ADVERTISEMENT
  About the SA Blog Network













Observations

Observations


Opinion, arguments & analyses from the editors of Scientific American
Observations HomeAboutContact

Climate Change Denier Likely to Lead Congressional Science Committee


Email   PrintPrint



September 2012 was the 331st consecutive month with a global temperature above the 20th-century average Credit: NOAA

September 2012 was the 331st consecutive month with a global temperature above the 20th-century average Credit: NOAA

Republican Party leaders in the House of Representatives will decide whether Representatives Lamar Smith of Texas, James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin or Dana Rohrabacher of California will succeed Ralph Hall, also of Texas, as chair of the House Committee. Because of term limits, Hall cannot continue heading the group, which has jurisdiction over energy research, NASA, the National Weather Service and the National Science Foundation, among other things.

What follows is just a sample of the three would-be chairmen’s public statements on climate change:

A 2009 statement by Rep. Smith that can still be found on his official House website, regarding the massively overblown Climategate scandal that involved emails stolen from East Anglia University:

“The [ABC, NBC and CBS television] networks have shown a steady pattern of bias on climate change. During a six-month period, four out of five network news reports failed to acknowledge any dissenting opinions about global warming, according to a Business and Media Institute study.

“The networks should tell Americans the truth, rather than hide the facts.”

From Rep Rohrabacher’s remarks on the floor of the House on December 8, 2011, as recorded by the Congressional Record:

“In my lifetime, there has been no greater example of this threat [the military-industrial complex], which Eisenhower warned us about, than the insidious coalition of research science and political largesse–a coalition that has conducted an unrelenting crusade to convince the American people that their health and their safety and–yes–their very survival on this planet is at risk due to manmade global warming. The purpose of this greatest-of-all propaganda campaigns is to enlist public support for, if not just the acquiescence to, a dramatic mandated change in our society and a mandated change to our way of life. This campaign has such momentum and power that it is now a tangible threat to our freedom and to our prosperity as a people.

“Ironically, as the crusade against manmade global warming grows in power, more evidence surfaces every day that the scientific theory on which the alarmists have based their crusade is totally bogus. The general public and decisionmakers for decades have been inundated with phony science, altered numbers, and outright fraud. This is the ultimate power grab in the name of saving the world; and like all fanatics, disagreement is not allowed in such endeavors.

“Prominent scientists who have been skeptical of the claims of manmade global warming have themselves been cut from research grants and have been obstructed when trying to publish peer-reviewed dissenting opinions. How the mainstream media or publications like the National Journal, for example, have ignored the systematic oppression that I speak about is beyond me.”

From Rep. Sensenbrenner’s videotaped presentation on May 22, 2012, at a conference sponsored by the Heartland Institute of Chicago, which the New York Times calls “the primary American organization pushing climate change skepticism.”

“[T]he emails leaked from the East Anglia University . . .  simply revealed to the world what we already knew. There is a portion of the scientific community that is more interested in defending its findings rather than in finding the truth. . . .

“Climategate revealed that climate science is less about honest debate than ideological warfare. Despite the relentless push to dismiss the emails and to clear the scientists involved, the leaked emails can only be honestly read as an exposure of partisanship among climate change scientists. For that reason, it tainted not only the science but the investigations that would follow as groups scrambled to exonerate the scientists involved and to minimize the impact of their words.”

Meanwhile, scientific evidence is mounting that climate change is happening faster than most models had predicted.

 

 

 

About the Author: Christine Gorman is the editor in charge of health and medicine features for SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN. Follow on Twitter @cgorman.

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.





Rights & Permissions

Comments 110 Comments

Add Comment
  1. 1. Sisko 1:41 pm 11/14/2012

    Christine Gorman is apparently a hack of a writer who only wishes to have propaganda and not actual science published.

    Fact- Global warming is not happening faster that the climate models predicted. Here is a comparison of model performance vs. observed conditions.

    Fact- It has been show that Mann was more interested to promoting a message than he was is accurate science. Climategate was not overblown. It was a small group of scientists that thought their message was more important than accurate science.

    Link to this
  2. 2. Bird/tree/dinosaur/etc. geek 1:56 pm 11/14/2012

    Why can’t congressmen stick to having sex with interns? Great article.

    @ pokerplayer (comment 1):
    “”"Christine Gorman is apparently a hack of a writer who only wishes to have propaganda and not actual science published.”"”

    Nasty comment and LIE!!!! This article is in no way propaganda. Fox “News” is propaganda.

    “”"Fact- Global warming is not happening faster that the climate models predicted. “”"

    LIE!!!

    “”"Here is a comparison of model performance vs. observed conditions.”"”

    Citation not provided. No evidence.

    “”"Fact- It has been show that Mann was more interested to promoting a message than he was is accurate science. “”"

    LIE!!! Unless, of course, you are nutty enough to call denialism science.

    “”"Climategate was not overblown. “”"

    In your dreams.

    “”"It was a small group of scientists that thought their message was more important than accurate science.”"”

    LIE!!! See above.

    Link to this
  3. 3. Sisko 2:02 pm 11/14/2012

    Bird/tree/dinosaur/etc. geek-

    Do you ever try to read and learn or do you just write “lie” in response to data that you do not like. The link I provided compared GCM predictions to observed conditions. You might try looking at the actual data as it proves what I have written is correct.

    Link to this
  4. 4. Sisko 2:03 pm 11/14/2012

    I was in error in not properly posting the link to the data

    http://rankexploits.com/musings/2012/adding-multi-model-means-to-model-v-observations-graphs/

    Link to this
  5. 5. Christine Gorman 2:25 pm 11/14/2012

    Sisko: “musings” are not equivalent to scientific evidence.

    You don’t have to look any further than the current issue of Science, a peer-reviewed research journal, to see data that support the idea that climate change may be happening faster than most models predicted. The work was supported by a grant from NASA.

    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/338/6108/792.abstract

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/warmer-still-extreme-climate-predictions-appear-most-accurate-study-says/2012/11/08/ebd075c6-29c7-11e2-96b6-8e6a7524553f_story.html
    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/11/121108-climate-change-clouds-science-model-relative-humidity/

    Link to this
  6. 6. Christine Gorman 2:44 pm 11/14/2012

    Also, whether or not I am a hack is irrelevant to the reality of climate change. (See ad hominem argument.) The data are the data.

    Link to this
  7. 7. Cramer 2:57 pm 11/14/2012

    Sisko, how many times are you going to link to Lucia’s inadequate analysis at rankexploits.com?

    Lucia cherry picked the data. Even she does NOT make the claims that you do about her analysis.

    Why should anyone expect Lucia’s simulations over 138-month period would produce trendless data? Yes, the observed temperatures over the last 138 months have been relatively trendless, but this does not disprove the models.

    Lucia’s results are not reproducible. I do not know exactly what models she ran or how she ran them.

    Link to this
  8. 8. M Tucker 3:03 pm 11/14/2012

    Smith, Rohrabacher and Sensenbrenner are nothing more than minions of the fossil fuel industry and they are happy to take the mountains of cash offered by Heartland, a well known propaganda organization for that industry. They promulgate well debunked arguments to avoid any government action on climate change. But the House Science Committee will get a climate denier and that person may well be an evolution denier as well. Since Republicans control the House they can do whatever they damn well please. Reason and evidence are to be disparaged. Science is now viewed as having evil intent. Republican’s now operate in their own private reality completely removed from the real world. They have truly become the party of stupid.

    Link to this
  9. 9. Sisko 4:16 pm 11/14/2012

    Christine Gorman

    Your 1st link is to a paper by John T. Fasullo and Kevin E. Trenberth that discusses models but does not compare observed conditions to what models previously forecasted for these same characteristics so how is it relevant to claim that global warming is happening faster than expected?

    Your link to the article by the Washington Post also does nothing to compare climate model predictions to observed conditions, so what is happening faster than was predicted.

    You last link to the national geographic article is another discussion of the same paper by Fasullo and Trenberth. That paper does nothing to show that warming or by-product changes as a result of any warming is happening faster than models predicted.

    Is sea level rising faster than the models predicted? NO

    Is it getting warmer than the models predicted? NO

    What exactly is happening faster than the GCMs forecasted?

    The link I provided to the analysis performed by Lucia clearly showed that GCMs have forecasted a higher rate of warming than actually occurred as of this point in time. The models have missed by a statistically significant margin.

    To claim otherwise is promoting propaganda and not science.

