Who Fabricated the Global Warming "Pause"?

[Desertphile]

Who Fabricated the Global Warming "Pause"?

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/09/global-warming-pause-ipcc

In a major report released late last month, the United Nations'
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the world's leading
authority on climate science, told us it was more certain than ever
that humans are causing global warming. It also upgraded its
projections for sea level rise by the end of the century, and even
broached the subject of climate change's irreversibility: We may
already have done so much harm to the Earth that some of it can't be
undone in our lifetimes, or even in the lifetimes of future
generations as far out as most of us can imagine.
"Have the Media Failed Us on Climate Change?" Climate Desk will be
hosting a panel at SXSW Eco this week in Austin, Texas, on this topic.
Live-stream will be available at 4:30 p.m. CDT on October 8. For
details see here.

This, you might think, would be quite a media story. Yet instead,
something funny happened on the way from the scientists' heads to the
public's ears, and many journalists instead embraced a very different
narrative—in many ways, almost the opposite narrative. Global warming,
they suggested, had "paused" or was slowing down. And scientists
didn't really understand why.

How could this disconnect, this huge divergence of narratives, have
happened? What follows is the story of a communications failure that
is ultimately harmful to all of us. And it was brought on by
combination of causes that, unfortunately, we've seen work together
before to mar the communication of climate science: Misinformation
from climate deniers, false balance and just plain bad science
reporting from much of the media, and to top it all off, poor
communication by scientists themselves.

The Rise of the Pause

To begin, let's turn to the tape. On September 26—just before the IPCC
report's September 27 release—CBS News provided a textbook case of
misleading journalism focused on the alleged global warming "pause."
Sadly, in coverage of the new IPCC report, it was far from an
exceptional one.

At the outset of the segment, CBS's Mark Phillips intoned: "Another
inconvenient truth has emerged on the way to the apocalypse. The new
UN report on climate change is expected to blame man-made greenhouse
gases more than ever for global warming. But there's a problem. The
global atmosphere hasn't been warming lately."

Then followed an animation, seeming to show that since the year 1998,
rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere haven't been matched by
rising temperatures. Soon, CBS cut to a scientist trying to explain
this apparent global warming "pause" by saying that the missing heat
has gone into the oceans. Then, presumably for balance, came an
interview with a climate denier who, when asked whether the "pause"
blunts the urgency of doing something about global warming, replied
that "It has already." Watch the full segment here:

[video]

We all expect Fox News to sow doubt about global warming. But in
coverage of the IPCC report, a storyline like CBS's seemed to show up
regularly, and not just at conservative outlets. "What I find really
dismaying is how much even the very scientifically informed media has
bought into the false story line about a 'pause' in overall warming,"
says Peter Frumhoff, a climate scientist and the director of science
and policy at the Union of Concerned Scientists. There were good
stories as well, but there were quite a lot of "pause" stories.
Indeed, in the press conference following the report's release in
Stockholm, this "pause" was the topic most asked about by journalists.

This has occurred despite the fact that claiming that global warming
has "paused" is deeply misleading. The IPCC explained as much in its
just-released report, where it noted that although the rate of warming
is somewhat smaller over the last 15 years, selectively seizing on
this period, from 1998-2012, basically represents a case of bad
statistics.

After all, the year 1998 was a record temperature year, due to a
strong El Niño. So by making it the first year of an analysis you're
stacking the deck. "If you shift just 2 years earlier, so use
1996-2010 instead of 1998-2012, the trend is 0.14 C per decade, so
slightly greater than the long-term trend," explains Drew Shindell, a
climate scientist at NASA who was heavily involved in producing the
IPCC report. This is why climate scientists generally don't seize on
15 year periods and make a big thing about them. (For a more thorough
rebuttal of the "pause" narrative, see here.)

The "pause" is thus as much about media innumeracy as it is about the
atmosphere. But nonetheless, to a large extent the narrative seems to
have taken hold. While no comprehensive media content analyses appear
to have been completed yet, we can point to at least one indicator
suggesting the profusion of this narrative. A Google Trends search
reveals that the phrase "global warming pause" saw a dramatic uptick
in search attention in the past few months and especially in
September:

http://www.motherjones.com/files/GlobalWarmingChart.final_.png

Failure to Communicate
It wasn't supposed to go like this. Not this time around.

In late 2009 and early 2010, climate science suffered a series of
public relations black eyes that seemed to constitute a major wake-up
call about just how much deniers, with the help of the media, could
undermine climate science. First there was "Climategate," in which a
trove of leaked emails were spun to suggest that climate scientists
had been engaged in wrongdoing and the torquing of data. It wasn't
actually true, but boy did much of the press make it look that way.
(Subsequent research by communications scholars at Yale and George
Mason universities found that Climategate had damaged public belief in
global warming and public trust in scientists, albeit principally
among political conservatives and libertarians).

IPCC chair Rajendra Pachauri

Rajendra Pachauri, head of the IPCC, accused critics of practicing
"voodoo science" during the Himalayan glaciers row in early 2010.
World Economic Forum/Wikimedia Commons

Shortly afterwards came the Himalayan Glaciers scandal, where the IPCC
truly was at fault. In essence: One of the IPCC's vast reports
contained a major error about future changes to the glaciers of the
Himalayas, incorrectly predicting that they would vanish by the year
2035, a mistake that may have sprung from a simple typo (the original
source predicted the year 2350). Mistakes happen, but in this case the
cover-up was worse than the crime. When the report was initially
questioned, the IPCC was defensive, rather than acknowledging the
problem. It only admitted the error months after it had initially been
pointed out, thus making the whole thing a much bigger deal than it
would otherwise have been.

In the wake of this, there was much hand-wringing, and many calls for
the IPCC to improve its communications and have a more realistic
outlook on the difficulty of its task in the public arena. "As the
IPCC prepares its Fifth Assessment Report, it does so with what, to my
eye, appears to be an utterly inadequate budget for communicating its
findings and responding in an agile way to nonstop public scrutiny
facilitated by the Internet," observed New York Times science and
environment blogger Andrew Revkin in a 2011 essay.

"The immense collective effort to produce periodic climate assessments
is typically not well matched with public communication and outreach
efforts for these reports, leaving a vacuum to be filled by less
authoritative sources," added a study of the public reception of the
IPCC's reports by Peter Frumhoff and his colleagues.

The IPCC responded by ramping up its communications efforts. It
"upgraded" a prior communication staff job to a senior-level position,
and added an additional junior staffer. In addition, the IPCC's budget
documents outline an array of communications expenditures related to
the Fifth Assessment Report's release. However, it is noteworthy that
most of the budget total is for next year, not this year, even though
it's likely that the peak moment for media attention has already
passed. Furthermore, more than half of the 2014 budget is dedicated to
scientists' travel (720,000 Swiss francs, or about $800,000). The
total communications budget for 2013 was 240,000 Swiss Francs (about
$265,000), and for 2014 is 1,145,000 Swiss Francs ($1,265,000).

