Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« The Monsoon, variability & climate change - Cartoon sketchnotes by Josh | Main | The academy is broken »
Wednesday
Sep162015

Another Lew paper

Stefan Lewandowsky's latest paper is out today in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society and features none other than Naomi Oreskes as a co-author, with the scientific oomph coming from CSIRO's James Risbey. With a roster of authors like that I think it's fair to say that one knows what to expect.

The paper is about the pause in surface temperature rises and is an attempt to demonstrate that it doesn't exist. Not very interesting I hear you say. However, the paper is not without its moments of controversy. In particular, this paragraph jumped out at me.

...some researchers (albeit a minority) have taken the “pause” to imply that the climate system may be less sensitive to greenhouse gas emissions than previously thought (Lewis 2013; Otto et al. 2013; Curry 2014; Lewis and Curry 2014).

What is clear from this is that Lewandowsky and Oreskes don't understand the energy budget studies. As Nic Lewis has pointed out before, you would expect climate sensitivity estimates obtained this way to be unaffected by the pause:

In principle, the lack of warming over the last ten to fifteen years shouldn't really affect estimates of climate sensitivity, as a lower global surface temperature should be compensated for by more heat going into the ocean.

What is truly remarkable is that Lewandowsky et al have managed to read all of the four publications they cite without noticing that this stability with respect to the period under consideration is prominently discussed in them. In fact in Otto et al it was pretty much the whole point of the paper. In other words, the papers cited by them say precisely the opposite of what Lewandowky et al says they do. Otto et al had one diagram in it, which showed that you get low climate sensitivity no matter what end period is chosen. Indeed the ECS estimate based on a 2000s end period is higher than the one based on a 1990s end period.

The stability of the climate sensitivity estimate under different end periods is discussed in Lewis and Curry 2014:

[Otto et al.] yielded encouragingly stable estimates for ECS using final periods of 1980-89, 1990-99, 2000-09 and 1970-2009, with medians of 2.0 K when using 2000-09 data and 1.9 K otherwise.

And as for Lewis 2013, well that paper didn't even cover the pause:

We present results using the F06/SFZ08 five decade to 1995/96 surface diagnostic data so as to provide accurate comparisons with the F06 results. We also present results using a revised, extended surface diagnostic with correctly matched model and observational data for the six decades to 2001, using a nine decade climatology to 1991 to compute temperatures anomalies.

Curry 2014, the last of Lewandowsky's citations, is an editorial in the Wall Street Journal, which contains this:

...the estimates in [the] empirical studies are being borne out by the much-discussed “pause” or “hiatus” in global warming—the period since 1998 during which global average surface temperatures have not significantly increased.

Which again is not what Lewandowsky said she is claiming.

I conclude, therefore, that this part of the paper by Lewandowsky, Risbey and Oreskes is a complete fabrication.

 

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (57)

Risbey is turning into a serial publisher of climate papers discussing weather phenomena with the psychologist and the historian.

It has really become a cheap, cheap science.

http://www.marine.csiro.au/~ris009/pubs.html

Sep 16, 2015 at 10:32 AM | Registered Commenteromnologos

As Lewandowsky has a track record of ethical failures (from fabricating data by not sampling sceptic blogs to fabricating permission to study children) it is clear that anyone who collaborates with him is also unethical.

CSIRO's James Risbey has pretty much just confessed to faking data himself.
His work needs investigating. And I suggest CSIRO suspend him to stop the rot.

By their company you shall know them.

Sep 16, 2015 at 10:36 AM | Registered CommenterM Courtney

I look back fondly to the days when I didn't immediately recognise the first 2 pictures at the beginning of this piece! and no doubt soon the 3rd will become just as familiar.

Sep 16, 2015 at 10:39 AM | Unregistered CommenterJo Beaumont

...In conclude (sic), therefore, that this part of the paper by Lewandowsky, Risbey and Oreskes is a complete fabrication....


"In conclusion, therefore, ALL of the paper by Lewandowsky, Risbey and Oreskes is a complete fabrication."

There. Fixed that for you....

Sep 16, 2015 at 10:56 AM | Unregistered CommenterDodgy Geezer

The Diverging Surface Thermometer and Satellite Temperature Records

Indeed, the narrative has moved on to the pause never existed. The absolute difference between the thermometer and satellite record is tiny, 0.1 to 0.2 ˚C. But what is significant is the continued divergence.