    Link to this
  10. 10. Sisko 4:19 pm 11/14/2012

    For further analysis of climate models forecasts vs. observations.

    http://rankexploits.com/musings/2012/observations-v-models-model-weather/

    Link to this
  11. 11. M Tucker 4:57 pm 11/14/2012

    What is happening faster? Well, the rapid and dramatic melting at the poles. The extreme melting that we have seen in the Arctic Ocean over the past several summers is happening much sooner than any model predicted. No model predicted the sudden collapse of the Larsen ice shelves along the Antarctic Peninsula and the rapid thinning of the mountain glaciers there. The models are only approximations of reality, they are getting better all the time but they will still be approximations, and reality will always bit us in the ass.

    Link to this
  12. 12. Sisko 5:04 pm 11/14/2012

    M Tucker

    Actually the melting at the North Pole is not happening faster than was modeled 10 years ago or in 2006 prior to AR4. The south pole is not melting overall but has actually gained ice. Please, let’s be factual. What model that was used by the IPCC for AR4 that predicted something about global warming is occuring faster than was predicted?

    Link to this
  13. 13. Cramer 5:12 pm 11/14/2012

    Sisko wrote, “The link I provided to the analysis performed by Lucia clearly showed that GCMs have forecasted a higher rate of warming than actually occurred as of this point in time.”

    Wrong.

    The link Sisko provided shows an analysis of the 138 months of trendless observed temperature data beginning January 2001 (i.e. datamining). Lucia ran unspecified simulations with 11 climate models that produced temperature trends. Sisko’s conclusion is that since her simulations for that CHERRY-PICKED time period showed trends, but the observed data was trendless, then the models are wrong.

    Sisko is also concluding 138 months of observed temperature data beginning in January 2001 is trendless, then climate change is not happening faster than models predict.

    Is this the best that skeptics can provide?

    Link to this
  14. 14. Christine Gorman 5:22 pm 11/14/2012

    I believe Mr. Sisko has all the qualifications to be chair of the House Science committee. Just needs to get himself elected. :)

    Link to this
  15. 15. Bird/tree/dinosaur/etc. geek 5:51 pm 11/14/2012

    @ Mrs. Gorman:

    Exactly. He needs to be more attractive to women, though, if he wants hot staffers to give him oral sex.

    Link to this
  16. 16. Bird/tree/dinosaur/etc. geek 5:57 pm 11/14/2012

    @ Sisko/pokerplayer: Get your worthless hide out of here. Go get a job; try being a prostitute. The women will like you better that way, and you may actually help the economy (by earning money instead of living in your mom’s basement).

    @ everyone else: Sorry about the harsh language, but being nice and just disassembling his arguments does not work.

    Link to this
  17. 17. PeterT 6:54 pm 11/14/2012

    I was once was a registered Republican. Are ALL Republicans, today, as stupid as these??

    Link to this
  18. 18. M Tucker 7:27 pm 11/14/2012

    PeterT, those that are not “as stupid” are still willing to vote for the most ignorant and reactionary candidates. They can’t help themselves and they rarely speak up. They are just willing to take it. Kind of like the Log Cabin Republicans tolerating gay bashing from the party and like Republican women professionals willing to be paid less than men and denouncing the Ledbetter act. They are willing to be abused and they will always vote against their own best interests.

    Link to this
  19. 19. Bird/tree/dinosaur/etc. geek 7:41 pm 11/14/2012

    @ Peter T: My mother used to be a Republican, but then the far-right hijacked it and tore up the individual-rights imperative by trying to ban abortion rights.

    Link to this
  20. 20. Fanandala 6:27 am 11/15/2012

    # 16 you proved your point convincingly. I am overwhelmed by your insight. And regarding your comment in # 19, you should not have mentioned that, your mother is obviously still upset that she had to give birth to you.

    Link to this
  21. 21. alan6302 6:42 am 11/15/2012

    The government will find a cure for the human race soon.

    Link to this
  22. 22. Bird/tree/dinosaur/etc. geek 8:47 am 11/15/2012

    @ Fanandala: Hey, if pokerplayer/Sisko is going to be a pseudoscientific buffoon, then I am going to lose my patience after a certain amount of time.

    Link to this
  23. 23. Sisko 10:30 am 11/15/2012

    Christine Gorman-

    You are a person who calls other people “deniers” when they do not agree with your pet theories. What exactly are you claiming that they are denying or are you just attempting to spread inaccurate propaganda?

    Have they denied that if all other things remain unchanged that additional CO2 will not lead to additional warming? No, that is undisputed science.

    Have they stated that we do not know what the rate of warming as a result of additional CO2 will be within a reasonably tight margin of error and that the current estimates of temperature rise include both benign and worrisome rates of temperature increase? That is certainly the truth-Ms Gorman are you denying the truth?

    Have they stated that we do not currently have any models that can even reasonably accurately predict changes to rainfall patterns as a function of CO2 changes for any specific location or region of the planet? That is certainly the truth-Ms Gorman are you denying the truth?

    Have they claimed that the rate of sea level rise has not been consistent with what the IPCC forecasted in AR4? That is certainly the truth-Ms Gorman are you denying the truth?

    Have they stated that the rate of sea level rise would have to more than triple if the feared 1 meter rise between the year 2000 and 2100 forecasted by Hansen was to occur?

    Have they claimed that many so called climate mitigation actions suggested by people like you are not an effective use of the government’s very limited resources? Does it make sense to spend large sums that will not achieve any noticeable effect?

    Interesting how the site now deletes comments that accurately point out that you support publishing propaganda and inaccurate science.

    I am an aerospace systems engineer who has studied climate science for the last 6-7 years. What are your technical qualifications?

    Link to this
  24. 24. Sisko 10:32 am 11/15/2012

    BTW Christine- I am not a republican. I am an independent who voted for Obama in 2008 and Romney in 2012.

    Link to this
  25. 25. Bird/tree/dinosaur/etc. geek 10:37 am 11/15/2012

    @ Mrs. Gorman and anyone else who wants/needs advice on dealing with trolls:

    The advice that I give to people who want to deal with trolls is very similar to the advice that I give to children who are dealing with bullies (especially smaller, weaker bullies).

    0. Ignore the troll (this doesn’t always work, and you may be tempted to tear up their “arguments”).
    0a. Ignore the bully (v.v. hard).

    1. Disassemble their arguments.
    1a. Go to a teacher.

    2. Call the blogger for help (unless you are the blogger).
    2a. Go to your parents for help.

    3. Find someone who is willing to play dirty, and give the trolls a taste of their own medicine.
    3a. Recruit an older, meaner sibling to thrash the bully.

    4. If all else fails, do whatever you can to provoke the troll. Insults are fine at this stage. If you have followed this process, the rest of the online community should be on your side.
    4a. Beat the tar out of the bully yourself. If you have followed this process, your parents should be angry and ready to start screaming at the negligent school monitors.

    Link to this
  26. 26. LarryW 10:52 am 11/15/2012

    Appropriate solution is to ignore the committee, and ignore the votes of all such idiots.

    The White House should simply ignore House Republicans entirely. Let the House run in constant impeachment mode, because the Senate is impeachment conviction-proof. It will be amazing how much knowledgeable people can get done when they don’t have to involve morons.

    Link to this
  27. 27. c laird478 11:27 am 11/15/2012

    Maybe they can pull a North Carolina and just legislate climate change away. That’ll work. Then they can work on legislating evolution away too. Republicans say the darndest things!;-)

    Link to this
  28. 28. Sisko 11:31 am 11/15/2012

    LarryW & Idiot Geek

    Perhaps you could consider revising your position based on the actual facts and science. I notice neither of you nor Ms Gorman have disputed or shown any of my points as being accurate. Idiot Geek may post some senseless comment like LIES, LIES; but that is meaningless dribble from an idiot.

    Link to this
  29. 29. Cramer 11:41 am 11/15/2012

    I didn’t think Sisko (aka Rob Starkey) could defend Lucia’s analysis:

    http://rankexploits.com/musings/2012/observations-v-models-model-weather/

    Maybe if Sisko can’t defend her analysis, he could get her to post her own defense here at SciAm (he’s already engaged her about my comments). First, to be science rather than pseudoscience, her results must be reproducible. That is, she must give all the details on how she ran her simulations.

    Link to this
  30. 30. Sisko 11:53 am 11/15/2012

    Cramer

    I find that Lucia’s analysis to be very reasonable. You have not pointed out anything valid that makes it not so. Here is another for review. How about you coming over to her site to point out why you thing her analysis is flawed?

    http://rankexploits.com/musings/2012/arima11-test-reject-ar4-multi-model-mean-since-1980-1995-200120012003/

    Link to this
  31. 31. Mark656515 12:05 pm 11/15/2012

    So, isn’t anyone going to start a petition? It’s time for action!

    Global warming has been just about proven (to the lazy masses) with the New Yorker “day after tomorrow” freak storm. I have writing here about freak storms for over two years.

    Now it’s time for the aware people who care about our future to move!

