No clue about AR4

i-c1c9665d7dd68924c47beade3c7d1e09-pinata.jpg

I must be really important because Glenn Reynolds has made a specious attack on me based on something I wrote, not in a post, but in a comment on another blog. I wrote that the sea level projections in the draft AR4 report were similar to those in the previous report. Reynolds:

Number problems for Tim Lambert? Color me unsurprised.

He links to Tim Blair, who cleverly quotes me like this:

Lambert looks for a way out: “I didn’t say the numbers were the same, merely similar.” The numbers in question are … 59 and 88.

No, those aren’t the numbers in question. Blair left out my next sentence: “And the comparison is 59cm + extra from accelerating ice flows versus 88cm.” Now I don’t think that Blair was being deliberately deceitful here, but it’s clear he has no clue what is going on in the comparison. The team at RealClimate (several of whom were AR4 authors) explains


Note that some media have been comparing apples with pears here: they claimed IPCC has reduced its upper sea level limit from 88 to 59 cm, but the former number from the TAR did include this ice dynamics uncertainty, while the latter from the AR4 does not, precisely because this issue is now considered more uncertain and possibly more serious than before.

So if you want to compare apples to apples you have to add the numbers for increased ice flows to 59cm. The AR4 SPM reports:

Models used to date do not include uncertainties in climate-carbon
cycle feedback nor do they include the full effects of changes in ice
sheet flow, because a basis in published literature is lacking. The
projections include a contribution due to increased ice flow from
Greenland and Antarctica at the rates observed for 1993-2003, but
these flow rates could increase or decrease in the future. For
example, if this contribution were to grow linearly with global
average temperature change, the upper ranges of sea level rise for
SRES scenarios shown in Table SPM-2 would increase by 0.1 m to 0.2
m. Larger values cannot be excluded, but understanding of these
effects is too limited to assess their likelihood or provide a best
estimate or an upper bound for sea level rise.

Now 0.2m is 20cm, and 59cm + 20cm is 79cm, which is similar to 88cm. But larger values cannot be excluded and the IPCC cannot provide an upper bound for sea level rise. And let’s be clear on this: neither 59cm nor 79cm is an upper bound on sea level rise in the new IPCC report — they don’t know enough to give an upper bound.

Comments

  1. #1 Manboy
    February 3, 2007

    I’d find this denialist BS incredibly funny if the matter in hand – climate change – wasn’t such a serious issue.

    It’s not this BS was unimportant either, we are still seeing the White House reluctant to join the rest of us in serious discussions on what to do with climate change. And, start a thread on global warming on any old American internet forum or blog and you are, to use IPCC terms, “virtually certain” to encounter intellectuals who claim there is no GLOBAL warming because it’s -22 C in their backyard now, during winter. I mean, these denialists are not the brightest of the bunch, equalling GLOBAL climate to what’s happening in their frikkin’ BACKYARD.

    You’d laugh if this wasn’t about climate change, wouldn’t you ?

  2. #2 Benny
    February 3, 2007

    Lambert, no amount of jousting with the pinata is going to help Reynolds and Blair understand math or scientific uncertainty. You’ll just end up with clue stick elbow.

  3. #3 Kieran
    February 3, 2007

    This is the same Glenn Reynolds who assiduously pleaded innumeracy as a way not to take a position on John Lott, right?

  4. #4 Steve Reuland
    February 3, 2007

    Are the global warming denialists really so deluded that they think they scored a big coup with AR4?

    Assuming just for the sake of argument that they really did catch Tim making a more or less trivial error, are they not aware that the report basically refutes everything they’ve been saying for the last several years? Talk about missing the forest for the trees. Yeesh.

  5. #5 luminous beauty
    February 3, 2007

    Tim,

    Just a note to say how much I appreciate your efforts to take on innumerate bozos who only comprehend the most superficial interpretation of results without attempting in the slightest to plumb the depths of analysis.

