Comments BlckWallaby has made

The big hockey-stick cover-up

Perhaps one of the worst things that the IPCC authorship did was waffle and obscure its demise.  Several expert reviewers requested reduction of the waffle in draft to perhaps a line or two, or its deletion, and/or an outright apology for ever using the hockey-stick.  Despite IPCC's common rejection of comments by expert reviewers on many other matters on the grounds of lack of page space, this unusually lengthy yet incomplete dissertation was finally published.  Notice that it does not mention any of the things that totally discredited the hockey stick, and some citations are cherry-picked or misrepresented in context.  They also chose to include it in the so-called spaghetti graph, which of course was a distortion of collective trend in better treated data

~~~~~~~~~~From Ch. 6, Pg 466 WG1, AR4~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The `hockey stick' reconstruction of Mann et al. (1999) has been the subject of several critical studies. Soon and Baliunas (2003) challenged the conclusion that the 20th century was the warmest at a hemispheric average scale. They surveyed regionally diverse proxy climate data, noting evidence for relatively warm (or cold), or alternatively dry (or wet) conditions occurring at any time within pre-defined periods assumed to bracket the so-called `Medieval Warm Period' (and `Little Ice Age'). Their qualitative approach precluded any quantitative summary of the evidence at precise times, limiting the value of their review as a basis for comparison of the relative magnitude of mean hemispheric 20th-century warmth (Mann and Jones, 2003; Osborn and Briffa, 2006). Box 6.4 provides more information on the `Medieval Warm Period'.
McIntyre and McKitrick (2003) reported that they were unable to replicate the results of Mann et al. (1998). Wahl and Ammann (2007) showed that this was a consequence of differences in the way McIntyre and McKitrick (2003) had implemented the method of Mann et al. (1998) and that the original reconstruction could be closely duplicated using the original proxy data. McIntyre and McKitrick (2005a,b) raised further concerns about the details of the Mann et al. (1998) method, principally relating to the independent verification of the reconstruction against 19th-century instrumental temperature data and to the extraction of the dominant modes of variability present in a network of western North American tree ring chronologies, using Principal Components Analysis. The latter may have some theoretical foundation, but Wahl and Amman (2006) also show that the impact on the amplitude of the final reconstruction is very small (~0.05°C; for further discussion of these issues see also Huybers, 2005; McIntyre and McKitrick, 2005c,d; von Storch and Zorita, 2005).

Since the TAR, a number of additional proxy data syntheses based on annually or near-annually resolved data, variously representing mean.....etc etc On The fourth IPCC report is still going strong a year later posted 1 year, 9 months ago 65 Responses

More facts according to CCE

By your point Numbers cce:

1) I have no idea what you think I have "no excuse" for not knowing.  MBH99 was in the TAR.  MBH99 is in AR4.  The probability was 66% that recent decades were warmer than the last 1000 years.  That is not screaming by any definition of the word.

RESPONSE: Seven or more `Battleships' and a single `Kyak' can all be described as boats, but they are different.  The former can be scary, the latter innocuous.  The battleships of 2001, were clarioned in every nook and cranny of the various reports, and at podia etc, and had a huge effect of scaring policymakers and media into believing that the current warming was not only unprecedented, but that there was virtually NO VARIATION in the last 1000 years. (Untrue)  The kyak version of 2007 (AR4) is barely perceptible, being hidden "amongst the reeds".

2) The Hockey Stick was in AR4.  You admit that it was in AR4.  Stop saying it wasn't in AR4.

RESPONSE:  There are lots of battleships in 3AR, and only a kyak, obscured by other stuff, both visually and in the text in 4AR.

3) If you will look closely, Esper and Moberg are no more prominent than the supposedly "discredited" Hockey Stick, or Mann's 2003 update of it.

RESPONSE:  IF you look closely amongst all that spaghetti, you will see that Esper and Moberg show a pronounced MWP.  Also the bore-hole data shows a very strong LIA.  This compares with a dead-straight "shaft" on the original hockey-stick.  The original grossly exaggerated up-turn at the end of UNSMOOTHED instrumental data ending at the 1988 spike is absent.  It also has a different smoothing in the proxy data.

