Open thread for "There is no Evidence"

So the thread on the "There is no evidence" sceptic guide article is too long and off topic. Comments are now closed there, please add any you may still have on that post's topic here.

Comments specific to the "missing hotspot" tangent should go here.

More like this


I can see why you did not provide a link to where you got the quote; after all it is a lie. If you got this from one of the advocacy sites, then they lied to you, otherwise it is quite apparent that you have taken what was said out of context to misrepresent the Dr. Christy and the study found here:

Douglass, D. H., J. R. Christy, B. D. Pearson, and S. F. Singer, 2007: A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions. Int. J. Climatol., 28, doi:10.1002/joc.1651.

We shall now discuss the range issue in more detail. Recently, Karl et al. (2006) compared trends â using the same models, simulations, and datasets as those of Santer et al. (2005). Their conclusions are that â. . . [W]hile these data are consistent with the results from climate models at the global scale, discrepancies in the tropics remain to be resolved.â The discrepancies are: that on decadal time scales â. . .[a]lmost all model simulations show greater warming aloft [while]. . . most observation show greater warming at the surface.â They offer two possible explanations: (1) The models are wrong, and (2) The datasets are biased. They conclude that â[T]he new evidence in this Report favours the second explanation.â Our analysis of the ânew evidenceâ indicates that their choice of explanation 2 is not justified.

What you posted is a paraphrasing of what Karl et al (2006) said, not what was said by Christy. Further, this paper goes on to say that the âThe datasets are biasedâ is not shown to be justified.

That is just a little different than you presented. Where is Ian to call a spade a spade when it is someone in his camp that is misrepresenting or just plain lying about what a scientist says in peer reviewed literature?

The study clearly shows that neither RSS, UAH, nor radiosondes support the models projected âhot spotâ in the tropics. Your saying that any of the upper troposphere temperature measurements support the models is strangely not supported by said measurements.

Our poor denier fool once again shows his complete lack of understanding of simple English sentences by posting his drivel in the wrong thread.

Anyone who wants to read about the latest science on the so-called "missing hotspot" should read this recent paper by Santer et al: International Journal of Climatology, (2008), DOI: 10.1002/joc.1756 (…)

Of course our fool probably thinks that is an advocacy paper, published in an advocacy journal by advocates.

By Ian Forrester (not verified) on 07 Aug 2009 #permalink

"Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human induced global warming. This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. While these data are consistent with the results from climate models at the global scale, discrepancies in the tropics remain to be resolved. This difference between models and observations may arise from errors that are common to all models, from errors in the observational data sets, or from a combination of these factors. The second explanation is favored, but the issue is still open."

This is from a recent assessment co-authored by John Christy, no friend of AGW.

This is what you posted and even now you refuse to admit your attribution of this to Dr. Christy is not true. You could have said "I made an error" and corrected yourself but that was not what you did. Rather, you fell back theatrics saying "For lurkers (since I refuse to engage Vernon directly):" and a link to RC which you appear to imply supports you but for some strange reason, does not show this quote is from Dr. Christy. I like Ian am going to call a spade a spade on this one and just say, while it may have started as an error, it devolved into a lie.


dhogaza's post 53 on the "there-is-no-evidence" thread is doing a disservice to anyone new to this topic and coming to your talking points. It presents both a quote and a position for Dr. Chirsty which is not supported by the actual study and is flatly the opposite of what the study says.

Please consider moving it to this thread or deleting it. If you delete it, please delete my posts rebutting his claim.

Denier fool does not know what he is talking about (such a surprise).

If the fool would only do a little bit of research he would find that Christy is a lead author on a report which states exactly what dhogaza claimed he said.

The report is entitled "Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere - Understanding and Reconciling Differences" and can be viewed at:…

So, denier fool, are you going to admit you made an error and apologize to both dhogaza and Coby for your intemperate remarks?

By Ian Forrester (not verified) on 07 Aug 2009 #permalink

Calm down, it's over now! It's going to be alright.
The scientists are going to fix it whether deniers believe or not. It's just a matter of a short time.
We've won, man! The planet is saved!

