Friday
Feb122010
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Lacis at Dot Earth
Feb 12, 2010 Climate: WG2 Andrew Lacis has thoughts on the wisdom or otherwise of his comments on IPCC WG2 Ch9 FOD (must be precise about what I'm talking about!) over at Dot Earth.
Reader Comments (5)
He appears to be trying to say that 'what you understood is not what I thought I was saying'. If his explanation is to be taken at face value, he's saying not that the IPCC summary was too political, but that it was not political enough! This just reinforces the fact that the IPCC is a political rather than science based report.
"Human-induced warming of the climate system is established fact". Where precisely is that fact established and what is the magnitude of the warming?
I commented on the original post on Lacis that his critique seemed to be on the language of the ES, not on the 'settled science'. I wont say I'm 'vindicated', just point out that he went to great pains in his latest to make sure everyone understood which side he's on. He apparently understood that the pols would become glassy-eyed by attempting to read the chapter-proper and rely on the ES. And get things wrong, thus be easily refutable.
Note that, in this article, he also did a CYA on the earth station record, presumably to counter the shenanigans regarding Oz stations and 'climate anomalies', not to mention the China record debacle.
But, in doing that, he brings up other 'not settled' issues such as the satellite records and increasing depth of the ocean thermocline as well as the increased altitude {'height'} of the tropopause. Tying all that, implicitly, into upper level Ozone depletion.
Which effects on global temps will become quite clear, here:
The Ozone Hole Is Mending. Now for the ‘But.’
- once you untangle your cognitive synapses, that is...
Was he fibbing when he made his crotique, that turned out to be correct, or is he fibbing now, when he retracts his critique?
Cumbrian Lad
"This just reinforces the fact that the IPCC is a political rather than science based report."
This is a denialist parody, right?
First a claim is taken as evidence for X. Then when the claim is shown to be false, that is taken as even stronger evidence for X.