AR5

[MannyIsGod]

So, its out. When are Darrin and others going to post their critiques of the AR5 Summary for Policy Makers which basically says the exact same thing AR4 said? Are you waiting on your favorite talking heads to tell you what to think?

Here's the link for anyone interested. I'll save you some time, though. It says Climate Change is real, has not stopped, and is a serious challenge for humans going forward. You know, the same shit that scientists have been saying for decades.

http://www.climatechange2013.org/report/

[101A]

Something like this, probably:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100238047/global-warming-believers-are-feeling-the-heat/

[AntiChrist]

The equilibrium climate sensitivity quantifies the response of the climate system to constant radiative forcing on multi-century time scales. It is defined as the change in global mean surface temperature at equilibrium that is caused by a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5°C to 4.5°C (high confidence), extremely unlikely less than 1°C (high confidence), and very unlikely greater than 6°C (medium confidence)16. The lower temperature limit of the assessed likely range is thus less than the 2°C in the AR4, but the upper limit is the same. This assessment reflects improved understanding, the extended temperature record in the atmosphere and ocean, and new estimates of radiative forcing. {TFE6.1, Figure 1; Box 12.2}

No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.



Lol

[MannyIsGod]

Can you explain to us what that means, Darrin? I'd love to hear it in your words.

[Wild Cobra]

So, its out. When are Darrin and others going to post their critiques of the AR5 Summary for Policy Makers which basically says the exact same thing AR4 said? Are you waiting on your favorite talking heads to tell you what to think?

Here's the link for anyone interested. I'll save you some time, though. It says Climate Change is real, has not stopped, and is a serious challenge for humans going forward. You know, the same shit that scientists have been saying for decades.

http://www.climatechange2013.org/report/
Seriously?

I have addressed things in the AR5. Not my fault you don't realize it.

Is it a surprise to anyone the summary says what it does?

[AntiChrist]

In other news, a tree fell in the woods.

[AntiChrist]

Ross McKitrick nails it





SPM in a nutshell: Since we started in 1990 we were right about the Arctic, wrong about the Antarctic, wrong about the tropical troposphere, wrong about the surface, wrong about hurricanes, wrong about the Himalayas, wrong about sensitivity, clueless on clouds and useless on regional trends. And on that basis we’re 95% confident we’re right.




:lmao

[boutons_deux]

15 Things You Should Know About The New IPCC Report On Climate Science (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/09/27/2681861/15-things-ipcc-report/)




http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/09/27/2681861/15-things-ipcc-report/

[boutons_deux]

...

[AntiChrist]

lol, thinkprogress

[MannyIsGod]

Are you waiting on your favorite talking heads to tell you what to think?


:lmao

Answer: Yes.

[Spurminator]

Ross McKitrick nails it

:lmao


Yes, Ross McKitrick the economist sure put that global collection of hundreds of scientists in their place.

[AntiChrist]

Yes, Ross McKitrick the economist sure put that global collection of hundreds of scientists in their place.

Yes, the guy who destroyed the hockey stick.

[AntiChrist]

Are you waiting on your favorite talking heads to tell you what to think?



:lmao

Answer: Yes.



Why are you making fun of yourself?

[MannyIsGod]

I just love giving you the opportunity to make me look foolish, Darrin. Thats why even the people you agree with think you're the biggest fool in this forum. Remember?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I just love giving you the opportunity to make me look foolish, Darrin. Thats why even the people you agree with think you're the biggest fool in this forum. Remember?

In fairness, I think that distinction goes to WC.

[Wild Cobra]

Why are you making fun of yourself?

Manny would believe the IPCCCP if they said they sky was yellow.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Manny would believe the IPCCCP if they said they sky was yellow.

WC: dumb and dated.

[RandomGuy]

http://ideas.time.com/2013/09/27/what-the-climate-report-concedes/

Mostly sums up my take.

The only thing we can know for certain is that we will continue to learn more and accumulate more data. Revisit it in another ten years, and we will hopefully get better at it.

What hasn't changed:

The most conservative option is to moderately try to limit CO2 until we know a bit more about what it is doing.

Anybody who thinks we should do nothing is an idiot who understands neither the science, nor economics underlying that policy option.

[AntiChrist]

http://ideas.time.com/2013/09/27/what-the-climate-report-concedes/

Mostly sums up my take.

The only thing we can know for certain is that we will continue to learn more and accumulate more data. Revisit it in another ten years, and we will hopefully get better at it.