Such investments notwithstanding, one plainly avoidable communications
blunder occurred in the rollout: The IPCC released the report on a
Friday, which is infamous for being the day of the week when you try
to bury bad news so it won't be noticed. More important, it's not
clear that the panel's communications ramp up prepared it to deal with
a new, combined media-denier line of attack: the "pause."


Numbers Game
For years, climate deniers have been using a kind of statistical
sleight of hand—the fact that 1998 was a record temperature year, due
to a strong El Niño—to suggest that there had been no global warming
ever since. For instance, here's an example of this argument being
made, in the op-ed pages of the Daily Telegraph, as far back as the
year 2006. And here's a contemporaneous rebuttal.

But it wasn't until March 2013, according to the Google Trends data
above, that the "pause" narrative really started to get traction. The
apparent reason? A major feature story in The Economist declaring that
"over the past 15 years air temperatures at the Earth's surface have
been flat while greenhouse-gas emissions have continued to soar."
Denierss were delighted, and other media outlets, from Reuters
("Climate scientists struggle to explain warming slowdown") to the
Drudge Report, piled on.

At the time, many critics pointed out that these assertions were
scientifically misleading. A glance at the animation below should
explain why. However, this wasn't enough to derail the building
"global warming has slowed down, and scientists don't know why"
narrative.

http://www.motherjones.com/files/SkepticsvRealistsv3_0.gif

It certainly isn't the IPCC's fault that the "pause" notion took hold,
then; rather, the blame falls upon a press that even now remains
willing to channel climate denier claims. "I don't in this particular
instance blame the IPCC as much as I blame the media," says Climate
Progress' Joe Romm, a leading climate blogger who is generally quite
critical of the IPCC's communications efforts.

Yet the IPCC must shoulder some of the blame for what happened
next—for it lent momentum to the "pause" story.

It appears that because of all the media attention, the panel felt
pushed to address the alleged "pause." Dennis Hartmann of the
University of Washington, a coordinating lead author of the IPCC
report, revealed as much to Climate Desk reporter Tim McDonnell in a
recent interview, when he remarked, "Going into the IPCC this time, I
would have said that, well, the trend over a 15-year record is not
really very meaningful, because of the natural interannual variability
of the climate system. But as the IPCC evolved, it became more and
more of a public issue, so we felt we had to say something about it,
even though from an observational perspective, it's not a very
reliable measure of long-term warming."

Does this mean that the IPCC was baited, by deniers and the media,
into addressing a nonissue? Asked for clarification, Hartmann followed
up by explaining that "I think to be thorough we needed to say
something about the past 15 years in [the report], since the apparent
reduction in the observed warming rate is so interesting and has
received so much comment. It's interesting on purely scientific
grounds, but it does not have a huge impact on the scientific
assessment and does not alter the basic facts."

But why was there "so much comment" in the press? In significant part
because of the interest of climate deniers, who have long sought to
portray climate research as uncertain and to gin up a debate. Indeed,
this is not the first time that the IPCC has been accused of bending
over backward to respond to deniers. Climate researcher Michael Mann,
for instance, has charged that the IPCC tends to err "on the side of
understating the degree of likely changes," in part because deniers
influence it from the outside.

The real problem, though, came in how the IPCC addressed the "pause"
issue. In a leaked draft of the IPCC's "Summary for Policymakers" that
emerged into the press in August of this year, the so-called "pause"
was described in statements that seemed almost ideally crafted for
quote mining. If the "pause" was just the result of statistical
selectivity rather than a robust trend, why wasn't the IPCC saying so?
Instead, the scientists' own words seemed to suggest that there really
was a global warming slowdown, and that the scientific community
didn't really understand it. To wit:

"Global mean surface temperature trends exhibit substantial decadal
variability, despite the robust multi-decadal warming since 1901. The
rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998-2012; 0.05 [-0.05 to +
0.15] ºC per decade) is smaller than the trend since 1951 (1951-2012;
0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade."

And:

"Models do not generally reproduce the observed reduction in surface
warming trend over the last 10-15 years."

This language was available to journalists for over a month before the
final document came out, and seems to have greatly shaped their
thinking and coverage. Indeed, in what was apparently the first report
on the leak, by Reuters, reporter Alister Doyle wrote, "The panel will
try to explain why global temperatures, while still increasing, have
risen more slowly since about 1998 even though greenhouse gas
concentrations have hit repeated record highs in that time." That's
mild compared with the Fox News coverage, headlined: "Leaked draft of
climate report struggles with drop in warming."

The "pause" narrative was continuing to build, now with the IPCC
itself helping to drive the story.

Meanwhile, the IPCC was self-hobbled in dealing with the "pause,"
particularly when it came to explaining the causes behind the slight
slowdown in the rate of warming. The panel has an odd rule that
restricts which scientific papers it can talk about: There is a cutoff
date (this time around, March 15, 2013) after which new research can
no longer be cited. In this case, that includes papers explaining the
somewhat slower rate of warming of late, including a study by Kevin
Trenberth and colleagues at the National Center for Atmospheric
Research, showing that the explanation for the "pause" was that more
heat was going into the deep oceans. In other words, global warming
continues apace; it's just more pronounced at the moment in some parts
of the climate system than others. "The IPCC report did not include
any literature after March 15: including our paper on deep ocean
heat," Trenberth comments. "It deals only with published literature.
So the hiatus is not on their horizon. It is a major failing."

Finally, the actual IPCC "Summary for Policymakers" hit on September
27 (a Friday). And to a significant extent, the final report dialed
back the troublesome language from the leaked draft. Hartmann again:
"We added some explicit examples of what the uncertainty bars mean,
and stated the statistical uncertainty in taking a short record from
the global mean surface temperature record. This was suggested by the
delegates and approved by them as a way of making it more explicitly
clear how uncertain the trend estimates are for a 15 year time series
with large year-to-year variability." In the actual report, what that
meant (among other things) is the first quotation above was replaced
with the following:

"In addition to robust multi-decadal warming, global mean surface
temperature exhibits substantial decadal and interannual variability.
Due to natural variability, trends based on short records are very
sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in general reflect
long-term climate trends. As one example, the rate of warming over the
past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to +0.15] °C per decade), which
begins with a strong El Niño, is smaller than the rate calculated
since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade)."

Thomas Stocker, a lead author of the IPCC report, got grilled by
reporters in Stockholm today over the issue of the so-called warming
"hiatus," which he dismissed as an "inappropriate" focal point.
Thomas Stocker, a lead author of the IPCC report, got grilled by
reporters in Stockholm today over the issue of the so-called warming
"hiatus," which he dismissed as an "inappropriate" focal point. Tim
McDonnell/Climate Desk

This is much harder to misread, misinterpret, or blow out of
proportion. But by then, it was too late. At the press conference in
Stockholm when the report was released, journalists relentlessly
questioned the report's drafters about the pause. Among the ensuing
headlines? "Global Warming Slowdown Seen as Emissions Rise to Record."
"Climate change report's 'temperature hiatus' fuels cdeniers." "Global
Warming Has Slowed in Last 15 Years Despite Record Greenhouse Gas
Levels, Scientists Say." Heck, even Nature magazine, about as
science-friendly a publication as you can find, let the "pause"
narrative shape its headline: "IPCC: Despite hiatus, climate change
here to stay."


