Bishop Hill Gary Yohe's fictional citation
Aug 14, 2015 Climate: WG2 
It is...irresponsible to ignore the preponderance of evidence on floods, extreme precipitation events (and if it is winter, these are snow storms), wildfires, etc. These were anticipated to occur as the climate changes. They have occurred around the world (U.S., Russia, Indonesia, Japan, Argentina, etc..), and they are getting worse and more frequent[2].
The quote is from famous environmental economist Gary Yohe, writing at Climate Feedback, a site where climate scientists rate media articles on their scientific content. Yohe was writing about a Bjorn Lomborg piece.
Yohe's citation is to the detection and attribution chapter of AR5, which is, on the face of it, a bizarre thing given that there are whole chapters in the IPCC about observations of the climate. Intrigued, I looked at the chapter cited.
Here is what it said about floods:
River floods, defined as impacts caused by the overtopping of river banks and levées, have shown statistically significant increasing and decreasing trends in some regions. The role of climate change in these changes is uncertain, as they may reflect decadal climate variability and be affected by other confounding factors such as human alteration of river channels and land use.
And here's what it said about heavy rainfall.
In regions with detected increases in heavy rainfall events (North America, Europe), both increases and decreases in floods have been found (medium confidence in detection; Petrow and Merz, 2009; Villarini et al., 2009). In the UK, flood risk has increased due to anthropogenic forcing for events comparable to the 2000 floods (Kay et al., 2011; Pall et al., 2011; see also Section 18.4.3).
A "preponderance of evidence" eh? What is about climate scientists that makes them think that nobody is ever going to check their citations?
Bishop Hill
Reader Howard Goodall points out that, very hilariously, Yohe was the coordinating lead author of the chapter concerned.
Which means he must have known that it didn't support the claim he was making at Climate Feedback.
Reader Comments (62)
Which means he must have known that it didn't support the claim he was making at Climate Feedback.
Who needs proof when you have 'models '?
Besides its all about the 'headlines' not the facts , and once again it is worth remembering that poor professional and personal [* behaviour*] is the norm for this area , not the exception.
{* * added by BH for clarification]
"The preponderance of evidence I have caused my brain to imagine."
Another case of knowing misrepresentation by another senior IPCC author. Made worse by the fact that AR5 came after the SREX, which also rebutted his comments. The warmunist desperarion is palpable.
They make it up as they go along. What's different here?
Another example of climatism affecting obscure universities with little else to claim for themselves
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesleyan_University#Notable_alumni_and_faculty
Lot of folks highly unlikely to be motivated to question the hype:-
COP21
and that is just the very, very small tip of a very, very large iceberg!
Is Climate Change Now Its Own Industry?
"It is...irresponsible to ignore the preponderance of evidence on floods, extreme precipitation events (and if it is winter, these are snow storms), wildfires, etc."
Well, so it is. So either get out of there early or build up protection rather than thieve peoples money to pay your lifestyle.
Somerset Levels
Cockermouth
Lynton and Lynmouth
Essex
Norfolk Coast
Governments...why not take care of your people. You know, that duty of care thing?
In answer to your question Your Grace, is arrogance, & the genuine belief that everyone else is so stupid that, no, nobody actually would check! Who's the stupid one now?
If you exclude these as possible explanations: stupidity, ignorance, venality, carelessness; what have you left? One possibility is that such people, and there seems to be a few of them, live in such a vivid mental world of their fearful imaginings that it becomes the primary source of their motivations and reasoning. So 'reasoning' back from some supposed calamity to come, the poor brain comes up with the evidence, and suitable sentences to express it, as required. If company is only kept with similarly afflicted, and/or very unperceptive, sympathisers, then the ball starts rolling and behold a new essay is produced, or a report, or a remark to the press, and so on. Face-validity (as the jargon goes) is tested by comparison with the imagined world rather than the real one. Such people should perhaps be seen as primarily victims of the climate scare/panic.
Or hen thought that with the weakly "preponderance of evidence" it is safe to go back into the water, so yo say.
Gary Yohe is a BS artist - excellent that he's called out here - but I think calling him out somewhere more public in a somewhat more confrontational way would be good - he needs it ... along with others of his ilk who make a career trading on their status to spout egregious BS - like say David King.
@John Shade - Gary Yohe (and others) as victims? Victim is a much devalued word I reckon - my version of victim is somebody who's suffered misfortune inflicted by happenstance or malign design. This guy is actually a liar attempting to push his untruths onto the general population and particularly people in positions of influence - deluded he might be - but an unscupulous climate bandit nonetheless - undeserving of the sympathy that accrues usually to victims.
When one 'authors' an IPCC article; and reads it through (many times, one assumes), it is a sad conclusion that, having no memory of what has been written and read, one is considered to be suffering from dementia. Shame, really. Yohe should be excused from being round any sharp objects, pens included.
