but it’s in print, nonetheless

Ball, T. Book Review, Agricultural Dimensions of Global Climate Change, Ed. HM Kaiser and TE Drennen. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 42 (2): 212-214, (1994).

“…For example, carbon dioxide from anthropogenic sources increased the most from 1940 to 1980 while global temperature decreased. Atmospheric carbon dioxide readings plummeted at Mauna Loa in the last two years. “: Tim Ball.

Try to disprove that.

Never fear, I won’t desert you.

“Ooops, Dutch Meteorological Institute caught in weather station siting failure – moved station and told nobody
24 09 2009

KNMI has been measuring the wrong temperature for years”

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/24/ooops-dutch-meteorological-institute-caught-in-weather-station-siting-failure-moved-station-and-told-nobody/#more-11113

If you enjoy being a tool that Brian uses for his own interests, I guess I won’t stop you. But if you slink off like the whipped sock puppet that you are, I can live with that, too.

The fact is the case for AGW has consisted of faked data supplied by enough creeps who cashed in on the $79 billion the US government lavished on the scam.

For the sake of the few people who read this weekly ode to science fiction, here’s the rest of “The Dog Ate Global Warming”.

Roger Pielke Jr., an esteemed professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado, then requested the raw data from Jones. Jones responded:

Since the 1980s, we have merged the data we have received into existing series or begun new ones, so it is impossible to say if all stations within a particular country or if all of an individual record should be freely available. Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e., quality controlled and homogenized) data.

The statement about “data storage” is balderdash. They got the records from somewhere. The files went onto a computer. All of the original data could easily fit on the 9-inch tape drives common in the mid-1980s. I had all of the world’s surface barometric pressure data on one such tape in 1979.
If we are to believe Jones’s note to the younger Pielke, CRU adjusted the original data and then lost or destroyed them over twenty years ago. The letter to Warwick Hughes may have been an outright lie. After all, Peter Webster received some of the data this year. So the question remains: What was destroyed or lost, when was it destroyed or lost, and why?

All of this is much more than an academic spat. It now appears likely that the U.S. Senate will drop cap-and-trade climate legislation from its docket this fall — whereupon the Obama Environmental Protection Agency is going to step in and issue regulations on carbon-dioxide emissions. Unlike a law, which can’t be challenged on a scientific basis, a regulation can. If there are no data, there’s no science. U.S. taxpayers deserve to know the answer to the question posed above.

— Patrick J. Michaels is a senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute and author of Climate of Extremes: Global Warming Science They Don’t Want You to Know.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTBiMTRlMDQxNzEyMmRhZjU3ZmYzODI5MGY4ZWI5OWM=&w=MQ==

Ta ta! I’m off to try to educate people about something real….the genocidal swine flu vaccination program. See all the information here.
http://www.theflucase.com/

So, feel free to ignore the analogy. It’s not false, although it’s certainly possible that I didn’t put it into familiar enough terms to be easily understood. And as for my lying, all you have to do to know that I’m being honest is some basic addition. But apparently that’s beyond you.

As with all the cut/paste links you’ve put up here to support your arguments, this one is riddled with false information.

The first two images at that site (the two that are from scienceandpublicpolicy.org) are nearly identical to ones I’ve debunked a few tims. The first compares warming that occurred during the late 20th century and thus far in the 21st to the expected century linear warming trend that the IPCC expects. But warming is not actually flat, it increases as the the amount of CO2 emissions increase, and because human activity is emitting a LOT of CO2 and emissions are accelerating, the temperature is expected to increase more toward the end of this century. In other words, the rate of temperature rise is going to go up – 0.9 degrees per century now will ramp up to to 2 degrees or more per century later in the century. It’s called exponential growth, the same kind of growth that makes your bank balance go up with interest..

The second image I’ve debunked so many times that it’s not even funny. I’ve referred to my debunking of it twice already in the comments above. Here it is one last time. Read it this time. Study it. Understand it.

There does appear to have been a slowdown of sea level rise in the last few years. I won’t deny that. But if you look at the rest of the satellite altimetry data (larger and more recent image than the one referenced at the link here), there are at least two other periods when someone could argue that “sea level rise stopped” – mid 1993 to mid 1996 and mid 1997 to mid-2000. And if you notice, the 60 day smoothing trend is again approaching the long-term trend. Whether it will exceed the trend or not will be for new data to show later this year. As for your claim that it hasn’t exceeded the long-term trend, care to provide data for that one? Claims without data to support them, especially from you, are meaningless.

I’ll grant you that tropical cyclones don’t appear to be trending. How cyclones will respond to climate disruption is a question that the experts don’t know yet. I found it interesting that the source of the cyclone information, Ryan Maue of Florida State University, doesn’t necessarily agree that hurricane activity is at it’s lowest. From his FSU website:

Global Hurricane Frequency [storms with maximum intensity greater than 64 knots] has dramatically collapsed during the past 2-3 years. When measured using 12 or 24 month running sums, the number of tropical cyclones at hurricane intensity is clearly at a 30-year low. HOWEVER, the number of tropical cyclones with intensity greater than 34-knots has remained at the 30-year average (83 storms per year). More on the distinction in an upcoming paper currently submitted for publication.

