don't have Uncle Sugar to bail us out in this situation.
>
> The code exposed in the ClimateGate comments shows a coder struggling
> against a patchwork of ugly data and with liberal doses of
> guesstimates. The discussions by the PIs show an awful lot of agenda-
> driven politicking.
>
Scientists make mistakes, cheat and are generally human.
Science rises above that, and exposes the cheats and bad
models.
The science as a whole is very solid, with ancient fossil evidence
backing it up.
It is a real problem, and one that is liable to create catastrophe
if not aggressively dealt with.
> Much of the case for AGW rests on computer models. Many of them can't
> be replicated by their own authors, let alone by others, so no one can
> say they're verified. ("The dog ate my data" is not model
> verification.) And they're not validated against actual climate
> behavior, as opposed to being tuned to predict past data. In fact,
The real trends are right in line with the bulk of the models.
It is not any more controversial than evolution.
> it's something of a mini-scandal in itself that recent climate
> behavior has not been predicted by the climate models of a few years
> ago, when, likewise, it was claimed that "the science is
> settled." (There's an email to this effect in the CRU archive.) And
> let's not get into the whole hockey stick controversy, in which the
> models didn't explain the medieval warm period, causing a effort to
> argue the MWP out of existence. You're supposed to change your model
> to predict the system, not change the system to preserve your model.
>
> And even if AGW were true, it's not at all clear that the appropriate
> response would be vaporizing a few trillion dollars of wealth in
> carbon reduction, as opposed to doing other things with it. That's
> basically Lomberg's point.
>
> The CRU papers didn't refute global warming. But the positive case for
> it took a severe blow. No one can look at those papers and be at all
> confident in the results the authors claim in public.
--
Andrew Hall
(Now reading Usenet in alt.fan.dan-quayle...)
=======================================================================
If you listen to the news, read the news, you'd think we were still
in a recession. Well, we're not in a recession. We've had growth;
people need to know that. They need to be more upbeat, more positive...
-- Ex Vice President Dan Quayle in October 91
Need any help?
-- Ex Vice President Dan Quayle in October 91 addressing
announced 74,000 layoffs
Rick Saunders
> > The code exposed in the ClimateGate comments shows a coder struggling
> > against a patchwork of ugly data and with liberal doses of
> > guesstimates. The discussions by the PIs show an awful lot of agenda-
> > driven politicking.
>
> Scientists make mistakes, cheat and are generally human.
> Science rises above that, and exposes the cheats and bad
> models.
>
> The science as a whole is very solid, with ancient fossil evidence
> backing it up.
You're not listening. Models rely upon data. Data must be verified
before they can be trusted. But the data cannot be checked -
because, as the Climategate emails reveal, the holders of the data
either refused to share them (which means that their hypotheses
cannot be validated), or admitted that the raw data were destroyed.
That's not science.
And, as noted, the models can't be replicated - not even
by the people who created the models. Until the modeling proves
itself, the science remains unsettled -- as it must for anyone
attempting to extrapolate the future by looking at only the last
few hundred years on a planet billions of years old.
> It is a real problem, and one that is liable to create catastrophe
> if not aggressively dealt with.
Why don't you catch up on the news? Here's a good place
to start:
----
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/
But perhaps the most damaging revelations – the scientific
equivalent of the Telegraph's MPs' expenses scandal – are those
concerning the way Warmist scientists may variously have
manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their
cause.
Here are a few tasters.
Manipulation of evidence: [...]
Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up: [...]
Suppression of evidence: [...]
Fantasies of violence against prominent Climate Sceptic
scientists: [...]
Attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm
Period (MWP):
-----
> > Much of the case for AGW rests on computer models. Many of them can't
> > be replicated by their own authors, let alone by others, so no one can
> > say they're verified. ("The dog ate my data" is not model
> > verification.) And they're not validated against actual climate
> > behavior, as opposed to being tuned to predict past data. In fact,
>
> The real trends are right in line with the bulk of the models.
No, they're not. For example, the models predicted an acceleration in
global warming this century as the growth in emissions accelerated,
but so
far this century there has been no further warming at all.
The CRU relied on unreliable data sets, bad computer models, and a
desire to reach a conclusion rather than do actual science.
Ray Fischer
>On Dec 7, 3:32 pm, <ah...@no-spam-panix.com> wrote:
>> > Andrew, you're a Wall Street guy; analogize for us
>> > the quality of AGW "evidence" to the quality of
>> > data you would rely on for a huge investment. Are
>> > you 100% convinced that AGW requires an immediate,
>> > decades-long commitment of trillions of dollars?
>>
>> This is far surer than any bet we made when I was working.
>
><Diplomatic_understatement> I think it's fair to say that the
>financial industry's modeling of the behavior of mortgage-backed
>securities was severely lacking. </Diplomatic_understatement>
>
>We don't have Uncle Sugar to bail us out in this situation.
>
>The code exposed in the ClimateGate comments shows a coder struggling
>against a patchwork of ugly data and with liberal doses of
The crazy denier ignores the thousands of researchers that have found
vast amounts of evidence showing global warming in order to obesss on
some emails that turned out to be meaningless.
--
Ray Fischer | Mendacracy (n.) government by lying
Ernst Blofeld
> You're not listening. Models rely upon data. Data must be verified
> before they can be trusted.
<pendant>
"Verify" has a specialized academic meaning for modeling.
You have the system you want to examine, and you build a model of that
system that attempts to replicate the things of interest to you. So
lets say you build a model of what a group of mortgage bonds is worth.
"Verifying" the model is confirming that the model of the system was
built as expected, ie that it's bug free. You could verify a model of
a mortgage bonds by confirming there are no off-by-one errors that add
an extra mortgage payment, confirm interest is being calculated
correctly, there are no integer overflow errors, the logic of the
model is correctly implemented, and so on.
"Validation" is confirming that the model actually predicts what's
going on in the system you're examining. Maybe you build a model of
how your mortgage bonds will behave. The computer program
implementation of the model is flawless; the model logic is exactly
what you want. But, when you take your model out to the real world, it
fails to predict what the system will do. Maybe you assume house
prices will never go down by more that 5% in your model. The cruel
world inflicts a loss of 50%, and you model utterly fails to predict
what will happen to the value of your bonds. Or your model predicts
that a drop of 20% in home values will have no knock-on effects as
people, though capable of paying their mortgage, nonetheless walk away
from their underwater house. The internal logic of the model is
correct, but it isn't actually modeling what's happening in the system
of interest.
If you get officious you can have accredited models that have gone
through the V&V process.
In the case of AGW, you can't trust that the models, which the entire
argument rests on, are either verified or validated, and so far as I
know none of them are accredited and there is no accreditation
process. When outsiders asked for the data and models, they got stiff-
armed. The authors themselves were often unable to replicate the
results not much later, since they didn't archive their datasets or
even their code. And validation of the models is highly suspect.
There's a scorecard for some of the models here:
http://www.warwickhughes.com/hoyt/scorecard.htm
They compared values predicted by the models to measured results. The
results are unimpressive to say the least.
So if the climate models aren't successfully validated against actual
behavior of the earth's climate over the last few years, one would be
highly suspect of Bullwinkle-like claims of "this time for sure!"