Fallout
It remains to be seen just how much damage has been done. But at
minimum, we can say that during a major moment for climate scientists
to communicate the direness of our plight, they were instead being
questioned about why global warming has "paused." Deniers must be in
heaven.

Whose fault is all this? The deniers, the journalists—but yes, the
scientists too.

"I think the deniers deserve most of the blame. They're still trying
to confuse people," says Susan Joy Hassol, who directs Climate
Communication, a nonprofit science and outreach group. "And I think
the media's to blame too, because they've allowed themselves to be
distracted and misled. But the scientists have to take some
responsibility when they write or say things that can be
misunderstood, because it's part of their job to communicate what they
know in a way that the public can understand."

There is a growing discussion of reforms to the IPCC, as
mega-assessments of the sort that it produces are are hugely
time-consuming to scientists. But this ought to be accompanied by
another critique: The IPCC's communication record is also pretty poor.
It isn't the IPCC's fault that deniers, abetted by some journalists,
seized on the misleading "pause" story. But surely, this time around,
it should have been ready for them.

Additional reporting by Tim McDonnell.


--
"I would like to see an example of evolution in a living species, i.e. a bird becoming a lizard or something." -- Joanna Lee Saltz

[Kym Horsell]

On Tuesday, October 8, 2013 5:33:13 AM UTC+11, Desertphile wrote:
> Who Fabricated the Global Warming "Pause"?
>
>
>
> http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/09/global-warming-pause-ipcc

...

Yes, yes, yes. We all gets it. Even the conflicted ones gets it. But that won't filter into their conscience.

And it's not that we haven't gone over this again and again and again in the past. Like the hypnotized student drawing a square, rubbing it out, drawing a circle, crossing it out, drawing a square.... a neurotic belief is almost impossible to shake because it's beyond reason alone to counter.

I think almost a decade back I was talking at victims of the 1998 meme. At that time 1998 *was* the maximum avg global temp according to prevailing databases. It was amusing to watch the worms squirm and deny a maximum was an untypical value. One drongo I remember insisted that was nothing different between a maximum and an average or representative value of a set of numbers. (Proving drongos can re-write fundamental statistics as well as science if it goes against their emotional needs d' jour).

Even when post facto adjustment of data reduced 1998 to a 3rd-placer the same victims were still placing 1998 at the start of a period of alleged cooling -- even when the data the victims cited clearly showed the opposite even in terms of difference-of-endpoints-of-cited-period.

Oh well. Nothing new in the world of mental health except the drugs. Although I hear talk therapy is coming back.

--
Psychological resistance is the phenomenon often encountered in clinical practice in which patients either directly or indirectly oppose changing their behavior. -- Witchipedia.

[Dawlish]

On Monday, October 7, 2013 7:33:13 PM UTC+1, Desertphile wrote:
> Who Fabricated the Global Warming "Pause"?

Dunno d, but this lot followed like sheep and tried to perpetuate the lie:

None of these people will back their silly assertion with hard cash, because they don't really believe that GW has stopped at all - but they still say it has, despite AR5 telling them clearly what has actually happened:

12/5 spinner (2001??? Odd) https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/alt.global-warming/z7Fn2ADWzAI
and from the usual denier date of 1998: https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/alt.global-warming/b-ATzWkqsXA

14/5 joey (1998) https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/alt.global-warming/_YNkSwzX1gs

14/5 pauly (1995 and then "for the past decade" i.e. (2003). https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/alt.global-warming/a67R3Eyt3mY%5B201-225-false%5D

15/05 benjy (1998 and now 2000 and now 1997) https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/alt.global-warming/bzpcSbB71Tg
https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/alt.global-warming/U35O7R5RaDU

16/5 jimp goes for 1998 https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/alt.global-warming/s2tnhNDmQ7A

17/5 chomper goes for 1997 (16 years ago) which really is bizarre. https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/alt.global-warming/OeEmMma54II
And for 15 years: https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/alt.global-warming/Ex1SQj2zs-w
And for 17 years on the same day! Come on denier make your mind up. And check the year-on-year record for goodness sake about 1996 and 2012! https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/alt.global-warming/9ydXlAoDu_Y
And then says the world is actually cooling!https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/alt.global-warming/IBqPEMnpPrg

20/5 bad prawn goes for 1998.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/alt.global-warming/QSwOKHCs2zI

21/5 gaga goes for 15 years (On *Ten* separate occasions in 2 weeks!).
https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/alt.global-warming/hD5L0j__WcM

06/06/2013 half brain has decided it hasn’t warmed for 30 years (at least the southern hemisphere)
https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/alt.global-warming/Ep-9hffrKQw
And that the MetO has apparently said it will cool for the next 5 <shakes head>

And now it’s 12 years, which is really odd.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/alt.global-warming/y6sOZ87j7Tk


tundy goes for 22 years; mainly because some Internet anonymous nobody told him it has::
https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/alt.global-warming/2FgsaE1vLXI

then an anonymous blogger told him there had been no warming since 1996, of all years (not in the top 20 warmest years) and he fell for that too:
https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/alt.global-warming/BCF2L_jJZfc

bluey goes for 1998: https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/alt.global-warming/rno44O7ULCY

The list continues to grow, but there will be more still; just watch - they will not be able to resist showing their hypocrisy.

Amazing really, isn't it?

[Chom Noamsky]

On 10/7/2013 11:33 AM, Desertphile wrote:
> Who Fabricated the Global Warming "Pause"?

Quite possibly the most delusional article ever published in Mother
Jones. The author fails to even consider that maybe, just maybe, the
IPCC's own failed surface temperature projections had something to do
with it.

[Kym Horsell]

Again, "the IPCC's own temperature projections" seems to be a confuscation. The IPCC does not make their own temperature projections; merely summerize what the consensus position of the (these days) 12000 publications is.

So you are simply putting yourself in the position of rejecting the conclusions of the majority of the research in the area. "Daring" in certain circles, but "stoopid" or "crackpot" in others.

--
"Crank" is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of his or her contemporaries consider to be false. -- Websters online

[Chom Noamsky]

On 10/7/2013 5:53 PM, Kym Horsell wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 8, 2013 11:35:22 AM UTC+11, Chom Noamsky wrote:
>> On 10/7/2013 11:33 AM, Desertphile wrote:
>>
>>> Who Fabricated the Global Warming "Pause"?
>>
>>
>>
>> Quite possibly the most delusional article ever published in Mother
>>
>> Jones. The author fails to even consider that maybe, just maybe, the
>>
>> IPCC's own failed surface temperature projections had something to do
>>
>> with it.
>
> Again, "the IPCC's own temperature projections" seems to be a confuscation. The IPCC does not make their own temperature projections; merely summerize what the consensus position of the (these days) 12000 publications is.
>
> So you are simply putting yourself in the position of rejecting the conclusions of the majority of the research in the area. "Daring" in certain circles, but "stoopid" or "crackpot" in others.