Personally, I think I may track down the paper and try to understand it.

As far as the drought trend goes, the table they have from the WRI doesn’t actually talk about a trend or lack thereof in the frequency of drought. Instead it talks about the number of deaths due to drought, extreme temperature, wild fires, etc. I find the numbers interesting, since they apparently ignore famine as a cause of drought deaths. I’m sure the table’s original authors had a reason for that, but given that drought played a part in the deaths of at least 8 million Ethiopians in the mid 1980s, the fact that the table has only 130,000 drought deaths shown makes it clear that it’s being misused here. And alas, there’s no other data. Claims without data are meaningless.

As for the atolls/Pacific islands, the data in that image looks a lot different from the data in this one for the Marshall Islands, or this one for Fiji. Given that the satellite altimetry data was good enough for the link’s authors to try and debunk the global sea level rise, I wonder why they chose to use a hard to read, unreferenced image from “the Australian government” instead of the satellite altimetry data for the countries in question. Maybe because the altimetry data didn’t support their claim and was harder to spin into propaganda.

“So it’s entirely possible to have long-term causation without short-term correlation”…is definitely a cake-taker.

Brian…you can make stuff up, use false analogies and generally lie through your teeth while tap dancing around facts but it can’t change thereality that it will be cooling for too long to salvage the scam. The Danish Prime Minister has given up looking for a treaty to come out of Copenhagen.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/susanwatts/2009/09/a_quiet_bombshell_on_copenhage.html

People don’t care anymore because there are real things to worry about.
http://pollingreport.com/prioriti.htm

Here are some quotes from Obama’s speech at the UN followed by the reality.

“…[T]he threat from climate change is serious, it is urgent, and it is growing.”

Reality: global mean temperatures increased slightly from 1977 to 2000. Temperatures have been flat since then.

“Rising sea levels threaten every coastline.”

Reality: sea levels have been rising on and off since the end of the last ice age 13,000 years ago. The rate of sea level rise has not increased in recent decades over the nineteenth and twentieth century average.

“More powerful storms and floods threaten every continent.”

Reality: there is no upward global trend in storms or floods.

“More frequent drought and crop failures breed hunger and conflict in places where hunger and conflict already thrive.”

Reality: there is no upward global trend in major droughts. Reversals in large-scale cycles have meant that the southward march of the Sahara Desert into the Sahel has been reversed in recent years and the Sahara is now shrinking.

“On shrinking islands, families are already being forced to flee their homes as climate refugees.”

Reality: some Pacific islanders may want to emigrate to New Zealand or Australia and are claiming that their islands are disappearing as the reason, but shrinkage has been minimal in recent decades because sea level rise has been minimal.

President Obama’s policy prescriptions are energy rationing and energy poverty disguised as growth and prosperity. The emissions reductions that he promises the United States will make through cap-and-trade legislation are dead in the water in the U. S. Senate and would not survive a second vote in the U. S. House. If enacted, cap-and-trade would consign the economy to perpetual stagnation and make the U. S. into a second-rate economic power.

His policy prescription for poor countries is to promise them massive “financial and technical assistance”. The track record of paying off poor countries is that it has lined the pockets of corrupt leaders and bureaucracies with billions and tens of billions of dollars, but has done nothing to help those countries become prosperous. What these countries need is free markets and abolishing barriers to trade. The global warming policies advocated by the Obama Administration and the Democratic-controlled Congress would raise trade barriers and foster energy poverty throughout the world. Energy rationing is not the way forward and is not a message of hope for the poorest people in the world, who lack access to electricity and modern transportation.”

http://www.openmarket.org/2009/09/22/obama-speech-to-the-un/

and if you’d like to the the graphs which back up the reality

http://www.globalwarming.org/2009/09/22/obama-speech-to-the-un-the-data/

In real systems, there are usually multiple causal factors that trade off as to which factor is dominating at any given moment. For example, in my professional field of electrical engineering, we have something called a “state machine.” State machines are essentially mathematical algorithms that accept inputs from the outside world, determine what the next operational state is, and then transition from the current state to the next state. The operation of the state machine is 100% correlated with the totality of the inputs – that’s how the state machine is designed – but which input matters depends entirely upon which state the machine is presently in. Sometimes the state machine may ignore all other inputs except the one that indicates a computer keyboard “enter” key has been pressed. Other times the state machine looks at every single input available and calculates what to do based on the sum total of all the inputs.

As a result, however, if you look at only a single input, you’ll often find periods that the operation of the state machine is totally uncorrelated with that single input. After all, if the state machine is waiting for you to press the “enter” key but you’re trying the number keys, the state machine will just sit there and do nothing. Long-term causation, in this case, is uncorrelated with short-term correlation.

The same is true of climate. The response of climate is 100% correlated with all the inputs to the climate and it’s past state. But that doesn’t mean that at any given instant, one factor isn’t dominating another, or that we understand all the inputs. So it’s entirely possible to have long-term causation without short-term correlation.

There was no correlation during various ages, there is no correlation now. There was a seeming one for a few years…it’s gone now.

and remember while CORRELATION IS NOT CAUSATION…..THERE CAN BE NO CAUSATION WITHOUT CORRELATION.