What hasn't changed:

The most conservative option is to moderately try to limit CO2 until we know a bit more about what it is doing.

Anybody who thinks we should do nothing is an idiot who understands neither the science, nor economics underlying that policy option.



Good article.

[MannyIsGod]

Absolutely terrible article, RG. His bullet points are all wrong and show why it is nearly impossible to discuss this subject with a layperson and have them understand it properly. Also, there's definitely a false equivalency going on here with the characterization of "the middle road". Just because there is a set of people who decry everything doesn't mean that meeting them at some middle point is appropriate.

I'll critique the bullet points later but I don't have time at this moment. They're all severely flawed viewpoints on the data being presented.

[AntiChrist]

Absolutely terrible article, RG. His bullet points are all wrong and show why it is nearly impossible to discuss this subject with a layperson and have them understand it properly. Also, there's definitely a false equivalency going on here with the characterization of "the middle road". Just because there is a set of people who decry everything doesn't mean that meeting them at some middle point is appropriate.

I'll critique the bullet points later but I don't have time at this moment. They're all severely flawed viewpoints on the data being presented.



I'll try to help

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

[AntiChrist]

And, this, from the final draft SPM, was removed from the final version of the SPM.

Models do not generally reproduce the observed reduction in surface warming trend over the last 10 –15 years

[MannyIsGod]

I guess thats why they call it a draft.

[MannyIsGod]

Global average temperatures did not rise at all for the last 15 years. “Models do not generally reproduce the observed reduction in surface warming trend over the last 10 –15 years.” This was a fact skeptics were vilified for pointing out just two years ago.

Global average surface temperatures (as in air temps) have not risen greatly in the past but this is not the same as the planet has not warmed. For one, not every 10-15 year period is created equal. Short term variability can wreck havoc on these time scales and the increase was not supposed to be a linear increase but rather one which will have decades with various levels of temperature increase or even decrease.

Furthermore, ocean heat content is more important as a measure of increasing energy within the system and its climbing with no hiatus. When you use indirect measurements involving the extent of the cryosphere you also see there is no hiatus. The models are not meant to function on 10 year time scales but rather on longer periods because they don't do a good job of capturing short term variability. I've posted this dozens of times before.

The reason for the hiatus is the abundance of La Nina's (especially strong ones) during this period. This is mirrored in the oceanic heat content rise and there have been papers that have come out that are attribution studies and show this. There's a really new paper that actually incorporates this into the CIMPS5 models and is able to reproduce the temperature trend of the past more accurately as the models are told what ENSO phase to use as opposed to having them try to figure it out on their own. Obviously we can't do this for the short term future as we don't know what the ENSO phase will be but over the long term it won't matter.

So the IPCC is not saying that it hasn't warmed. At all.



Climate sensitivity (the amount of warming likely to be caused eventually, if carbon dioxide levels double) can no longer even be calculated. “No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.” The bottom end of the range of probable climate sensitivity has been lowered, however, from 2 degrees Celsius to 1.5 degrees Celsius, while the top end remains the same: 4.5 degrees Celsius. This broadens the range of possible outcomes—that is, increases the uncertainty.


First off, the author is an idiot. Saying that climate sensitivity can't be calculated and then gives a range of values? SMH. The IPCC got rid of their qualitative catagory of best estimate but the range is still there as he gives it.

This shows a complete misunderstanding of probability distributions. This is what I mean you can't just give the data to laymen because they don't know what to do with it. When the IPCC gives you a range, they're not applying an equal probability to each value in that range are either 1.5 or 4.5 as likely as the values near 3? Absolutely not. While its not a simple distribution of probabilities its also not equal by any stretch of the imagination. Climate sensitivity is also given for a doubling of CO2. Its not the range of temperature increases.



Transient climate response (the actual warming likely to be experienced by around 2080 if carbon dioxide levels have doubled from pre-industrial levels by that time) is now thought to be less than they thought four years before. It is now thought to be in the range 1 to 2.5 degrees Celsius, rather than 1 to 3 degrees Celsius.


See above. 1 is virtually impossible given that we're already nearly there.



Antarctic sea ice increased, instead of decreasing as predicted: “Most models simulate a small downward trend in Antarctic sea ice extent, albeit with large inter-model spread, in contrast to the small upward trend in observations.” This is awkward. If the models get the Antarctic wrong, then maybe they got the Arctic right by accident.


