Bishop Hill Climatology's nutcracker
May 14, 2013 Climate: Sceptics Climate: WG2 Climate: WG3 Climate: other I hadn't seen this video before, but I'm surprised I missed it - it's great fun - a completely absurd ballet featuring Roy Spencer and Gavin Schmidt.
The overture to the John Stossel show features a short interview with Spencer. Next up is Gavin Schmidt, but unfortunately Gavin is refusing to appear alongside Roy. Roy is therefore forced to pirouette off, stage left. Gavin enters and performs his pas de deux with Stossel, with much rolling of the eyes and bras croisé. After Gavin has pliéd and demi detournéd a little, Roy is invited to respond, but Gavin is still playing hard to get: he in turn makes a grand battement and flounces off into the wings, to be replaced by a slightly bemused looking Roy.
Don't miss it.
Oh yes, and the show closes with an interview with Matt Ridley, which is also well worth a look.
Reader Comments (80)
this sentence from EM made me laugh:
As someone once said, this isn't even wrong.
Ah answered my own question
http://scienceblogs.com/principles/2009/08/10/pnas-james-annan-climate-chang/
2) What is your science background?
Maths degree and DPhil, both from Oxford University.
Entropic Man parrots NASA's dodge of *truncating* tide gauge data in the satellite era to imply a rate change where none exists in recent tide gauge data whatsoever, as I point out in a single glance, here:
http://s23.postimg.org/kp51w8n2j/image.jpg
NikFromNYC
Nice propoganda graph!
It says that tide guages read relative to the shore and implies that the shore is at a constant height. Not so.
Shorelines have been recovering from the weight of the ice sheets grown during the last glacial period. New York is sinking at about 3mm/yr as Canada rises. Northern Ireland also rises. I could show you a beach dating from 10,000 years ago, now 3 metres above sea level. Tide guage readings have to be corrected for postglacial rebound, subsidence and other vertical movements.
Satellites measure sea levels relative to GPS coordinates, which are not subject to local variations with time.
I also note that your propoganda graph cuts off in early 2011 and does not show the increased rate of rise since then.
@Entropic Man
gauge propaganda
EM
What recent increase?
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/content/2012rel4-global-mean-sea-level-time-series-seasonal-signals-retained
SandyS
It shows more clearly with the seasonal signals removed.
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
"What has oratory to do with it?
In human-centred political debate it is accepted that the best orator often wins, regardless of the quality of the respective arguments.
In universe-centred science the best evidence wins since the universe cares not one whit about oratory."
May 15, 2013 at 12:47 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic Man
Huh? The event was not a formal debate so Schmidt's pointed refusal to remain in the presence of Spencer was gauche and uncouth. Does Entropic truly think that Dr, Schmidt scored some audience points with his behavior?
And just WTF is "universe-centred science"? Is that like post normal science?
My thoughts exactly. It was news to me as well, the likes of Faraday must be turning in their graves.
And this Gavin is one of their cheer-leaders? No wonder the whole thing is falling apart at the seams.
EM
You mean this one which doesn't show an increase either?
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/content/2012rel4-global-mean-sea-level-time-series-seasonal-signals-removed
EM
Steve Goddard has found the report you're talking about, it's located here.
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/42670789?searchTerm=arctic%20glacier%20melt&searchLimits=
Gavin in a tutu in the wings - a nice cartoon for Josh.
I suppose that there has to be a reason that people like Piers Morgan, Gavin Schmidt, Lewandowsky, and that D. Miliband Esq. keep on getting exported.
SandyS
Your graph goes partway through 2012. The link I gave you goes to 20th April 2013.
Thanks to John Stossel the American public had more access to non-alarmist climate science.
EM
Don't you think taking 6 months data is cherry picking of the highest order? There is nothing unusual in the last 6 months historically?
Such a ridiculous bunch of nonsense by Spencer and the host on the point that reducing carbon emissions will somehow hurt the poor. It's absolutely incredible that people like Spencer can make a huge mountain out of the supposed uncertainty of GHG's on current climatic changes and then turn right around and say with such certainty that reducing emissions will categorically harm the poor. Unbelievable nonsense, especially coming from Fox "News".
Jim - Please can you support your objection to the reduction of carbon emissions hurting the poor? I don't see your logic and your ad hom against Dr Spencer isn't an argument.