Sep 16, 2015 at 10:58 AM | Registered CommenterEuan Mearns

And "More Lew Paper" might have been an alternative title for this post ;-)

Sep 16, 2015 at 11:01 AM | Registered CommenterEuan Mearns

This is the same paper from Lewandowsky published in Psychological Science:

Most domain experts agree that human CO2 emissions cause anthropogenic global warming (AGW), reflected in increased global temperatures during every decade since 1970. Notwithstanding, some public figures have claimed that warming stopped in 1998. In a large experiment (N = 200), participants extrapolated global climate data, presented graphically either as share prices or temperatures. Irrespective of attitudes towards AGW or presentation format, people judged the trend to be increasing, suggesting that presentation of climate data can counter claims that warming has “stopped.”

Out of ideas. Never had any ideas.

Sep 16, 2015 at 11:05 AM | Registered Commentershub

Shame on the Americal Meteorological Society for publishing self-evidently untrue claims by Lewandowsky et al.

The sensitivity of climate sensitivity estimates to inclusion of the 'hiatus' period was actually investigated In Lewis and Curry (2014), BTW. We concuded:

"It has been claimed (Rogelj et al, 2014) that the results of recent studies pointing to ECS being lower than the IPCC AR4 range (2–4.5 K) are strongly influenced by the small increase in observed warming during the last decade, although that is factually incorrect for all four of the studies it cited (Schmittner et al 2011, Aldrin et al 2012, Lewis 2013 and Otto et al 2013). Results here using final periods ending in 2000-2003 instead of 2011 do not support such claims either for ECS or for TCR."

Sep 16, 2015 at 11:12 AM | Unregistered CommenterNic Lewis

I wonder whether the paper was peer-reviewed and if so, who were the peers. I wouldn't want to be known as one of their peers.

Sep 16, 2015 at 11:17 AM | Registered CommenterPhillip Bratby

Now this indeed is a fantastic opportunity!

The way this is written... with all the extrapolations to controlling policy debate/discussion and appeals to 'expert' authority.

If this kind of thing can get published, then why not create the exact same study, involving a Qualtrics-enlisted economic expert panel (N=25), but instead show the experts a chart indicating Global Temperature model projections vs. Observations, and then a whole bunch of quotes talking about how awesome the models have performed, etc.

To lay it real thick, practically every grandiose word of this paper can be kept in mind when composing this new paper, including how the results practically demand a near censure of undesirable lines of argument or phrases.

Perhaps Dr. Tol might be interested?

-- and on a side note, I can't help but think these scientists incredibly inflate the value of their own publications by profusely citing their own work in papers like these. You might think it's only natural that contrarians don't have as many citations.

Sep 16, 2015 at 11:26 AM | Unregistered CommenterSalamano

From the paper, Line 50:

Moreover, the Intergovernmental Panel 1 on Climate Change (IPCC), which reflects the scientific consensus on climate change, adopted the term “hiatus” in its Fifth Assessment Report, and even gave it a definition “as the reduction in GMST trend during 1998–2012 as compared to the trend during 1951–2012” (Stocker et al. 2013, Box TS.3).

At least they acknowledge they are fringe Deniers of IPCC mainstream science.

From the paper, Line 70:

Accordingly, there are other indications of long-standing disquiet with the presumed “pause”. For example, the IPCC’s use of the term hiatus (without scare quotes) came under critical scrutiny during review of the Fifth Assessment Report.

Scare quotes? Who finds the “Pause” scary? Surely, it is the opposite.

From the paper, Line 150:

For all data sets bar HadCRUT4, the “pause” is less anomalous than the accelerated period of warming that took place during the 15 years spanning 1999 (i.e., 1992–152 2006).

So they acknowledge that the warming that started this scare was anomalous. What does that do to the IPCC projections? The paper actually finds why the models are way too hot and yet they don’t realise it. They have proven it’s not as bad they thought.

From the paper, Line 176:

People are known to be able to learn smooth functions with considerable precision (DeLosh et al. 1997; Lewandowsky et al. 2002). People are also able to extract information from noisy data presented in graphical form (Lewandowsky and Spence 1989). In forecasting studies, participants across a broad range of expertise are now generally thought to perform well (Harvey and Bolger 1996; Harvey et al. 1997; Du and Budescu 2007), and domain experts outperform statistical models in some circumstances (Forrest et al. 2005),

Statistics are hard. Let’s just eyeball it. It looks significant, yeah.