The idea that the models got the Arctic right by accident is no where to be found in any IPCC documentation but is just an example of really piss poor editorializing that has no basis in fact what so ever. First of all, the Arctic and Arctic are similar but are also incredibly different due to land distribution in each hemisphere and at the poles. We KNOW that each hemisphere reacts and lags differently (Google the bipolar seesaw).

Furthermore, Antarctica is absolutely losing ice. There is a mass loss down there due to ice melt but its on land and not in sea. Yet the author doesn't mention that but instead tries to paint it as though climate scientists have no idea whats going on at the South Pole.



The big concession is the one the one IPCC cannot quite bring itself to be explicit about: the failure of the models to match reality. The text of the summary released today says: “The long-term climate model simulations show a trend in global-mean surface temperature from 1951 to 2012 that agrees with the observed trend (very high confidence). There are, however, differences between simulated and observed trends over periods as short as 10 to 15 years.” Yet a chart in the draft of its full report, due out on Monday, tells a very different story, of actual temperature measurements over the past 23 years falling below the projections made on each of four previous occasions. Its own chart says, in other words, that it is unlikely that the models are right.



I'm not sure what chart he's referring to, but not all the models are above the current temperature trend. The chapter on model evaluation clearly has models which have projected lower temperature increases to this point than what we've seen. Furthermore, the models have also under estimated other key components such as cryosphere losses and sea level increases. What is happening is that the models are failing to accurately capture the distribution of energy in the system over the short term which is something they were never intended to do.

Long term climate model simulations are not meant to give you a forecast for 5,10,15, or even 20 years down the line outside of a range which we currently still fall in. So not only is this guy flat out lying about what the charts say he's also lying about all the models overestimating the current temperatures. Its most - no doubt - but there's a reason that these reports give ranges and not specific figures.

Thats a really terrible article. There's so much wrong with it.

[MannyIsGod]

I'll try to help

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

Thats cute.

[AntiChrist]

I'm not sure what chart he's referring to, but not all the models are above the current temperature trend. The chapter on model evaluation clearly has models which have projected lower temperature increases to this point than what we've seen. Furthermore, the models have also under estimated other key components such as cryosphere losses and sea level increases. What is happening is that the models are failing to accurately capture the distribution of energy in the system over the short term which is something they were never intended to do.

Long term climate model simulations are not meant to give you a forecast for 5,10,15, or even 20 years down the line outside of a range which we currently still fall in. So not only is this guy flat out lying about what the charts say he's also lying about all the models overestimating the current temperatures. Its most - no doubt - but there's a reason that these reports give ranges and not specific figures.

Thats a really terrible article. There's so much wrong with it.



I think he's referring to this chart, which was in the draft

http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/figure-1-4-models-vs-observations-annotated.png?w=560&h=480




Which was replaced with this chart in the approved draft

http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/figure-1-4-final-models-vs-observations.png?w=1024&h=659





The approved version seems much more obscure

[MannyIsGod]

The approved version shows how individual models are below observations. It shows the ranges. Its not obscure, it simply doesn't show what you want it to show. Furthermore, its shitty journalism to use draft copies to write articles. I've never read the guys other work but this article but this one is bad. Very bad.

[AntiChrist]

The approved version shows how individual models are below observations. It shows the ranges. Its not obscure, it simply doesn't show what you want it to show. Furthermore, its shitty journalism to use draft copies to write articles. I've never read the guys other work but this article but this one is bad. Very bad.

Observed temps are hugging the bottom of their confidence limits. And this is after successive downgrades of their projections. One can only wait and see, I suppose.

[MannyIsGod]

Successive downgrades? The FAR had a wide range, the SAR was WAY too narrow and the TAR was increased to what was basically a combination of the two. AR4 was broken up into emissions scenarios (which we currently fall between) and AR5 is even more nuanced. This continued to talk of "downgrades" or "revised downward" is the talk of people who have no idea what is actually in the reports.

Look, I don't care if you read it but at least stop making shit up.

[Wild Cobra]

Don't cry Manny...

[RandomGuy]

Absolutely terrible article, RG. His bullet points are all wrong and show why it is nearly impossible to discuss this subject with a layperson and have them understand it properly. Also, there's definitely a false equivalency going on here with the characterization of "the middle road". Just because there is a set of people who decry everything doesn't mean that meeting them at some middle point is appropriate.

I'll critique the bullet points later but I don't have time at this moment. They're all severely flawed viewpoints on the data being presented.

I was a bit less concerned with the specifics than the general tone.

I honestly haven't had the time to delve into the report. I have, though, little doubt that the sociopath deniers will do their usual fucktarded lying and distorting of the actual science, per par for that wing of whackadoo pseudoscientists.

If warming trends end up at the low end of projections in 50 years, as they have recently done, awesome. Hopefully my kids won't have to pay for the sociopaths' and coal/oil inductry shills lying about what the science says.

I do find that we don't know why the warming trend has leveled off somewhat to be worrying though. Hopefully the next few years will sort some of this out.

[AntiChrist]

I was a bit less concerned with the specifics than the general tone.

I honestly haven't had the time to delve into the report. I have, though, little doubt that the sociopath deniers will do their usual fucktarded lying and distorting of the actual science, per par for that wing of whackadoo pseudoscientists.

If warming trends end up at the low end of projections in 50 years, as they have recently done, awesome. Hopefully my kids won't have to pay for the sociopaths' and coal/oil inductry shills lying about what the science says.

I do find that we don't know why the warming trend has leveled off somewhat to be worrying though. Hopefully the next few years will sort some of this out.


Welcome back, ad hominem guy.

[MannyIsGod]

I was a bit less concerned with the specifics than the general tone.

I honestly haven't had the time to delve into the report. I have, though, little doubt that the sociopath deniers will do their usual fucktarded lying and distorting of the actual science, per par for that wing of whackadoo pseudoscientists.

If warming trends end up at the low end of projections in 50 years, as they have recently done, awesome. Hopefully my kids won't have to pay for the sociopaths' and coal/oil inductry shills lying about what the science says.

I do find that we don't know why the warming trend has leveled off somewhat to be worrying though. Hopefully the next few years will sort some of this out.

I read more of the guys work after that one article and his tone is bullshit too. He makes a habbit of flat out lying in his articles. It makes me sad that this is the level of journalism we have to deal with.

[MannyIsGod]

One of the biggest issues faced here is the idea of false equivalence. When you have people who just constantly deny and lie the current state of science eventually people start to give them credence simply because they make so much noise. Whether or not they are factually correct doesn't matter because surely no rational person would ignore the actual science so much, right?

Well, wrong. I can tear down most common denier arguments but that doesn't matter because most people can't. Mostly people have no idea bout concepts like specific heat or margins of error and as such just accept what someone says with authority as fact. Nevermind that the person speaking with said authority may not know what they're talking about or may be flat out lying.

[boutons_deux]

Arctic Sea Ice and Al Gore's "Prediction 2013"


http://www.truth-out.org/images/images_2013_09/2013_0919mel_.jpg



Predictably, the voices of denial are rising as Arctic sea ice melt season peaks and ranks only fifth-lowest ever. The clamor is being raised over Al Gore's Nobel Prize acceptance speech quote supposedly saying that Arctic sea ice would be gone by 2013.1 (http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/18941-arctic-sea-ice-and-al-gores-prediction-2013#a1) What Gore did or didn't say is beside the point: For the propagandists delivering this message, the objective is "cast doubt and discredit." From Gore's speech:


Last September 21 (2007), as the Northern Hemisphere tilted away from the sun, scientists reported with unprecedented distress that the North Polar ice cap is "falling off a cliff." One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years.2 (http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/18941-arctic-sea-ice-and-al-gores-prediction-2013#a2)


And yes, the deniers cannot even add. Not only did Gore not say "by 2013," but it would be 2014 at the soonest. ... On to reality:

The Navy researcher that leads this "new study" team that the former vice president alludes to is Wieslaw Maslowski at the Naval Post Graduate School in Monterey, California. The team's research was funded by the Department of Energy (DOE), the Office of Naval Research (ONR), the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

Maslowski also did not say "by 2013" in his original research in 2007 or when it was republished in 2009. This grandstanding about sea ice and Gore, for whatever reason, is a huge and egregious deception. The actual prediction from Maslowski's 2009 publication is, "Autumn could become near ice free between 2011 and 2016."

http://www.truth-out.org/images/images_2013_09/2013_0919mel_2.jpg

http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/18941-arctic-sea-ice-and-al-gores-prediction-2013

[AntiChrist]

When you have people who just constantly deny and lie the current state of science...