    Link to this
  32. 32. Mark656515 12:20 pm 11/15/2012

    Dear Sisko,

    Whether global warming is occurring faster than predicted, at the same speed, or slightly slower is irrelevant – this is splitting hairs.

    What maters is that a major turning / tipping point has been reached, the Arctic Thaw, releasing methane (thawing peat permafrost on land, and more importantly, thawing clathrate form shallow sea bottoms) in amounts that have already doubled net GHG output (now, undoubtedly) and is likely to cause a massive sudden methane release (eventually).

    Complex systems frequently have small stable saddle points (of variable conditions, such as temperature or pressure) where negative, or self-regulatory, feedback loops prevail – an essential mechanism of living beings. They also tend to have larger regions where positive or runaway feedback loops predominate. If a system is at a stable point and is nudged, it reestablishes itself; if it is nudged too strongly and the threshold is passed, the system will shift to the next stable point.

    Until this day, our climate was regulated by the two main feedback loops. The main positive, or runaway, feedback loop is the Temperature/Albedo loop: white ice reflects almost all of the sunshine, dark water or terrain absorbs almost all of it. Other positive feedbacks include increased water vapor trapping long-wave radiation, and thawing ground releasing increased carbon and sometimes methane. The main negative, or self-regulatory, feedback loop is the Temperature/Cloud Cover/Radiation: warm weather produces more clouds, which then cools an area, while a secondary negative feedback is the increased carbon storage by plants in warm weather, which eventually lowers atmospheric CO2 levels.

    Arctic thawing has now caused a third and larger warming effect, Methane Outgassing, which has started gushing – stoutly, as predicted, from contemporary peat permafrost on land, but unexpectedly and intensely from fossil methane hydrates – methane-packed ice in the shallow and thawing ocean floors, most intensely when associated with coastal erosion. [measured levels]

    The detection of methane ‘fountains’ in the Arctic started being noticed in 2003 off river deltas in the shallow East Siberian Arctic Shelf in northern Russia (by Shakhova and Semiletov), subsequently followed up by further studies indicating an escalating situation. These findings were followed by similar ones in 2009 at the Svalbard archipelago north of Norway by the UK National Oceanography Centre, and in April 2010 by NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, north of the Beaufort in Canada and Chukchi in Alaska seas.

    Current methane output, as estimated by Katey Walter Anthony (University of Alaska), in Alaska alone reaches 250,000 metric tons of methane a year. Now, if Northern Canada is 2.3 times the size of Alaska, Baffin Island one third, Greenland 1.3, Scandinavia half, and Siberia 5.8 times the size, this means ten more Alaskas or 2,800,000 yearly tons of methane being released, if 20 to 25 times stronger than CO2 meaning 56 Gt to 70 Gt equivalent tons of CO2.
    This has therefore already doubled, possibly almost tripled, current GHG emission levels, which are estimated at 30 Gt (IEA) to 50 Gt (IPCC) in CO2 equivalent tons. Note that this is at current thaw rates – but now, thawing has nowhere to go but up. Eric Kort (Jet Propulsion Laboratory), who confirmed methane outgassing in North America, remarked, “As Arctic sea ice cover continues to decline in a warming climate, this source of methane may well increase.” Natalia Shakhova and Igor Semiletov (University of Alaska), who first discovered the clathrate outgassing in Siberia, estimate that a “release of up to 50 Gt of predicted amount of hydrate storage [is] highly possible for abrupt release at any time”, flatulating atmospheric methane by a factor of twelve, an equivalent 1250 Gt of CO2.

    This hydrate had been dormant for ages. It is likely to have been formed by rotting duckweed-like ‘Azolla’ seaweed infesting the Arctic during the warm Eocene – the last truly warm era – after it sank to the bottom, sequestering vast amounts of carbon and causing an 80% drop in CO2, initiating the great global temperature decline we live to this day. This is called the Azolla Event.

    The methane loop is therefore a large-scale loop. It could be called a ‘strategic’ loop, compared to nimbler albedo, which could be called ‘tactical’: it demands higher temperature fluctuations, triggering equally stronger effects, and is much harder to start or stop. One rapid warming event strongly suspected to be related to clathrate destabilization includes the Permian-Triassic Extinction, the worst ever, and its freakishly rapid warming.

    Link to this
  33. 33. Bird/tree/dinosaur/etc. geek 12:22 pm 11/15/2012

    @ Sisko/pokerplayer/Rob Starkley (I’ll call you Rob from now on, to remove your Internet shield): You are a despicable troll. You are blatantly ignoring Cramer’s disproof of your single, unreliable source. I note that your blogger starts from a position of denialism, thereby practicing bad science (pseudoscience). I deal with BANDits, who behave the same way, all of the time. Ten minutes debunking a BANDit leaves me more than capable of dismantling you.

    @ Cramer: Denialists never let anyone try to reproduce their “analyses”, because their results are not reproducible and their analyses are not rigorous. They’ll just whine and complain.

    @ Larry W: As tempting as that may be, we don’t want to set a bad precedent. It’s not all that far from routing around the moronic obstructionist branch of government to the dictatorial regime of Sinclair Lewis’s “It can’t happen here”. It is tempting, though.

    Link to this
  34. 34. Bird/tree/dinosaur/etc. geek 12:26 pm 11/15/2012

    @ Rob:
    “”"I find that Lucia’s analysis to be very reasonable. “”"

    Unimportant. Your opinion is not evidence for anything other than your own stupidity.

    “”"You have not pointed out anything valid that makes it not so. “”"

    LIE!!! Read his comments, Robbie boy.

    “”"Here is another for review. How about you coming over to her site to point out why you thing her analysis is flawed?”"”

    I’ll call your bluff, troll.

    Link to this
  35. 35. Bird/tree/dinosaur/etc. geek 12:30 pm 11/15/2012

    @ Robbie: Unfortunately, your blogger denialist pal chickened out and closed the comments thread. You denialists are cowards.

    Link to this
  36. 36. Bird/tree/dinosaur/etc. geek 12:40 pm 11/15/2012

    @ Robbie: “”"BTW Christine- I am not a republican. I am an independent who voted for Obama in 2008 and Romney in 2012.”"”

    I’ll believe that when my legs turn to snakes spontaneously.

    “”"Interesting how the site now deletes comments that accurately point out that you support publishing propaganda and inaccurate science.”"”

    The lie (and irony) here is that YOU are the one who is actually pushing propaganda and pseudoscience.

    “”"I am an aerospace systems engineer who has studied climate science for the last 6-7 years. What are your technical qualifications?”"”

    You aimed this at Dr. Gorman, so:

    “”"Christine Gorman is the editor in charge of health and medicine features for SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN. Gorman began her publishing career at Time magazine, where she worked for more than 20 years in the business, nation, science and health sections. She received a 2008 Nieman Fellowship to study global health at Harvard University, followed by a three-month reporting trip to investigate the nursing crisis in Malawi.”"”

    Taken from her about page on this site. It doesn’t state her degrees, but I seem to remember that she is a PhD of some sort (please correct me if I’m wrong, Mrs. Gorman).

    Link to this
  37. 37. Sisko 12:44 pm 11/15/2012

    Mark

    I appreciate that you are trying to actually address real science and your concern about methane being released.

    Mark writes: What matters is that a major turning / tipping point has been reached, the Arctic Thaw in amounts that have already doubled net GHG output (now, undoubtedly) and is likely to cause a massive sudden methane release (eventually).

    My response- What evidence do you have to support the claim that GHG outputs have doubled recently? It does not sound like more than someone’s notional guess-estimate to be sensational.

    When I look at atmospheric concentrations of methane over time I see that it has gone up by something 5% over the last 20 years so it does not appear that the feared rapid increase in methane is actually occurring. If what you are worried about was actually happening, wouldn’t you have expected to see an acceleration in the rate of warming? Clearly there has been no such occurance.

    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/aggi_2012.fig2.png

    Link to this
  38. 38. Sisko 12:47 pm 11/15/2012

    Christine has an undergrad in biology and a masters in writing.

    Idiot Geek- you can comment on Lucia’s current thread and she will happily address any point you wish to make. Just try to be rationale

    Link to this
  39. 39. Tytleman 1:21 pm 11/15/2012

    Might it be time for Scientific American to review its policy allowing reader comments?

    Just asking.

    Link to this
  40. 40. Cramer 1:22 pm 11/15/2012

    Sisko, please read what I have already said. I have pointed out valid points.

    1) Lucia cherry-picks the data: 138 months of trendless observed data starting Jan-2001. You can not cherry-pick a decade to refute a 100 year forecast (i.e. 2100 AD). Similarly, I can more easily predict US GDP ten years from now, but I probably can predict what years we will be in recession.