You've been terribly misinformed. The IPCC developed its own emissions
scenarios back in 1990, part of which involves projecting global mean
surface temperatures. These are periodically updated when new
assessments are released. That's where the scenario-based GMST
projections come from, you buffoon.

[Kym Horsell]

You mean as part of the summarising they DARED to take the maximum, mininmum and average of the 12000 publications?

G*ddammit! Where's, I say, where's my abacus. Someone needs a good thumping.

--
Since IPCC’s first report in 1990, assessed projections have suggested global average temperature increases between about 0.15°C and 0.3°C per decade for 1990 to 2005. This can now be compared with observed values of about 0.2°C per decade, strengthening confidence in near-term projections.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html

[Unum]

You are obviously attempting to misinform. The IPCC develops their scenarios
based upon the ongoing research, buffoon.

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html

Since IPCC’s first report in 1990, assessed projections have suggested global
average temperature increases between about 0.15°C and 0.3°C per decade for
1990 to 2005. This can now be compared with observed values of about 0.2°C
per decade, strengthening confidence in near-term projections.

Model experiments show that even if all radiative forcing agents were held
constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming trend would occur in the next
two decades at a rate of about 0.1°C per decade, due mainly to the slow
response of the oceans. About twice as much warming (0.2°C per decade) would
be expected if emissions are within the range of the SRES scenarios.
Best-estimate projections from models indicate that decadal average warming
over each inhabited continent by 2030 is insensitive to the choice among SRES
scenarios and is very likely to be at least twice as large as the
corresponding model-estimated natural variability during the 20th century.

[gordo]

On Mon, 07 Oct 2013 17:35:22 -0700, Chom Noamsky <wea...@stew.yum>
wrote:

Did you miss, fabricated the global warming pause?

The word was not there in the report.Sorry Judith I posted that this
was the direction you would lead the Merchants of Doubt. The word was
not in the report.

[Chom Noamsky]

On 10/7/2013 6:57 PM, Kym Horsell wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 8, 2013 12:37:23 PM UTC+11, Chom Noamsky wrote:
>> On 10/7/2013 5:53 PM, Kym Horsell wrote:
>>
>>> On Tuesday, October 8, 2013 11:35:22 AM UTC+11, Chom Noamsky wrote:
>>
>>>> On 10/7/2013 11:33 AM, Desertphile wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> Who Fabricated the Global Warming "Pause"?
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> Quite possibly the most delusional article ever published in Mother
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> Jones. The author fails to even consider that maybe, just maybe, the
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> IPCC's own failed surface temperature projections had something to do
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> with it.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Again, "the IPCC's own temperature projections" seems to be a confuscation. The IPCC does not make their own temperature projections; merely summerize what the consensus position of the (these days) 12000 publications is.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> So you are simply putting yourself in the position of rejecting the conclusions of the majority of the research in the area. "Daring" in certain circles, but "stoopid" or "crackpot" in others.
>>
>>
>>
>> You've been terribly misinformed. The IPCC developed its own emissions
>>
>> scenarios back in 1990, part of which involves projecting global mean
>>
>> surface temperatures. These are periodically updated when new
>>
>> assessments are released. That's where the scenario-based GMST
>>
>> projections come from, you buffoon.
>
> You mean as part of the summarising they DARED to take the maximum, mininmum and average of the 12000 publications?

Not quite. The IPCC defined various emissions profiles for the 21st
century, plugged the numbers into climate simulations and generated a
bunch of scenarios. One of the generated outputs was global mean
surface temperature. The IPCC doesn't get to pass the buck, the
scenarios are their very own handiwork.

[Kym Horsell]

Oh, a *much* different kettle of fish. They "defined a scenario" like
"double CO2" -- kind-of a benchmark in parts of the known literature -- and asked the models provided "what happens according to you under these conditions".

Hope they didn't waste their precious time trying to find out what happens
if the Earth suddenly resembles some planet on Star Trek.

But for that "what if double CO2" they need to be hung, drawn and quartered.

LOL.

Phht. Science outsiders.

--
Scenario.

[matt_sykes]

On Monday, 7 October 2013 20:33:13 UTC+2, Desertphile wrote:
> Who Fabricated the Global Warming "Pause"?

Mother nature.

[matt_sykes]

On Monday, 7 October 2013 22:22:37 UTC+2, Dawlish wrote:
>
>
> 06/06/2013 half brain has decided it hasn’t warmed for 30 years (at least the southern hemisphere)
>
> https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/alt.global-warming/Ep-9hffrKQw

And do yo udeny that Garvey?

>
> And that the MetO has apparently said it will cool for the next 5 <shakes head>

Where?

>
>
>
> And now it’s 12 years, which is really odd.
>
> https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/alt.global-warming/y6sOZ87j7Tk

THats 8000 years.


You really arent very bright are you? Mind you that comes of someone with a Geography degree and had to get a job with choldren.

[Spac...@hotmail.com]

I didn't say that I didn't do that;
I am not the FAther of all hurrincaeS

> Mother nature.

[Chom Noamsky]

I've read just enough IPCC literature that I can tell when a person
hasn't read a shred of it.

[Kym Horsell]

On Tuesday, October 8, 2013 5:39:32 PM UTC+11, Chom Noamsky wrote:
...

> I've read just enough IPCC literature that I can tell when a person
> hasn't read a shred of it.

Sounds like projection from an admitted ill-readling to me.

--
The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than average. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their mistakes. -- Wackopedia

[Chom Noamsky]

On 10/7/2013 11:43 PM, Kym Horsell wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 8, 2013 5:39:32 PM UTC+11, Chom Noamsky wrote:
> ...
>> I've read just enough IPCC literature that I can tell when a person
>> hasn't read a shred of it.
>
> Sounds like projection from an admitted ill-readling to me.

"The IPCC does not make their own temperature projections..."

[Chom Noamsky]

On 10/7/2013 1:17 PM, Kym Horsell wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 8, 2013 5:33:13 AM UTC+11, Desertphile wrote:
>> Who Fabricated the Global Warming "Pause"?
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/09/global-warming-pause-ipcc
> ...
>
> Yes, yes, yes. We all gets it. Even the conflicted ones gets it. But that won't filter into their conscience.
>
> And it's not that we haven't gone over this again and again and again in the past. Like the hypnotized student drawing a square, rubbing it out, drawing a circle, crossing it out, drawing a square.... a neurotic belief is almost impossible to shake because it's beyond reason alone to counter.
>
> I think almost a decade back I was talking at victims of the 1998 meme. At that time 1998 *was* the maximum avg global temp according to prevailing databases. It was amusing to watch the worms squirm and deny a maximum was an untypical value. One drongo I remember insisted that was nothing different between a maximum and an average or representative value of a set of numbers. (Proving drongos can re-write fundamental statistics as well as science if it goes against their emotional needs d' jour).
>
> Even when post facto adjustment of data reduced 1998 to a 3rd-placer the same victims were still placing 1998 at the start of a period of alleged cooling -- even when the data the victims cited clearly showed the opposite even in terms of difference-of-endpoints-of-cited-period.
>
> Oh well. Nothing new in the world of mental health except the drugs. Although I hear talk therapy is coming back.