4) The corrigendum was to correct the descriptions of the data.  It had nothing to do with the calculations that went into the Hockey Stick, nor is it relevent to the findings of the IPCC.

RESPONSE: The omission of 35 SERIES of data (not 35 data POINTS) that were claimed to be used but were not, and which required the intervention of Nature to compel Mann to own-up is not a minor matter.   Bad data in = bad result out.

5) The NRC panel disagrees with your assessment of the Wahl and Ammann paper.   [Which one BTW?]

RESPONSE:  I have not given my assessment of W & A, but have quoted a SINGLE expert review comment which was vindicated by Nature, and ignored by the IPCC.  The NRC is not the only source of information.

BTW, you don't offer your wisdom on the ludicrous use of Bristle Cone pines or the serious "Divergence Problem" also ignored by the IPCC.... or the other problems I mentioned.

I get the impression that you must get all this nonsense from reading RealClimate website.  This was set-up by the inventors of the hockey-stick, and in the opinion of many rationalists, they are an insult to science.

Oh, and notice Dr, Andrew Dessler's opinions above in a couple of posts concerning the Hocky-stick.  Please read them very carefully, and don't put into them what you WANT him to say.  While you are at it, why don't you read my earlier post more carefully too?  It's a puzzle how you could get it so wrong!
On The fourth IPCC report is still going strong a year later posted 1 year, 9 months ago 65 Responses

CCE's major error

CCE wrote:

"One major error from the First Assessment Report that reverberates to this day, was the use of HH Lamb's temperature reconstruction for Central England to represent "Global Temperature Variations of the last 1000 years."  This was the graph used in "The Great Global Warming Swindle." It's used in Singer and Avery's "Unstoppable Global Warming."  It's used all over the internet by a great variety of skeptics."

The IPCC in its various reports can only use the best available data to hand to demonstarate what those thousands of scientists want to say at the time.

Dr, Andrew Dessler will tell you that the IPCC only uses peer reviewed information, and that the guesses based on these data, cannot be wrong, since they do not cherry-pick.

As for skeptics using very old or historical interest data, it depends on how white they are. A lot of rationalists are grey, and consider their data very carefully On The fourth IPCC report is still going strong a year later posted 1 year, 9 months ago 65 Responses

CCE's "Real world"

In your world cce, it is easy to still find supporters of the hockey stick, even though it was so embarrassing to the IPCC that it was expunged in their 4AR 2007 Report.  It is also interesting to note that Andrew is apparently not one of those supporters.  From memory, your first quote was from WG1 Ch 6 and was part of an incomplete and misleading history obscuring the demise of the hockey stick.

For instance, concerning their citing of UNPUBLISHED (yes, unpublished) Wahl & Ammann 2006, here is one of many critical expert review comments that were typically ignored by the IPCC mediating authors  (severely limited by space to show them here)

"The statement "Wahl and Ammenn (accepted) demonstrated that this was due to omission by McIntyre and McKitrick [MM03] of several proxy series used by Mann et al (1998)." Is incorrect and should be deleted on factual as well as procedural grounds (see previous comment). In their paper, Wahl and Ammenn state: "In MM03, the authors describe their results as being developed using the MBH reconstruction methodology, albeit with elimination of a large number of proxy data series used by MBH, [Mann et al] especially during the 15th century." There is no such statement in MM03. Quite the opposite. MM03 reported that some proxy series data said to have been used in MBH98 were not actually used. Subsequently, McIntrye and McKitrick filed a Materials Complaint with the journal Nature. In response to this complaint, Mann et al admitted that 35 series [Note; not individual data points but a whole series] said to have been used in MBH98 were not actually used, but claimed that this did not affect the results. Wahl and Ammenn were able to closely reproduce the original reconstruction when all records were included. However, prior to this, McIntyre and McKitrick (2005a, 2005b) also had reproduced MBH98 results using the flawed principle components method. Wahl and Ammenn reproduced McIntrye and McKitrick (2005a, 2005b), and, in the final version of their paper, also reproduced MM's finding that MBH98 failed rsquared verification.