    A truly sisyphean task, but someone must put their shoulder to the boulder.

    Thanks.

  6. #6 Some guy
    February 3, 2007

    Hey, perfesser knownothing could get 10 Gs from AEI for spouting this BS! (see link)….

  7. #7 hizzhoner
    February 3, 2007

    Tim,

    Thanks for explaining this in terms a layman can understand. I’ll “bop in” on your site more often.

    hizzhoner

  8. #8 BeerIsClear
    February 3, 2007

    These people had better get with it or there won’t be a globe to warm!

  9. #9 anon
    February 3, 2007

    There’s a reason why his other name is blogaganda.com. And it’s not excessive veracity.

  10. #10 plunge
    February 3, 2007

    What’s that, Glenn Reynolds not taking any direct position, but being a snarky, dishonest ass? Inconceivable!

  11. #11 Randy Paul
    February 3, 2007

    You should read his update. What a jackass.

  12. #12 SAO
    February 3, 2007

    Wow. check out Glenn’s update. He manages to make an idiot out of himself again.

  13. #13 Thom
    February 3, 2007

    More from that ass clown, Reynolds:

    Do I believe that global warming is anthropogenic? Not so clear. Plausible, but still far from certain.
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    —————-

    Great. Nice to know that a guy at a second tier law in the South feels confident enought to pundicate on the validity of complex field climate change science. When are we going to get some atmospheric scientists to reciprocate by ruminating on terrorism detainees and habeas corpus ad subjiciendum?

  14. #14 huxley
    February 3, 2007

    I think anyone is free and should ruminate on both climate change and habeas corpus if they are willing to educate themselves and make reasonable arguments backed by evidence or relevant citations.

    The behaviour of people like Blair and Reynolds is enough to discount them even IF they were experts in a field. They’re not, they are Lysenkoists (third rate ones at that)

  15. #15 Robin
    February 3, 2007

    My current reponse to the deniers of the obvious is a quote from Groucho Marx:
    “Who are you going to believe, me or your own lying eyes?”
    The evidence that something is seriously wrong with our planet is all around us and obvious to anyone that is paying the slightest modicum of attention.

  16. #16 Karen
    February 3, 2007

    Yes, yes, the sky is falling. Just as it was with the PC “Global Cooling” Panic of the 70s.

    “A Washington Post article gave this scientist’s quote from 1972. “We simply cannot afford to gamble. We cannot risk inaction. The scientists who disagree are acting irresponsibly. The indications that our climate can soon change for the worse are too strong to be reasonably ignored.” re: “global cooling”.

    And you have to confess Reynold’s line – “rumors that Lambert once asked a date for “96″ on the ground that it’s “similar to” 69 are probably false.” – is pretty funny.

    Seriously, don’t lose too much sleep over this PC junk science hoax as did the Chicken Littles who bought into the like “Global Cooling” hoax of the 70s.

    KS

  17. #17 George Smiley
    February 3, 2007

    Way to cite the peer-reivewed literature on “global cooling,” “Karen.” (Hint: there is essentially no such literature – just a couple of articles in the popular press – while there is a VAST peer-reviewed literature on anthropogenic global warming.) You are truly a dipshit, “Karen.” And no, no one here believes that that is your real name, or that you are even a woman.

  18. #18 Randy Paul
    February 3, 2007

    And you have to confess Reynold’s line – “rumors that Lambert once asked a date for “96″ on the ground that it’s “similar to” 69 are probably false.” – is pretty funny.

    If one were still in high school or believed Beavis and Butthead were the Tom Lehrer of their time.

  19. #19 huxley
    February 3, 2007

    Don’t waste your breath, “Karen” probably thinks that Tom Lehrer co-hosted the MacNeil-Lehrer News Hour.

  20. #20 Ian Gould
    February 3, 2007

    New Scientist recently had an article about “global cooling”.

    There was essentially ONE paper which predicted global cooling.

    Within about 18 months, the errors in the paper had been identified and the matter was at an end.

    Amusingly, Fred Singer was one of trhe scientists advnacing the global cooling theory at the time.

  21. #21 Karen
    February 3, 2007

    “just a couple of articles in the popular press”

    LOL, you’re much to young to remember the Gloabal Cooling Hoax. That’s why you so easily fell for the trendy “Warming Hoax”.

    But to help you out on the path of logical thought, start by researching:
    National Science Board 1972, 1974
    National Academy of Sciences, 1975
    (a hint: they’re not “popular press”)

    “no one here believes that that is your real name, or that you are even a woman.”

    LOL, again -Mr.Smiley- . But you’ll have to understand when I read someone who has fallen for the trendy Global Warming Hoax to the point of hysterical pantie-wetting, I’m not entirely convinced he’s much of a man at all. So it all evens out.

    And not to worry, you have company: many other naive young males are just as intimated by strong women as are you. Good look with that and don’t forget to be afraid, very afraid. I hear Swine Flu is going to kill us all any day now.

    And don’t eat drink Coke after eating PopRocks, either. Remember what happened to Mikey!

    thanks for the giggles anyway & try not too buy too many bridges from Brooklyn. -

    KS

  22. #22 Steve Reuland
    February 3, 2007

    Yes, the trendy global warming hoax. Put together by over 600 of the world’s top climatologists. That’s some hoax. It took almost as much secrecy as the Moon landing hoax, but thankfully Hollywood came through by faking all those melting glaciers and changing the tick marks on all the world’s thermometers.

    Seriously, do you people ever pause to think just how stupid what you’re saying is?

  23. #23 Jemima
    February 3, 2007

    Those are not citations Karen. Either give the correct citations or give it up – you’re not fooling anyone except your friends.

  24. #24 Karen
    February 3, 2007

    “Yes, the trendy global warming hoax.”

    Exactly. The “Global Cooling” Hoax was just as sincerly believed as a matter of doctrine by the faithful. Same thing, different name: an unquestioned “scientific consensus” and same-end-of-the world doomsday predictions. Proves B.T. Barnum was correct. It wasn’t until decades later that the Chicken Littles issued their “ooops”. But it was very “trendy” and certainly all the rage in it’s heyday, as is the current 160-degree turnaround claim.

    But to be fair: then, as now, they didn’t intend their apocalyptic claims as a hoax. Then, as now, they honestly and truly believed in their own unquestioned doomsday scenerios. And then, as now, they strive to silence any scientific scrutiny, proclaiming they have the “True Gospel”.

    The Warming Hoax, like the Cooling Hoax is, a self-hoax first and foremost. It’s the same as with the fervent Creationists; it’s all a matter of belief.

    So the biggest internal problem with the current psuedo-science of “Warming” is that it doesn’t question itself, nor is it willing to let others question it’s claims (“heresy!”). That which will not allow itself to – or cannot – stand up to real, hard scientific scrutiny is not science. It is a belief system only.

    LS

  25. #25 Geoff
    February 3, 2007

    I think someone’s tin foil hat is on just a little too tight.

  26. #26 George Smiley
    February 3, 2007

    C’mon, Karen.

    Surely you can actually point to some pitiable fragment of text that supports your assertions. You know, from those incomplete references that you “cited.” (Of course, as you’ve already demonstrated, you wouldn’t know how to cite a technical article on fire control if your hair was combusting.)

    By the way, you forgot to mention the authoritative 1975 Newsweek article (“The cooling world, Newsweek, 28 April 1975; corrigendum published 23 October, 2006).

  27. #27 JDBrooks
    February 3, 2007

    Shorter Karen: the earth’s not warming, it’s just flat.