One of the more egregious examples is the Mann "Hockey stick". The
model predicted a flat period through the so-called Medieval Warm
Period around 1000 AD. This contradicted quite a bit of evidence. So
Mann & co have been on a jihad to knock down the existence of the MWP,
which resulted in some of the other scandals of the Climategate
emails. The hockey stick model, in addition to having highly suspect
validation, quite probably has bad verification; Mcintyre & McKitrick
found the model would result in a hockey stick even with certain types
of noise as inputs. In effect, Mann & co have been on a mission to
change reality to bring it into alignment with their model.
</pendant>
Ernst Blofeld
> Most models break down when having to extrapolate too far.
And the climate models are doing quite a lot of extrapolation.
> The real trends are right in line with the bulk of the models.
Creating a model to predict the past is easy. Polynomial fit, power
N-1, knock off early for a beer.
Creating models that predict what will happen outside your historical
data set is a different matter. And the performance of the climate
models in that mode is deeply unimpressive.
Ray Fischer
>On Dec 7, 8:16 pm, <ah...@no-spam-panix.com> wrote:
>> Most models break down when having to extrapolate too far.
>
>And the climate models are doing quite a lot of extrapolation.
We don't need models. Actual effects are being observed. And it
doesn't take modelling to know that rising sea levels will have an
adverse impact on coastal cities.
Ernst Blofeld
http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/NilsAxelMornerinterview.pdf
has some discussion with an noted academic on sea level changes. I
don't think you'd get the same level of disputes about evolution from
a noted biologist.
--
Now, back to satellite altimetry, which shows the water, not just the
coasts, but in the whole of the ocean. And you measure it by
satellite. From 1992 to 2002, [the graph of the sea level] was a
straight line, variability along a straight line, but absolute- ly no
trend whatsoever. We could see those spikes: a very rapid rise, but
then in half a year, they fall back again. But absolutely no trend,
and to have a sea-level rise, you need a trend.
Then, in 2003, the same data set, which in their [IPCC’s]
publications, in their website, was a straight line—suddenly it
changed, and showed a very strong line of uplift, 2.3 mm per year,
the same as from the tide gauge. And that didn’t look so nice. It
looked as though they had recorded something; but they hadn’t
recorded anything. It was the original one which they had suddenly
twisted up, because they entered a “correc- tion factor,” which they
took from the tide gauge. So it was not a measured thing, but a
figure introduced from outside. I accused them of this at the
Academy of Sciences in Mos- cow—I said you have introduced factors
from outside; it’s not a measurement. It looks like it is measured
from the satellite, but you don’t say what really happened. And they
answered, that we had to do it, because otherwise we would not have
got- ten any trend!
That is terrible! As a matter of fact, it is a falsification of the
data set. Why? Because they know the answer. And there you come to
the point: They “know” the answer; the rest of us, we are searching
for the answer. Because we are field geologists; they are
computer scientists. So all this talk that sea level is
rising, this stems from the computer modeling, not from
observations. The observations don’t find it!
I have been the expert reviewer for the IPCC, both in 2000 and last
year. The first time I read it, I was exceptionally sur- prised.
First of all, it had 22 authors, but none of them— none—were
sea-level specialists. They were given this mis- sion, because they
promised to answer the right thing. Again, it was a computer issue.
This is the typical thing: The metereo- logical community works with
computers, simple computers. Geologists don’t do that! We go out in
the field and observe, and then we can try to make a model with
computerization; but it’s not the first thing.
--
Rick Saunders
In fact, I'm unaware of any climate models that can accurately
'predict'
the weather of the past several years.... or months.
-----
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/11/11/all-16-climate-models-fail-in-maine/
Maine has shown no temperature trend for the entire NCDC record,
even including their recent upwards adjustments. Summer temperatures
have declined significantly over the last 80 years.
-----
http://climatesci.org/2008/07/31/on-the-credibility-of-climate-predictions-by-koutsoyiannis-et-al/
At the annual and the climatic (30-year) scales, GCM
interpolated series are irrelevant to reality...The huge
negative values of coefficients of efficiency show that model
predictions are much poorer than an elementary prediction based
on the time average. This makes future climate projections at
the examined locations not credible. Whether or not this
conclusion extends to other locations requires expansion of the
study, which we have planned. However, the poor GCM performance
in all eight locations examined in this study allows little
hope, if any. An argument that the poor performance applies
merely to the point basis of our comparison, whereas aggregation
at large spatial scales would show that GCM outputs are
credible, is an unproved conjecture and, in our opinion, a false
one.
-----
Rick Saunders
> Ernst Blofeld <blofel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Dec 7, 8:16 pm, <ah...@no-spam-panix.com> wrote:
> >> Most models break down when having to extrapolate too far.
>
> >And the climate models are doing quite a lot of extrapolation.
>
> We don't need models. Actual effects are being observed.
"Science by anecdote" isn't science, Ray. Didn't you
learn anything in school?
> And it
> doesn't take modelling to know that rising sea levels will have an
> adverse impact on coastal cities.
That's a local fallacy known as "petitio principii." You're simply
assuming that the conclusion is true without presenting any
evidence for that conclusion. And that's what is wrong with
the AGW scam.
you're assuming your argument is true
Phlip
Trying to convince yourselves?
5847 Dead, 990 since 1/20/09
> On Dec 8, 2:45 am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> Ernst Blofeld <blofel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Dec 7, 8:16 pm, <ah...@no-spam-panix.com> wrote:
>> >> Most models break down when having to extrapolate too far.
>>
>> >And the climate models are doing quite a lot of extrapolation.
>>
>> We don't need models. Actual effects are being observed.
>
> "Science by anecdote" isn't science, Ray. Didn't you learn anything in
> school?
So observations are anecdotes in your cloistered little world?
chris holt
> On Dec 7, 8:16 pm, <ah...@no-spam-panix.com> wrote:
>
> > Most models break down when having to extrapolate too far.
>
> And the climate models are doing quite a lot of extrapolation.
What about all the other evidence? Measured melting of ice,
measured increases in global temperature, measured migration
of flora and fauna?
>
> > The real trends are right in line with the bulk of the models.
>
> Creating a model to predict the past is easy. Polynomial fit, power
> N-1, knock off early for a beer.
>
> Creating models that predict what will happen outside your historical
> data set is a different matter. And the performance of the climate
> models in that mode is deeply unimpressive.
And yet they all produce roughly similar results, and the main
errors in their predictions have been that they underestimated
the changes that have been observed over the past five years.
If I predict that a 12-year-old is likely to grow by 2 inches in the
next year or so, and he grows by 3 inches, are you going to
dismiss the entire model of growing on the grounds that I didn't
pin the number down precisely? Because that's what people
are doing with global warming models.
ah...@no-spam-panix.com
> On Dec 8, 2:18 am, Ernst Blofeld <blofel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 7, 8:16 pm, <ah...@no-spam-panix.com> wrote:
>
>> > Most models break down when having to extrapolate too far.
>>
>> And the climate models are doing quite a lot of extrapolation.
>>
>> > The real trends are right in line with the bulk of the models.
>>
>> Creating a model to predict the past is easy. Polynomial fit, power
>> N-1, knock off early for a beer.
>>
>> Creating models that predict what will happen outside your historical
>> data set is a different matter. And the performance of the climate
>> models in that mode is deeply unimpressive.
