the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

If you made six figures for writing nonsense, would you stop?

Posted by Jeff Id on July 9, 2015

I received an email today from a reader who generously shared some Lewandowsky related news on the climate front.   As you know, I haven’t exactly been energetic in my posting.  I’m rather disgusted with climate science and while I still read regularly, I don’t seem to be able to find the energy to actually give a crap about what the leftist Climate Science(TM) crowd says.   Still, I can be dragged from my grumpy shell.  Here is the article of interest, written by these luminary visionaries – bork!!
.
In short, Stephan Lewandowsky has published yet another piece of fake science, using yet more government money, stolen from productive free-market minions, for purposes of bashing on those of us who can read a graph.  AKA, climate skeptics.   At this point, even other leftist scientists like Dr. Ivar Giaever are bailing out of the climate science wagon.  You have to be a shill or a moron to not understand that climate science is a scam at this point.  Not that it stops the ever-less relevant Real Climate guys from diving on the constant grenades to cover the scam.
 .
Here is Steve’s real funding disclosure for his fake paper:
The first author was supported by a Discovery Outstanding Researcher Award from the Australian Research Council during
part of this research, and he has been supported by a Wolfson Research Merit Award from the Royal Society since 2013. In
addition, the research was supported by internal funding from the University of Bristol and the University of Western Australia.
The remaining authors have no funding to report.
I literally cannot imagine living in a world where the likes of Stephan Lewandowsky receive “outstanding researcher awards” (lc intended).   The man is the lowest form of life on this planet as history will certainly show.  There is no value in his publication other than to slander those who disagree with him.   Intellectually, and mathematically he doesn’t reach the kneecaps of the majority of readers of this blog and the man has reached high fame by slandering our group.
.
Anyway, I replied to the email as follows:
I’m trying to make myself care about this. Lew is a leftist political hack who will never give up.  Cook is tagging along with a moron, so what does that make him.
I read/skimmed most of the article because I found myself fogging out after a few paragraphs.  How does a “journal” publish something like that?   How do “scientists” take it seriously?
It ain’t much like engineering.
Publish away Lewie.   No matter how extreme you are, you cannot stop basic observation which contradicts theory.
CMIP5-90-models-global-Tsfc-vs-obs-thru-2013[1]

Dr. Roy Spencer


13 Responses to “If you made six figures for writing nonsense, would you stop?”

  1. M Simon said

    Peak summer temperatures so far in my neck of the woods? 70s. Expected to get up to the mid 80s next week. Of course it is just weather. But a few cool summers in a row and it will be climate. Lew is getting paid well. If only he could get the climate to cooperate. Like it used to.

  2. Barry Woods said

    Michael Marriott is still listed as a co-author..
    still showing a fake/vanity affiliation

    [g] Climate Realities Research

  3. thojak said

    Thanks! Shared on Facebook. Brdgs/TJ

  4. hunter said

    It is difficult to realize just how far non-rational extremists can go. It is a challenge for skeptics, rooted in rational thought and tolerance, to realize just how extreme some of the cliamte obsessed really are. Their realization that they actually cannot control the climate seems to be something they compensate for by seeking control over people.

    • Jeff Id said

      How dumb are we? Objectively answered, it is something I’ve become very afraid of. When a population cannot read a graph, or believes that the industry which feeds them is somehow evil, there really is no limit to the illogic they can be taught. No possible end to the ridiculousness or insanity of holding beliefs which do not mesh with observation. Lewandowsky’s own paper asserts that “skeptics” are the ones who cannot observe, yet the simple graph in this post is outside of his own ability to acknowledge or explain.

      • Robert Way said

        “When a population cannot read a graph”

        That graph is fundamentally misleading. It is a real shame that it has been bandied about as often without any critical assessment.

        • Jeff Id said

          I believe I’m fully qualified to asses the graph. I wonder why you say it is misleading.

          A better question is why is it that when the ‘temperature trend’ of climate models used to predict the ‘temperature trend’ of the planet don’t match observation, climate science cannot be self-critical enough to recognize it?

          • Robert Way said

            Clearly you aren’t. It has an inappropriate re-baselining technique which visually exaggerates the discrepancy between the two datasets. Not to mention that it includes a dataset which does not have global coverage and compares it against globally complete climate model output.

            If you do the comparison right, the surface temperature observations and climate model output are not inconsistent with one another. Show a bit of genuine skepticism.

          • Jeff Id said

            “If you do the comparison right, the surface temperature observations and climate model output are not inconsistent with one another. Show a bit of genuine skepticism.”

            Are you seriously kidding me? There are a half dozen papers which show the trends of models are not just high, but statistically separable from observation. Hell, I’ve even seen one rejected from publication for the reason- “we already know that”. It doesn’t matter which models you choose nearly everything is statistically outside of the observations. I’ve read probably 5 other papers which try to explain the difference by adjusting downward- any forcing but CO2 in the model inputs. You then say models are not inconsistent with measurements.

            Here are a couple links, there are dozens to chose from:
            https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2011/09/11/corroboration-again/
            https://treesfortheforest.wordpress.com/2009/09/26/ar4-model-hypothesis-tests/

            What a joke. How about a little scientific honesty.

          • Jeff Id said

            When I make a product, if it doesn’t perform to specification, we cannot use it. There aren’t second chances or hug fests to decide that — “well, we’re pretty close so lets go with it”. The requirement is the requirement. You cannot redefine physics and science just because you wish something to be true. Your feelings don’t count one bit. I’m sorry but they don’t and it isn’t my fault that they don’t.

            The climate response to date is obviously at least at the lowest range of even the reduced AR5 range. We cannot change that. This places any damages from warming at the lowest edge of that range as well, and we haven’t seen any of that either because the damages from warming have also been systematically overestimated. Again, your feelings mean nothing in this matter and neither do mine.

            Observe coldly Robert, maybe the observations will change and we can all agree that we are heading toward doom. Until then, we need to fix those climate models.

        • hunter said

          Robert,
          Offer some critical review on the graph then. Not your dogmatic out of hand dismissal.

          • Jeff Id said

            Hunter,

            Robert did make some kind of critical review above. I remember when he first stopped here. His attitude was somewhat less assertive. So was I because I was not experienced in climate science or natural sciences, only real ones. Now Robert feels he has his chops but he hasn’t reached the level he thinks he has. I am less patient than when tAV started, and I should be. He has made a statement he cannot support and I have refuted it with near zero personal labor. If he has the wits, we will see a detailed technical post as to why climate models actually match observations, and every single actual scientist on the planet is wrong.

            I am waiting patiently for that comment.

            If he has the brains, rather than simple wits, we will see a comment agreeing with mine.

            And that is why I don’t write as many posts as before. I’m tired of morons pretending to be thinkers.

          • Jeff Id said

            one Mr. Cotton is a good example.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: