Lewis and Crok

Discussion in 'Environment' started by IanC, Mar 9, 2014.

  1. IanC
    Offline

    IanC VIP Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    6,110
    Likes Received:
    504
    Trophy Points:
    73
    Ratings:
    +511 / 0 / -0
    http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2014/02/Oversensitive-How-The-IPCC-hid-the-Good-News-on-Global-Warming.pdf


    it has become more and more clear over the last decade that the high feedback/high sensitivity numbers being proclaimed by many climate scientists are out of alignment with reality. it is this exaggeration that changes the relatively benign warming that we have been experiencing into the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming boogieman that we have been bombarded with for more than 25 years.

    last fall I stated that I thought the IPCC would just ignore the new data and stay the course. they actually were more clever than that. they just buried the evidence and pretended that it wasnt worth mentioning, and didnt bother to rework their 'projections' with best estimates. that gives them plausible deniability. plausible deniability is also the reason why the leadership of large scientific organizations come out so strongly in defence of CAGW even though their membership has decidedly less confidence in the 'concensus'. it is much easier to survive a pessimistic prediction that doesnt happen than an optimistic one that turns out badly. the risk has been massively overstated, and the insurance policy we are being asked to buy is monsterously more expensive than even the exaggerated outcomes would be.
    • Like Like x 1
  2. mamooth
    Offline

    mamooth VIP Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2012
    Messages:
    5,652
    Likes Received:
    938
    Trophy Points:
    88
    Location:
    Indianapolis, Indiana
    Ratings:
    +952 / 5 / -0
    Greg Laden explains why it's such a shoddy piece of work. Lewis and Crok cherrypicked their little hearts out, a tried and true denialist tactic. By simply pretending all the higher estimates didn't exist, they could then claim their lower estimate had to be correct. They're saying the IPCC is wrong because the IPCC looked at all the data instead of cherrypicking like they did. That will be why nobody of note pays the paper any attention, and that will then feed the denialist paranoia about how there's a conspiracy against them.

    A New Fake Report On Climate Change. ? Greg Laden's Blog
  3. Matthew
    Offline

    Matthew Blue dog all the way!

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2010
    Messages:
    27,389
    Likes Received:
    1,787
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Location:
    Portland Oregon
    Ratings:
    +2,016 / 96 / -0
    I thought we were having a pause 6-7 years ago....Now I feel that sensitivity maybe on the lower side of things as aerosols seem to be quite effective at canaling things out. I'll say 1.5-2c of total warming to get to equiliublum as 3-4c seems way to high based on what I am seeing occurring within the real world.

    Once China and India clean up their mess we should see the same kind of warming again as we seen after the pause of the mid 20th century.
    Last edited: Mar 9, 2014
  4. IanC
    Offline

    IanC VIP Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    6,110
    Likes Received:
    504
    Trophy Points:
    73
    Ratings:
    +511 / 0 / -0
    obviously you havent even skimmed the paper. hahaha, they didnt ignore any of the papers. but they may have shown some of them to be only good for wiping your ass.


    and speaking of cherrypicking.....I dont see Laden's Roe and Baker mentioned in the IPCC graphs from AR4 or AR5. what's up with that?

    and how about Laden's scaremongering?
    [​IMG]

    hahahaha, what does that have to do with discussing Nic's paper? Laden should take some adderol.
  5. flacaltenn
    Offline

    flacaltenn USMB Mod Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2011
    Messages:
    14,487
    Likes Received:
    1,533
    Trophy Points:
    90
    Location:
    Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
    Ratings:
    +1,605 / 8 / -0
    Imagine that -- an irate blogger..

    Yeah --- Let us DISCOUNT the ACTUAL OBSERVATIONAL RECORD.. Let us do that for the sake of pure and unadulterated science.. And let us CONTINUE to do averages and distributions of ALL models -- weak and strong and ignore our instruments and satellites.

    Good Plan there Mammy.. BTW -- the OBSERVED climate sensitivity over the past 100 years is FAR closer to 1.5 than it ever will be to 3.5 or 8.0... These idiots aren't even considering that Climate Sensitivity isn't GLOBAL or more importantly that it's likely not TEMPORALLY STATIC. Because they don't have the tools or talent to figure out all the dependencies that WILL vary geographically and over time... Clowns..

    $500 says that research will come out CONFIRMING both my points above in the next decade.. Any takers?? I've got to make money at this somehow. Might as well fleece the zealots..

    BTW -- You wouldn't know it from the literature and the modeling, but climate sensitivity applies to ANY and ALL forcings --- not just CO2 and these idiots only care to differentiate CS with respect to CO2 doubling.. They have permanent blinders on when it comes to advancing climate knowledge..
  6. Abraham3
    Offline

    Abraham3 BANNED

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2012
    Messages:
    4,289
    Likes Received:
    160
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +160 / 0 / -0
    Show us some professional climate scientists that say such things.
  7. mamooth
    Offline

    mamooth VIP Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2012
    Messages:
    5,652
    Likes Received:
    938
    Trophy Points:
    88
    Location:
    Indianapolis, Indiana
    Ratings:
    +952 / 5 / -0
    I really have no idea what the CultOfMcIntyre is trying to say here. It appears to be sort kind of cultspeak which only those who are OfTheBody can understand.

    And no, it's not possible to fake being OfTheBody. They can always tell.

    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 18, 2014

Share This Page