    2) Most importantly, Lucia does not give any details about her simulations. Therefore, it is NOT scientific. It’s only faith.

    Lucia is not making outrageous claims that forecasts of sea level rise by 2100 are wrong because she cherry picked 138 months of data. YOU ARE.

    If she provides all the details of her simulations and re-opens her comment thread, I will be happy to review her methodology and comment. She must give where she obtained the models (not all models are publically available, especially the fully-implemented versions rather than dumb-down versions) and/or provide the code/software. I really doubt she actually ran 11 fully implemented models.

    That’s your problem, Sisko. Science is more than simply having FAITH in the a peer’s results. The methodology needs to be specified and reproducible along with the results. That’s what it means by “peer reviewed.”

    Link to this
  41. 41. Spin-oza 1:22 pm 11/15/2012

    YEP… it’s the proverbial Republican version of The THREE STOOGE’S… but shouldn’t be a surprise.
    In general, the party that used to stand for CONSERVATION of the Natural environment… the CommonWealth, has been co-opted by dimwitted faith-based bozos, intent on exploitation and despoiling for short-sighted profit.
    This is the personification of anti-science, anti-reason… and if a candid poll were taken, the percentage of Republicans who cannot accept the bedrock Edifice of Evolution that without a doubt, explains life on our planet, would be huge as well as depressing to the sane among us, to say the very least.

    But then again… who needs SCIENCE AND REASON, when you have dopey mythos like the bible… and the lemmings in the pews, rapt with attention as cheesy evangelists rant, are focused on… The Rapture and End Times? Sheesh.

    Link to this
  42. 42. Cramer 1:30 pm 11/15/2012

    Bird, I would suggest you refer to Sisko as Sisko as not to confuse people. “Rob Starkey” is also probably an alias. As a true skeptic I do not believe anyone. Pseudo-skeptics like Sisko believe anyone with the same ideological bias, just like Sisko believes the anonymous blogger, Lucia, who doesn’t even provide the details of the simulations in her analysis (not to mention her cherry-picked data).

    Link to this
  43. 43. Bird/tree/dinosaur/etc. geek 1:35 pm 11/15/2012

    Robbie boy: She closed the thread, and I’m not about to beg a denialist to let me troll her. And it’s very rich of you to ask me to be rational when you are essentially shitting on science left and right.

    Link to this
  44. 44. Bird/tree/dinosaur/etc. geek 1:36 pm 11/15/2012

    @ Cramer: good point. I’m just trying to remove his Internet anonymity shield.

    Link to this
  45. 45. Scienceproofreader 1:44 pm 11/15/2012

    Certainly an agenda driven headline and amateurish article for a quality science site.

    Please, more science writers and less politics.

    Link to this
  46. 46. Spin-oza 1:48 pm 11/15/2012

    Oh… and the obnoxious “Sisko” seems absolutely and pathologically obsessed with his his own personal slant on a very complex subject… like he has “special knowledge” and “secret insights” (LOL)… and we all should trust his twisted analysis.

    OK bucko, when you have published your hypothesis, observable data, and it’s testable predictions in a top peer-reviewed publication… and it has withstood analysis and critique… then by all means, get back to us. Otherwise, the prudent among us… the fact-based, will roll with the CLEAR CONSENSUS among the scientists studying the various relevant phenomena impacting our climate and the implications for human life on the planet… as well as any steps we are still able to take, as a responsible society, to keep our ecosystems as healthy as possible, upon which our long-term health and well-being are utterly and ultimately dependent.

    Now run along Sisko-Kid… perhaps the Discovery Institute has a “position” fer ya’?

    Link to this
  47. 47. Sisko 1:58 pm 11/15/2012

    Cramer

    Lucia is comparing observed conditions to what climate models predicted for the same time periods. She has not cherry picked anything. If you were to predict GDP 10 years from now that would be the same as a GCM making a prediction. In 10 years we can see how well you did in making predictions. That is what Lucia has done.

    I am making no claims about sea level rise I am comparing what the IPCC and Hansen forecasted would happen to what has actually been happening. Didn’t the AR4 state that sea level was likely to rise by .6 meters by 2100 and Hansen claimed it would rise by 1 to 2 meters by that time? It has been rising at less than ½ of the rate that AR4 suggested it would. It is simply a fact that the rate of rise will have to increase dramatically in order for it to rise by what either AR4 or Hansen predicted and there is zero evidence that this is occurring.

    btw- I do not believe the collection of books called the bible are factually correct- just to dispell another stereotype

    Link to this
  48. 48. Cramer 2:22 pm 11/15/2012

    Sisko,

    Lucia simulations:
    That is not what Lucia has done. What she has done is attempt to backtest a very small sample of recent trendless data. And you claimed that this is evidence that these models are useless for making forecasts to 2100. Currently, Europe is in recession. If my models could not predict that, it does not mean that my models can not forecast the GDP ten years from now within a specified confidence interval (data can be is noisy — timeframes are important!). For your info, the climate simulations that Lucia ran can not be applied to times frames shorter than three decades. For higher resolutions you need a supercomputer running more detailed models. This is why she will not provide the details of her simulation, because she knows they are bogus.

    Your sea-level rise claim (read entire thread):
    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=is-global-warming-happening-faster-than-expected#comment-103

    Sea level rise:
    Have you heard of acceleration?

    Bible:
    I never said anything about the bible. You could be an atheist for all I know. But there is proof that you have FAITH in Lucia, because she has provided ZERO details on her simulations and you accepted them as the truth.

    Link to this
  49. 49. Cramer 2:38 pm 11/15/2012

    Sisko,

    Resolution of models included in AR4:

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2012/2012JD017765.shtml

    This research claims CMIP3 and 5 models (which includes the AR4 models) can not be used for periods less than three decades.

    What scientist is claiming that the AR4 models could accurately predict the Lucia’s 138 month period? Otherwise your position is simply a straw man.

    Link to this
  50. 50. Sisko 2:58 pm 11/15/2012

    Cramer

    Cramer
    The link you posted was an evaluation of the ability of climate models to make accurate hindcasts. You know that is not relevant except as a part of model development. The test of how well a model is performing is when its forecasts are compared to observed results. The models forecasted a rate of temperature rise and that rate is not occurring. The basis of your position is that “well maybe the rate of change will increase in the future”. Maybe you are right, but there is no reliable data to support your conclusion.

    Regarding sea level rise, you are making exactly the same argument. You agree that the rate of sea level rise is currently a not alarming .3 meters per century, but you believe/fear that the rate may increase in the future. Perhaps you are right, but there is no reliable evidence to support your conclusion. When will tthe rate of sea level rise increase?

    Link to this
  51. 51. Sisko 3:08 pm 11/15/2012

    Cramer

    You wrote- “Pseudo-skeptics like Sisko believe anyone with the same ideological bias”

    I ask- what ideological bias do you believe I have? Is it possible that your are prejudiced yourself in that you believe that someone who disagrees with you has an ideological bias?

    Link to this
  52. 52. Cramer 3:15 pm 11/15/2012

    Sisko, are you saying Lucia Liljegren’s analysis was not backtesting? Hmmm. She used 138-month observed data starting Jan-2001.

    The basis of my claim is that data is noisy. The models are used for forecasting longer periods.

    The basis of your claim seems to be that, hmmm, we have had zero increase in temperatures over the last decade, therefore GW is not happening for the longer term.

    Yes, your last statement shows that you do not understand acceleration. You ask “when will the rate of sea level rise increase?” It’s not a matter of when, it’s continuous. It’s rising faster now than 20 years ago, and it will be rising faster in 20 years than now. Your the first engineer that I know without an understanding of calculus.

    Link to this
  53. 53. Bird/tree/dinosaur/etc. geek 3:17 pm 11/15/2012

    @ Cramer: Good job handling the Obnoxious One.

    @ Sisko/Robbie:
    “”"I ask- what ideological bias do you believe I have? Is it possible that your are prejudiced yourself in that you believe that someone who disagrees with you has an ideological bias?”"”

    You are clearly starting your thought process from the pre-assumption that AGW is a hoax. This is EXTREMELY bad and biased science.

    “”"You agree that the rate of sea level rise is currently a not alarming .3 meters per century, but you believe/fear that the rate may increase in the future. “”"

    A foot per century is catastrophic. Also, the rate has been increasing, and the rate of increase of the rate of sea level rise is, in turn, rising. The instantaneous rate of sea level rise today is something like a meter per century.

    Furthermore, your denialist blogger pal is a pathetic excuse for a pseudoscientist. Find a less obviously biased source.

    Link to this
  54. 54. Cramer 3:21 pm 11/15/2012

    Sisko,
    This is pointless discussion. You have very little knowledge (you are not an aeronautical engineer). I have respect for Dr. Liljegren. She seems to be open-minded and a straight shooter. She is not making the same claims that you are about her analysis. If she provides the details of her simulations, I will be happy to discuss them with her (even on her website).