'Cloud ship' scheme to deflect the sun's rays is favourite to cut global warming
Ships with giant funnels which travel the world's seas creating more clouds to deflect the sun's rays could help cut global warming, say scientists.

Published: 7:58AM BST 07 Aug 2009

The project, which is being worked on by rival US and UK scientists, would see 1,900 wind-powered ships ply the oceans sucking up seawater and spraying minuscule droplets of it out through tall funnels to create large white clouds.

They would cost $9 billion (£5.3 billion) to test and launch within 25 years, compared to the $250 billion that the worldâs leading nations are considering spending each year to cut CO2 emissions, and the $395 trillion it would cost to launch mirrors into space.

By Paul in MI (not verified) on 07 Aug 2009 #permalink

Talk about grasping at straws. You deniers will believe and promote any scheme which allows you to continue in your wasteful and arrogant ways.

By the way, temperature rise is not the only problem with too much CO2, the oceans are acidifying which is as much of a problem as warming.

By Ian Forrester (not verified) on 07 Aug 2009 #permalink

Some will never be happy.
What are we wasting? What is arrogant?

By Paul in MI (not verified) on 08 Aug 2009 #permalink

Christy has co-authored papers that somewhat contradict each other on this subject. There are examples upthread.

No one is in a position to flatly say the obs/models are consistent or inconsistent. The apparent discrepancies are being investigated and the issue is still open.

Each side here needs to loosen their grip.

If there is indeed a 'missing hotspot' then that will change the understanding of heat flux in a warming atmosphere. Whether or not there is a missing hot spot remains to be seen.

My apologies - I didn't see the hot spot link til later.

Seven charged with carbon credit fraud…

How appropriate, given that the head of Greenpeace just admitted that much of the human-caused global warming hype is also a fraud!…

And then this

But Al Gore and his buddies get to be rich, and THAT'S what's important right? Even in an era where the head of Greenpeace is forced to admit they just made up all the alarmist claims about Arctic ice vanishing by 2030.

You lot must be staring to run out of reasons to beleive by now.

crakar, what does any of that have to do with either the reality of the earth's climate or scientific research about said reality? Some of us base our beliefs on empirical evidence and scientific theory, not on conspiracy theory websites reporting on advocacy organizations.

The point is;
if something needs fixin', we'll fix it. With real solutions.
It has been established that the CO2 reduction schemes simply aren't going to happen, so other solutions are in order if we hope to have a chance at reducing global temps.

Ian's point is;
his ilk is interested in shutting down freedom and ultimately all human activity.

If he understands that or not is another question.

By Paul in MI (not verified) on 20 Aug 2009 #permalink


What are you talking about? Green peace have shown their hand, they are a bunch of alarmist hacks like most other scary story tellers.

And now we have to be subjected to money making scams that cannot even be controlled to the point where the fraudsters are already making money out of it aswell, thats all i am saying.

Go right ahead keep believing for all i care.

Believing what? I have never gotten my scienctific information from Greenpeace, so why would I really care if they made an unsubstantiated claim?

Nor am I in favor of anything more complicated than a tax on all carbon producing activities imposed as close to the actual consumptive activity. I like Hansen's proposal of doing this and returning all the revenue as an equally divided dividend for every man woman and child.

But I likely will not have the time to debate the merits of that with you, sorry. I just wanted to make the point that wheter or not Greenpeace misrepresents anything, the scientific literature is unaffected.


I am glad we agree on the stupidity of carbon tax schemes and i agree Hansen did have a better idea regardless of your view on the science.

In regards to green peace i disagree to a point, yes the IPCC scientific litrature is unaffected agreed. However green peace and many other rent seeking suedo scientific organisations have been screaming from every rooftop they could gain access to, to "spread the word" many of these outlandish claims the main one being about ice free arctic has gone along way to confuse and then indoctrinate the masses into accepting some futile carbon tax scheme which we both agree are not appropriate.