From the paper, Line 195:

People’s extrapolations were, however, conservative, falling consistently below the linear extrapolation of the long-term trend. The tendency to underestimate a long-term trend is a well-established phenomenon in judgmental forecasting known as trend damping (Harvey and Bolger 1996). It merits further exploration because it raises the possibility that people are overly-sensitive to any slowing in warming.

Bother. The eyeballs still can’t see what they believe to be there. But it’s because they over prioritise short-term trends over long-term trends. Now, what was that about the accelerated period of warming that took place spanning 1999 again..?

From the paper, Line 202:

All experts held at least a Master’s degree or a PhD in economics or an allied discipline, with all but 4 experts reporting 5 or more years of professional experience. Participants were shown the GMST data through 2010, but presented as “world agricultural output” (see Figure 3).

Good call that. You want to probe that experts aren’t influenced by their knowledge of the “Pause” so you present surface temp data as agricultural output instead. Because agricultural output is entirely unrelated to climate, right?
Good work guys. And peer reviewers, I suggest you cling to your anonymity.

From the paper, Line 242:

However, the majority of the more than 40 articles on the “pause” that we know of start from the premise that the pause is meaningful, and present it as a significant development requiring explanation.
Papers taking something as read is not proof that the thing is real. They explore the concept. I would have hoped that Lew might have learnt about that from his previous retracted paper.

From the paper, Line 284:

Furthermore, the citations in Table 2—typically from the opening paragraph of an article—show that authors often framed the article by juxtaposing the continuing increase of atmospheric CO2 levels with the presumed lack of warming on a decadal scale as though this presented a notable scientific problem at odds with expectations from greenhouse theory
No.
The claim was that AGW was dangerous. If “short-term fluctuations” last longer than the lifetime of the infrastructure that counters the danger, then AGW is not dangerous. Scientists are engaging in a frame that questions the dangerous AGW meme because that is what is challenged by the “Pause”. The authors could easily gain universal acceptance by saying “There is a long term trend that we expect to continue but short-term fluctuations will make all impacts negligible”. But that is not what they believe (don’t know why). Yet that is what mainstream science is dealing with. This paper misses the point.

Sep 16, 2015 at 11:32 AM | Registered CommenterM Courtney

When did meteorology change from being about temperatures and pressures to being about "contrarians"? Something has to be done about the lack of integrity that is dragging once respectable bodies into the political gutter.

Sep 16, 2015 at 11:40 AM | Unregistered CommenterMikky

M Courtney cited this from the LRO paper:

However, the majority of the more than 40 articles on the “pause” that we know of start from the premise that the pause is meaningful, and present it as a significant development requiring explanation.

A logical extension of this line of thought is that "the majority of articles predicting climate effects start from the premise that a model's projected temperature is meaningful, and present it as a significant likelihood requiring exploration."

Sep 16, 2015 at 12:06 PM | Registered CommenterHaroldW

Ah...the few remaining pause deniers continue to pretend that what was supposed to be impossible was in fact expected/not expected but too short to make a difference/doesn't exist if you adjust the data and squint. Harvard, Bristol Uni, CSIRO and the AMO must be so proud.

Sep 16, 2015 at 12:40 PM | Unregistered CommenterJamesG

And "More Lew Paper" might have been an alternative title for this post ;-)
Sep 16, 2015 at 11:01 AM | Registered CommenterEuan Mearns

Monty Python had a sketch including the concept of second-hand Lew Paper.

Sep 16, 2015 at 12:50 PM | Unregistered Commentermichael hart

Don't know why they bothered. All you have to do is look at the UK Met Office website to find all the top rated pause-denial excuses in a handy box-set.

Sep 16, 2015 at 1:01 PM | Unregistered CommenterJamesG

Right from the very start, the paper declares its bias:

The “Pause” in Global Warming: Turning a Routine Fluctuation into a

Problem for Science

It has the inherent assumption that the “Pause” is but a routine fluctuation, and utterly ignores the possibility that the prior rise could have been as much a fluctuation as the “Pause” – indeed, the entire 150-year rise has a greater chance of being a mere “routine fluctuation” than it has of being a phenomenon caused entirely by humans.

If there is something that What Lysenko Spawned should be studying is the mystery of the erroneous assumptions and conclusions that Stephan Lewadonsky manages to make when presented with data of which he displays so little understanding of, and how he manages to retain his credibility and his well-paid sinecure.