<sigh> Wash, rinse, repeat

[AntiChrist]

I don't know what it is about the subject that turns Manny and RG into boutons. <smh>

[boutons_deux]

I don't know what it is about the subject that turns Manny and RG into boutons. <smh>

Nobody can possibly become The Great Boutons.

you right-wing assholes and duped/willful BigCarbon shills deserve every bitch slap we lay on you.

[AntiChrist]

Nobody can possibly become The Great Boutons.

you right-wing assholes and duped/willful BigCarbon shills deserve every bitch slap we lay on you.


They do approach your level of vitriol when it comes to AGW.

[RandomGuy]

Welcome back, ad hominem guy.

:lmao

You have no idea what those words mean.

You aren't wrong because you are sociopaths. Even sociopaths can tell the truth. That would be ad hominem.

You are sociopaths because you lie so much, and with a very specific, deceptive purpose.

While one should not assume, mostly, that you are lying and untrue when you talk about this subject, one should subject your claims to a good deal of skepticism.

It generally doesn't take much digging to see how dishonest they are.

[RandomGuy]

I don't know what it is about the subject that turns Manny and RG into boutons. <smh>


It is the fact that there are a certain group of people out there actively lying about real science in a systematic, purposeful way, e.g. PopTech's list, or the "climategate" emails.

People like you lying to my face pisses me off greatly.

[RandomGuy]

7nnVQ2fROOg

[FuzzyLumpkins]

<sigh> Wash, rinse, repeat

You mean where manny goes into specifics to refute what you claim and then you ignore it and continue with this tact. At least trolls try to be funny. You are just scummy.

[RandomGuy]

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=163637

[RandomGuy]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo&list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP

If you ever have the time to explore the issue in some detail and poke holes in a lot of the hoopla, that playlist does it. He even goes after Al Gore and some of the more alarmist stuff.

Both sides get a broadside or two, but the people doing most of the lying are not the scientists.

[AntiChrist]

RG -- Do you think all climate scientists fall into the alarmist camp?

[Wild Cobra]

http://www.truth-out.org/images/images_2013_09/2013_0919mel_2.jpg

http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/18941-arctic-sea-ice-and-al-gores-prediction-2013

They just don't get those models right. Do they.

Hint....

Increase the effect of soot in the models.

[boutons_deux]

They just don't get those models right. Do they.

Hint....

Increase the effect of soot in the models.

do you really think 1000s of scientists don't know about particulate landing on ice? If so, please email IPCC and clue them in with WC's Climate Science expose.

[Wild Cobra]

do you really think 1000s of scientists don't know about particulate landing on ice? If so, please email IPCC and clue them in with WC's Climate Science expose.

I think they know full well the actual impacts. I think those in control cherry pick the data they want to write the findings they want.

[MannyIsGod]

I provided you with so many facts on the subject over the years that its not even funny. All you do s ignore them and post shit that is easily dismissed. But sure, all I spew is vitrol. Keep saying it and maybe it'll come true.

[MannyIsGod]

You mean where manny goes into specifics to refute what you claim and then you ignore it and continue with this tact. At least trolls try to be funny. You are just scummy.

Exactly. Am I just supposed to repeat myself endlessly with a smile on my face?

[MannyIsGod]

Darrin if you want to have an actual debate on the subject lets do it. But you won't be able to keep up. I work in the field. You do not. By the 2nd page of this debate you'll be ignoring the direct questions I pose you the way you have every other time. The only way you'll be able to respond to anything is if there's a webpage out there with something you believing in because you're going to try to google your way through this debate.

[AntiChrist]

Darrin if you want to have an actual debate on the subject lets do it. But you won't be able to keep up. I work in the field. You do not. By the 2nd page of this debate you'll be ignoring the direct questions I pose you the way you have every other time. The only way you'll be able to respond to anything is if there's a webpage out there with something you believing in because you're going to try to google your way through this debate.


I'm sure your theoretical background is sound and I probably won't have much of anything to disagree with you in that area. But I still don't think there's a strong case for being alarmist.

[AntiChrist]

By the way, anyone with a strong background in mathematics, statistics, computer modeling, etc. is qualified to critique those areas in climate science.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

By the way, anyone with a strong background in mathematics, statistics, computer modeling, etc. is qualified to critique those areas in climate science.

You have demonstrated that you are not these things so what is your point?

[Wild Cobra]

By the way, anyone with a strong background in mathematics, statistics, computer modeling, etc. is qualified to critique those areas in climate science.
Yep.