Yet the IPCC chose 1998-2012 as the endpoints for its definition of the
warming hiatus. This makes the hiatus officially 15-years in duration,
the climate modelers' minimum criteria for ruling out internal variability:

"Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade
or less in the simulations, due to the model�s internal climate
variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for
intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of
warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the
expected present-day warming rate."

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf

[Kym Horsell]

On Tuesday, October 8, 2013 6:31:51 PM UTC+11, Chom Noamsky wrote:
...[blah blah blah]

You mis-spelled 'hiatus' as hiatus.

--
Current trends are far from a “glaring discrepancy,” and scientists are only “pressured” and “vexed” to the extent that they have to field questions from those interested in creating drama where little exists. -- climatesciencewatch

[Unum]

Its merely a report, as has been explained to this buffoon
several times.

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html

Since IPCC�s first report in 1990, assessed projections have suggested global
average temperature increases between about 0.15�C and 0.3�C per decade for
1990 to 2005. This can now be compared with observed values of about 0.2�C

[Dawlish]

On Tuesday, October 8, 2013 8:31:51 AM UTC+1, Chom Noamsky wrote:

> Yet the IPCC chose 1998-2012 as the endpoints for its definition of the
>
> warming hiatus.

Just an outright lie. Who do these people think they are kidding? It has to be themselves. Only deniers would believe such a barefaced lie.

[Desertphile]

On Mon, 7 Oct 2013 13:17:36 -0700 (PDT), Kym Horsell
<kymho...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tuesday, October 8, 2013 5:33:13 AM UTC+11, Desertphile wrote:
> > Who Fabricated the Global Warming "Pause"?
> >
> >
> >
> > http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/09/global-warming-pause-ipcc

> Yes, yes, yes. We all gets it. Even the conflicted ones gets it. But that
> won't filter into their conscience.
>
> And it's not that we haven't gone over this again and again and again
> in the past. Like the hypnotized student drawing a square, rubbing it
> out, drawing a circle, crossing it out, drawing a square.... a neurotic
> belief is almost impossible to shake because it's beyond reason alone
> to counter.
>
> I think almost a decade back I was talking at victims of the 1998 meme.
> At that time 1998 *was* the maximum avg global temp according to prevailing
> databases. It was amusing to watch the worms squirm and deny a maximum
> was an untypical value. One drongo I remember insisted that was nothing
> different between a maximum and an average or representative value of
> a set of numbers. (Proving drongos can re-write fundamental statistics
> as well as science if it goes against their emotional needs d' jour).
>
> Even when post facto adjustment of data reduced 1998 to a 3rd-placer the
> same victims were still placing 1998 at the start of a period of alleged
> cooling -- even when the data the victims cited clearly showed the opposite
> even in terms of difference-of-endpoints-of-cited-period.
>
> Oh well. Nothing new in the world of mental health except the drugs. Although
> I hear talk therapy is coming back.

Yes, but the freaky thing is that some of these clowns are citing data
and research in support of their beliefs that are the complete
opposite of what the research and data show. That is the part that I
am interested in.

--
"So why does the IPCC care so much about consensus of opinion among scientists?" -- Usenet troll denialist

[Desertphile]

On Tue, 08 Oct 2013 00:31:51 -0700, Chom Noamsky <wea...@stew.yum>
wrote:

> On Mon, 7 Oct 2013 13:17:36 -0700 (PDT), Kym Horsell <kymho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, October 8, 2013 5:33:13 AM UTC+11, Desertphile wrote:
> > > Who Fabricated the Global Warming "Pause"?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/09/global-warming-pause-ipcc
>

> > Yes, yes, yes. We all gets it. Even the conflicted ones gets it. But that
> > won't filter into their conscience.
> >
> > And it's not that we haven't gone over this again and again and again
> > in the past. Like the hypnotized student drawing a square, rubbing it
> > out, drawing a circle, crossing it out, drawing a square.... a neurotic
> > belief is almost impossible to shake because it's beyond reason alone
> > to counter.
> >
> > I think almost a decade back I was talking at victims of the 1998 meme.
> > At that time 1998 *was* the maximum avg global temp according to prevailing
> > databases. It was amusing to watch the worms squirm and deny a maximum
> > was an untypical value. One drongo I remember insisted that was nothing
> > different between a maximum and an average or representative value of
> > a set of numbers. (Proving drongos can re-write fundamental statistics
> > as well as science if it goes against their emotional needs d' jour).
> >
> > Even when post facto adjustment of data reduced 1998 to a 3rd-placer the
> > same victims were still placing 1998 at the start of a period of alleged
> > cooling -- even when the data the victims cited clearly showed the opposite
> > even in terms of difference-of-endpoints-of-cited-period.
> >
> > Oh well. Nothing new in the world of mental health except the drugs. Although
> > I hear talk therapy is coming back.

> Yet the IPCC chose 1998-2012 as the endpoints for its definition of the
> warming hiatus. This makes the hiatus officially 15-years in duration,

The used that as an example of "cherry picking," idiot. Did you really
not read the whole page that I posted? The paragraphs before, and the
sentence after?

[Desertphile]

On Mon, 07 Oct 2013 17:35:22 -0700, Chom Noamsky <wea...@stew.yum>
wrote:

> On Mon, 07 Oct 2013 12:33:13 -0600, Desertphile <deser...@nospam.org> wrote:
>
> > Who Fabricated the Global Warming "Pause"?
> >

> > strong El Ni�o. So by making it the first year of an analysis you're

> > to a strong El Ni�o�to suggest that there had been no global warming

> > 0.15] �C per decade) is smaller than the trend since 1951 (1951-2012;

> > begins with a strong El Ni�o, is smaller than the rate calculated

> Quite possibly the most delusional article ever published in Mother
> Jones.

What, specifically, did you see in the article that is incorrect?

[Desertphile]

On Mon, 7 Oct 2013 17:53:58 -0700 (PDT), Kym Horsell
<kymho...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 07 Oct 2013 17:35:22 -0700, Chom Noamsky <wea...@stew.yum> wrote:
>

> > On Mon, 07 Oct 2013 12:33:13 -0600, Desertphile <deser...@nospam.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Who Fabricated the Global Warming "Pause"?
> > >

> > > strong El Ni�o. So by making it the first year of an analysis you're

> > > to a strong El Ni�o�to suggest that there had been no global warming

> > > 0.15] �C per decade) is smaller than the trend since 1951 (1951-2012;

> > > begins with a strong El Ni�o, is smaller than the rate calculated

> > Quite possibly the most delusional article ever published in Mother
> > Jones. The author fails to even consider that maybe, just maybe, the
> > IPCC's own failed surface temperature projections had something to do
> > with it.