Sep 16, 2015 at 1:07 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

You think that they actually read those papers? They knew the answer before doing the lit review so there was no point in them wasting their time reading the papers.

Sep 16, 2015 at 1:12 PM | Unregistered CommenterPeter Ward

Expecting Lewandowsky to show and know what good acedmic pratice is, can only be describe has expecting a fish to show the ability to drive a car. At the very best a futile exercise and a waste of time.

Like many of 'the Team' the whole CAGW has been a god send his career that otherwise would have gone nowhere becasue at their heart they have little actually acedmic ability .
If I was one of his students at Bristol , and god knows why they took him on , I would demand that be judge by the piss poor acedmic standards his repeatedly show that way I could kick back , throwing any old rubbish in and still look forward to first .

Sep 16, 2015 at 1:15 PM | Unregistered Commenterknr

Oreskes and Lewandowsky needed Risbey's name on the paper for scientific credibility. This was a mistake.

Risbey needed the names of Lewandowsky and Oreskes on the paper, for their expertise in historical mind tricks. This was a mistake.

The American Meteorological Society needed any paper, in the run up to Paris. This paper was a mistake.

Climate science needs to respect this paper, as one of its finest moments, and should recognise Lewandowsky, Oreskes and Risbey, for demonstrating the ability to get any garbage published, provided the message is correct.

Sep 16, 2015 at 1:16 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Surely a Wolfson and Royal Society research scholar couldn't make such simple errors? Even by accident..?

//

Stephan Lewandowsky
Professor, School of Experimental Psychology and Cabot Institute, University of Bristol

Professor Stephan Lewandowsky is a cognitive scientist in the School of Psychology and a member of the Cabot Institute at the University of Bristol in the UK.

His research covers a number of issues, among them the role of scepticism in memory updating and the distinction between scepticism and denial; the way in which people process uncertainty surrounding climate change; and the normative implications of scientific uncerainty in the climate system.

He has published over 140 papers, chapters, and scholarly books on how people remember and think, plus several other papers in climate-science journals. His latest book on “computational modeling in cognition” draws together strands from philosophy of science, mathematics, and computer science to illustrate how cognitive scientists can best learn to understand how a complex system such as the mind operates.

He received a Discovery Outstanding Researcher Award from the Australian Research Council in 2011 and a Wolfson Research Merit Award from the Royal Society in 2013.

He is also an award-winning teacher of statistics.

More biographical detail including a list of all his scholarly publications can be found on his academic homepage at www.cogsciWA.com.

Stephan has regularly contributed to national debate and links to some of his pieces in the Australian and international media can be found here. etc etc

http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/bio.php?u=22
//

Sep 16, 2015 at 1:18 PM | Unregistered Commenternot banned yet

Gotta luv that ole gold standard peer review....

Sep 16, 2015 at 1:47 PM | Unregistered CommenterGeckko

I am surprised that the Wet Office haven't trundled out their old hackneyed phrase, "this is precisely what we expect from climate change, not every year will be hotter than the previous one!" In itself it is a reasonable & logical statement, only they do not make enough noise about the uncertainties involved, nor the benefits of a warmer world!

Sep 16, 2015 at 1:52 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlan the Brit

The activities of some at CSIRO a few years ago spoke to me of the cess pit:
http://climatelessons.blogspot.com/2012/05/child-scaring-industrial-research.html.

If that co-author Risbey was working there then, he may merely be yet another victim of a destructive and poisonous 'movement' and be in need of compassion. Publishing junk science may be his way of crying for help.

Sep 16, 2015 at 1:59 PM | Registered CommenterJohn Shade

This discussion seems rather confusing. Surely the "pause" must have some effect on estimates of ECS (though how big an effect is harder to guess). I think the problem is that one needs to be clear what one is comparing against.

An estimate of ECS based on the actual data to 2015 must surely be less than an estimate based on hypothetical data in which temperatures had continued to rise in the 2000-2015 period at the same rate as 1970-2000. But it doesn't follow that an estimate of ECS based on actual data to 2015 will be less than an estimate based on actual data to 2000. That's because "pause" and "increase" are not the only possibilities. The data that temperatures stayed flat from 2000 to 2015 eliminates the possibility that temperatures might have decreased in that period, and that of course pushes the estimate of ECS up. I think there should still be a small downwards effect on the estimate of ECS from including the pause, but because the pause eliminates downward as well as upward possibilities, its influence on the ECS estimate may be much less than one would naively think.