>
> In fact, I'm unaware of any climate models that can accurately
> 'predict'
> the weather of the past several years.... or months.
Nothing will ever accurately predict weather more than a few days out,
and then only with the most optimal weather condtions.
Weather, like most interesting things, is chaotic in nature, and all
that can be predicted is patterns, like climate.
--
Andrew Hall
(Now reading Usenet in alt.fan.dan-quayle...)
=======================================================================
The mike works. That's very important to make sure the mike works, and
ours is working well.
-- Vice President Dan Quayle informing reporters of a
successful sound check before the VP debate, 10/5/88
(reported in Esquire, 8/92)
ah...@no-spam-panix.com
Most likely. At first the climate change deniers were claiming that
the climate was not changing, then they changed to non-human causes.
Who knows what the next dodge will be.
> are doing with global warming models.
--
Andrew Hall
(Now reading Usenet in alt.fan.dan-quayle...)
=======================================================================
Fuck the Jews, they didn't vote for us anyway.
-- Secretary of State James Baker.
Phlip
> Most likely. At first the climate change deniers were claiming that
> the climate was not changing, then they changed to non-human causes.
Meanwhile, Climategate was entirely about "the scientists are
conspiring to lie, and the climate is NOT changing".
The Young Earth Creationism of climate denial...
Rick Saunders
> On Dec 8, 7:18 am, Ernst Blofeld <blofel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 7, 8:16 pm, <ah...@no-spam-panix.com> wrote:
>
> > > Most models break down when having to extrapolate too far.
>
> > And the climate models are doing quite a lot of extrapolation.
>
> What about all the other evidence? Measured melting of ice,
> measured increases in global temperature, measured migration
> of flora and fauna?
>
>
>
> > > The real trends are right in line with the bulk of the models.
>
> > Creating a model to predict the past is easy. Polynomial fit, power
> > N-1, knock off early for a beer.
>
> > Creating models that predict what will happen outside your historical
> > data set is a different matter. And the performance of the climate
> > models in that mode is deeply unimpressive.
>
> And yet they all produce roughly similar results, and the main
> errors in their predictions have been that they underestimated
> the changes that have been observed over the past five years.
According to what authority?
Rick Saunders
> Rick Saunders <retro_...@yahoo.com> writes:
> > On Dec 8, 2:18 am, Ernst Blofeld <blofel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Dec 7, 8:16 pm, <ah...@no-spam-panix.com> wrote:
>
> >> > Most models break down when having to extrapolate too far.
>
> >> And the climate models are doing quite a lot of extrapolation.
>
> >> > The real trends are right in line with the bulk of the models.
>
> >> Creating a model to predict the past is easy. Polynomial fit, power
> >> N-1, knock off early for a beer.
>
> >> Creating models that predict what will happen outside your historical
> >> data set is a different matter. And the performance of the climate
> >> models in that mode is deeply unimpressive.
>
> > In fact, I'm unaware of any climate models that can accurately
> > 'predict'
> > the weather of the past several years.... or months.
>
> Nothing will ever accurately predict weather more than a few days out,
> and then only with the most optimal weather condtions.
And you're not bothered by the fact that climate prediction
models are no better? Well, okay then!
Rick Saunders
> On Dec 8, 5:00 pm, <ah...@no-spam-panix.com> wrote:
>
> > Most likely. At first the climate change deniers were claiming that
> > the climate was not changing, then they changed to non-human causes.
>
> Meanwhile, Climategate was entirely about "the scientists are
> conspiring to lie, and the climate is NOT changing".
Uh, no. Climategate is entirely about "the scientists are
conspiring to lie, and we can't believe their claims that the
climate is changing due to man-made causes."
Really, you guys are a fucking hoot. Catch some Repub in a
misstatement, and you bozos instantly denounce everything he
says as lies. Yet when the pro-AGW industry is caught rigging
the debate, you shrug "So what? We still believe them
unquestioningly!"
5847 Dead, 990 since 1/20/09
> On Dec 8, 8:05 pm, Phlip <phlip2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 8, 5:00 pm, <ah...@no-spam-panix.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Most likely. At first the climate change deniers were claiming that
>> > the climate was not changing, then they changed to non-human causes.
>>
>> Meanwhile, Climategate was entirely about "the scientists are
>> conspiring to lie, and the climate is NOT changing".
>
> Uh, no. Climategate is entirely about "the scientists are conspiring to
> lie, and we can't believe their claims that the climate is changing due
> to man-made causes."
Only among the true believers of the right wing hee-wack-a-doo! movement.
Ignorant nut balls like yourself, for instance.
>
> Really, you guys are a fucking hoot. Catch some Repub in a misstatement,
> and you bozos instantly denounce everything he says as lies. Yet when
> the pro-AGW industry is caught rigging the debate, you shrug "So what?
> We still believe them unquestioningly!"
Except, of course, they weren't caught doing any such thing, and you can
lie and lie and lie like every other pathetic right wing corporate toady,
and it won't change that simple truth.
Ernst Blofeld
> What about all the other evidence? Measured melting of ice,
> measured increases in global temperature, measured migration
> of flora and fauna?
There almost certainly is warming; recovery from the mini-ice age if
nothing else. The claim relates to AGW, not warming in general.
> > > The real trends are right in line with the bulk of the models.
>
> > Creating a model to predict the past is easy. Polynomial fit, power
> > N-1, knock off early for a beer.
>
> > Creating models that predict what will happen outside your historical
> > data set is a different matter. And the performance of the climate
> > models in that mode is deeply unimpressive.
>
> And yet they all produce roughly similar results, and the main
> errors in their predictions have been that they underestimated
> the changes that have been observed over the past five years.
Uh, no. As one of the climategate emails put it in late 2009:
"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the
moment and it is a travesty that we can't".
Roughly the state of the art in climate model V&V is discussed here:
http://judithcurry.com/2010/12/01/climate-model-verification-and-validation/
It's pretty horrific if you're looking at models from the standpoint
of trying to make multi-trillion dollar policy decisions. Horrific
bordering on insane.
Ray Fischer
>> > The real trends are right in line with the bulk of the models.
>
>http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/NilsAxelMornerinterview.pdf
Nils-Axel Morner is a crackpot. He is also way outnumbered by
rational scientists.
Mörner has written a number of works claiming to provide
theoretical support for dowsing. [1] He was elected "Deceiver of
the year" by Föreningen Vetenskap och Folkbildning in 1995 for
"organizing university courses about dowsing..."[2]. In 1997 James
Randi asked him to claim The One Million Dollar Paranormal
Challenge, making a controlled experiment to prove that dowsing
works.[14] Mörner declined the offer.[15]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nils-Axel_M%C3%B6rner
Ray Fischer
>On Dec 8, 2:45 am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> Ernst Blofeld <blofel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Dec 7, 8:16 pm, <ah...@no-spam-panix.com> wrote:
>> >> Most models break down when having to extrapolate too far.
>>
>> >And the climate models are doing quite a lot of extrapolation.
>>
>> We don't need models. Actual effects are being observed.
>
>"Science by anecdote" isn't science, Ray.
That's why you crackpot deniers don't have any credibility.
>> And it
>> doesn't take modelling to know that rising sea levels will have an
>> adverse impact on coastal cities.
>
>That's a local fallacy known as "petitio principii."
No it isn't, moron.
> You're simply
>assuming that the conclusion is true without presenting any
>evidence for that conclusion.
The evidence has been presented countless times. You're an irrational
crackpot who clings to absurd conspiracy theories and so you refuse to
accept the evidence. But that doesn't make the evidence go away.
Ray Fischer
>On Dec 8, 2:18 am, Ernst Blofeld <blofel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 7, 8:16 pm, <ah...@no-spam-panix.com> wrote:
>
>> > Most models break down when having to extrapolate too far.
>>
>> And the climate models are doing quite a lot of extrapolation.
>>
>> > The real trends are right in line with the bulk of the models.
>>
>> Creating a model to predict the past is easy. Polynomial fit, power
>> N-1, knock off early for a beer.
>>
>> Creating models that predict what will happen outside your historical
>> data set is a different matter. And the performance of the climate
>> models in that mode is deeply unimpressive.
>
>In fact, I'm unaware of any climate models that can accurately
>'predict'
>the weather of the past several years.... or months.
So because you're an ignorant crackpot then you must be right?
Ray Fischer
>On Dec 8, 8:05 pm, Phlip <phlip2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 8, 5:00 pm, <ah...@no-spam-panix.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Most likely. At first the climate change deniers were claiming that
>> > the climate was not changing, then they changed to non-human causes.
>>
>> Meanwhile, Climategate was entirely about "the scientists are
>> conspiring to lie, and the climate is NOT changing".
>
>Uh, no. Climategate is entirely about "the scientists are
>conspiring to lie, and we can't believe their claims that the
>climate is changing due to man-made causes."
Except that it was proven that they didn't lie.
>Really, you guys are a fucking hoot.
You're a crazy lunatic.
Ray Fischer
>On Dec 8, 7:09 am, chris holt <chris.holt...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> What about all the other evidence? Measured melting of ice,
>> measured increases in global temperature, measured migration
>> of flora and fauna?
>
>There almost certainly is warming; recovery from the mini-ice age if
>nothing else. The claim relates to AGW, not warming in general.
>
>> > > The real trends are right in line with the bulk of the models.
>>
>> > Creating a model to predict the past is easy. Polynomial fit, power
>> > N-1, knock off early for a beer.
>>
>> > Creating models that predict what will happen outside your historical
>> > data set is a different matter. And the performance of the climate
>> > models in that mode is deeply unimpressive.
>>
>> And yet they all produce roughly similar results, and the main
>> errors in their predictions have been that they underestimated
>> the changes that have been observed over the past five years.
>
>Uh, no. As one of the climategate emails put it in late 2009:
Wholly irrelevant.
All you crackpots can do is trot out absurd conspiracy theories.
You're dumb as toast and batshit crazy.
Phlip
One of the climatologist's emails used the word "hide", right?
See? That proves that ALL of it is just a Huge Grand Conspiracy!
Tin foil hat time!!
Ernst Blofeld
> errors in their predictions have been that they underestimated
> the changes that have been observed over the past five years.
--
with the exception of 1998- a 'blip' year when temperatures spiked
because of a strong 'El Nino' effect (the cyclical warming of the
southern Pacific that affects weather around the world) - the data on
the Met Office's and CRU's own websites show that global temperatures
have been flat, not for ten, but for the past 15 years.
They go up a bit, then down a bit, but those small rises and falls
amount to less than their measuring system's acknowledged margin of
error. They have no statistical significance and reveal no evidence of
any trend at all.
When the Met Office issued its December 2009 prediction, it was
clearly expecting an even bigger El Nino spike than happened in 1998 -
one so big that it would have dragged up the decade's average.
But though it was still successfully trying to influence media
headlines during Cancun last week by saying that 2010 might yet end up
as the warmest year, the small print reveals the Met Office climbdown.
Last year it predicted that the 2010 average would be 14.58C. Last
week, this had been reduced to 14.52C.
That may not sound like much. But when one considers that by the Met
Office's own account, the total rise in world temperatures since the
1850s has been less than 0.8 degrees, it is quite a big deal. Above
all, it means the trend stays flat.
Meanwhile, according to an analysis yesterday by David Whitehouse of
the Global Warming Policy Foundation, 2010 had only two unusually warm
months, March and April, when El Nino was at its peak.
The data from October to the end of the year suggests that when the
final figure is computed, 2010 will not be the warmest year at all,
but at most the third warmest, behind both 1998 and 2005.
There is no dispute that the world got a little warmer over some of
the 20th Century. (Between 1940 and the early Seventies, temperatures
actually fell.)
But little by little, the supposedly settled scientific ' consensus'
that the temperature rise is unprecedented, that it is set to continue
to disastrous levels, and that it is all the fault of human beings, is
starting to fray.
Earlier this year, a paper by Michael Mann - for years a leading light
in the IPCC, and the author of the infamous 'hockey stick graph'
showing flat temperatures for 2,000 years until the recent dizzying
increase - made an extraordinary admission: that, as his critics had
always claimed, there had indeed been a ' medieval warm period' around
1000 AD, when the world may well have been hotter than it is now.
Other research is beginning to show that cyclical changes in water
vapour - a much more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide - may
account for much of the 20th Century warming.
Even Phil Jones, the CRU director at the centre of last year's
'Climategate' leaked email scandal, was forced to admit in a
littlenoticed BBC online interview that there has been 'no
statistically significant warming' since 1995.
One of those leaked emails, dated October 2009, was from Kevin
Trenberth, head of climate analysis at the US government's National
Centre for Atmospheric Research and the IPCC's lead author on climate
change science in its monumental 2002 and 2007 reports.
He wrote: 'The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming
at the moment, and it is a travesty that we can't.'
After the leak, Trenberth claimed he still believed the world was
warming because of CO2, and that the 'travesty' was not the 'pause'
but science's failure to explain it.
The question now emerging for climate scientists and policymakers
alike is very simple. Just how long does a pause have to be before the
thesis that the world is getting hotter because of human activity
starts to collapse?
--
Rick Saunders
> Rick Saunders <retro_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Dec 8, 2:18 am, Ernst Blofeld <blofel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Dec 7, 8:16 pm, <ah...@no-spam-panix.com> wrote:
>
> >> > Most models break down when having to extrapolate too far.
>
> >> And the climate models are doing quite a lot of extrapolation.
>
> >> > The real trends are right in line with the bulk of the models.
>
> >> Creating a model to predict the past is easy. Polynomial fit, power
> >> N-1, knock off early for a beer.
>
> >> Creating models that predict what will happen outside your historical
> >> data set is a different matter. And the performance of the climate
> >> models in that mode is deeply unimpressive.
>
> >In fact, I'm unaware of any climate models that can accurately
> >'predict'
> >the weather of the past several years.... or months.
>
> So because you're an ignorant crackpot then you must be right?
Once again, I'm the one presenting facts, and all you
have are schoolyard taunts. I gave you a chance to
show you have a brain, and you failed, Raytard. Buh-bye!
Ray Fischer
>On Dec 8, 10:54 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> Rick Saunders <retro_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >On Dec 8, 2:18 am, Ernst Blofeld <blofel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Dec 7, 8:16 pm, <ah...@no-spam-panix.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > Most models break down when having to extrapolate too far.
>>
>> >> And the climate models are doing quite a lot of extrapolation.
>>
>> >> > The real trends are right in line with the bulk of the models.