This stuff just writes itself.
http://chriswoodside.com/wesleyan-universitys-gary-yohe-carbon-costs-media-and-not-looking-silly
We've been Yohed
That is, told to believe a falsehood for our own good.
A bit like "don't eat the yellow snow", or ....
My god, glad I had my house here in france treated for worms. There are sooo many of them coming out of the woodwork elsewhere that one needs protection.
Yohe was the coordinating lead author of the chapter concerned.
Which means he must have known that it didn't support the claim he was making at Climate Feedback.
Surely the Good Bishop can't be suggesting that climate scientists "speak with forked tongues" as the "Red Indians" used to say in old black and white Westerns?
Over the years, I've noticed quite a lot of this sort of stuff from climate scientists.
At first they seem to be contradicting the science – even their own papers – until you read them carefully under a different light, and with a different perspective. You also have to carefully analyse what these scientists actually say elsewhere, outside the literature.
Media articles written by scientists are not learned, academic papers – nor do they pretend to be. In climate science, the reasons they are written are probably very diverse, ranging from pure hubris to ill-disguised attempts to secure future funding. If you can imagine it, someone, somewhere is doing it, and scientists are no exception.
But I've noticed that scientists who come out with this sort of thing will invariably be on record as having said, "The evidence is all in the peer-reviewed literature" or "You should refer the the academic journals." These statements should not be mistaken for mere point-scoring in an argument, but rather as part of a CYA operation.
The impression they give is that the academic papers support what they're saying. But what they're actually saying is, "Read the academic literature – all the facts are there" (which might well be correct), while saying something contradictory elsewhere. If challenged in the future they can honestly claim that "I've always said you must read the literature."
This may sound overly cynical to some, but after years of "climate scientist watching", it's hard to reach a more charitable conclusion.
"The conference is expected to attract close to 50,000 participants including 25,000 official delegates from government, intergovernmental organisations, UN agencies, NGOs and civil society......" presumably from all over the world. If "carbon footprints" were black, the whole town of Paris will be covered in black.
"Preponderance of the Evidence" is a legal term. It means more likely than not. So it can be described as 51% likely. It does seem to describe the "medium confidence" criterion.
"Preponderance of the Evidence" is a legal term. It means more likely than not. So it can be described as 51% likely. It does seem to describe the "medium confidence" criterion.
Just to add that the "Preponderance of the Evidence" criterion does not mean that a legal case has to be convincing. "Convincing" is a higher standard of proof. For "Preponderance of the Evidence", there just has to be more evidence on one side than the other.
I live in hope that, maybe one of these days, these morons will realise that it's just weather.
Has any climate scientist ever admitted anything wrong with anything they have ever written, published or cited before?
It is almost like reading political manifestos.
I wonder why they think no one trusts them
Jack Dawkins, you are not being cynical enough. I agree with what you say, except the bit
I would say "Yes they DO pretend to be so deceptive, in their intentions."
Many really DO want their audience, the MSM journalist or man/woman on the street, to think that the learned, academic papers say what they are saying in the press release. They often believe it themselves, even though they probably know they cannot get away with saying it in truly independently 'peer reviewed' literature.
Other researchers in other disciplines also hype their own work (but usually aren't asking for $multi-trillion changes to the world economy). This also happens with people who spurt advertising for nutraceutical products and investment scams, but they are often regulated by law.
I'm not trying to make a case here for either more, or less, regulation of hucksters. Just that they should be recognised for what they are.
When I was a boy, If I told porkies I would be taken behind the woodshed and have a switch laid swiftly and vigorously on my bare bottom.
Did these academic liars never get a similar treatment for fibbing when they were being raised?
Proper correction in childhhood might have saved the world a lot of worry and avoided spending trillions of whatever currency one can think of.
Alexander K,
The parents of these folks gave them gold stars for their creativity.
Now parents can get jail time for that woodshed and switch thing.
Unlike most folks, I do still have a wood shed and lots of branches about but no one to use them on.
Aug 14, 2015 at 5:34 PM | Ex-expat Colin
==============================================
The Levels used to be well-protected until the EA got involved. Now any problems there are caused by climate change, rather than QUANGO negligence.
This quote is from Alan Reed's link [above]:
" Yohe sees evidence that reporters better understand the difference between covering politics and opinions and covering scientific consensus."
Nope, from what I observe it is the so called "scientific consensus" who are always conflating, melding political opinion and the hypothesizing of climate science ["science" read "statistics" and such as it is].
Imho, this bloke has so convinced himself that he's right and yet he can only talk in terms of, "role of climate change in these changes is uncertain,"
And, "medium confidence in detection"
So, which is it YOYO? Or, is it that what you utter............................... does it depend on, just who you're trying to convince?
Good article here:
http://notasheepmaybeagoat.blogspot.co.uk/2015/08/awfully-wet-isnt-it.html
Gary Yohe. Who He, Ed.
You're 'aving a larf Bish, that's Rodders with a bad toupee plonked on his bonce.
Pointman
Youe's a liar?