    Link to this
  55. 55. Bird/tree/dinosaur/etc. geek 3:27 pm 11/15/2012

    @ Cramer: Really? I came out of her blog with the impression that she is behaving like a BANDit and doing analyses with the end goal of attempting to refute AGW theory.

    Link to this
  56. 56. Cramer 3:30 pm 11/15/2012

    Sisko, I don’t know your ideological bias. I just know that you have one because you are not a skeptic — your main objective is simply to have faith in things that confirm that you are correct in your beliefs.

    Link to this
  57. 57. Sisko 3:37 pm 11/15/2012

    Cramer

    You are mistaken.

    I do not question the concept of AGW. I question the predicted rate of warming and the secondary impacts of any warming that have been predicted as a result of the use of models that have not been demonstrated to be accurate.

    Link to this
  58. 58. Bird/tree/dinosaur/etc. geek 3:39 pm 11/15/2012

    @ Sisko/Robbie:
    “”"I do not question the concept of AGW. “”"

    Hahahahaha!!! Could have fooled me.

    “”"I question the predicted rate of warming and the secondary impacts of any warming that have been predicted as a result of the use of models that have not been demonstrated to be accurate.”"”

    Except that the models have either been proven accurate or shown to have erred towards your biased preconceptions, so your entire statement is useless.

    Link to this
  59. 59. Cramer 3:56 pm 11/15/2012

    Sisko,
    You do not question AGW, but you do not believe sea levels will rise more than 1 ft/century or that temperature will rise anymore than 0.1C/century? And you also don’t believe CO2 is relevant to global warming. Did you know that the A in AGW is for anthropogenic?

    Bird,
    Lucia never claimed that her analysis shows that AGW does not exist as Sisko has. She is actually quite intelligent (unlike Sisko). I would have to read more of her blogs before I come to a position that she is just another closed-minded denialist.

    Link to this
  60. 60. Bird/tree/dinosaur/etc. geek 4:07 pm 11/15/2012

    @ Cramer: Meh. It’s hard to tell, in my opinion.

    Link to this
  61. 61. Sisko 4:29 pm 11/15/2012

    Cramer

    You are once again completely wrong.

    I have not written that the rate of sea level rise will remain constant, nor have I written that AST will only rise by .1C, nor have I written that human released CO2 will not impact temperature.

    Wow, you really do not get much accurate do you?

    The issue imo is about what the actual rate of warming will be and what will result from that warming. The evidence seems to show that the rate of warming will be less than the IPCC predicted and that the secondary impacts that result from the warming will be different than the IPCC forecasted.

    The real question is what is realistically going to be done by the roughly 200 independent nations around the world given that there are practical realities to be dealt with and limited resources.

    Imo, people like Ms Gorman calling people who do not agree with her perspective deniers is stupid and counterproductive.

    Link to this
  62. 62. M Tucker 4:34 pm 11/15/2012

    To all aerospace systems engineers or rocket scientists or phone sanitizers who deny the conclusions of the overwhelming majority of peer-reviewed climate scientists who actually do research and devote their lives to science: no one really cares what your uninformed opinions are and the rest of us would rather not have to listen to them.

    Oh, you claim to have studied climate science for 6-7 years…who are you trying to convince, a group of 12 year olds? Your drinking buddies? Seriously, if you think you know more than those scientists who are actually doing the research then take your arguments to one of their professional meetings and see how far you get. You are saying you know more than the National Academy of Science, the Royal Society, the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, the US Geological Survey, the Geological Society of America, NASA, NOAA, and many other professional scientific organizations. That sort of malarkey only works with those who already agree with your wild unsupported claims.

    I would like to thank Christine Gorman for her article and for the relentless vigilance and vigorous push-back from Bird/tree and Cramer. Keep it up guys!

    Link to this
  63. 63. Sisko 4:40 pm 11/15/2012

    Spin wrote- “CLEAR CONSENSUS among the scientists” Please can you tell me what it is that you believe there is a clear consensus among scientists on regarding the topic of AGW?

    Is it about the basic premise of AGW- then yes I agree, but that was never the question in dispute. Beyond the basic premise there is not much of a consensus unless you include wide margins of error as a part of the question

    Link to this
  64. 64. Sisko 4:57 pm 11/15/2012

    I suggest reader explore http://www.climatedialogue.org/

    Link to this
  65. 65. Bird/tree/dinosaur/etc. geek 5:23 pm 11/15/2012

    @ Sisko/Robbie:
    “”"I have not written that the rate of sea level rise will remain constant, nor have I written that AST will only rise by .1C, nor have I written that human released CO2 will not impact temperature.”"”

    Great job splitting that hair. Although technically the second part is a LIE!!!

    “”"The evidence seems to show that the rate of warming will be less than the IPCC predicted and that the secondary impacts that result from the warming will be different than the IPCC forecasted.”"”

    LIE!!! Actually the opposite is true. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=climate-change-faster-than-predicted

    “”"Beyond the basic premise there is not much of a consensus unless you include wide margins of error as a part of the question”"”

    How wide is “wide”, then?

    Link to this
  66. 66. Cramer 5:26 pm 11/15/2012

    Sisko, in comment 12 above you said, “Actually the melting at the North Pole is not happening faster than was modeled 10 years ago or in 2006 prior to AR4.”

    Then in comment 64 you provide the link for climatedialogue.org.

    The first thing I read there is about recent studies (2011 & 2012) trying to explain why arctic melting is happening much faster than was expected.

    Link to this
  67. 67. Sisko 5:47 pm 11/15/2012

    Cramer

    You should read more closely. The comments were regarding 2012 having been a significant downturn in arctic ice and not a comparison of the actual observed trend vs. what had been projected in prior analysis. They further had an excellent exchange on what the future holds and why.

    Maybe you and others would describe them all as deniers.

    Link to this
  68. 68. Bird/tree/dinosaur/etc. geek 5:55 pm 11/15/2012

    @ Sisko: A massive ice loss is exactly what is expected. Also, you are clearly just some random uneducated person sitting on a couch drinking beer while typing, as you have managed to provide no reliable evidence so far, and seem to enjoy being a troll. Go troll somewhere else.

    Link to this
  69. 69. Cramer 6:01 pm 11/15/2012

    Sisko,
    I don’t know if you like to spin things or are dilusional. What else would “Arctic sea ice decline: Faster than forecast” mean except as you said, “a comparison of the actual observed trend vs. what had been projected in prior analysis.”

    Here’s the 2011 paper:
    IPCC climate models do not capture Arctic sea ice drift acceleration: Consequences in terms of projected sea ice thinning and decline; P. Rampal , J. Weiss , C. Dubois , J.M. Campin; Journal of Geophysical Research , vol. 116, 2011.

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011JC007110.shtml

    Link to this
  70. 70. lucia 6:40 pm 11/15/2012

    cramer

    If she provides all the details of her simulations and re-opens her comment thread, I will be happy to review her methodology and comment. She must give where she obtained the models (not all models are publically available, especially the fully-implemented versions rather than dumb-down versions) and/or provide the code/software. I really doubt she actually ran 11 fully implemented models.

    I’ve re-opened comments. Feel free to visit and ask whatever you like. For what it’s worth: I don’t claim to have run any models myself. The post merely shows how observed trends compare to the spread of trends from those runs submitted to create the forecast in the AR4. The monthly temperatures used to create the forecast in the AR4 are available in a variety of placed. For example at KNMI’s climate explorer:

    http://climexp.knmi.nl/selectfield_co2.cgi?id=someone@somewhere

    The documentation for these models would be precisely the documentation that was available to the authors of the IPCC AR4.

    As for other issues: Yes. My blog post is a blog post. I’m not entirely sure what you think is cherrypicked about 2001 to test model forecasting ability. I alternate using 2001 and 2000 in different posts– and sometimes show comparisons from other years. Also, it seems to me you may be imputing to me claims I have not made. But if you wish to learn what I think that graph communicates– I’ve opened comments and can explain there. I’m unlikely to come back here.

    Link to this
  71. 71. Bird/tree/dinosaur/etc. geek 7:00 pm 11/15/2012

    @ lucia: Thank you for explaining your methodology to some degree. Unfortunately, I am busy with research right this instant, but I will look over your findings again later.

    Link to this
  72. 72. lucia 7:31 pm 11/15/2012

    Bird/tree/dinosaur/etc. That’s fine. The reason my blog would be best is that I get email when someone comments. Also, I can post additional figures if those are required for any questions. I’ve updated my script so new figures will provide names of the models rather than listing them with a mystery digit and so on.