[Jeff Kueter (Reviewer's comment ID #: 137-68)]"

Most of the dismantling of the hockey stick has centred around the treatment of the proxy data, but in addition, there are five (5) separate falsehoods concerning the treatment of the final 50 years.  The most obvious is that whilst the proxy data has a 40-year smoothing filter applied, the instrumental data, (in attention grabbing red), is unsmoothed, and ends with the freak 1998 El Nino spike.  Elsewhere, in the same 2001 report there is a graph of smoothed instrumental temperatures, which clearly shows that the 1988 spike is about 25% over trend, (or was it 40%? I'm not sure now), which makes a huge difference in visual impact by virtue of the sharply climbing curve shape that results.  Clearly, it was a gross exaggeration intended to scare policymakers, and that graph was sprayed everywhere!.  
Again, there is a lack of space to go through the other scientific frauds here, but whatever, the hockey stick was a disgrace to science.

BTW, the inventors of the hockey-stick and their ilk still persist on a hardcore site known as RealClimate, if you are looking for good stirring stuff to feed your addiction.On The fourth IPCC report is still going strong a year later posted 1 year, 9 months ago 65 Responses

Meow....

Hi Joe,

This study that you cite, pray is it peer reviewed?  If you consult with Andrew on that matter, he will inform you that it can be ignored if it is not.

Anyhow, don't worry, you, Mark UK, and beanbuddy would not qualify in the said study, because non of you comment in any way that contributes to the debate.

BTW, what were you saying before?....your lofty opinions on human rights?On Revisiting the climate-science funding question posted 1 year, 9 months ago 48 Responses

GreyFalcon, wherefore art thou?

Mentioning lovers of RealClimate (above to Andrew) brings you to mind, and I'm wondering, and I'm sure that others are too, including Max Manacker, why you seem to have bailed-out from these posts:

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/1/23/143028/323#com ...

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/1/6/224510/7920#com ...

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/1/24/111256/345#com ...  (+ 4 posts following)

It's easy to jump to conclusions of course, like being unable to obfuscate your way around them, but perhaps ypu are on holiday.

For that matter, one would think that the blog author might show an interest, even if they do not support his belief system, or any shades of grey which might come from a rationalistOn Revisiting the climate-science funding question posted 1 year, 9 months ago 48 Responses

Sorry Andrew our posts crossed

Andrew wrote:

"Black Wallaby- You're back from climate audit?  I guess that means you've given up trying to convince them of your ridiculous thermodynamic ideas."

Nope, you guess wrongly, and I'm enjoying it over there. I don't come here often because my own computer SEEMS to be blacklisted on this site. I'm using that of a friend at this moment.

Hey Andrew, I'm glad to see that you have cut-back and a bit softer on the ad hom's
Cheers, and take it easy On Revisiting the climate-science funding question posted 1 year, 9 months ago 48 Responses

Once again, says Dr Dessler

Once again, the IPCC emerges unscathed.

An Open Letter to the Community from Chris Landsea
Dear colleagues,

After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.

With this open letter to the community, I wish to explain the basis for my decision and bring awareness to what I view as a problem in the IPCC process. The IPCC is a group of climate researchers from around the world that every few years summarize how climate is changing and how it may be altered in the future due to manmade global warming. I had served both as an author for the Observations chapter and a Reviewer for the 2nd Assessment Report in 1995 and the 3rd Assessment Report in 2001, primarily on the topic of tropical cyclones (hurricanes and typhoons). My work on hurricanes, and tropical cyclo nes more generally, has been widely cited by the IPCC. For the upcoming AR4, I was asked several weeks ago by the Observations chapter Lead Author---Dr. Kevin Trenberth---to provide the writeup for Atlantic hurricanes. As I had in the past, I agreed to assist the IPCC in what I thought was to be an important, and politically-neutral determination of what is happening with our climate.