I have made Manny look so foolish in his own field so many times, he ignores me now.

Should call him SissyIsBitch.

[boutons_deux]

PETM Shocker: When CO2 Levels Doubled 55 Million Years Ago, Global Temperatures May Have Jumped 9°F In 13 Years (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/10/08/2750191/petm-co2-levels-doubled-55-million-years-ago-global-temperatures-jumped/)http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Titanoboa-Monster-dinosaurs-6311.jpg

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/10/08/2750191/petm-co2-levels-doubled-55-million-years-ago-global-temperatures-jumped/

[AntiChrist]

PETM Shocker: When CO2 Levels Doubled 55 Million Years Ago, Global Temperatures May Have Jumped 9°F In 13 Years (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/10/08/2750191/petm-co2-levels-doubled-55-million-years-ago-global-temperatures-jumped/)

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Titanoboa-Monster-dinosaurs-6311.jpg

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/10/08/2750191/petm-co2-levels-doubled-55-million-years-ago-global-temperatures-jumped/


No tipping point? Shrugs

[AntiChrist]

Ever hear about this experiment?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/climate-fail-files/gore-and-bill-nye-fail-at-doing-a-simple-co2-experiment/


When their experiment failed, they just photoshopped the result they wanted. Quite sad.


Bill Nye's pathetic response

http://www.billnye.com/response-to-watts-up/


Comments are pretty hilarious, especially this one:



Dear Science Guy,

So let’s sum it up: You say :

1. I, The Science Guy, knowingly participated in the faking of a science experiment for Al Gore’s Climate Project. which was shown to the world over the internet. I did a voice over for for an experiment that was not actually taking place, which did not achieve the results it claimed, and which I did not actually observe with my own eyes, yet I spoke as if it were actually taking place. .

2. Anthony Watts is absolutely correct, the experiment did not and would not have ‘worked’ — and for ‘worked’ we mean shown what I, The Science Guy, said it showed — because the equipment and set-up were not correct. Mr. Watts did not have the wrong equipment and set-up, Al Gore and his Climate Project people did. It is the Climate Project people that performed the faked experiment — it didn’t actually work for them either, of course, they just pretended that it did.

3. Anthony Watts is correct — the fact that the experiment was faked and didn’t work doesn’t mean that CO2 in the atmnosphere doesn’t cause warming — Mr. Watts readily and freely admits that it does, and, in fact, has never ever said or believed that it doesn’t.

4. I, the Science Guy, could perform a similar experiment with proper equipment and could have shown that a CO2-enhanced atmosphere does absorb more heat than ‘normal’ air. Despite knowing that the Climate Project’s experiement would fail, due to wrong equipment and set up, I did the voice over anyway.

We are now waiting for an apology to all the kids who count on you, The Science Guy, to be a real scientist and always strictly follow the Scientific Method and never ever lie or fake results.

[MannyIsGod]

Couldn't care less about Bill Nye or All Gore. The only people who do are deniers. Also, I haven't read that study but I call bullshit on our ability to resolve a 13 year time frame on the PETM warming. I'll read it but that just seems wrong.

[AntiChrist]

Couldn't care less about Bill Nye or All Gore. The only people who do are deniers. Also, I haven't read that study but I call bullshit on our ability to resolve a 13 year time frame on the PETM warming. I'll read it but that just seems wrong.

The people that published AR5 loved Gore in 2007. What happened?

Gore loves the "denier" label, too.

[MannyIsGod]

Realy, IPCC authors loved Gore? Really? Every scientist in the field I know - including IPCC authors - doesn't. But I guess you know better, right?

[AntiChrist]

Just this past August -- a tribute to Gore?

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/pachauri_slide1_ait.jpg

[MannyIsGod]

Really? Thats the best you have? REALLY?

:lmao :lmao :lmao

[Wild Cobra]

Couldn't care less about Bill Nye or All Gore. The only people who do are deniers. Also, I haven't read that study but I call bullshit on our ability to resolve a 13 year time frame on the PETM warming. I'll read it but that just seems wrong.


The people that published AR5 loved Gore in 2007. What happened?

Gore loves the "denier" label, too.


Realy, IPCC authors loved Gore? Really? Every scientist in the field I know - including IPCC authors - doesn't. But I guess you know better, right?
It's because the same people that are ignorant enough to believe people like Gore and Nye are ignorant enough to believe the BS by people like you Manny.