> Again, "the IPCC's own temperature projections" seems to be a
> confuscation. The IPCC does not make their own temperature
> projections; merely summerize what the consensus position
> of the (these days) 12000 publications is.

Indeed.

> So you are simply putting yourself in the position of rejecting
> the conclusions of the majority of the research in the area.
> "Daring" in certain circles, but "stoopid" or "crackpot" in others.

Notice how "Chom Noamsky" forgot to actually point out anything
incorrect in the article.

[Desertphile]

On Mon, 7 Oct 2013 22:25:51 -0700 (PDT), matt_sykes
<zze...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 07 Oct 2013 12:33:13 -0600, Desertphile <deser...@nospam.org> wrote:
>
> > Who Fabricated the Global Warming "Pause"?
> >

> > strong El Ni�o. So by making it the first year of an analysis you're

> > to a strong El Ni�o�to suggest that there had been no global warming

> > 0.15] �C per decade) is smaller than the trend since 1951 (1951-2012;

> > begins with a strong El Ni�o, is smaller than the rate calculated

> Mother nature.

Huh?

[R Kym Horsell]

On Wednesday, October 9, 2013 9:21:19 AM UTC+11, Desertphile wrote:
...

> Yes, but the freaky thing is that some of these clowns are citing data
> and research in support of their beliefs that are the complete
> opposite of what the research and data show. That is the part that I
> am interested in.

Tactics seem divided. On the one hand you have those that will turn around and claim they were allays trying to prove the opposite of what you thought they were doing, i.e. they will abandon their argument and go with what their own evidence shows.
And then there are those that will keep their claim and toss their own evidence and obfuscate by saying the it still shows the opposite of what it shows and so still supports their original claim.
And then there are those that lose it completely.
In the handbook it says to stay on the opposite side of the desk from
group 3 and leave an open path between them and the open door at all times. :)
For the other 2 groups they invented that 3 day waiting period thing.

--
[...] El PauLa Ninny Nitwit a classic example of a "counteractive
narcissist", a man who holds grudges, exhibits excessive demands for
attention, attempts to belittle others and can't take jokes. In other words
a revolting and incredibly stupid obsessed little man with half an education
and almost no intelligence or scientific knowledge.
-- "John" aka "yelzab" <yel...@ntlworld.com>, 19 May 2012

[matt_sykes]

On Wednesday, 9 October 2013 00:24:53 UTC+2, Desertphile wrote:
> > Who Fabricated the Global Warming "Pause"?
>
>

> > Mother nature.
>
>
>
> Huh?
>

Bejesus but you arent the sharpest tool in the box now are you?

[gordo]

They also cite peer reviewed papers that prove them wrong.

[Chom Noamsky]

Why is the IPCC cherry picking?

[Unum]

Trollboy begging for attention yet again, lol.

[Kym Horsell]

Yar. It just surveys the published literature on climate change. Not Wotsupmyass or anything *I* read.

--
<img src="http://www.characterink.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Troll_940px.jpg">

[Desertphile]

On Tue, 8 Oct 2013 11:24:55 -0700 (PDT), Dawlish <pjg...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> On Tuesday, October 8, 2013 8:31:51 AM UTC+1, Chom Noamsky wrote:

> > Yet the IPCC chose 1998-2012 as the endpoints for its definition of the
> > warming hiatus.

For its definition of "cherry picking." "Chom Noamsky" does not want
people to know what the very next sentence says, nor what the whole
page says. If the start date is 1996 or 1990, the increase is over
0.1c per decade.

> Just an outright lie.

Obviously.

> Who do these people think they are kidding?

They are not kidding any skeptics.

> It has to be themselves. Only deniers would believe such a
> barefaced lie.

They obviously do not believe it: I still have my US$1,000.

[Desertphile]

On Tue, 08 Oct 2013 19:18:02 -0700, Chom Noamsky <wea...@stew.yum>

So that's a "No" from you. Why didn't you reade it?

[Desertphile]

> > > strong El Niño. So by making it the first year of an analysis you're

> > > to a strong El Niño—to suggest that there had been no global warming

> > > 0.15] ºC per decade) is smaller than the trend since 1951 (1951-2012;

> > > begins with a strong El Niño, is smaller than the rate calculated

Silence = "None."

[Desertphile]

On Tue, 8 Oct 2013 18:30:04 -0700 (PDT), matt_sykes
<zze...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 08 Oct 2013 16:24:53 -0600, Desertphile <deser...@nospam.org> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 7 Oct 2013 22:25:51 -0700 (PDT), matt_sykes
> > <zze...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >

> > > On Mon, 07 Oct 2013 12:33:13 -0600, Desertphile <deser...@nospam.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Who Fabricated the Global Warming "Pause"?
> > > >

> > > > strong El Niño. So by making it the first year of an analysis you're

> > > > to a strong El Niño—to suggest that there had been no global warming

> > > > 0.15] ºC per decade) is smaller than the trend since 1951 (1951-2012;

> > > > begins with a strong El Niño, is smaller than the rate calculated

> > > Mother nature.
> >
> > Huh?

> Bejesus but you arent the sharpest tool in the box now are you?

You wrote "Mother nature." Why?

[matt_sykes]

On Wednesday, 9 October 2013 18:12:50 UTC+2, Desertphile wrote:
> > You wrote "Mother nature." Why?

The IPCC are saying the pause is due to natural forces, as is Hansen. Natural forces = mother nature.

[Dawlish]

An outright lie. Again.

[matt_sykes]

Sigh. SO wrong, again:

IPCC: "Due to natural variability,

trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in
general reflect long-term climate trends. As one example, the rate of warming over the past 15
years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to +0.15] °C per decade), which begins with a strong El Niño, is

smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade)5."



Hansen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=geS6mtY0XsQ

[matt_sykes]

On Wednesday, 9 October 2013 20:48:36 UTC+2, Dawlish wrote:

I am getting bored proving you wrong all the time. Can you try to use some actual science some time? It might lend the debate a bit of body.

[Desertphile]

On Wed, 9 Oct 2013 10:07:57 -0700 (PDT), matt_sykes
<zze...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > You wrote "Mother nature." Why?

> The IPCC are saying the pause

What "pause?"

> is due to natural forces, as is Hansen. Natural forces = mother nature.

You are not making any sense.