Shortly after Dr. Trenberth requested that I draft the Atlantic hurricane section for the AR4's Observations chapter, Dr. Trenberth participated in a press conference organized by scientists at Harvard on the topic "Experts to warn global warming likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense hurricane activity" along with other media interviews on the topic. The result of this media interaction was widespread coverage that directly connected the very busy 2004 Atlantic hurricane season as being caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas warming occurring today. Listening to and reading trans cripts of this press conference and media interviews, it is apparent that Dr. Trenberth was being accurately quoted and summarized in such statements and was not being misrepresented in the media. These media sessions have potential to result in a widespread perception that global warming has made recent hurricane activity much more severe.

I found it a bit perplexing that the participants in the Harvard press conference had come to the conclusion that global warming was impacting hurricane activity today. To my knowledge, none of the participants in that press conference had performed any research on hurricane variability, nor were they reporting on any new work in the field. All previous and current research in the area of hurricane variability has shown no reliable, long-term trend up in the frequency or intensity of tropical cyclones, either in the Atlantic or any other basin. The IPCC assessments in 1995 and 2001 also concluded that there was no global warming signal found in the hurricane record.

Moreover, the evidence is quite strong and supported by the most recent credible studies that any impact in the future from global warming upon hurricane will likely be quite small. The latest results from the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (Knutson and Tuleya, Journal of Climate, 2004) suggest that by around 2080, hurricanes may have winds and rainfall about 5% more intense than today. It has been proposed that even this tiny change may be an exaggeration as to what may happen by the end of the 21st Century (Michaels, Knappenberger, and Landsea, Journal of Climate, 2005, submitted).

It is beyond me why my colleagues would utilize the media to push an unsupported agenda that recent hurricane activity has been due to global warming. Given Dr. Trenberth's role as the IPCC's Lead Author responsible for preparing the text on hurricanes, his public statements so far outside of current scientific understanding led me to concern that it would be very difficult for the IPCC process to proceed objectively with regards to the assessment on hurricane activity. My view is that when people identify themselves as being associated with the IPCC and then make pronouncements far outside current sc ientific understandings that this will harm the credibility of climate change science and will in the longer term diminish our role in public policy.

My concerns go beyond the actions of Dr. Trenberth and his colleagues to how he and other IPCC officials responded to my concerns. I did caution Dr. Trenberth before the media event and provided him a summary of the current understanding within the hurricane research community. I was disappointed when the IPCC leadership dismissed my concerns when I brought up the misrepresentation of climate science while invoking the authority of the IPCC. Specifically, the IPCC leadership said that Dr. Trenberth was speaking as an individual even though he was introduced in the press conference as an IPCC lead auth or; I was told that that the media was exaggerating or misrepresenting his words, even though the audio from the press conference and interview tells a different story (available on the web directly); and that Dr. Trenberth was accurately reflecting conclusions from the TAR, even though it is quite clear that the TAR stated that there was no connection between global warming and hurricane activity. The IPCC leadership saw nothing to be concerned with in Dr. Trenberth's unfounded pronouncements to the media, despite his supposedly impartial important role that he must undertake as a Lead Author on the upcoming AR4.

It is certainly true that "individual scientists can do what they wish in their own rights", as one of the folks in the IPCC leadership suggested. Differing conclusions and robust debates are certainly crucial to progress in climate science. However, this case is not an honest scientific discussion conducted at a meeting of climate researchers. Instead, a scientist with an important role in the IPCC represented himself as a Lead Author for the IPCC has used that position to promulgate to the media and general public his own opinion that the busy 2004 hurricane season was caused by global warming, whic h is in direct opposition to research written in the field and is counter to conclusions in the TAR. This becomes problematic when I am then asked to provide the draft about observed hurricane activity variations for the AR4 with, ironically, Dr. Trenberth as the Lead Author for this chapter. Because of Dr. Trenberth's pronouncements, the IPCC process on our assessment of these crucial extreme events in our climate system has been subverted and compromised, its neutrality lost. While no one can "tell" scientists what to say or not say (nor am I suggesting that), the IPCC did select Dr. Trenberth as a Lead Author and entrusted to him to carry out this duty in a non-biased, neutral point of view. When scientists hold press conferences and speak with the media, much care is needed not to reflect poorly upon the IPCC. It is of more than passing interest to note that Dr. Trenberth, while eager to share his views on global warming and hurricanes with the media, declined to do so at the Cl imate Variability and Change Conference in January where he made several presentations. Perhaps he was concerned that such speculation---though worthy in his mind of public pronouncements---would not stand up to the scrutiny of fellow climate scientists.