I think one of the saddest things to come from all this is that the science has never been debated, therefore the general public do not know shit from clay about how the green house works etc. Instead of education they have gone down the path of telling scary stories green peace is a good example of this. Another is here in oz we have had one ad on TV about GHG were we had black balloons coming out of every house hold appliance and then floating up into the air. Now what has black balloons filled with helium got to do with the green house effect?

I suspect all these scary stories will one day come back to haunt the tellers.

Cheers and have a good weekend.

Paul in MI -

The point is;
if something needs fixin', we'll fix it. With real solutions.

Yes, that's the hope. Now, if you could just get your denialist friends to stop opposing solutions to the problem, or even better, start accepting the fact that there IS a problem in the first place, we might be able to fix what needs fixin.'

It has been established that the CO2 reduction schemes simply aren't going to happen, so other solutions are in order if we hope to have a chance at reducing global temps.

When was this established? If you hadn't noticed, a cap-n-trade bill just passed through the US House of Representatives not too long ago, and the next international conference is scheduled for December. So, far from "simply aren't going to happen," I think there's a much higher likelyhood of significant carbon emissions reductions actually happening than anytime in the past.

Ian's point is;
his ilk is interested in shutting down freedom and ultimately all human activity.

And you're point is that you and your ilk are interested in making much of the planet uninhabitable and unable to support modern day civilization through inaction.

If you understand that or not is a different question.

How appropriate, given that the head of Greenpeace just admitted that much of the human-caused global warming hype is also a fraud!


Here's what happened ...

1. A Greenpeace spokesperson was interviewed by a BBC reporter who asked him about a supposedly false PR from GP that supposedly stated "the arctic could be ice free by 2030".

2. Said BBC reporter said that the ice in the arctic is 3km deep and won't be melting by 2030.

3. Said Greenpeace spokesperson said they weren't familiar with that PR, but that *if* the PR said what the reporter said, then obviously it was mistaken.

Now it's clear that #1 is simply reporting the widely-held scientific opinion that the ARCTIC ICE CAP will likely disappear during summer by 2030, and is actually a bit conservative. It is clear that #2 refers to the Greenland Ice Sheet. It is clear from #3 that the GP spokesperson didn't know exactly what the PR said.

If the BBC person was accurately reporting the contents of the PR, it's obvious it was carelessly written, which is a pity, and it's equally obvious to all but the braindead or intentionally dishonest that they weren't claiming that the Greenland would become ice free by 2030 ... and that the scientific concerns the PR refers to are real and in fact thought to be conservative by many, since a fair number of arctic researchers believe that we might see an ice-free arctic sea by summer 2015.

Here is a quote from the Greenpeace press release:

Ice free Arctic

Bad news is coming from other sources as well. A recent NASA study has shown that the ice cap is not only getting smaller, itâs getting thinner and younger. Sea ice has dramatically thinned between 2004 and 2008. Old ice (over 2 years old) takes longer to melt, and is also much harder to replace. As permanent ice decreases, we are looking at ice-free summers in the Arctic as early as 2030.…

I get a laugh out of how the AGW deniers are always shouting "FRAUD, FRAUD" when the only frauds that have been committed are ones by the various deniers; forged letters, cooked graphs, lies, distortions etc.

What a bunch of losers, I don't know how they can look in the mirror in the morning, they all must have beards.

By Ian Forrester (not verified) on 21 Aug 2009 #permalink

The new talking point in the deny-o-sphere is that CO2 can't have anything to do with global warming because it's heavier than air. Apologies if it's there and I just couldn't find it, but maybe you could add a rebuttal of this to your "how to talk to climate skeptics" links. Thanks.

By marthajones (not verified) on 24 Aug 2009 #permalink…

Heads up: Quotes mined from this article are all over the denialsphere right now.

The deniers want it to me than that the the government-funded global warming conspiracy's own survey data show that the smarter and more educated they are, the less likely you are to fear the effects of global warming. You can believe James Delingpole--or you can just read it yourself, as I did.

" can believe James Delingple....". Hilarious skip.