    Bear in mind that to fully communicate where models are (and deal with discussions of cherry picking) I need to add a module to my script that shows comparisons for different start years. Currently I can quickly gin up models provided we pick a start year and so forth. I can show stuff like that at my blog– but it really isn’t feasible here. (You’ll find people at my blog will be happy to acknowledge the ice is melting faster than projected in the AR4 though we might interpret what that means about models warming and so on differently than the author of this scientific america article. But the ice is melting faster than projected in the AR4– no doubt about that.)

    Link to this
  73. 73. Bird/tree/dinosaur/etc. geek 8:08 pm 11/15/2012

    @ lucia: Thank you for being so forthcoming and concerned about the allegations of bad science. Also, thank you for refuting my first impressions of you.

    I’m really quite busy with my two research projects (a paleontology project that would only interest specialists and an informal one regarding trolls and their frequency with respect to certain “keywords” in article titles) to comment on your blog right now, but I trust Cramer to examine everything as necessary.

    Link to this
  74. 74. Cramer 10:42 pm 11/15/2012

    BTW, the question on “model weather” was rhetorical. I have extensive experience with simulations, so I understood what you meant. I just haven’t heard much use of that description — it’s seems to be some climatology joke that just didn’t take off because it was too corny.

    Link to this
  75. 75. lucia 11:41 pm 11/15/2012

    Bird/tree etc.
    Don’t worry– your comments aren’t urgent to my blog. I stopped by because Rob contacted me, gave me some quotes and asked how I would respond to you (or cramer I guess.) I told him I really couldn’t unless he told me the uri of the post over here so I could read whatever was said in context.

    With respect to commenting at my blog: Comments are open now. But they will autoclose if no one comments after some amount of time. If you arrive and want to comment, ask me to reopen and I can. Autoclosing helps prevent constant spam accumulation which becomes outrageous if every single old post has open comments.

    Likely as not if you are busy and stop by later, some of those figures will be updated with fresh data. (In fact, I owe my readers fresher graphs. Newer graphs show HadCrut4 trends— the one Rob linked was created just before up-to-date HadCrut4 became available. So on that graph, the lowest observed trend is HadCrut 3.)

    Link to this
  76. 76. Cramer 12:31 am 11/16/2012

    Lucia,

    So you came here to defend Rob Starkey, the troll who uses ad hominems and calls people idiots? But you refuse to discuss the science.

    Maybe you should know the people you defend. Google “site:scientificamerican.com Sisko” for his trolling behavior.

    In case you missed it in my comment #73, that was a quote from Rob Starkey that he called Bird an idiot. I hope you did not think those were my words. I do not use ad hominems.

    It sounds like Lucia is actually Rob Starkey. Above in my comments I defended the real Lucia as intelligent. Others, such as “Bird” insulted you. And you choose to have a non-scientific dialogue with Bird. You’re not Lucia.

    Link to this
  77. 77. Cramer 12:31 am 11/16/2012

    Lucia,

    So you came here to defend Rob Starkey, the troll who uses ad hominems and calls people idiots? But you refuse to discuss the science.

    Maybe you should know the people you defend. Google “site:scientificamerican.com Sisko” for his trolling behavior.

    In case you missed it in my comment #73, that was a quote from Rob Starkey that he called Bird an idiot. I hope you did not think those were my words. I do not use ad hominems.

    It sounds like Lucia is actually Rob Starkey. Above in my comments I defended the real Lucia as intelligent. Others, such as “Bird” insulted you. And you choose to have a non-scientific dialogue with Bird. You’re not Lucia.

    Link to this
  78. 78. Bird/tree/dinosaur/etc. geek 8:42 am 11/16/2012

    I hate the Internet. The anonymity that it gives lets people like Rob Starkley/pokerplayer/Sisko, who wouldn’t even THINK of going after someone like me in real life, get an unfair advantage against me while I am distracted by my research. Perhaps SciAm should start requiring real names, or denying name changes except as the editors allow, or not allowing deleted people to set up new accounts, or not letting anyone set up multiple accounts. Just a thought (or seven).

    Link to this
  79. 79. lucia 10:22 am 11/16/2012

    Cramer
    First, I think there is somesort of mystery/blog communication thing going on here.
    —–

    So you came here to defend Rob Starkey, the troll who uses ad hominems and calls people idiots?

    —-
    Defended rob? How? I contradicted him on the ice loss.

    Rob contacted me (three times I think.) He sent me quotes, and wanted to know how “I” would respond — but he provided no links to the ongoing snit. I normally just ignore that sort of contact– but he was pretty persistent.

    I told him I couldn’t respond to him unless he provided me the uri so I could read whatever it was he, you or anyone else was trying to say in context.

    When I arrived, I noticed a number of things. But the only really important one (to me) was I noticed you said if I reopened comments on my post you would be happy to discuss in comments at my blog. I reopened the comments. If you wish to comment there — as you said you would like to do– you are welcome to do so. The post (from mid-October and definitely terse) is here:
    http://rankexploits.com/musings/2012/adding-multi-model-means-to-model-v-observations-graphs/

    —-

    In case you missed it in my comment #73, that was a quote from Rob Starkey that he called Bird an idiot. I hope you did not think those were my words. I do not use ad hominems.

    ——-
    I’m confused. Comment 73 displays as being written by ” 73. Bird/tree/dinosaur/etc. geek 8:08 pm 11/15/2012 ” not you. That’s why I addressed bird/tree in response. (I hope blockquotes work here? I’m not sure they do. There also doesn’t seem to be any comment editing or preview. This makes conversations difficult here.)

    I haven’t accused you of using adhoms. I invited you to my blog to discuss what I wrote.

    —–

    Others, such as “Bird” insulted you. And you choose to have a non-scientific dialogue with Bird. You’re not Lucia.

    —-
    Good lord! I got dragged here, read your comments and since you said you would be happy to discuss things in comments at my blog, I thought you might like to discuss things at my blog. I then opened the comments for you.

    Twitter was not letting me link my identity– so I had to go to the trouble to register. I then addressed 70 to you. In that comment I told you I opened comments at my blog and invited you to discuss there. After which, you did not appear to reply to me until the combined (76/77). Your comment 74 is rather mysterious, addressed to no one and I have no idea what sort of response one might have made to it.

    I only learned of your comment 76 because some visitors at my blog read it and let me know about it.

    Yes. I also responded to bird/tree who addressed a comment specifically to me and thanked me for appearing and said my comments modified is previous impression. He’s stated that impression in 55– and possibly it was not particularly nice. But I don’t find that a reason not to engage him. If he wishes to visit my blog and see what I did– he’s welcome. As are you.

    But you refuse to discuss the science.

    I don’t know why you have this impression. I reopened comments for you. I invited you to discuss at my blog where:
    1) blockquotes work. (So we can keep track of who said what.)
    2) I monitor somewhat for name changing sock-puppets.
    3) I can write new post and easily insert figures– even in comments. So can you.
    4) Latex is enabled in comments.
    5) comments has a and edit/delete function and finally
    6) I will learn of your comments by email if or when you post them.

    Note: All first comments by new name/email combinations are moderated. This is to help me slow down name-changing sock-puppets. Also, I block many anonymizing services/proxies etc.

    You and Bird are both welcome to discuss at my blog if you wish. Or, if you prefer not to because you are convinced I am secretly Rob Starkey, or because you are busy or whatever, I’ll continue on as I have been.

    Link to this
  80. 80. Bird/tree/dinosaur/etc. geek 10:39 am 11/16/2012

    @ lucia
    “”"I’m confused. Comment 73 displays as being written by ” 73. Bird/tree/dinosaur/etc. geek 8:08 pm 11/15/2012 ” not you. That’s why I addressed bird/tree in response. (I hope blockquotes work here? I’m not sure they do. There also doesn’t seem to be any comment editing or preview. This makes conversations difficult here.)”"”

    Some earlier ones must have been deleted.

    “”" and possibly it was not particularly nice. “”"

    I am a blunt and (pathologically) honest person. It’s been a problem for me for a long time; the more flustered, anxoius, or upset I am, the more honest and open I am. I still remember (perhaps too vividely) the time I got a surprise college interview sprung on me and I literally told the admissions lady everything about myself. Everything.

    “”"Note: All first comments by new name/email combinations are moderated. This is to help me slow down name-changing sock-puppets. Also, I block many anonymizing services/proxies etc.”"”

    Thank you. That is an excellent policy.

    Another excellent anti-trolling measure is getting some regular readers who enjoy taking down trolls for sport. Darren Naish (at Tetrapod Zoology) has a friend named David Marjanovich, a brilliant paleontologist who enjoys annihilating trolls.

    I will try to make some time to go check out your blog again today. Must go now, bone measuring time.