I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound. As the IPCC leadership has seen no wrong in Dr. Trenberth's actions and have retained him as a Lead Author for the AR4, I have decided to no longer participate in the IPCC AR4.

Sincerely,
Chris Landsea
17 January 2005
On Revisiting the climate-science funding question posted 1 year, 9 months ago 48 Responses

Suggestion for Steven Earl Salmony

I notice that you pop-up on many blogs around us, and I admire your persistence.
However, you don't seem to get many responses, I guess for several reasons.

One is that it tends to be off topic
Another is, that although many sympathise with your message, I think it is bewilderingly too difficult for the audience you are addressing.
Another is that I don't recall you suggesting what might be doable and useful.

What is your audience supposed to do here with your latest shout below?

OVERPOPULATION ISSUE OVERLOOKED BY PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES

I think you might do better at a broader Greenie website, where climate change is a lesser subject of debate.  For example, try GREEN OPTIONS and their associated sites

Several of us have mentioned the need for action to relieve the suffering of many millions in Africa as a much more important issue than the hysteria on AGW, and one such lengthy post directed to you was ignored by you in that part.  Incidentally, such improvements would likely eventually reduce the birth-rate

So what is your recommendation for Africa?
Let AIDS really take over and reduce the population?
Send the CIA in and assassinate the Pope, then make a profit selling condoms?

But as I say this is not the best venue to discuss these thingsOn AGU releases position statement on climate change posted 1 year, 9 months ago 62 Responses

The boundless wisdom of Jo'

Josullivan
Sorry jo' there has been so-much insult flying our way that I did not remember your words precisely.  In response to the infinite wisdom of David Roberts, who cautions on things like "don't feed the trolls", you actually wrote something to the same effect:

"Its also fun to taunt them, and its not like the NFL where you can draw a penalty for it!"

I take it that you agree with the rest of my post including that the MS Works dictionary defines YOU as a TROLL?
On AGU releases position statement on climate change posted 1 year, 10 months ago 62 Responses

The boundless wisdom of Jo'

Josullivan

Sorry jo' there has been so-much insult flying our way that I did not remember your words precisely.  In response to the infinite wisdom of David Roberts, who cautions on things like "don't feed the trolls", you actually wrote something to the same effect:

"Its also fun to taunt them, and its not like the NFL where you can draw a penalty for it!"

I take it that you agree with the rest of my post including that the MS Works dictionary defines YOU as a TROLL? On Climate skeptics blame the sun for global warming posted 1 year, 10 months ago 45 Responses

Hardcore Porn'

Dr Dessler;   I'm rather surprised for several reasons, that in your lead article, you wrote:

"For more on the problem of the upper troposphere, see this RealClimate post. (See also Ray Pierrehumbert's dissection of Courtillot's theory here and here)."

REASON 1)   As a scientist, you should be aware that Michael Mann and his supporters were the instigators of the RealClimate website.  You should also be aware that Mann et al were the inventors of the infamous hockey-stick, which being manna to the IPCC was clarioned in every nook and cranny of the various 2001 report sections, and at podia etc.
However, as you know, the hockey-stick has since been shown to be either scientific fraud or grossly incompetent or both, despite Mann et al's vigorous and long defence of it on said website.  The long sad story of denial was closed by the IPCC expunging that 2001 warhorse for their 2007 report, for obvious reasons.