  28. #28 Eli Rabett
    February 3, 2007

    Karen dear, many of us were professional scientists in the 70s, and no, we don’t remember such papers in the scientific literature of the time. Of course, if you get your scientific journals at the supermarket checkout counter, there were a few such articles, but we do get tired of folk trying this silliness on. A young whippersnapper has put together a web site on ice age claims in the 70s (everyone needs a hobby, and William has many), as well as a short post on it, and the bottom line is that there were no such papers in the scientific literature.

    Having had sundry ignorant folks try to blow your nonsense about ice ages you know where, readers of these blogs tend to get a bit testy when a newbie blows in and tries it on again. Out of the goodness of our hearts we should assume that you simply did not know better, however, when in your case, it comes with an overlay of attitude people react rather strongly. Go read the links that I gave you.

  29. #29 Karen
    February 3, 2007

    I’m actually not surprised you are not aware of the National Science Board or National Academy of Sciences, Mr.Smiley, much less that you’re unaware of their 70s research.

    And since “Global Warming Panic”, like “Global Cooling” is not science but a belief system, science doesn’t address the issue at all. And you can’t lay claim to any personal, experiential recollection of the Cooling Panic. (That’s not your fault, obviously.)

    Again, the biggest obstacle to anyone taking GW doomsday claims seriously is in it’s lack of self-criticism and claim of immunity from any scientific scrutiny. The devout GW believer finds him – herself in the same boat as the Catholic Church trying to stifle Galileo. GW is a religion with it’s faithful and it does’t suffer heresy well – e.g the GW enthusiast wanting the “defrocking” of any meteorogist who has reached a different conclusion or who has found flaws in GW.

    GW flies in the face of actual classical science in it’s complete lack of self-criticism. Real scientific theory and practice is by it’s nature extremely self-critical. But the GW faithful want a home run sans going to bat, hitting the ball and running all the bases.

    That’s a religion/sports mixed metaphor there, but all GW faithful should be able to the idea. They are not aware of any critique of their beliefs, nor will they allow it. That’s why it’s a very bad “science”. But then again so were the 70s GC theories/claims.

    You’re certainly welcome to place your faith in GW, but some people expect more than just a demand of blind devotion.

    Before I go – on the “anthropogenic” claim – you’ll have to take that up with the UN. They blame the bovines.

    “Rearing cattle produces more greenhouse gases than driving cars, UN report warns”
    http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=20772&Cr=global&Cr1=warming

    have a good weekend,
    KS

  30. #30 Karen
    February 3, 2007

    “Karen dear, many of us were professional scientists in the 70s”

    Yes, and brain surgeons and 5 star generals – whatever sounds “authorative” :)

    Suggestion – next time try a quick google search. In this case “global cooling” (w/quotes) will do for a start. I think you’ll be surprised to find that long before you were just a gleam in anybodys eye there’s maybe just one or two people who might also recall the GC Panic foisted on us by actual “professional scientists”.

    Good luck with your research on that era.

    KS

  31. #31 Tim Lambert
    February 3, 2007

    You don’t actually have any cites to scientific journals, do you Karen? Do go and read the links Eli Rabett kindly provided for you.

  32. #32 Seixon
    February 3, 2007

    59cm, 89cm, you’re still not going to be able to bail out Al Gore for having his movie based on the claim that the sea level will go up by 20 feet.

  33. #33 Ian Gould
    February 4, 2007

    59 Cm (plus icecap runoff) is the estimate for sea rise BY 2100. Gore was speaking about the total sea level rise if the icecaps melted completely – he never set a time frame on that happening.

  34. #34 Sven
    February 4, 2007

    based on the claim that the sea level will go up by 20 feet

    Jeebus. It’s like wingnut catnip.

  35. #35 Victor Freeh
    February 4, 2007

    You should read his update. What a jackass.

    Wow, and here I thought I didn’t have any respect for Glenn Reynolds left to lose…

  36. #36 Ian Gould
    February 4, 2007

    Maybe Seixon should stick to his areas of expertise – like denouncing all those filthy commie-liar-traitors who think there’s a civil war in Iraq.