[matt_sykes]

> > > > > > > narrative�in many ways, almost the opposite narrative. Global warming,

>
> > > > > > > they suggested, had "paused" or was slowing down. And scientists
>
> > > > > > > didn't really understand why.
>
> > > > > > >
>
> > > > > > > How could this disconnect, this huge divergence of narratives, have
>
> > > > > > > happened? What follows is the story of a communications failure that
>
> > > > > > > is ultimately harmful to all of us. And it was brought on by
>
> > > > > > > combination of causes that, unfortunately, we've seen work together
>
> > > > > > > before to mar the communication of climate science: Misinformation
>
> > > > > > > from climate deniers, false balance and just plain bad science
>
> > > > > > > reporting from much of the media, and to top it all off, poor
>
> > > > > > > communication by scientists themselves.
>
> > > > > > >
>
> > > > > > > The Rise of the Pause
>
> > > > > > >
>

> > > > > > > To begin, let's turn to the tape. On September 26�just before the IPCC
>
> > > > > > > report's September 27 release�CBS News provided a textbook case of

> > > > > > > strong El Ni�o. So by making it the first year of an analysis you're

> > > > > > > sleight of hand�the fact that 1998 was a record temperature year, due
>
> > > > > > > to a strong El Ni�o�to suggest that there had been no global warming

>
> > > > > > > ever since. For instance, here's an example of this argument being
>
> > > > > > > made, in the op-ed pages of the Daily Telegraph, as far back as the
>
> > > > > > > year 2006. And here's a contemporaneous rebuttal.
>
> > > > > > >
>
> > > > > > > But it wasn't until March 2013, according to the Google Trends data
>
> > > > > > > above, that the "pause" narrative really started to get traction. The
>
> > > > > > > apparent reason? A major feature story in The Economist declaring that
>
> > > > > > > "over the past 15 years air temperatures at the Earth's surface have
>
> > > > > > > been flat while greenhouse-gas emissions have continued to soar."
>
> > > > > > > Denierss were delighted, and other media outlets, from Reuters
>
> > > > > > > ("Climate scientists struggle to explain warming slowdown") to the
>
> > > > > > > Drudge Report, piled on.
>
> > > > > > >
>
> > > > > > > At the time, many critics pointed out that these assertions were
>
> > > > > > > scientifically misleading. A glance at the animation below should
>
> > > > > > > explain why. However, this wasn't enough to derail the building
>
> > > > > > > "global warming has slowed down, and scientists don't know why"
>
> > > > > > > narrative.
>
> > > > > > >
>
> > > > > > > http://www.motherjones.com/files/SkepticsvRealistsv3_0.gif
>
> > > > > > >
>
> > > > > > > It certainly isn't the IPCC's fault that the "pause" notion took hold,
>
> > > > > > > then; rather, the blame falls upon a press that even now remains
>
> > > > > > > willing to channel climate denier claims. "I don't in this particular
>
> > > > > > > instance blame the IPCC as much as I blame the media," says Climate
>
> > > > > > > Progress' Joe Romm, a leading climate blogger who is generally quite
>
> > > > > > > critical of the IPCC's communications efforts.
>
> > > > > > >
>
> > > > > > > Yet the IPCC must shoulder some of the blame for what happened
>

> > > > > > > next�for it lent momentum to the "pause" story.

> > > > > > > 0.15] �C per decade) is smaller than the trend since 1951 (1951-2012;
>
> > > > > > > 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] �C per decade."

> > > > > > > past 15 years (1998�2012; 0.05 [�0.05 to +0.15] �C per decade), which
>
> > > > > > > begins with a strong El Ni�o, is smaller than the rate calculated
>
> > > > > > > since 1951 (1951�2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] �C per decade)."

>
> > > > > > >
>
> > > > > > > Thomas Stocker, a lead author of the IPCC report, got grilled by
>
> > > > > > > reporters in Stockholm today over the issue of the so-called warming
>
> > > > > > > "hiatus," which he dismissed as an "inappropriate" focal point.
>
> > > > > > > Thomas Stocker, a lead author of the IPCC report, got grilled by
>
> > > > > > > reporters in Stockholm today over the issue of the so-called warming
>
> > > > > > > "hiatus," which he dismissed as an "inappropriate" focal point. Tim
>
> > > > > > > McDonnell/Climate Desk
>
> > > > > > >
>
> > > > > > > This is much harder to misread, misinterpret, or blow out of
>
> > > > > > > proportion. But by then, it was too late. At the press conference in
>
> > > > > > > Stockholm when the report was released, journalists relentlessly
>
> > > > > > > questioned the report's drafters about the pause. Among the ensuing
>
> > > > > > > headlines? "Global Warming Slowdown Seen as Emissions Rise to Record."
>
> > > > > > > "Climate change report's 'temperature hiatus' fuels cdeniers." "Global
>
> > > > > > > Warming Has Slowed in Last 15 Years Despite Record Greenhouse Gas
>
> > > > > > > Levels, Scientists Say." Heck, even Nature magazine, about as
>
> > > > > > > science-friendly a publication as you can find, let the "pause"
>
> > > > > > > narrative shape its headline: "IPCC: Despite hiatus, climate change
>
> > > > > > > here to stay."
>
> > > > > > >
>
> > > > > > >
>
> > > > > > > Fallout
>
> > > > > > > It remains to be seen just how much damage has been done. But at
>
> > > > > > > minimum, we can say that during a major moment for climate scientists
>
> > > > > > > to communicate the direness of our plight, they were instead being
>
> > > > > > > questioned about why global warming has "paused." Deniers must be in
>
> > > > > > > heaven.
>
> > > > > > >
>

> > > > > > > Whose fault is all this? The deniers, the journalists�but yes, the

>
> > > > > > > scientists too.
>
> > > > > > >
>
> > > > > > > "I think the deniers deserve most of the blame. They're still trying
>
> > > > > > > to confuse people," says Susan Joy Hassol, who directs Climate
>
> > > > > > > Communication, a nonprofit science and outreach group. "And I think
>
> > > > > > > the media's to blame too, because they've allowed themselves to be
>
> > > > > > > distracted and misled. But the scientists have to take some
>
> > > > > > > responsibility when they write or say things that can be
>
> > > > > > > misunderstood, because it's part of their job to communicate what they
>
> > > > > > > know in a way that the public can understand."
>
> > > > > > >
>
> > > > > > > There is a growing discussion of reforms to the IPCC, as
>
> > > > > > > mega-assessments of the sort that it produces are are hugely
>
> > > > > > > time-consuming to scientists. But this ought to be accompanied by
>
> > > > > > > another critique: The IPCC's communication record is also pretty poor.
>
> > > > > > > It isn't the IPCC's fault that deniers, abetted by some journalists,
>
> > > > > > > seized on the misleading "pause" story. But surely, this time around,
>
> > > > > > > it should have been ready for them.
>
> > > > > > >
>
> > > > > > > Additional reporting by Tim McDonnell.
>
> > > > >
>
> > > > > > Mother nature.
>
> > > > >
>
> > > > > Huh?
>
> > >
>
> > > > Bejesus but you arent the sharpest tool in the box now are you?
>
> > >
>
> > > You wrote "Mother nature." Why?
>
>
>
> > The IPCC are saying the pause
>
>
>
> What "pause?"
>

IPCC: "Due to natural variability,

trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in
general reflect long-term climate trends. As one example, the rate of warming over the past 15
years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to +0.15] °C per decade), which begins with a strong El Niño, is

smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade)5."