    Link to this
  81. 81. Carrick 10:41 am 11/16/2012

    Cramer: “It sounds like Lucia is actually Rob Starkey”

    OMG!!!!

    There’s no walking back from that one. Don’t bother responding, I laugh at you not with you

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucia_Liljegren

    Link to this
  82. 82. Carrick 10:54 am 11/16/2012

    Bird/tree/dinosaur/etc. geek, while we’re on the subject of ad hominem attacks, I’d suggest moderating your responses to things you think are untrue from LIE!!!! to False. I am not going to post here because I have a thing about websites that call themselves “scientific” then moderate and delete comments.

    Link to this
  83. 83. Bird/tree/dinosaur/etc. geek 10:54 am 11/16/2012

    Too early. Nine minutes until I have access.

    @ lucia: I Wikipediaed you, and I have to say that I share your distrust of current models (although I think that most of them are too conservative). My greatest fear is a methane hydrate release caused by Arctic thermocline disruption (or a similar effect pf global warming). Obviously, that much methane suddenly injected into the atmosphere would be bad for the planet.

    Hope I can post this; Internet is spotty.

    Link to this
  84. 84. Bird/tree/dinosaur/etc. geek 10:57 am 11/16/2012

    @ Carrick:
    “”"Bird/tree/dinosaur/etc. geek, while we’re on the subject of ad hominem attacks, I’d suggest moderating your responses to things you think are untrue from LIE!!!! to False. “”"

    Maybe…I still think that it annoys the trolls more effectively. Plus, I enjoy it. ;)

    “”"I am not going to post here because I have a thing about websites that call themselves “scientific” then moderate and delete comments.”"”

    Well…if you mean RATIONAL comments, then I agree. If you think that obvious trolls should not be deleted, then I very much disagree.

    Link to this
  85. 85. lucia 11:19 am 11/16/2012

    Bird

    Another excellent anti-trolling measure is getting some regular readers who enjoy taking down trolls for sport.

    Permitting this tends to make things worse, not better. Because I self host and wordpress permits me to write plugins, I have much better methods of making people behave.

    I will try to make some time to go check out your blog again today. Must go now, bone measuring time./i>

    I’ll go write a post that Cramer will say uses a cherry picked start date. :) Then maybe he can suggest one he’d rather see.

    Obviously, that much methane suddenly injected into the atmosphere would be bad for the planet.

    The difficulty is that trolls like to be annoyed.

    Obviously, that much methane suddenly injected into the atmosphere would be bad for the planet.

    Yes. It would. That’s a somewhat separate from the accuracy of models conditioned on known or correct forcings. (It’s fine to discuss both. But… it’s worth recognizing they are different things.)

    Well…if you mean RATIONAL comments, then I agree. If you think that obvious trolls should not be deleted, then I very much disagree.

    I rarely delete comments. For example, if you posted this sort of thing at my blog
    xactly. He needs to be more attractive to women, though, if he wants hot staffers to give him oral sex.
    I would likely tell you to stop it but leave it up. Then, later, if you continued to rebut people by changing the topic to sex with congressional staffers, I would ban you, linking to your comment as evidence to show how comments got derailed. Presumably, this is Ms. Gorman’s policy since she left your comment up. But oooopss. She didn’t chastise you!!

    When I do delete comments (which is very rare) comment numbers aren’t screwed up because my blog displays the actual number in the database. So, comments don’t have low numbers like “20″ on recent posts. :)

    Link to this
  86. 86. Carrick 11:33 am 11/16/2012

    Bird/etc “Well…if you mean RATIONAL comments, then I agree. If you think that obvious trolls should not be deleted, then I very much disagree.

    If I were running this blog (I run NO blog, having the need to avoid that time sink), I would snip insults, warn violators then eventually ban them.

    Lucia has a mechanism where she can throttle the rate at which violators can post, and the length of the comment. willard for example can only post once an hour (I think) and then only a few lines. I don’t make the rules up, so this is only approximate.

    I do like the prohibition against assumption of motive in responses. You can assume ignorance on the part of the other person, you shouldn’t assume malice based just on the fact you disagree with them.

    My own position is “warming” refers to an positive temperature trend over an interval and “cooling” to a negative temperature trend. That and only that. You can say “climate is warming” if the trend is positive and significantly different from zero. I’m pretty sure this is settled language choice in science.

    Since circa 2000, we can’t make the assertion that the temperature trend is both positive and significantly different from zero. If we can’t make that statement we certainly can’t argue that the warming is more rapid that expected.

    I’d say the opposite, from what we’ve seen in the last three decades, the warming has been less than models in the 1980s, and the warming in the last decade less than models in the 1990s expected, all of these speak to a lower temperature sensitivity than early modelers anticipated, something closer to 2-3 °C/doubling of CO2 rather than the 4°C/doubling suggested e.g. by James Hansen in his 1984 publication.

    Anyway, laterz. Work calls for me too.

    Link to this
  87. 87. Cramer 12:23 pm 11/16/2012

    Lucia said, “I’ll go write a post that Cramer will say uses a cherry picked start date. Then maybe he can suggest one he’d rather see.”

    You seem to have missed my point about model resolution. When I look at the model data at KNMI, it obvious they are of very low resolution — like three decades, not one.

    Arguments based on your analysis of 138-month period starting Jan2001 seem to be of same nature as that made by the Daily Mail: “Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released… and here is the chart to prove it.”

    Link to this
  88. 88. Bird/tree/dinosaur/etc. geek 12:48 pm 11/16/2012

    Got necessary data. So far, it looks like Skinner was right. More evindence in favor of my hypothesis.

    @ lucia (comment 85): The staffer comment was meant to be somewhat tongue-in-cheek and derogatory only of Congress and trolls, two groups that have near-zero respect in the scientific community.

    “”"The difficulty is that trolls like to be annoyed.”"”

    Wait…they’re maschoists now, too?!?! All of my hard work at Colbert- and Stewart-style mocking is for naught!!! :)

    “”"Because I self host and wordpress permits me to write plugins, I have much better methods of making people behave.”"”

    Good. People like Sisko/pokerplayer/Rob Starkley and the notorious G. Karst need methods like that. They seem immune to reason.

    “”"That’s a somewhat separate from the accuracy of models conditioned on known or correct forcings. (It’s fine to discuss both. But… it’s worth recognizing they are different things.)”"”

    Well…since massive ice loss is likely to lead to methane hydrate release, it is relevant. Technically, it would only be indirectly due to human idiocy, but the result would be the same.

    Also, I have said this before, but it bears repeating. The magnitude and direction of the temperature change is unimportant. The rate of change is what matters, and the current rate is faster than at any time since the Permian extinction.

    “”"Another excellent anti-trolling measure is getting some regular readers who enjoy taking down trolls for sport.

    Permitting this tends to make things worse, not better. “”"

    True. I’ve seen the geocentrist (!!!) Bill_Crofut take a tongue-lashing from David Marjanovich and come back with the EXACT SAME ARGUMENTS that Marjanovich had just debunked. Trolls are immune to reason. However, Pharyngula’s method (troll-eaters plus a “dungeon” for repeat trolls) seems to work just fine.

    Link to this
  89. 89. Cramer 2:19 pm 11/16/2012

    Is anyone going to discuss anything rather than trivial points, such as my off-the-cuff comment about the possibility of Lucia (on this SciAm thread) being Sisko? The reason I made that comment was base on my perception that Lucia is intelligent (and I am not saying that I have revoked that position). Lucia’s comments on this thread have been superficial and she has ignored my questions — acting like Sisko (Rob). [I am mostly referring up to the point when I said Lucia == Sisko.] I even acknowledged that I was wrong.

    Unfortunately (or should that be fortunately), I have other committments and will have to restrict my comments to points that are more substantive. I’m here to learn new things–please provide me some knowledge of value. Examples:

    Point me to where I can learn how to run 10,000-run simulation at KNMI or tell me how I misunderstood. Tell me why the Tamino analysis is bogus or why the Sakguchi, et al study does not apply to CMIP3/AR4 model data at KNMI.

    Link to this
  90. 90. jkeenan913 11:03 am 11/18/2012

    Is this thread inactive or have the moderators just not allowed new comments in?

    Link to this
  91. 91. Bird/tree/dinosaur/etc. geek 2:52 pm 11/18/2012

    It should be just inactive…

    Link to this
  92. 92. Bird/tree/dinosaur/etc. geek 2:52 pm 11/18/2012

    Yeah, just inactive.

    Link to this
  93. 93. Cramer 3:08 pm 11/18/2012

    There appears to be a problem with comments being eliminated on the server-side when using Chrome, Firefox, and Safari (i.e. comments are not in the browser-side source code–not a javascript problem). IE9 shows comments that are eliminated by these other browsers.