Jim Bouldin
When it comes to a 'ridiculous bunch of nonsense' you should reflect on what you've just posted. Where is the 'supposed' in the uncertainty of GHG's on current climatic changes? Whereas, we already know the impact of high energy costs on the poor - just look at the state of low-income pensioners struggling to cope with current energy prices, which our clueless politicians want to inflate further to subsidise their windfarm fixation. Or perhaps you think the poor actually benefit from expensive energy?
not banned yet:
Yes I can defend it, but since the onus is on Spencer and the Fox host to defend their original assertions, I suggest you take it up with them. Nor do I feel compelled to write a lengthy defensive of my views on a website where people have a highly biased viewpoint on these topics, and are therefore unlikely to receive it objectively anyway. And for the 1000th time, calling something someone said "nonsense" is NOT an ad hominem attack, no matter who says it is.
DaveS: Don't give me the "it hurts the poor" argument; crocodile tears if ever there were such. I don't believe it for a second. And I'm not really all that interested in the ins and outs of wind farms in the UK, except to say, the more the better.
Junk from Jim. Time to type non informative verbiage without content, but not able to put an argument together to defend something he says he could defend but doesn't want to. Sounds familiar. Guess he thinks Gav was an ace in the vid.
Jim,
Goodness me. Dave makes a point about low income pensioners struggling to cope with current (and rising, I might add) energy prices and you respond with "Crocodile tears" and "I don't believe it for a second"
You must be a wealthy man indeed if you have not felt any impact from rising energy prices. I, personally, can vouch for the fact that this past winter was bloody awful since we have simply been unable to afford to have the central heating on at comfortable levels. Expensive energy is a key plank of the insane green energy policy, and it is already hurting. You, sir, are a fool or a charlatan if you do not believe that.
You know, Jim, I thought your name was familiar.
So I google you, and see that you are lobbing your arrogant and ill-informed "crocodile tears" comments to the UK from where, Davis, near Sacremento in California? And you're what? A comfortably middle-class academic at the University of California?
You have got no idea at all, have you, what the poor and not-so-poor in the UK have had to endure thanks to the policies you so enthusiastically support in the name of "saving the planet"?
[Snip - calm down.]
@Jim Bouldin
Do you really mean that? So can we now discount anything you might say about mitigating CO2 emissions in order to save lives? This remark of yours gives the impression that you do not care about human beings.
"DaveS: Don't give me the "it hurts the poor" argument; crocodile tears if ever there were such. I don't believe it for a second. And I'm not really all that interested in the ins and outs of wind farms in the UK, except to say, the more the better."
He doesn't care about the poor and wants more wind arms is clearly the summary of this statement.
If this is the same John Stossel who wrote this powerful and well-informed article on climate back in 2007 (http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=3751219&page=1#.UZdUP0pXpU0), then I am not surprised that he was able to expose Schmidt as an ignorant, ill-mannered bumpkin.
So, global warming is a problem because we don't expect climate to change and plan our ag and cities around it not changing? Maybe, we should expect the climate to change.
I agree with you james p. I guess some people really do not meet our expectations of them. All is well for me though,
I have contempt for Hansen, his sidekick Schmidt and Schmidt's little gang of street punks at Realclimate.The reason is that they aren't lead by the results, the scientific method, or even rationality. They are driven by an emotional attachment to an environmental cult in which they are steeped to the exclusion of other points of view.
They are drowning in contempt and hatred for mass consumption and the masses. Their desire is to bring capitalism to its knees. Hansen endorsed Keith Farnish's book calling for terrorism against industry and Monbiot supported the destruction of mine equipment in Scotland.
I attended Green Party meetings in Glasgow. with my g/f. One day she told me it was disgusting food was so cheap. When I asked what the poor should eat. She replied 'less'.
She represented the Scottish Green party at a global conference in Germany and even she was shocked by what she heard.
I pretty quickly cottoned on I wasn't dealing with the extreme left, but the extreme right.Everything about the history of the ecology movement tells you that. The presence of the vultures of the Goldsmith family are a very good indication of which way the wind is blowing.
Gavin Schmidt, and his ClimateGate co-conspirators, are the embodiment of the colloquial term: "prick."
Arrogant, authoritarian, dictatorial.
You want your life to be controlled by this clique of haters?