>>
>> >> Creating a model to predict the past is easy. Polynomial fit, power
>> >> N-1, knock off early for a beer.
>>
>> >> Creating models that predict what will happen outside your historical
>> >> data set is a different matter. And the performance of the climate
>> >> models in that mode is deeply unimpressive.
>>
>> >In fact, I'm unaware of any climate models that can accurately
>> >'predict'
>> >the weather of the past several years.... or months.
>>
>> So because you're an ignorant crackpot then you must be right?
>
>Once again, I'm the one presenting facts,
No, you're not. In fact you just stated that you are IGNORANT of
accurate climate models.
You're pushing crazy conspiracy theories and oil/coal industry
disinformation. That's why you tried to set the followups to
bogus newsgroups.
ah...@no-spam-panix.com
You are displaying profound ignorance of modern mathematics.
--
Andrew Hall
(Now reading Usenet in alt.fan.dan-quayle...)
=======================================================================
People were out there looting their asses off... When they saw us,
they shouted, `Viva Bush!'
-- A US soldier present at the invasion of Panama.
5847 Dead, 990 since 1/20/09
> Rick Saunders <retr...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> On Dec 8, 7:58 pm, <ah...@no-spam-panix.com> wrote:
>>> Rick Saunders <retro_...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>> > On Dec 8, 2:18 am, Ernst Blofeld <blofel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> >> On Dec 7, 8:16 pm, <ah...@no-spam-panix.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >> > Most models break down when having to extrapolate too far.
>>>
>>> >> And the climate models are doing quite a lot of extrapolation.
>>>
>>> >> > The real trends are right in line with the bulk of the models.
>>>
>>> >> Creating a model to predict the past is easy. Polynomial fit, power
>>> >> N-1, knock off early for a beer.
>>>
>>> >> Creating models that predict what will happen outside your
>>> >> historical data set is a different matter. And the performance of
>>> >> the climate models in that mode is deeply unimpressive.
>>>
>>> > In fact, I'm unaware of any climate models that can accurately
>>> > 'predict'
>>> > the weather of the past several years.... or months.
>>>
>>> Nothing will ever accurately predict weather more than a few days out,
>>> and then only with the most optimal weather condtions.
>>
>> And you're not bothered by the fact that climate prediction models are
>> no better? Well, okay then!
>
> You are displaying profound ignorance of modern mathematics.
He's trolling you, pretending he doesn't know the difference between
weather and climate.
--
Information has never been so free. Even in authoritarian countries
information networks are helping people discover new facts and making
governments more accountable.- US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton,
January 21, 2010
Ernst Blofeld
> > And you're not bothered by the fact that climate prediction
> > models are no better? Well, okay then!
>
> You are displaying profound ignorance of modern mathematics.
More likely he's pointing out that the climate models you're so
enamored with haven't done a very good job of actually predicting the
climate over the last fifteen years.
Did you read any of the climate model V&V links I provided?
5847 Dead, 990 since 1/20/09
> On Dec 11, 8:19 am, <ah...@no-spam-panix.com> wrote:
>
>> > And you're not bothered by the fact that climate prediction models
>> > are no better? Well, okay then!
>>
>> You are displaying profound ignorance of modern mathematics.
>
> More likely he's pointing out that the climate models you're so enamored
> with haven't done a very good job of actually predicting the climate
> over the last fifteen years.
Actually, they've done a generally excellent job. Where they have erred
is in underestimating the rate of change. This is not good news, bubbles.
>
> Did you read any of the climate model V&V links I provided?
Walter Harding
wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Dec 2010 10:00:33 -0800, Ernst Blofeld wrote:
> > On Dec 11, 8:19 am, <ah...@no-spam-panix.com> wrote:
>
> >> > And you're not bothered by the fact that climate prediction models
> >> > are no better? Well, okay then!
>
> >> You are displaying profound ignorance of modern mathematics.
>
> > More likely he's pointing out that the climate models you're so enamored
> > with haven't done a very good job of actually predicting the climate
> > over the last fifteen years.
>
> Actually, they've done a generally excellent job.
And who says they did a terrific job? Er, they do. Not hard to get a
solid "A" average when you grade your own papers.
Ernst Blofeld
> You are displaying profound ignorance of modern mathematics.
Judith Curry:
--
Q: Is this a case of politics getting in the way of science?
A: No. It’s sloppiness. It’s just how our field has evolved. One of
the things that McIntyre and McKitrick pointed out was that a lot of
the statistical methods used in our field are sloppy. We have trends
for which we don’t even give a confidence interval. The IPCC concluded
that most of the warming of the latter 20th century was very likely
caused by humans. Well, as far as I know, that conclusion was mostly a
negotiation, in terms of calling it “likely” or “very likely.”
...
Q: Are you saying that the scientific community, through the IPCC, is
asking the world to restructure its entire mode of producing and
consuming energy and yet hasn’t done a scientific uncertainty
analysis?
A: Yes.
--
Rick Saunders
> On Sat, 11 Dec 2010 10:00:33 -0800 (PST), Ernst Blofeld> No
Of course not. Facts must not be allowed to
interfere with blind faith in liberal ideology.
Ernst Blofeld
> > >Did you read any of the climate model V&V links I provided?
>
> > No
>
> Of course not. Facts must not be allowed to
> interfere with blind faith in liberal ideology.
A lot of it is a combination of status markers and an alignment
between what they already want to do and what they think AGW requires.
Status markers: you're oh-so-much smarter than those other rubes, and
you _care_. As we've seen, most of them don't even know the basics of
the scientific argument, so I'm unimpressed by them.
Alignment: if the solution to AGW required lower taxes, less
regulation, and regular church attendance, the whole idea would be
dismissed as a fascist plot by the same people now championing it. But
since they think it requires a bigger state and more opportunities to
order people about, they find themselves cottoning to the idea.
ah...@no-spam-panix.com
Who is Ms Curry? She sounds pretty ignorant too.
BTW, what does this have to do with Mr. Sanders lack of knowledge
about chaos mathematics?
--
Andrew Hall
(Now reading Usenet in alt.fan.dan-quayle...)
=======================================================================
The US government will make no concessions to terrorists. It will not
pay ransoms, release prisoners, change its policies or agree to other
acts that might encourage additional terrorism.
-- From the final report of the Vice President's Task
Force on Combating Terrorism, 1986.
5854 Dead, 997 since 1/20/09
> Ernst Blofeld <blof...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Dec 11, 8:19 am, <ah...@no-spam-panix.com> wrote:
>>
>>> You are displaying profound ignorance of modern mathematics.
>>
>>
>> Judith Curry:
>> --
>> Q: Is this a case of politics getting in the way of science?
>>
>> A: No. It’s sloppiness. It’s just how our field has evolved. One of the
>> things that McIntyre and McKitrick pointed out was that a lot of the
>> statistical methods used in our field are sloppy. We have trends for
>> which we don’t even give a confidence interval. The IPCC concluded that
>> most of the warming of the latter 20th century was very likely caused
>> by humans. Well, as far as I know, that conclusion was mostly a
>> negotiation, in terms of calling it “likely” or “very likely.”
>>
>> ...
>>
>> Q: Are you saying that the scientific community, through the IPCC, is
>> asking the world to restructure its entire mode of producing and
>> consuming energy and yet hasn’t done a scientific uncertainty analysis?