    Yeah buddy you really nailed that one.

  37. #37 JimV
    February 4, 2007

    Karen,

    The UN report makes it clear that the way humans farm cattle causes a huge increase in the emission of green-house gases compared to herds of wild ruminants, such as bison. Therefore these effects are also anthropogenic.

    Data is available at the following link:

    http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.html

    Most CO2 emissions come from power-generation plants burning fossil fuels, not from cars.

  38. #38 Tim Lambert
    February 4, 2007

    Here’s what the IPCC report says:

    >The last time the polar regions were significantly warmer than present for an extended period (about 125,000 years ago), reductions in polar ice volume led to 4 to 6 metres of sea level rise.

    6 metres corresponds to the 20 feet of sea level rise Gore refers to in his movie.

  39. #39 Ian Gould
    February 4, 2007

    Karen: Suggestion – next time try a quick google search. In this case “global cooling” (w/quotes) will do for a start.

    Anyone with a few spare minutes should take Karen up on this.

    The first several pages at least yield nothing much except the Time and Newsweek articles and various contemporary, undocumented claims about the great Global Cooling panic of the 1970′s.

  40. #40 Mysticdog
    February 4, 2007

    “Again, the biggest obstacle to anyone taking gravitional atraction claims seriously is in it’s lack of self-criticism and claim of immunity from any scientific scrutiny. The devout gravitational attraction believer finds him – herself in the same boat as the Catholic Church trying to stifle Galileo. Gravity is a religion with it’s faithful and it does’t suffer heresy well – e.g the Gravity enthusiast wanting the “defrocking” of any physicist who has reached a different conclusion or who has found flaws in gravitational attraction.

    Gravitational attraction flies in the face of actual classical science in it’s complete lack of self-criticism. Real scientific theory and practice is by it’s nature extremely self-critical. But the Gravity faithful want a home run sans going to bat, hitting the ball and running all the bases.

    That’s a religion/sports mixed metaphor there, but all gravitational attraction faithful should be able to the idea. They are not aware of any critique of their beliefs, nor will they allow it. That’s why it’s a very bad “science”. But then again so were the 70s GC theories/claims.”

  41. #41 mark
    February 4, 2007

    The “global cooling” thing is a funny, irrational, ideologically-driven counter-argument. It basically says all science is wrong all the time.

    But I wonder if “Karen” is old enough to remember the film Soylent Green with Charleton Heston? Apart from the classic conclusion, Soylent Green is People!, the whole film, in 1972, has global warming, described as the greenhouse effect, as its backstory.

  42. #42 Meyrick Kirby
    February 4, 2007

    Karen:

    GW flies in the face of actual classical science in it’s complete lack of self-criticism. Real scientific theory and practice is by it’s nature extremely self-critical. But the GW faithful want a home run sans going to bat, hitting the ball and running all the bases.

    The latest IPCC report has had over 2500 scientific reviewers.

  43. #43 Meyrick Kirby
    February 4, 2007

    Karen:

    I’m actually not surprised you are not aware of the National Science Board or National Academy of Sciences, Mr.Smiley, much less that you’re unaware of their 70s research.

    Actually, we’re only too aware: link

  44. #44 Manboy
    February 4, 2007

    Karen :

    “Again, the biggest obstacle to anyone taking GW doomsday claims seriously is in it’s lack of self-criticism and claim of immunity from any scientific scrutiny. The devout GW believer finds him – herself in the same boat as the Catholic Church trying to stifle Galileo. GW is a religion with it’s faithful and it does’t suffer heresy well – e.g the GW enthusiast wanting the “defrocking” of any meteorogist who has reached a different conclusion or who has found flaws in GW.”