Sep 16, 2015 at 2:36 PM | Unregistered CommenterRadford Neal

'Guilt by association' is a favourite game of those global warmists trying to criticise any views or opinions expressed that go against their own.

When it comes to hammering nails into the coffin lid of climate science, Lewandowsky and Oreskes must be seen as the best, fully automatic, belt fed, Gatling gun fired nailers, in their field. With each successive paper, they keep nailing others in the same field too.

As no IPCC endorsed climate scientists ever criticise Lewandowsky and Oreskes, should it be assumed:
a) they don't know any better?
b) they couldn't think of anything better?
c) they have a nice pension plan to think about
d) they are happy to let non-scientists take the flak, for the lack of any Real Climate Science?

Sep 16, 2015 at 2:37 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Radford Neal. If you pretend there is no pause, and never has been a pause, then the pause does not exist, and cannot be a spanner in the works for climate science. Next you have to explain why climate scientists have been writing papers about the cause of something that does not exist.

Psychiatric history rewriting skills were required. Who is more qualified and experienced than the Craped Crusaders of climate science, Lewandowsky and Oreskes?

Sep 16, 2015 at 2:53 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Have you read any Lewandowsky?

Nope, but I think I stepped in some once.

Sep 16, 2015 at 3:01 PM | Unregistered CommenterNCC 1701E

He definitely ought to publish his paper in Venezuela it would go down a treat.

Sep 16, 2015 at 3:05 PM | Unregistered CommenterPeter Whale

Another shamelessly bad Lewandowsky paper. Why is AMS even thinking of publishing a social sciences paper so obviously motivated by activism? A forced six-point scale. And then any economist worth their salt should have immediately spotted the graph is not what was claimed because agricultural output did not have a peak in 1940s during WWII.

But also watch the pea. The slowdown/pause/hiatus in published papers is about the trend in temperatures being outside the projected/forecast envelope from the models. No-one claims global warming has stopped, but they are asking how come the models have been going so badly wrong.

Sep 16, 2015 at 3:14 PM | Unregistered Commenterantman

Even the alarmist NY Times acknowledges the pause, in the inside pages. From August, 2014:

"There’s been a burst of worthy research aimed at figuring out what causes the stutter-steps in the process [global warming]— including the current hiatus/pause/plateau that has generated so much discussion."

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/08/26/a-closer-look-at-turbulent-oceans-and-greenhouse-heating/

Sep 16, 2015 at 3:32 PM | Unregistered CommenterDon B

God that is ugly

Sep 16, 2015 at 4:06 PM | Unregistered CommenterStephen Richards

I know nothing of Lewandowsky's subject or his published works; other than by reading articles such as this, and skimming over his paper. But it does seem to me that he is, perhaps trying to quantify subjects that are extremely difficult to quantify. Like others, I see a definite plateau in, for example, Dr Roy Spencer's published satellite temperatures, and this plateau seems to have lasted for many years. As a retired experimental physicist, the plateau looks to me like a pause in the warming trend. I am never happy to rely on global surface thermometer measurements, because I doubt the methods of averaging, even if they do also show a hiatus. Additionally, I am suspicious of any scientist describing sceptics as a contrarians. The science ain't settled Prof Lewandowsky, no sir.

Sep 16, 2015 at 4:28 PM | Unregistered CommenterPeter Stroud

Peter Stroud, Lewandowsky knows nothing about his subject or published works either. Pays well though.

Sep 16, 2015 at 4:48 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

If there is something that What Lysenko Spawned should be studying is the mystery of the erroneous assumptions and conclusions that Stephan Lewadonsky manages to make when presented with data of which he displays so little understanding of, and how he manages to retain his credibility and his well-paid sinecure.

Sep 16, 2015 at 1:07 PM | Radical Rodent
=============================================

Stephan D Lysenko is an anagram of Stephan Lewandowsky. Hmmm

Sep 16, 2015 at 4:49 PM | Unregistered CommenterJeremy Poynton

Who's the elf?

Sep 16, 2015 at 4:59 PM | Unregistered Commenterconfused

A political hack posing as a historian, a kook posing as a psychologist, and a catastrophist posing as a scientist publish a paper. What could possibly go wrong with that?

Sep 16, 2015 at 5:05 PM | Unregistered Commenterhunter

The main point of the paper- and probably the only point, is that it will be just in time for the Paris Climate Junket.