>>
>> A: Yes.
>> --
>
> Who is Ms Curry? She sounds pretty ignorant too.
Actually, she's a fairly well-regarded climatologist. Whilst a maverick
who questions what she sees as a herd mentality, she is not a denialist.
The IPCC doesn't do uncertainty analyses, but rather relies on those done
in the constituent body of data. All elements of their reports are based
on that, and there's no reason the uncertainty metrics should be any
different.
>
> BTW, what does this have to do with Mr. Sanders lack of knowledge about
> chaos mathematics?
--
Ray Fischer
>> > On Dec 11, 8:19 am, <ah...@no-spam-panix.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > And you're not bothered by the fact that climate prediction models
>> >> > are no better? Well, okay then!
>>
>> >> You are displaying profound ignorance of modern mathematics.
>>
>> > More likely he's pointing out that the climate models you're so enamored
>> > with haven't done a very good job of actually predicting the climate
>> > over the last fifteen years.
>>
>> Actually, they've done a generally excellent job.
>
>And who says they did a terrific job? Er, they do.
They know a lot better than some lying rightard corporate shills.
Ray Fischer
Because when thousands of researchers repeatedly find evidence that
the Earth is warming then it must be faith, because the uneducated
opinions of know-nothing rightards is much more credible.
Ernst Blofeld
> Ernst Blofeld <blofel...@hotmail.com> writes:
> Who is Ms Curry? She sounds pretty ignorant too.
Heh.
Judith Curry is Professor and Chair of the School of Earth and
Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology and
President (co-owner) of Climate Forecast Applications Network (CFAN).
She received a Ph.D. in Geophysical Sciences from the University of
Chicago in 1982. Prior to joining the faculty at Georgia Tech, she
held faculty positions at the University of Colorado, Penn State
University and Purdue University. She currently serves on the NASA
Advisory Council Earth Science Subcommittee and has recently served on
the National Academies Climate Research Committee and the Space
Studies Board, and the NOAA Climate Working Group. Curry is a Fellow
of the American Meteorological Society, the American Association for
the Advancement of Science, and the American Geophysical Union.
...
Curry is a former professor of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at the
University of Colorado-Boulder and has held faculty positions at Penn
State University, Purdue, and the University of Wisconsin-Madison.[3]
[6] Curry has been active in researching possible connections between
hurricane intensity and global warming.[7][8] Her research group has
also done research linking the size of hurricanes and resulting damage
that showed that, among other things, the size of the hurricanes was
an important factor in determining the number of tornadoes spawned by
the system.[9]
Curry is the co-author of Thermodynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans
(1999),[10] and co-editor of Encyclopedia of Atmospheric Sciences
(2002).[11] Curry has published over 130 scientific peer reviewed
papers.[4] Among her awards is the Henry G. Houghton Research Award
from the American Meteorological Society in 1992.[4]
[UC Boulder of course works closely with NCAR there in Boulder.
They've got some sweet boxen at NCAR.]
chris holt
> > > >Did you read any of the climate model V&V links I provided?
>
> > > No
>
> > Of course not. Facts must not be allowed to
> > interfere with blind faith in liberal ideology.
>
> A lot of it is a combination of status markers and an alignment
> between what they already want to do and what they think AGW requires.
I'm afraid a lot of what you're doing is simply misreading
people who disagree with you.
>
> Status markers: you're oh-so-much smarter than those other rubes, and
> you _care_. As we've seen, most of them don't even know the basics of
> the scientific argument, so I'm unimpressed by them.
Don't you think it would be more impressive to actually deal with
the scientific arguments? I think that you (unlike Rick) actually
accept that global warming is happening. So rather than follow
the non-arguments of the multimillion dollar advertising campaign,
can you advance a view that explains what is going on that does
not either involve hand-waving or black magic?
>
> Alignment: if the solution to AGW required lower taxes, less
> regulation, and regular church attendance, the whole idea would be
> dismissed as a fascist plot by the same people now championing it. But
> since they think it requires a bigger state and more opportunities to
> order people about, they find themselves cottoning to the idea.
Since your paranoia has nothing to do with the science involved,
demonizing people who think that 4 degrees C is a disaster doesn't
win you any points.
Ernst Blofeld
> > Status markers: you're oh-so-much smarter than those other rubes, and
> > you _care_. As we've seen, most of them don't even know the basics of
> > the scientific argument, so I'm unimpressed by them.
>
> Don't you think it would be more impressive to actually deal with
> the scientific arguments?
The issue in this case is why the believers support it. For many of
them, their belief isn't rooted in science, since they wouldn't know
it if it bit them on the ass. Maybe some on both sides accidentally
believe the right thing, but they didn't come to those beliefs via
science.
I'm an agnostic on the issue, btw. The case in favor of AGW is unmade,
let alone the policy implications that may follow if it is true. I'm
unimpressed by the idea that the people involved can correctly and
accurately model something as complex as climate, particularly when
they haven't directly observed prior climate changes, and when their
models don't match up well with the observed climate of the last 15
years. The field is clearly politicized; that was apparent for some
time before the CRU emails. Journals were clearly being gamed, and
legitimate skeptics were treated badly. Some of it is human failings;
anyone who's seen a faculty meeting knows something about the
pettiness of human nature. (on steroids: discuss office space
allocation.) But the science in favor was done badly if policy
considerations are on the line; witness the numerous errors in the
IPCC report, such as the Himalayan glacier fiasco. This was supposed
to be the rigorous, fact-checked, peer-reviewed state of the art, and
it turned out to be a game of telephone. Making multi-trillion dollar
decisions based on that is insane.
But by the same token it hasn't been disproven. Maybe they're right
in spite of themselves.
> Since your paranoia has nothing to do with the science involved,
> demonizing people who think that 4 degrees C is a disaster doesn't
> win you any points.
Well, your paranoia about the skeptics doesn't exactly do you credit,
so there's that.
A review of Pielke fils new book, which looks interesting:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/warm-and-fuzzy_522126.html
--
What did Pielke do to end up on the list of climate criminals? Simple:
He did the math. And the mathematics of the chief pillar of climate
orthodoxy—suppression of fossil fuels—reveals one inconvenient truth
after another. The target of climate orthodoxy—an 80 percent reduction
in carbon dioxide emissions by the year 2050—would require reducing
U.S. fossil fuel use to a level last seen a hundred years ago. As
Pielke quantifies with example after example, this rate and time scale
of decarbonization is simply fantastic, and requires magical thinking
to maintain with a straight face.
--
Rick Saunders
> BTW, what does this have to do with Mr. Sanders lack of knowledge
> about chaos mathematics?
So you're holding yourself out as an expert, now?
Snipe all you like, Mr. Hall; given that climate models
don't do a very good job of predicting climate, it seems
foolish to predicate widespread societal changes on them.
ah...@no-spam-panix.com
> On Dec 12, 8:52 pm, <ah...@no-spam-panix.com> wrote:
>
>> BTW, what does this have to do with Mr. Sanders lack of knowledge
>> about chaos mathematics?
>
> So you're holding yourself out as an expert, now?
I am a mathematician by training. I made my fortune doing
mathematical modeling. Recently I have been (for fun) reading
math texts about fractals, chaos and dynamic systems. One of
the fields that led to modern chaos theory was weather (not
climate) modeling.
