Berkley Earth Project - urgent rebuttal needed from resident climate science experts

[BlasterBates]

Not news.



IPCC AR4, 2007

IPCC's conclusion is that most of the warming is probably anthropogenic. There will always be uncertainties, dishonestly exaggerated by inactivists .....

I think we can take the IPCC conclusions with a pinch of salt.

Here is Professor Judith Curry's view of the IPCC, who as you know contributed to the BEST project:

I already feel duped by the IPCC (I’ve written about this previously), I am glad that I was not personally used by the IPCC.
.
Does the problems with the IPCC mean that WG1 science is incorrect? Not necessarily, but I agree that a “new trial” is needed. WG2 and WG3 reports pretty much belong in the dustbin, as far as I can tell.


I regret that so much of our intellectual horsepower and research funding has gone into supporting the IPCC assessments.

Laframboise on the IPCC | Climate Etc.

[BlasterBates]

SciAm.

Faced with the torrent of bulltulipe from the 'sceptics' I might also be inclined to assume a fortress mentality.....

I think her blog is very explicit on her view on the IPCC, and it's there for all to read. What makes you think a 3rd party know's her view better than her?

You're not in denial are you?

[BlasterBates]

That's right, Scientific American has substantially misrepresented her views, and in the comments to that article she took them to task... Oh no, the very first comment is from the lady herself and she does not dissent, hardly surprising, as the piece is balanced and supported by the evidence.

There's a lesson right there .....

So are you saying therefore that what she writes on her blog doesn't represent her views?

You do realise that the blog I quoted is her own blog?



I think you've finally lost the plot.

As a matter of fact that the Scientific American is a year old, and Judith Curry changed her views when she realised after engaging with the sceptic community, that she'd been duped. I suggest you reread her blog.

I'm waiting for your rebuttal where you now discredit Judth Curry and the she can't possibly know her own views better than a jounalist.

Have you read the novel 1984 by George Orwell?

[BlasterBates]

No, I am saying the reality is more subtle than the cartoon you just drew, and her actual views are more nuanced than your one-liners are intended to convey.

So which of the opinions expressed at SciAm does she no longer subscribe to? Evidence please.

I just simply quoted her. She said she'd been duped, that means she believed the garbage the IPCC were dishing out in the past, which is why there's a discrepancy. I'm not saying Scientific American misrepresented her, but she's since realised that she was misled.

There is no question that the diagrams and accompanying text in the IPCC TAR, AR4 and WMO 1999 are misleading. I was misled. Upon considering the material presented in these reports, it did not occur to me that recent paleo data was not consistent with the historical record. The one statement in AR4 (put in after McIntyre’s insistence as a reviewer) that mentions the divergence problem is weak tea.

It is obvious that there has been deletion of adverse data in figures shown IPCC AR3 and AR4, and the 1999 WMO document. Not only is this misleading, but it is dishonest (I agree with Muller on this one). The authors defend themselves by stating that there has been no attempt to hide the divergence problem in the literature, and that the relevant paper was referenced. I infer then that there is something in the IPCC process or the authors’ interpretation of the IPCC process (i.e. don’t dilute the message) that corrupted the scientists into deleting the adverse data in these diagrams.

McIntyre’s analysis is sufficiently well documented that it is difficult to imagine that his analysis is incorrect in any significant way. If his analysis is incorrect, it should be refuted. I would like to know what the heck Mann, Briffa, Jones et al. were thinking when they did this and why they did this, and how they can defend this, although the emails provide pretty strong clues. Does the IPCC regard this as acceptable? I sure don’t.

You can read this here, that's the point she changed her mind:

Hiding the Decline | Climate Etc.

That was a few months after the article came out.

[pjclarke]

Well, that's one tiny aspect of one chapter of one section of the report, ouside her speciality, and its totally consistent with the SciAm summary. How many times have you recycled that soundbite now? The 1999 'hockey stick' is tangential to the policy debate and largely irrelevant in 2011. Guess who wrote this :-

In my opinion, scientific journals reporting on climate and IPCC would serve the interested public far better if they focused on articulating these issues [climate sensitivity] to the scientific public at a professional level than by repeatedly recycling and promoting some highly questionable proxy studies that deal with an issue that interests me, but which is somewhat tangential to the large policy issues

For a summary of Dr Curry's views, see this blog post . She is not a fan of the IPCC culture, but there really is not a lot of significant distance between her scientific views and the concensus.

And, at the end of the day, it's still just one blog (There are others ). There was no mention of IPCC 'corruption' in her Congressional testimony where she is constrained to make assertions that she can substantiate. Let's see you quote-mine that.

[Addanc]

Bollox. That's Nigel Lawson's GWPF making stuff up. The BEST team said nothing of the sort.

Go on, find the actual quote where the Berkeley team say all of the warming might be natural. Hint: it is based on the conditional and speculative part of the section on the AMO.

See link.

This is what Richard Muller (project co-founder) said in an interview with the Register:

Muller also cautions that observers should not take the BEST results and use them to prove something that they can't. When we asked him if it were possible to extrapolate from his team's results and predict whether the temperature increase will continue, he told us: "I don't think that is possible. The key issue is what fraction of the observed change is anthropomorphic. We don't shed much light on that."

Nobody denies that the climate changes; it has been both colder and hotter in the pasted; how much influence has man had on the climate change observed?

[d000hg]

pj, you and BB have been butting heads on this for ages without either conceding one jot. Let's assume you're right - why do you care so much that it becomes a personal crusade?

Same question to BB, I suppose.

[pjclarke]

Why - which post did you find particularly pursuasive?

I see just tired talking-points (Short trends, tabloid quotes, its the sun, its cosmic rays, its ocean currents) and fake experts (Morner, Easterbrook).

What am I missing?

[d000hg]

Why - which post did you find particularly pursuasive?

I see just tired talking-points (Short trends, tabloid quotes, its the sun, its cosmic rays, its ocean currents) and fake experts (Morner, Easterbrook).

What am I missing?

If you were responding to me then the question being asked, apparently.

[pjclarke]

Fair Point. In no particular order

- It's fun.

- It's an important topic, laying out the arguments for scrutiny is arguably of benefit (though I'm not under any illusions that any minds will be changed from the General board of an IT forum, still nonsense should be rebutted. DYOR) This thread is unusual, most of the AGW threads are started with one of the usual suspects posting the latest piece of tabloid/blog denier BS, and me or A. N Other protest that its BS and it goes from there. If the re-posting of WattsUpWithThat BS were to stop ....



- Apparently it's of some interest - despite the complaints of boredom, this thread has 788 hits.

- Displacement activity.

- I'm obsessed with the future of my planet.