    What makes you think there is a lack of scientific scrutiny in climate science ? The findings of IPCC are based on peer-reviewed scientific literature of the time, the data is already scrutinised even BEFORE the IPCC starts looking at it. THEN the data is scrutinized in the process even MORE. Several times, actually.

    Do tell, Karen, where exactly does this process of scrutiny fail ? Are you a Climate Fraudit -reader by any chance ?

    Funnily enough, but you’re not the only denialist to have referred climate science to religion. It’s ironic to think that it is actually your point of view that is based on nothingness, not that of mainstream climate science.

  45. #45 spencer
    February 4, 2007

    What makes you think there is a lack of scientific scrutiny in climate science ? The findings of IPCC are based on peer-reviewed scientific literature of the time, the data is already scrutinised even BEFORE the IPCC starts looking at it. THEN the data is scrutinized in the process even MORE. Several times, actually.

    The problem for Karen and people like her is that the scrutiny you’re talking about comes only from other scientists. See, Karen assumes that everyone is as dishonest as she is, and so therefore it’s a natural conclusion for her to think that scientists are all too willing to either commit outright fraud in their results, or to intentionally overlook weaknesses of research that happens to support a preferred conclusion. Because it’s exactly what she / they would do.

    Of course, what Karen and her ilk don’t say is who they feel would be qualified to review new scientific research, if not other scientists.

  46. #46 sh
    February 4, 2007

    I shouldn’t worry too much about Karen. Not only does she not have a clue about the science, she also doesn’t know the difference between its (possessive pronoun) and it’s (contraction).

  47. #47 Thom
    February 4, 2007

    Lambert, you need to police the comments a little better. It appears that Marc Morano has taken on the pseudonym of Karen.

  48. #48 Brendan
    February 4, 2007

    OK Karen, let’s cut through the abuse and get down to basics.

    Are you actually and seriously going to sit at your PC and type that, in your opionion, in 30 years time people will look back at Global Warming and laugh? That it will be forgotten as Global Cooling has been? That if you were suddenly teleported into the world of 2037, and were to say the words ‘global warming’ to someone picked at random they would just simply stare back at you blankly, never having heard the phrase?

    I think it’s time to put your money where your mouth is, Karen…..

    [NB: according to Wikipedia there was, in the early 70s, ONE peer reviewed paper (in Science) which discussed global cooling but which did not predict it. There were also a number of reports published (NOT articles in peer reviewed journals) which again, discussed global cooling as an option, but which did NOT predict it as being 'inevitable' or anything similar. Finally at the World Meteorological Organization annual conference, a paper was presented that discussed global cooling, but again, did not predict it (on the contrary, the paper argued that it was unlikely). There was also a lot of nonsense in the popular press, and in populist books by non-scientists like Paul Ehrlich, but this is irrelevant].

  49. #49 Brendan
    February 4, 2007

    sorry when I said non-scientists like Paul Ehrlich, I should have said non CLIMATE scientists.

  50. #50 Thom
    February 4, 2007

    Since I live in the States, I have no clue who Tim Blair is. And then I went over to his blog….Oh sweet, sweet, joy! Nice to see that all the dipshits in the world are not just on American talk radio and Fox News.

    By the way, did I mention that Republican twit, Roger Pielke Jr.?

  51. #51 Eli Rabett
    February 4, 2007

    Cripes, people who understand RP Jr. are multiplying like Rabetts. I’ll have to get another pinata.

    Better the Rabett you know Roger.

  52. #52 John Cross
    February 4, 2007

    OK, who’s up for a bet on who Karen really is. At first I thought she was John A but towards the end she reminded me of Lubos!

    Karen, don’t go away, you were actually pretty funny (but probably not how you intended).

  53. #53 Ian Forrester
    February 4, 2007

    I’ve often wondered why this “global cooling disaster” got so much publicity and attention when there was no solid science showing that global cooling via aerosols would out compete the warming associated with GHG’s. Both were being studied at the time, but the science had not matured enough to determine which would win.