[Desertphile]

On Thu, 10 Oct 2013 08:30:43 -0700 (PDT), matt_sykes
<zze...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > > narrative—in many ways, almost the opposite narrative. Global warming,

> > > > > > > > they suggested, had "paused" or was slowing down. And scientists
> > > > > > > > didn't really understand why.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > How could this disconnect, this huge divergence of narratives, have
> > > > > > > > happened? What follows is the story of a communications failure that
> > > > > > > > is ultimately harmful to all of us. And it was brought on by
> > > > > > > > combination of causes that, unfortunately, we've seen work together
> > > > > > > > before to mar the communication of climate science: Misinformation
> > > > > > > > from climate deniers, false balance and just plain bad science
> > > > > > > > reporting from much of the media, and to top it all off, poor
> > > > > > > > communication by scientists themselves.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The Rise of the Pause
> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > To begin, let's turn to the tape. On September 26—just before the IPCC
> > > > > > > > report's September 27 release—CBS News provided a textbook case of

> > > > > > > > strong El Niño. So by making it the first year of an analysis you're

> > > > > > > > sleight of hand—the fact that 1998 was a record temperature year, due
> > > > > > > > to a strong El Niño—to suggest that there had been no global warming

> > > > > > > > ever since. For instance, here's an example of this argument being
> > > > > > > > made, in the op-ed pages of the Daily Telegraph, as far back as the
> > > > > > > > year 2006. And here's a contemporaneous rebuttal.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > But it wasn't until March 2013, according to the Google Trends data
> > > > > > > > above, that the "pause" narrative really started to get traction. The
> > > > > > > > apparent reason? A major feature story in The Economist declaring that
> > > > > > > > "over the past 15 years air temperatures at the Earth's surface have
> > > > > > > > been flat while greenhouse-gas emissions have continued to soar."
> > > > > > > > Denierss were delighted, and other media outlets, from Reuters
> > > > > > > > ("Climate scientists struggle to explain warming slowdown") to the
> > > > > > > > Drudge Report, piled on.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > At the time, many critics pointed out that these assertions were
> > > > > > > > scientifically misleading. A glance at the animation below should
> > > > > > > > explain why. However, this wasn't enough to derail the building
> > > > > > > > "global warming has slowed down, and scientists don't know why"
> > > > > > > > narrative.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > http://www.motherjones.com/files/SkepticsvRealistsv3_0.gif
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It certainly isn't the IPCC's fault that the "pause" notion took hold,
> > > > > > > > then; rather, the blame falls upon a press that even now remains
> > > > > > > > willing to channel climate denier claims. "I don't in this particular
> > > > > > > > instance blame the IPCC as much as I blame the media," says Climate
> > > > > > > > Progress' Joe Romm, a leading climate blogger who is generally quite
> > > > > > > > critical of the IPCC's communications efforts.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yet the IPCC must shoulder some of the blame for what happened

> > > > > > > > next—for it lent momentum to the "pause" story.

> > > > > > > > 0.15] ºC per decade) is smaller than the trend since 1951 (1951-2012;
> > > > > > > > 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade."

> > > > > > > > past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to +0.15] °C per decade), which
> > > > > > > > begins with a strong El Niño, is smaller than the rate calculated

> > > > > > > > since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade)."

> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thomas Stocker, a lead author of the IPCC report, got grilled by
> > > > > > > > reporters in Stockholm today over the issue of the so-called warming
> > > > > > > > "hiatus," which he dismissed as an "inappropriate" focal point.
> > > > > > > > Thomas Stocker, a lead author of the IPCC report, got grilled by
> > > > > > > > reporters in Stockholm today over the issue of the so-called warming
> > > > > > > > "hiatus," which he dismissed as an "inappropriate" focal point. Tim
> > > > > > > > McDonnell/Climate Desk
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This is much harder to misread, misinterpret, or blow out of
> > > > > > > > proportion. But by then, it was too late. At the press conference in
> > > > > > > > Stockholm when the report was released, journalists relentlessly
> > > > > > > > questioned the report's drafters about the pause. Among the ensuing
> > > > > > > > headlines? "Global Warming Slowdown Seen as Emissions Rise to Record."
> > > > > > > > "Climate change report's 'temperature hiatus' fuels cdeniers." "Global
> > > > > > > > Warming Has Slowed in Last 15 Years Despite Record Greenhouse Gas
> > > > > > > > Levels, Scientists Say." Heck, even Nature magazine, about as
> > > > > > > > science-friendly a publication as you can find, let the "pause"
> > > > > > > > narrative shape its headline: "IPCC: Despite hiatus, climate change
> > > > > > > > here to stay."
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Fallout
> > > > > > > > It remains to be seen just how much damage has been done. But at
> > > > > > > > minimum, we can say that during a major moment for climate scientists
> > > > > > > > to communicate the direness of our plight, they were instead being
> > > > > > > > questioned about why global warming has "paused." Deniers must be in
> > > > > > > > heaven.
> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Whose fault is all this? The deniers, the journalists—but yes, the

> > > > > > > > scientists too.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "I think the deniers deserve most of the blame. They're still trying
> > > > > > > > to confuse people," says Susan Joy Hassol, who directs Climate
> > > > > > > > Communication, a nonprofit science and outreach group. "And I think
> > > > > > > > the media's to blame too, because they've allowed themselves to be
> > > > > > > > distracted and misled. But the scientists have to take some
> > > > > > > > responsibility when they write or say things that can be
> > > > > > > > misunderstood, because it's part of their job to communicate what they
> > > > > > > > know in a way that the public can understand."
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > There is a growing discussion of reforms to the IPCC, as
> > > > > > > > mega-assessments of the sort that it produces are are hugely
> > > > > > > > time-consuming to scientists. But this ought to be accompanied by
> > > > > > > > another critique: The IPCC's communication record is also pretty poor.
> > > > > > > > It isn't the IPCC's fault that deniers, abetted by some journalists,
> > > > > > > > seized on the misleading "pause" story. But surely, this time around,
> > > > > > > > it should have been ready for them.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Additional reporting by Tim McDonnell.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Mother nature.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Huh?
> > > >
> > > > > Bejesus but you arent the sharpest tool in the box now are you?
> > > >
> > > > You wrote "Mother nature." Why?
> >
> > > The IPCC are saying the pause
> >
> > What "pause?"
> >

> > > is due to natural forces, as is Hansen. Natural forces = mother nature.
> >
> > You are not making any sense.

> IPCC: "Due to natural variability,
> trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in
> general reflect long-term climate trends. As one example, the rate of warming over the past 15
> years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to +0.15] °C per decade), which begins with a strong El Niño, is
>
> smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade)5."

What "pause?" That's the question. Can you answer it?