As he once said himself - and there is a video to prove it - he doesn't actually read any science. He is an 'interpreter of interpratations'. But if he DID read science, as you obviously did, he would have discovered this in the paper in question:

"... CCT posits that people who subscribe to a hierarchical, individualistic world-view—one that ties authority to conspicuous social rankings and eschews collective interference with the decisions of individuals possessing such authority—tend to be sceptical of environmental risks. Such people intuitively perceive that widespread acceptance of such risks would license restrictions on commerce and industry, forms of behaviour that hierarchical individualists value. In contrast, people who hold an egalitarian, communitarian world-view—one favouring less regimented forms of social organization and greater collective attention to individual needs—tend to be morally suspicious of commerce and industry, to which they attribute social inequity. They therefore find it congenial to believe those forms of behaviour are dangerous and worthy of restriction. On this view, one would expect egalitarian communitarians to be more concerned than hierarchical individualists with climate change risks. Our data, consistent with previous studies, supported this prediction...."

I think that's pretty clear - but of course, the denierspher is able to twist anything to suit their ideologies and to read things into studies that simply are not there (hello Faux News).

I would be interested in seeing your full posts, especially the last one or two that caused the great AW to issue a comment and close the thread.

A random model WILL produce a "better fit", but you have to keep selecting the next random number that will "play ball" with the figures to keep it happening.

All they do is keep selecting a random number they like and rejecting a random number they don't like.

I gave up posting at wattsupmybutt ages ago, after I called him out for critising something he hadn't read. He actually responded directly to me and had a go at me saying that it wasn't his fault he hadn't read the paper in question because it was behind a paywall.
When I suggested that was no excuse - he still hadn't read the thing he was criticising, I was censored.
The man has zero credibility, which I guess is the reason he is the darling of the deniersphere. I mean, anyone who states that he will accept the findings of a study (BEST), even if they go against him, then rejects the findings because they don't agree with him would be hung out to dry by people with any integrity - such as scientists. It says a lot his fans that he still has any support.
Speaking of idiots with no credibility and no integrity, did you see the latest on Christopher Monkey? Geraldo Rivera thinks he's 'smoking crack', and even the UKIP is distancing itself from him:…

Y'all would have to read Watt's thread to understand the context. (For example, Robert Phelan referred to me as "Timmy" (AW knows who I really am and obviously outed me to one of his cronies) so I returned the favor and referred to him as "Bobby" in my response.

Also note the great irony of the whole affair: Watts called on his key hatchet men ("Smokey" is a recurrently inept fixture on that blog) to try to beat me down, and they only proved as idiotic as he is. Also note that they censored me on the grounds of "abuse", even though Smokey had already called me a "pig" (LOL), but then they *went ahead and posted the supposedly abusive part* that supposedly justified the censorship--and of course made short work of the rest. The mentality of that crew is utterly amazing, horrifying, amusing, and revealing--all at once.

You do realize, of course, that you just called one of the major tenets [“the missing hotspot”] of your religion “pseudo-science.”

You have a very, very low level of understanding, don’t you Mr. Tuttle? The ‘missing hot spot’ is a claim made by self-described “skeptics”.

No one has even attempted to answer the points I posed to Smokey—to wit:

1. AW [unsuccessfully!] linked to an article *he had not even read*.
2. The authors of said article *don’t even agree with his position on climate change.*
3. The readership of this blog—none of whom had read the article either—accepted AW’s portrayal of the article (as demonstrating that computer models of climate have no value—which is not even exactly what the authors were saying, but that is another point) without question and without investigating the quality and perspective of the source themselves. This says quite a bit about both the administrator and the readership of this blog.

Why has no one even attempted to address this? And why have Mr. Tuttle and Smokey attempted to veer this discussion away from Anthony Watts’s rank blunder—and the subsequent swallowing of it by the readership of this blog?

The answer is obvious: it’s an embarrassment to Mr. Watts and everyone who reads this blog.

That is what he, and all of you, are desperately trying to avoid facing. Your idol, your icon, was so intellectually lazy that he blindly accepted without question the errant,
incomplete, and misleading summary by Ross McKitrick of an article that (a) he never read, (b) that Mr. Watts *himself* never read [he couldn’t even get the journal title right!] (c) and that none of *you* ever read.