So these are the guys together with extremist colleagues such as Ray Pierrehumbert that run that fountain of wisdom that you recommend.  
For another position statement from a mainstream "believer" perspective, here is what Jeff McIntyre Strasburg, the editor in chief of Green Options website has had to say:
"...RealClimate, the blog for anyone interested in hardcore climate science, also presents..."
Do you get the word hardcore?

REASON 2)  The references you make show a bunch of scientists in open disagreement.  What were you saying earlier about everyone agreeing on the science?  

REASON 3)  Carrying on from 2) You fail to mention the 5 year programme under-way at CERN, where over 50 scientists apparently do not share your views.  CERN, an international organisation that has actually agreed on something, is making a big investment to confirm Svensmark's indicative results from his cellar concerning cosmic rays which are indirectly regulated on Earth by one of the activities of the Sun.

Quote CERN:  The collaboration comprises an interdisciplinary team from 18 institutes and 9 countries in Europe, the United States and Russia. It brings together atmospheric physicists, solar physicists, and cosmic ray and particle physicists to address a key question in the understanding of clouds and climate change. "The experiment has attracted the leading aerosol, cloud and solar-terrestrial physicists from Europe; Austria, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Switzerland and the United Kingdom are especially strong in this area"

Oh dear, I can hear the collective sigh;  we don't want to hear any good news from CERNOn Climate skeptics blame the sun for global warming posted 1 year, 10 months ago 45 Responses

Remember the Lead Article?

Dr Dessler claimed that Prof. Chris Castro has been falsely included in the Inhofe 400 list, and is not a skeptic.  However, if you check the following posts, and read them with an open mind, you should be able to see that the wise doctor has misrepresented Professor Castro.

BlckWallaby at 8:47 PM on 11 Jan 2008

Nucbuddy at 10:23 PM on 14 Jan 2008

nomahalo at 6:27 PM on 29 Jan 2008

Perhaps Andrew and his followers cannot comprehend that a belief system may be graded anywhere between black and white.    The professor and many of us so called skeptics, are clearly of the grey variety.  That is to say, that we are aware that CO2 absorbs long-wave radiation, but that it is only a tiny part of the total "climate thermostat" including massively more water in its three phases, and massive heat transfer from the tropics pole-wards etc.  Yes, CO2 may well have some warming effect, but there is only intuition based modelling and opinion to SUGGEST how much.

I'm also amused that some of us skeptics, are now being called trolls, which initially puzzled me after looking in my large 2007 English/Oz dictionary.   However, The MS Works dictionary now gives:

online false statement used as Internet lure: a carefully worded but incorrect statement that is designed to lure other Internet users into sending responses (informal)

Well, well, well, So Dr Andrew Dessler IS A TROLL.

His statements in the lead article are false, and designed to make people respond.  

Of course his rules for response, and those of his true believers, are not the norm for a blog.  Just jeer, dismiss, or ignore, if you don't think you can win the debate.

Keep it up guys, put aside anything that shows softer evidence for things being not as bad as you hope they are On Today: Christopher Castro posted 1 year, 10 months ago 68 Responses

Where is the evidence?

For Dr Dessler,

Further to my post above reminding you of unanswered comments, on YOUR self initiated blogs, inviting discussion, here is an example from another blog http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/12/21/112933/48 which is one of many, from multiple authors, which you have ignored:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Reur response to Jabailo, who was seeking your expertise to recommend the three best papers linking CO2 to the current warming:
Because this is "your area", you should have such info right at your fingertips. Thus it is arrogant and/or at best unhelpful to retort; go read the 1,600 page IPCC report. (WG1). I would have thought you would be pleased to roll-off the evidence to him.