When was Yohe's analysis ? The only date on that page is 10/02/2015 the day Lomborg published his original article
- Secondly I see Yohe's page like much alarmist material doesn't permit open comments.
(context matters)
It doesn't matter why Gary Yohe is a liar. It matters that he is a liar.
When IPCC could not find an overall increase in floods, droughts (etc) they used the weasel words "in some regions". Of course, with the natural fluctuations in climate, "some regions" will show increases and some decreases in anything you care to measure over a few decades period. It is the same problem as taking a small neighborhood and "finding" a cancer cluster while ignoring that the next neighborhood has a cancer deficit. For forest dieback they admit that there is no baseline data but still show pictures of dying trees.
Athelstan, so he gets his scientific understanding from the propaganda spread by Revkin, who gets his propaganda from .....?
Isn't it wonderful how climate science works.
No wonder the Mann v Steyn case has been dragged out. Does climate science have a specific date, prior to which it must not be "resolved"?
Does climate science have a specific date, prior to which it must not be "resolved"?
golf charlie, I think the meeting in Paris at the end of the year might just be the pivot point. If they don't get an agreement there all hell could break loose.
"Which means he must have known that it didn't support the claim he was making at Climate Feedback."
Which means he is a lying bast***d.
Is the collective noun for alarmists a 'preponderance' ?
OT:
Am I the only person noticing that the BH weblog is not anymore what it was like 2-3 years ago? Less investigation and mostly concentrated on comments on current affairs.
I think you're all holding the climate scientists to too high a standard.
Think about it. You're about to choose your degree speciality at Uni.
Do you want to a) Cure cancer
b) Discover a new, cheap, clean source of energy
c) Get in on the ground floor of a field where you are never going to be proved wrong, you can do just what you want with the evidence, nobody expect results, and the money rolls in like there is no tomorrow. Oh, yes, and it is practically certain to keep going at least until you retire.
Think about the sort of people who choose (c), as opposed to those who choose (a) and (b).
You are expecting far too much of them.
He looks oddly relaxed considering the apocalypse is coming.
Hoi Polloi, if you have any idea how to investigate anything to do with climate science, I think I may not be the only one interested.
Unfortunately, the Main Stream Media do not seem interested either (apart from a few brave individuals) and the BBC seem intent on destroying the credibility of impartiality.
No one wants to rock the boat before Paris. I would suggest the boat is rocked, and parked in the Marianas Trench, unless anyone knows anywhere deeper.
Gary Yohe has been there from the start and is co-editor of the IPCC house journal, Climatic Change
Co- Editors:
Michael Oppenheimer, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, USA; Gary Yohe, Wesleyan University, Middletown, CT, USA
Founding Editor: Stephen H. Schneider
Managing editors, includes Michael Mastrandrea co-chair of WGII
http://www.springer.com/earth+sciences+and+geography/atmospheric+sciences/journal/10584?detailsPage=editorialBoard
Deputy editors includes Naomi Oreskes,
Editorial board includes Peter Gleick, Phil Jones, Diane Liverman, Ben Santer, van Ypersele, (looking to become Pachauri's successor at IPCC), Richard Moss, WWF and IPCC, John Schellnhuber, climate scientist to the Pope, Tom Karl, and a whole host of IPCC authors and fellow travellers.
The entire issue of 'climate change' is about people in responsible positions acting in bad faith, so this BH post absolutely is relevant.
Jack Haye, the entire issue has been about naive politicians being persuaded/blackmaile into creating reponsible positions, which have been filled by clueless irresponsible idiots working to another agenda.
The quote from denissa above, illustrates what a closed circle of friends it all is. It makes the corruption of the mafia, masons, 'old school tie' network, etc seem like amateurs.
James Bond film scripts often feature the preposterous idea of an evil Mr Big, trying to destroy civilization, to remake it, in his own twisted logic. In real life, we have climate scientists trying to destroy civilization, and return the world to subsistence agriculture, and they don't seem to care how deceitful their methods are. This is just further evidence of their complete lack of eveidence. If it was so obvious, why lie?
Golf Charlie:
Lying in climate “science”, it seems, is allowed, if it gets you what you want.hoi polloi
I might have referred to the same thing but this has nothing to do with the BH blog. The whole AGW/CAGW debate has sort of passed through the phase where claims could be challenged meaningfully and questions would matter. Now it's like what Judith Curry says w.r.t, the Karl et al paper - simply depressing.
I don't think climate scientists care about what their critics have to say.
>> Now it's like what Judith Curry says w.r.t, the Karl et al paper - simply depressing. <<
So no more need for actions such as the brilliant and acutely forensic take-down of Pachauri's web of income and influence undertaken by Richard North a few years ago?
Is (say) Deben just too ultimately dull and low-rent to put the effort into?
Probably.
Isn't it strange that Yohe's comment directly contradicts the WG1 report? These guys just don't care about accuracy as long as they can get a worrying message out to the public, aided and abetted by shills such as ATTP.