This is why Bart is begging everyone to “stop bothering with Skippy.” You’re all confronted with yet another humiliating example of why the mainstream scientific community rejects Anthony Watts and his ilk.

And as for Poptech’s documentation of an alleged censoring by GS at RC, my response to that is: fair enough; I will examine that. Dendrochronology is a sufficiently ambiguous science (as I, an admitted non-expert take it) that RC *should* aggressively respond to any questions about it.

But what you folks do not understand, because your entire perceptual filter has been warped by the mindset of this blog, is that RC is *not* threatened by you. The blunt and ugly truth is that they think Anthony Watts is the scientific equivalent of a court jester, and his acolytes, such as yourselves, are easy marks for his nonsense.

And on this very thread we have seen nothing but confirmation of that perception. And your collective unwillingness to acknowledge Mr Watts’s –and your own—blunders is yet further confirmation of it.


That, skip, is both an unsupported assertion and a bare-faced lie . . . .If you were snipped on a previous thread, it was not simply for asking a question.

You are *so* certain of this, aren’t you, Bobby? It is inconceivable to you that Anthony Watts would ever sully himself by hiding his mistakes or censoring someone who had him nailed, right? Not Anthony Watts! Sounds like hero worship to me, Bobby

Since the cat is out of the bag and you know who I am (I suspect AW outed me), then ask him to *specifically deny my assertion.* (Do you not think it telling that he has not intervened and done so yet—in his own defense?) You will know for certain then, that yes, one of us is clearly lying.

You *know* Anthony will only reference articles that support his “position”, hmmmm?

That is *not* what I’m saying and you know it, Bobby.

He would not have referenced it *on this thread.* I also notice that you are avoiding the ugly point for which you now realize you have no answer: Watts never read the article. And nor did you, or Smokey, or Bill, or *anyone* else on this thread that so eagerly jumped on that faltering bandwagon. There is egg all over all y’all’s faces and I can tell by the bile I’m getting from you and the rest that this time it really hurts.

the authors also made their ritual obeisance to the current orthodoxy does not change that, nor does it do much to obscure the fact that these so-called science-based models don’t work.

Again, Bobby, you did *not* read the article. They said the models did not work *regionally* but they performed well *globally*.

Well, if I were a professor of criminal justice I would probably be very ill-qualified to comment . . . I teach sociology and anthropology . . .

Well that comes as a great relief, Bobby. I’ll be sure to search for your next submission on climate science to *Nature*.

I also teach deviance and criminology and have an ongoing interest in the way elites deviantize and criminalize behavior to further their own agendas and dominance.

I congratulate you in finding such an excellent case study in this blog and its participants.

You’re not as bright as you think you are.
If that were the case I would be truly dim, and probably would have, like the readership of this blog, missed Anthony Watt’s epic blunder.

Note to Skippy: Never, ever, ever poke a salt-water crocodile on the nose and never, ever, ever say “And as for you, Professor Phelan”…The results in either instance will not be to your liking.

I’m actually quite delighted, but thanks for the public service announcement nonetheless.

Looks like your experience on wattsupmybutt pretty much reflects mine there skip. Reading the articles and papers they are criticising is not a strong point for watts and his minions - but then, reading has only ever got in the way of ideology and threatened ignorance.
And coby - the 'Recent Comments' window on your hompage does not appear to be updating.

It looks ok now - but it didn't update for me for a few days. Maybe its my computer

I don't see things like "Latest comments" updating until after I've posted something somewhere. Then it updates.

Mine updates if I post, but sometimes just goes back to an old view afterward.

Also, I tried to post my censored comments from Wattsup, but it didn't come up. That might have been technical error on my part, though.

I think the problem is buggy back end software, I keep finding dozens, sometimes hundreds, of formerly approved comments in the pending queue. I just notice two were very recent ones from skip and mandas that now show just above (again)

Just posting this because 1) it's apposite to the thread and 2) I'm fed up with Wow's June 23 post being the most recent in the 'recent' comments bar.