I have previously read most of WG1 and cannot find the answer to Jabailo's question either; "where is the evidence?" There are some correlations, intuitive statements, and assumptive models etc, but so what? Where is the actual evidence? Muana Loa CO2 data shows a crude correlation with T, but probably the consumption of hamburgers or some other consumable shows a correlation too. So what? Why be so arrogant and unhelpful about it?   Black Wallaby
On Today: George Waldenberger posted 1 year, 10 months ago 52 Responses

Fat priorities

Hi Andrew,
I really like your analogy, but like most analogies, I think it is incomplete.  We also need to assess many other issues in this world, in terms of their current and potential impacts.  Breaking that down a bit, we need to know comparative levels of human suffering, risk, and cost effectiveness to fix or prevent.

The worst thing that could happen to Earth's biology is if a big chunk of rock came our way, and, for humans, the worst would be an unstoppable pandemic disease.  However, the risk levels are not advertised to be high, so there does not seem to be much activity in this area, or any deliberate attempts to scare the pants off the public, including their little kids.

There are MILLIONS of people CURRENTLY experiencing appalling suffering in Africa, and the NGO's simply cannot cope.  Meanwhile, trillions of dollars are spent on a bogus war in that other small country with large oil reserves. (and resulting in yet more increased human suffering and wanting for revenge etc!).  Just a fraction of this expenditure could be spent on providing AIDS medication and clean drinking water in Africa.  (and also reducing resentment of the "West")  The "West's" governmental neglect is just......well, I can't find the word. (it is also stupidly short-sighted!)

In an earlier blog of yours, you expressed sympathy with part of this issue to Max Manacker

Of course, one of the greatest threats to our comforts in the developed world is "peak oil", and some of the measures proposed for CO2 reduction are helpful there, but they are currently not a solution.  

My other area of concern in your analogy is that human obesity has a testable cause beyond that of the "addiction" itself.  It can be proved...reduce the food intake and obesity is reduced.   However, the assumption of disastrous AGW, is only an un-testable intuitively assessed risk.  Whilst many of us skeptics agree that there may well be a small CO2 contribution in AGW, we also believe that the MWP was warmer than it is today.  We also know that regional civilization collapses over recent millennia, and even as little as ~500 years ago, have been entirely or partially associated with regional climate change.  

Finally, to reiterate, we believe that the real priorities lie elsewhere.  
On The parallels between accepting obesity and ignoring global warming posted 1 year, 10 months ago 71 Responses

For Dr Dessler, Please respond

At your earlier blog, Manacker, Chris Schoneveld, and Black Wallaby would appreciate your responses to our various posts @
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/12/21/112933/48  Here is one of mine that you seem to have overlooked.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Getting back to the lead article, Dr. Dessler has his own very elitist opinion on who may or may not be qualified to comment on the IPCC's 2007 report.
However, let's consider the simplest basics in that report:

1.    A small subgroup of the IPCC authors summarized to policymakers, that THEY THINK there is a 90% probability that there is significant human influence within the current global warming. (This amounts to an admission that they could be wrong in their estimation....in the other arbitrary 10%.)

2.    Detailed reading of the IPCC report with its many contributions from the many sciences such as glaciology, mixed paeleo-sciences, oceanography, etc, indicate a wide scope of regional warmings, past and present, but there is no direct indicator as to the cause in each case. (There is BTW, a dearth of historians and archaeologists)

3.    Computer models are employed to try and pin-it on CO2, based on an array of assumptions, some of which the IPCC admits to carrying a low level of understanding. Against this it is useful to remember that meteorologists use much simpler and less assumptive computer models which are not famous for being reliable beyond days. Thus a useful and worrying comparison can be made to the IPCC ambitions.

So here are just three points, but dozens more could be made.
Surely! It only takes a modicum of analytical ability from say a chemist, chess player or engineer, whomever, to see that there is rather doubtful reliability in the IPCC claims? Anyone technically capable: such as geologist and economist; Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick who looked at the finer detail, soon proved discrepancies, and even apparent fraud in the IPCC.
No Dr. Dessler, you are wrong to emphasize elitism. You should be encouraging cross fertilization of ideas. That way you might be able to understand all of the IPCC report rather than just your chosen very narrow specialty!
On Today: Christopher Castro posted 1 year, 10 months ago 68 Responses