> Snipe all you like, Mr. Hall; given that climate models
> don't do a very good job of predicting climate, it seems
> foolish to predicate widespread societal changes on them.
They do a quite good job. And the danger is very real.
--
Andrew Hall
(Now reading Usenet in alt.fan.dan-quayle...)
=======================================================================
Amending the Constitution to protect the flag is not a matter of
partisan politics. It's an American issue.
-- Ex President George Bush, holding a miniature version
of the Iwo Jima memorial.
Ernst Blofeld
> They do a quite good job. And the danger is very real.
Which models, specifically, are you looking at?
Ray Fischer
>On Dec 13, 7:29 am, chris holt <chris.holt...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> > Status markers: you're oh-so-much smarter than those other rubes, and
>> > you _care_. As we've seen, most of them don't even know the basics of
>> > the scientific argument, so I'm unimpressed by them.
>>
>> Don't you think it would be more impressive to actually deal with
>> the scientific arguments?
>
>The issue in this case is why the believers support it.
Because there is a lot of scientific evidence?
> For many of
>them, their belief isn't rooted in science, since they wouldn't know
>it if it bit them on the ass.
Do you?
> Maybe some on both sides accidentally
>believe the right thing, but they didn't come to those beliefs via
>science.
Electricity is the result of the motion of electrons. How do I know
that? Because there are a lot of scientists who have reported that.
Similarly, I rely upon my doctor for medical advice instead of
getting a decade's worth of medical training for myself.
>I'm an agnostic on the issue, btw. The case in favor of AGW is unmade,
Bullshit.
> I'm
>unimpressed by the idea that the people involved can correctly and
>accurately model something as complex as climate,
It's not a matter of modelling, idiot. It's a matter of actual hard
data. The Earth is warming.
Ray Fischer
>On Dec 12, 8:52 pm, <ah...@no-spam-panix.com> wrote:
>
>> BTW, what does this have to do with Mr. Sanders lack of knowledge
>> about chaos mathematics?
>
>So you're holding yourself out as an expert, now?
>
>Snipe all you like, Mr. Hall; given that climate models
>don't do a very good job of predicting climate,
The Earth is warming, crackpot, and it's not because models say so.
It's because the hard data show it to be a fact.
chris holt
I think you're trying to put the opponent on the back foot
here. Let's turn it around: which models, specifically, do
you think are scientifically viable that challenge the various
ones we know about (be they in the UK, the US, Germany
or whatever)?
Casting doubt without *anything* to put in its place isn't
part of the scientific method: it is part of multimillion dollar
advertising campaigns designed to make profits. I assume
you're not trying to do that, so why don't you suggest some
alternatives? For instance, everyone's given up on solar
fluctuations by now; what have you got?
Ernst Blofeld
> > > They do a quite good job. And the danger is very real.
>
> > Which models, specifically, are you looking at?
>
> I think you're trying to put the opponent on the back foot
> here.
Well, no. It sounded suspiciously like an "everybody knows" statement
dressed up as an assertion of fact. But perhaps he has looked at
various climate models and how they compare to actual results, so I
asked. You've made the same claim; which models have you compared (or
seen compared) to climate data over the last 15 years or so?
> Let's turn it around: which models, specifically, do
> you think are scientifically viable that challenge the various
> ones we know about (be they in the UK, the US, Germany
> or whatever)?
You're the one arguing that the entire world economy needs to be
radically changed; I think the burden of proof falls on you to make a
reasonable argument in favor of, first, the existence of AGW, and
second in favor of the measures you propose in response. "Can you
prove it isn't true" isn't a very convincing counter-argument. In
fact, something of a logical impossibility.
> Casting doubt without *anything* to put in its place isn't
> part of the scientific method: it is part of multimillion dollar
> advertising campaigns designed to make profits.
Remember that statement of paranoia we discussed earlier?
To turn around the same argument on you: why should we trust
unpublished models and unpublished data from self-appointed overlords
in academia? Would you trust unpublished, unverified, unvalidated
models and data presented by, say, a consortium of oil companies?
Presumably not, because you'd be worried about the conscious or
unconscious biases of the people in the organization. Well, academics
have biases and ulterior motives as well. Being the arbiter of how the
world economy is arranged would seem to be a pretty big one.
Phlip
> unpublished models and unpublished data from self-appointed overlords
> in academia?
Meanwhile, Obama has no birth certificate...
Saudis had nothing to do with 9/11...
Saudis don't run Fox Noise...
the Moon shot was faked...
and the US gov't says Oswald killed Kennedy.
Ernst Blofeld
> > To turn around the same argument on you: why should we trust
> > unpublished models and unpublished data from self-appointed overlords
> > in academia?
>
> Meanwhile, Obama has no birth certificate...
>
> Saudis had nothing to do with 9/11...
>
> Saudis don't run Fox Noise...
>
> the Moon shot was faked...
You think it's outlandish for people to be able to examine and
replicate the results of others? Sounds to me like it's a fundamental
principle of science.
> and the US gov't says Oswald killed Kennedy.
Oswald acted alone.
chris holt
> On Dec 15, 8:20 am, chris holt <chris.holt...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > They do a quite good job. And the danger is very real.
>
> > > Which models, specifically, are you looking at?
>
> > I think you're trying to put the opponent on the back foot
> > here.
>
> Well, no. It sounded suspiciously like an "everybody knows" statement
> dressed up as an assertion of fact. But perhaps he has looked at
> various climate models and how they compare to actual results, so I
> asked. You've made the same claim; which models have you compared (or
> seen compared) to climate data over the last 15 years or so?
The trouble with arguing against the "everybody knows" statement
is that it helps to have some supporting evidence. Everybody knows
that the guy down in the chip shop swears he's Elvis, but there's a
bit of evidence that he actually died. Everybody knows that aliens
abduct humans for sexual gratification, but somehow or other nobody
can prove it.
When opposing a scientific consensus, as you are doing, it would
help to have a bit of evidence. In the meantime, the models that
you disparage are fairly consistent in their predictions, and those
predictions are broadly confirmed by observations over the past
decade. As I noted, they are actually overly conservative with
respect to rates of melting.
> > Let's turn it around: which models, specifically, do
> > you think are scientifically viable that challenge the various
> > ones we know about (be they in the UK, the US, Germany
> > or whatever)?
>
> You're the one arguing that the entire world economy needs to be
> radically changed; I think the burden of proof falls on you to make a
> reasonable argument in favor of, first, the existence of AGW, and
> second in favor of the measures you propose in response. "Can you
> prove it isn't true" isn't a very convincing counter-argument. In
> fact, something of a logical impossibility.
"Can you prove it isn't true" never happens in science, as you
should well know. So as soon as you start talking about burdens
of proof, you get into risk assessment. This of course means
balancing likelihoods against potential damages and benefits.
As far as we can tell, the likelihood of climate warming going
over 2 degrees is over 90%, and the consequent damage is
in the trillions. Claiming that spending trillions to prevent that
is a waste of money suggests that you don't spend much time
around actuaries (not that I do, but I did spend a fair amount of
time in dependable computing, which is concerned with exactly
that kind of trade-off).
> > Casting doubt without *anything* to put in its place isn't
> > part of the scientific method: it is part of multimillion dollar
> > advertising campaigns designed to make profits.