    In this thread it appears that five of my comments only appear in IE9. Don’t know what the issue is — they contain nothing that would result in them being deleted by the moderator. And the problem has only been with my comments.

    There are five missing comments:
    65. Cramer 5:15 pm 11/15/2012
    73. Cramer 7:13 pm 11/15/2012
    76. Cramer 10:15 pm 11/15/2012
    90. Cramer 12:12 pm 11/16/2012
    92. Cramer 12:38 pm 11/16/2012

    In IE9 this should be the 98th comment. In Chrome, Firefox, and Safari this should be the 93rd comment.

    Also, in IE9, the total number of comments given at the top of this page is the same as in Chrome, et al.

    Anyone else seeing this problem?

    Link to this
  94. 94. Carrick 3:49 pm 11/18/2012

    It turns out that’s what rejected comments do on this site. You see them when you log in, and not when you’re logged off. Expect your comment and this one to disappear once the clever moderate deletes them (while leaving birds “oral sex” comment in, charmed I’m sure).

    Link to this
  95. 95. Cramer 4:21 pm 11/18/2012

    Logging-in or -out has no effect. I still see the comments in IE9 after logging-out.

    Plus, I have never had a comment deleted on this site. SciAm moderators are very liberal — they usually just delete spam. I posted using Sleipnir which is an open source browser that I use for their C++ library, but not all my comments were delete. But is possible that I posted some comments with IE9 (those being the ones not affected).

    Link to this
  96. 96. lucia 4:44 pm 11/18/2012

    Cramer,
    Try this:
    Log out.
    Delete cookies from the browser that shows you your comments.
    Clear your cache.
    Restart that browser. (Just in case your browser is weird about cache/cookies etc.)

    Then load the post and see whether your comments have disappeared.

    Link to this
  97. 97. lucia 4:46 pm 11/18/2012

    Ohhhh… my vanished comment 91 is baaaaccckkk! :)

    Hah! Hilarious. What a ridiculous comment moderation system.

    Link to this
  98. 98. Carrick 5:09 pm 11/18/2012

    Cramer: “Plus, I have never had a comment deleted on this site. SciAm moderators are very liberal — they usually just delete spam.”

    Well I can replicate the behavior. Your comments aren’t being deleted, they just get “suppressed” so nobody else sees them.

    Link to this
  99. 99. Blain Rius 11:45 pm 11/18/2012

    As a European I should tell you that the Stephan Rahmstorf in this story is a libeller in Germany. The court last year showed he makes untrue statements.

    http://motls.blogspot.ca/2011/12/stefan-rahmstorf-convicted-as-liar.html

    Link to this
  100. 100. geographyTeacher 6:04 pm 11/19/2012

    The Climate Change Fraud is completely exposed as such in the UK. Even when I was training to teach around the time of the first Climategate release because of a High Court ruling on the Gore Inconvenient Truth Lie we skirted round the CAGW message which previous teachers had to convey. After the second CG release the mechanics of the fraud were clear. The next release will probably connect the political chicanery to the academic fraud more, although there can hardly be much left to discover. I am surprised that a scientific journal is still promoting this racket.

    Link to this
  101. 101. G. Karst 10:51 am 11/21/2012

    So the autistic bird hooter is railing against anonymous posters, while hiding behind his descriptive, anonymous handle. He is just a child, holds no certifications, degrees, nor eagle scout badges and has never held a job in his life. Mommy is his source of confidence as she constantly ensures him, that he is the greatest mind, in the universe.

    When he is confronted by a real and respected scholar (Lucia), he reverts back to annoying grunts and squeals. Others find satisfaction in his disruptive behavior. This enabling encouragement, will only exasperate his autistic problems. It certainly does not contribute to the blog. GK

    Link to this
  102. 102. 2008RealityCheck 12:29 pm 11/21/2012

    Such a stupid title for a supposed science magazine. No one denies climate changes. The issues are more complex than whomever in Scientific American generates article titles.

    Link to this
  103. 103. carlonne 4:52 pm 11/21/2012

    This shows why politicians should be ignored for what they say & proves that they are basically ignorant. The only reason most of them have the job is that there is little else they can qualify for.

    Link to this
  104. 104. Cramer 5:26 pm 11/21/2012

    It appears that SciAm is moderating user comments using a deceptive tactic. They delete comments, but they wrote the code for this website to deceive the commenter into believing their comments are still posted.

    How else is SciAm trying to deceive their readers?

    [Yes, clearing my brower's temporary file cache removed my comments.]

    Link to this
  105. 105. Cramer 6:06 pm 11/21/2012

    Now my comments are back when using IE9 and I can’t get rid of them in IE9 by deleting temp files and cookies (plus restarting PC). They are still gone in Chrome.

    I’m stumped — don’t know what’s going on, but it still smells of deception.

    Link to this
  106. 106. Bird/tree/dinosaur/etc. geek 4:18 pm 11/22/2012

    “”"So the autistic bird hooter is railing against anonymous posters, while hiding behind his descriptive, anonymous handle. He is just a child, holds no certifications, degrees, nor eagle scout badges and has never held a job in his life. Mommy is his source of confidence as she constantly ensures him, that he is the greatest mind, in the universe.”"”

    You are disgusting. Here is why:
    1. You call your opponents children for no reason.
    2. Eagle Scout badges mean nothing.
    3. When I was a teenager (13 at the time) I was recognized by the Johns Hopkins University Study of Exceptional Talent. At the age of 16 I was able to hold my own in conversation with paleontology graduate students and postgraduate fellows. I have received ceiling scores (160) on two IQ tests. What do you have? An SAT score report that has a big fat 200 (that’s the lowest possible score, if memory serves–it’s been a long time) on it?
    4. If I had what you call a “real job”, I would have no time for research. Research stipends work much better, although they barely pay enough for a hole in the wall.

    “”"When he is confronted by a real and respected scholar (Lucia), he reverts back to annoying grunts and squeals.”"”

    And your pathetic whimperings are somehow better than my rational criticism?

    “”"Others find satisfaction in his disruptive behavior. This enabling encouragement, will only exasperate his autistic problems. It certainly does not contribute to the blog. GK”"”

    Again, I’m not autistic, troll. Go away, and be nasty somewhere else.

    Link to this
  107. 107. G. Karst 10:28 am 11/23/2012

    Lie
    Lie
    Child – idiot savant
    Confirms unemployment
    True
    Child

    I am mimicking your autistic style of commenting, so that understanding, may overcome, your impairments and a change in behavior can occur. If you really are intelligent (nothing indicates such), then it should not be too difficult to comment with supported facts instead of blathering noises.

    Try to contribute meaningfully to the blog instead of disrupting every thread. Get away from mommy and get a job. GK

    Link to this
  108. 108. Bird/tree/dinosaur/etc. geek 1:09 pm 11/23/2012

    “”"I am mimicking your autistic style of commenting, so that understanding, may overcome, your impairments and a change in behavior can occur. If you really are intelligent (nothing indicates such), then it should not be too difficult to comment with supported facts instead of blathering noises.”"”

    Translation: I’m too stupid to realize that I’m talking to a real scientist, so I’ll just resort to calling my opponent’s mental abilities into question.

    “”"Try to contribute meaningfully to the blog instead of disrupting every thread. “”"

    Why don’t you do that? You are pathetic and hypocritical.

    “”"Get away from mommy and get a job. GK”"”

    Sorry, too busy with research to be some boring middle manager. How about you leave your mother’s basement and go be something other than a pizza deliver man?

    Link to this
  109. 109. Bird/tree/dinosaur/etc. geek 1:12 pm 11/23/2012

    BTW, Karst: When you’ve been published multiple times in peer-reviewed journals, then you can challenge Cramer, Trent1492, moss boss, and me. Not before.

    Link to this
  110. 110. Bird/tree/dinosaur/etc. geek 10:27 am 11/24/2012

    @ carlonne:
    “”"This shows why politicians should be ignored for what they say & proves that they are basically ignorant. The only reason most of them have the job is that there is little else they can qualify for.”"”

    Well, Todd Akin the Magic Vagina Guy is less intelligent than my regular mailwoman, and Dan Quayle has been unfavorably compared to a hamster, but Chris Christie is honest, pragmatic, and efficient (even though I don’t always agree with him). Our current President is a Harvard-educated lawyer, a talented orator, and a canny foreign policy strategist, but our previous one was a semiliterate war criminal.

    In short, politicians tend to be stupid and incompetent, but this isn’t always the case.

    Link to this

Add a Comment
You must sign in or register as a ScientificAmerican.com member to submit a comment.

More from Scientific American

Scientific American MIND iPad

Give a Gift & Get a Gift - Free!

Give a 1 year subscription as low as $14.99

Subscribe Now >>

X

Email this Article

X