Sep 16, 2015 at 5:13 PM | Unregistered CommenterBitter&Twisted

Hunter, what could go wrong? Nothing at all! It got published after all.

Climate pseudopsyantists think this is excellent stuff. The few who can see it for what it is, know they will get booted off the gravy train if they say anything, and branded heretics.

Climate science must be maintained as it was forged.

Sep 16, 2015 at 6:07 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

But it's so bad it's actually good.
Every line can be torn apart. It is a perfect demonstration of why peer review has no value.

If paper as bad as this didn't exist then climate science could cloak itself in the authority of real science.

Use it as a test.
If you know someone who thinks climate science seeks knowledge, let them read this paper. And then see if they were just confused or are, unfortunately, as thick as the peer reviewers must be.

Sep 16, 2015 at 7:53 PM | Registered CommenterM Courtney

Radford Neal I think the point is that had the earth continued to go up in temp (more energy in the atmosphere) then something else in the system would have to compensate to retain the energy balance.

Sep 16, 2015 at 9:22 PM | Unregistered CommenterHAS

What actually rubs salt in is that all their funding will continue and their sponsors, too cowardly to enter the fray themselves will continue shelling out quite a lot of public money for this bilge / twaddle.

Such is academic independence .... but after following some of the antics of this crew - there are clearly those who are milking and abusing the system for ideological purposes.

I'm not convinced that they've misunderstood the papers cited - I think they simply relied on their peer reviewers not reading them - they lie openly because they know that they are effectively untouchable and can tip foul rubbish over the battlements of their ivory towers with near impunity.

What a crock.

Sep 16, 2015 at 9:58 PM | Registered Commentertomo

So did they provide any evidence that more heat went into the oceans? Because I'm pretty sure the IPCC demonstrated the exact opposite in AR5.

Sep 16, 2015 at 10:57 PM | Unregistered CommenterMikeN

The credibility of climate science rose steadily, despite general concern, and seems to have paused since Climategate. This pause or hiatus is continuously denied, and further funding is cited as proof that there is no pause in rising credibility.

People who believe in the pause in credibility, have been proven by pause deniers, to be CO2 exhalers, and therefore are protecting their own interests, and are not credible witnesses in any debate about the pause, in the rising credibility of climate science.

Deniers of the pause in the rise of the credibility of climate science now cite the US President AND the Pope, as experts in proving that 2 people can count. This is all the scientific proof required by climate scientists, to prove they need more money to prove what they have failed to prove for about 20 years, during which time the globe has not warmed.

Sep 16, 2015 at 10:59 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Jeremy P

"Stephan D Lysenko is an anagram of Stephan Lewandowsky"

Really..?

Sep 16, 2015 at 11:01 PM | Registered Commenterjamesp

Lew is losing his touch, not mention of “ideation”.

Sep 17, 2015 at 12:10 AM | Unregistered CommenterChris Hanley

Hasn't Tasmin Edwards said something like: as the pause continues, sensitivity studies based on observations will show lower sensitivity?

Sep 17, 2015 at 3:09 AM | Unregistered CommenterLloyd R

I seem to recall that Pielke (Sr) was a BAMS editor. Somehow I don't think this load would have gotten past his desk.

My, how the mighty have fallen.

Sep 17, 2015 at 5:53 AM | Unregistered CommenterDavid Jay

the problem is that people like "what lysenko spawned" get away with their errors.
If your leftwing and if there is enough lefty sc*m in the media to keep your back, you get away with anything.
(an example n politics are of course the Watergates producing Obama and Clinton)

http://climateaudit.org/2013/11/07/more-false-claims-from-lewandowsky/

He made a grand statement that people often subscribe to contradicotry beliefs at the same time, and supports that claim with a data sample of ZERO size.

His next lectures should be interrupted until he RETRACTS everything around that paper.
And then he should RESIGN for the fraud he is.

Sep 17, 2015 at 11:18 AM | Unregistered CommenterVenusNotWarmerDueToCO2

For all data sets bar HadCRUT4, the “pause” is less anomalous than the accelerated period of warming that took place during the 15 years spanning 1999 (i.e., 1992–152 2006).

Having admitted anomalies, and that HadCRUT4 is somewhat less anomalous, perchance the True Believers should now be known a "deviants".

Sep 17, 2015 at 7:06 PM | Unregistered CommenterEugene S. Conlin

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>