    However, I came across this 1974 CIA report called “Potential Implications of Trends in World Population, Food Production, and Climate” which warned about international food shortages and other strategic issues related to anticipated global cooling. Could this be the basis for “global cooling frenzy”? Seems to me that the CIA is much more capable in getting information (right or wrong) out than any group of scientists.

  54. #54 Jeff S.
    February 4, 2007

    I think it’s time to put your money where your mouth is, Karen…..

    Why, that is an excellent idea! If one is as confident as Karen that GW is mass self-delusion by credulous fools, she should be willing, no eager to take one of the bets on offer about the future of global temperatures. Some even offer odds.

    See for example:

    http://backseatdriving.blogspot.com/

    I’ll be waiting….

  55. #55 Barfly
    February 4, 2007

    59cm, 89cm, you’re still not going to be able to bail out Al Gore for having his movie based on the claim that the sea level will go up by 20 feet.

    Posted by: Seixon

    And Professor Heat Islands adds his two cents. Given your past track record, I’d tend to believe it, simply because you don’t.

  56. #56 barking toad
    February 4, 2007

    And the score at half-time is :

    Karen – 10

    Hippies & Lambert – 0

  57. #57 zoot
    February 4, 2007

    Well you’ve convinced me, barking mad.

  58. #58 Laser Potato
    February 4, 2007

    Of course it is…IN BIZARRO-WORLD!!!

  59. #59 tim
    February 4, 2007

    TL,

    Did you receive an advance copy of the IPCC draft paper (which would seem likely, given you claimed to have read it in October)?

    If so, did you agree not to mention the draft publicly prior to its release?

  60. #60 Tim Lambert
    February 4, 2007

    Yes, I got a copy of the draft. No, I didn’t have to agree to anything. [See here](http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2006/05/us_govt_leaks_ipcc_report.php).

  61. #61 pough
    February 4, 2007

    No, baking toad is correct. Karen has minus ten points and the invisible hippies and Lambert have minus zero.

  62. #62 Ian Gould
    February 5, 2007

    So, barking toad and pough, besides Karen’s total failure to provide evidence in support of her position what exactly is it that impresses you so?

  63. #63 guthrie
    February 5, 2007

    Ian, I think Pough is taking th emickey from barking toad.

  64. #64 David Rothschild
    February 5, 2007

    Note that Glenn Reynolds is so eager for a real debate on the substance of the issues that he’s changed his archive around so that Tim’s link now goes to a recipe for lamb stew. His attack on Lambert is still on his blog, and elaborated on, but you can’t get there from here.

    Here is an updated link:
    http://instapundit.com/archives2/2007/02/post_2231.php

  65. #65 Tim Lambert
    February 5, 2007

    Reynold’s blogging platform is broken and breaks links all the time. He didn’t do it on purpose. I’ve fixed the link.

  66. #66 feckless
    February 5, 2007

    WINGNUT LOGIC:
    1) Iraq is really a paradise because the AP has some shadowy sources within the war zone.

    2) Man-made climate change is a hoax because scientist disagree if the water will rise 2 feet, or 2 and a half feet.

    Thank god for these wisemen!

  67. #67 Laser Potato
    February 6, 2007

    MINUS zero?!
    THAT DOES NOT COMPUTE
    THAT DOES NOT COMPUTE
    THAT DOES NOT COMPUTE

  68. #68 Millimeter Wave
    February 7, 2007

    Are the global warming denialists really so deluded that they think they scored a big coup with AR4?

    yes. Sayeth Monckton:

    The report’s generally more cautiously-expressed projections confirm scientists’ warnings that
    the UN’s heavy reliance on computer models had exaggerated the temperature effect of
    greenhouse-gas emissions.
    Previous reports in 1990, 1995 and 2001 had been progressively more alarmist. In the final draft
    of the new report there is a change in tone.

    New rule: never ask climate denialists rhetorical questions ;-)