>
> Remember that statement of paranoia we discussed earlier?
>
> To turn around the same argument on you: why should we trust
> unpublished models and unpublished data from self-appointed overlords
> in academia?
You're being misleading here. Much of it was published and
peer reviewed, so your talk of self-appointed overlords is
effectively a denial of the value of any scientific data whatsoever.
You can go that route, but then you get back to saying that
advertising campaigns are more trustworthy than universities.
Do you want to go there?
> Would you trust unpublished, unverified, unvalidated
> models and data presented by, say, a consortium of oil companies?
No, any more than I would trust studies on drugs by pharmaceuticals.
But you're trying to suggest that the models and data involved with
climate change are completely opaque, when they are not. Lots
has been published, checked (as best one can), and there are
many confirmatory studies that lead to similar conclusions. Trying
to compare the status of climate change studies by academics
against the vaguaries produced by oil companies is nothing more
than disingenuous.
> Presumably not, because you'd be worried about the conscious or
> unconscious biases of the people in the organization. Well, academics
> have biases and ulterior motives as well. Being the arbiter of how the
> world economy is arranged would seem to be a pretty big one.
That would make sense if the supposed arbiters stood to make
a considerable profit from the promotion of their views. You might
note that people running corporate advertising campaigns stand
to gain considerably more than academics.
Ernst Blofeld
> > Well, no. It sounded suspiciously like an "everybody knows" statement
> > dressed up as an assertion of fact. But perhaps he has looked at
> > various climate models and how they compare to actual results, so I
> > asked. You've made the same claim; which models have you compared (or
> > seen compared) to climate data over the last 15 years or so?
>
> The trouble with arguing against the "everybody knows" statement
> is that it helps to have some supporting evidence. Everybody knows
> that the guy down in the chip shop swears he's Elvis, but there's a
> bit of evidence that he actually died. Everybody knows that aliens
> abduct humans for sexual gratification, but somehow or other nobody
> can prove it.
He (an you) have made positive statements of fact. I don't think it's
particularly unreasonable to ask you both to back them up. Your
descent into meta discussions makes me think that I was correct in my
surmise that you have not, in fact, compared model results to observed
temp data.
> In the meantime, the models that
> you disparage are fairly consistent in their predictions, and those
> predictions are broadly confirmed by observations over the past
> decade. As I noted, they are actually overly conservative with
> respect to rates of melting.
Well, there you go again. I don't _know_ any such thing. Prove it.
Which models? How close? Were the models predicting the correct
mechanism by which temps increased, or did this occur in a way not
predicted by the model?
> > > Let's turn it around: which models, specifically, do
> > > you think are scientifically viable that challenge the various
> > > ones we know about (be they in the UK, the US, Germany
> > > or whatever)?
>
> > You're the one arguing that the entire world economy needs to be
> > radically changed; I think the burden of proof falls on you to make a
> > reasonable argument in favor of, first, the existence of AGW, and
> > second in favor of the measures you propose in response. "Can you
> > prove it isn't true" isn't a very convincing counter-argument. In
> > fact, something of a logical impossibility.
>
> "Can you prove it isn't true" never happens in science, as you
> should well know. So as soon as you start talking about burdens
> of proof, you get into risk assessment. This of course means
> balancing likelihoods against potential damages and benefits.
You're shifting your argument from your original assertion, which was
that I had to come up with models that challenged the various ones
(which ones?) that we know about.
Well, no, I don't. There's this thing called the scientific method;
someone puts forward a hypothesis, and people go out and perform tests
to see if the hypothesis is true. Others may replicate those tests. If
the experiments show that the hypothesis isn't true, it gets
discarded.
If the CRU puts forward a model of climate, and it is shown to be
deficient, nobody has to put forward a better model to take its place.
If the Hockey Stick is shown to be an artifact of the first principal
component in a time series analysis, nobody has to put forward a
better model. The science involved has advanced; we know that
something isn't right.
> As far as we can tell, the likelihood of climate warming going
> over 2 degrees is over 90%, and the consequent damage is
> in the trillions.
Prove it. Prove your recommended policy changes are in fact the
correct course of action.
> > To turn around the same argument on you: why should we trust
> > unpublished models and unpublished data from self-appointed overlords
> > in academia?
>
> You're being misleading here. Much of it was published and
> peer reviewed, so your talk of self-appointed overlords is
> effectively a denial of the value of any scientific data whatsoever.
Oh, nonsense. The climate world is notorious for not releasing its
data or models; Phil Jones at CRU was calling up people and
recommending they destroy data rather than comply with FOIA requests.
McIntyre and McKitrick have long sagas of attempting to get the data
and models from _published papers_, in journals that require authors
to release just that as a requirement of publication. I'm simply
asking that they act like scientists, and for that matter comply with
the FOIA and journal policies. The behavior of the CRU team shows that
they simply cannot be trusted, and that _all_ their work needs to be
checked by outsiders.
> You can go that route, but then you get back to saying that
> advertising campaigns are more trustworthy than universities.
> Do you want to go there?
When the CRU emails were released, the argument of their defenders
were that scientists were human, all to human. Well, if that's the
case, I guess they better release their data so we can check up on
them.
> That would make sense if the supposed arbiters stood to make
> a considerable profit from the promotion of their views. You might
> note that people running corporate advertising campaigns stand
> to gain considerably more than academics.
Academics have all sorts of motivations, ranging from getting grant
money to empire building to political goals that are far outside their
fields of expertise. They ain't plaster saints, and if that's the case
then when they start making public policy recommendations they better
be able to show their work.
Ernst Blofeld
> On Thu, 16 Dec 2010 09:42:20 -0800 (PST), Ernst Blofeld
>
> <blofel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Well, there you go again. I don't _know_ any such thing. Prove it.
> >Which models? How close? Were the models predicting the correct
> >mechanism by which temps increased, or did this occur in a way not
> >predicted by the model?
>
Maybe you can tell me; Messrs Hall and Holt seem to have disappeared.
Which models (be specific!) have you seen validated against the last
fifteen
years of climate data? Name three.
Since "everybody knows" this you should be able to tell me, at least
if
you're anyone.
Ernst Blofeld
> The real trends are right in line with the bulk of the models.
>
> It is not any more controversial than evolution.
Maybe Adam had a pet dinosaur after all.
http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21574461-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-response-greenhouse-gas-emissions/
--
The mismatch between rising greenhouse-gas emissions and not-rising temperatures is among the biggest puzzles in climate science just now. It does not mean global warming is a delusion. Flat though they are, temperatures in the first decade of the 21st century remain almost 1°C above their level in the first decade of the 20th. But the puzzle does need explaining.
The mismatch might mean that—for some unexplained reason—there has been a temporary lag between more carbon dioxide and higher temperatures in 2000-10. Or it might be that the 1990s, when temperatures were rising fast, was the anomalous period. Or, as an increasing body of research is suggesting, it may be that the climate is responding to higher concentrations of carbon dioxide in ways that had not been properly understood before. This possibility, if true, could have profound significance both for climate science and for environmental and social policy.
--
Ernst Blofeld
"The evidence, therefore, indicates that the current generation of climate models (when run as a group) do not reproduce the observed global warming over the past 20 years, or the slowdown in global warming over the past fifteen years."