You are still on the floor Brian. TRY LOOKING AT THE SUN INSTEAD OF YOUR NAVEL.

I do find your lack of acknowledgment that basic mathematics and easily checked references disproves your last post to be revealing.

As for this one, I’ll simply refer you to my debunking of this exact myth (Myth #6), Judy – it describes in far greater detail why that entire passage doesn’t matter. Furthermore, I’ve debunked the logical fallacy you’re committing at Myth #21, namely “CO2 and the Earth’s temperature has been uncorrelated before, so it must be uncorrelated this time.

[I]f you push your foot down on the gas 10 times and the car accelerates each time, you can realistically expect that the next time you put your foot down on the gas the car will accelerate again. That’s science. But what if you put your foot on the gas and nothing happens? Assuming that that car would have accelerated was a reasonable scientific expectation, but once the car didn’t accelerate, you have to leave your prediction behind and actually figure out what’s busted in the car. Or, to put this analogy in terms that more directly parallel global heating, what if you’re sitting in the car and it accelerates even before you put your foot on the gas? Did you accidentally put your foot on the gas and not realize it? Or has something broken under the hood that you’ll [need to] fix before you can slow down again?

“Late Carboniferous to Early Permian time (315 mya — 270 mya) is the only time period in the last 600 million years when both atmospheric CO2 and temperatures were as low as they are today (Quaternary Period ).

Temperature after C.R. Scotese http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm
CO2 after R.A. Berner, 2001 (GEOCARB III)

“There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today. For example, during the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today. The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm — about 18 times higher than today.”

The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today– 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming.”
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

Take a look at the graph of the history of temperature in relation to CO2…..there is little in the way
correlation over history.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif

But then, you know that.

When the scam is acknowledged , I wonder if any of you climate shills will be charged with a criminal conspiracy to defraud,

As far as that .pdf, there are so many problems with it that I almost don’t know where to start.

First, the table comes from an Energy Information Administration report that uses the IPCC Third Assessment report from 2001 as it’s source. That doesn’t mean that the table itself is from the IPCC TAR. Without a table number from the TAR itself, the table in the .pdf could be from nearly anywhere.

Second, even if we do assume that the table is taken verbatim from the TAR, it’s still from the Third Assessment Report, that was published in 2001. We now have the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), which supersedes the TAR in all respects (even when the AR4 says that it’s conclusions agree with the conclusions from the TAR).

Third, the .pdf fails entirely on its own bad math, even without potential data problems. It claims that “[t]hroughout the 1990’s global CO2 emissions from fossil fuels were increasing on average by about 500 million metric tonnes of CO2 per year” and that “[t]his clearly demonstrates that only 500 of the 11,700 million metric tonnes of annual increase in atmospheric CO2 was from fossil fuels.” The table is titled “Global Natural and Anthropogenic Sources and Absorption of Greenhouse Gases in the 1990s (emphasis mine).” So if the table is meant to represent the entire decade from 1990-1999, then the .pdf fails to multiply its “500 million metric tons of CO2 per year” by 10 years, for a total of 5,000 metric tons. That’s 42.7% of the total, not the 4.27% that the .pdf claims.

Fourth, the .pdf fails to get the data right too. According to the EIA’s estimates of global CO2 emissions from flaring and consumption of fossil fuels (available in Excel format here), the total emissions for 1990 was actually 21,683 million metric tons, not the 500 that the .pdf claims. And the combined emissions for the entire decade is 223,477 million metric tons, or an average of 22,348 million metric tons per year. This number is so close to the number in the table that the table very likely represents the average for the 1990s as it was estimated earlier this decade.

And given those four problems, all the conclusions reached after the wrong math are also wrong.

So, Judy, if this little .pdf is one of the reasons you believe that CO2 can’t affect climate, then this part of your reasoning is based on wrong information.

Do you have any more easily demolished dross like this?

There is a disconnect you keep dancing around…the fact that there is no longer a correlation between CO2 and temperature, and then there is this:

“IPCC’s own table refutes their claim that humans are prime source of increases in CO2

23 Sep 09 – “The IPCC is so messed up that even their own publications refute their conjecture,” says this article by Norm Kalmanovitch, P. Geoph.

“Throughout the 1990’s global CO2 emissions from fossil fuels were increasing on average by about 500 million metric tonnes of CO2 per year. This table from the IPCC 2001 Third Assessment Report shows the annual increase in atmospheric CO2 over this time period to be 11,700 million metric tonnes of CO2 per year.
http://climaterealists.com/attachments/database/CO2 REALITY CHECK.pdf

“This clearly demonstrates that only 500 of the 11,700 million metric tones of annual increase in atmospheric CO2 was from fossil fuels.

“This means that 95.73% of the increase was naturally sourced.

This also means that “the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration, regardless of source, is not causing an increase in global temperature as demonstrated by the past eight years of cooling with steadily increasing CO2 concentration and the ever increasing CO2 emissions from fossil fuels.”

In other words, the IPCC’s own table refutes their claim that
humans are the prime source of increases in CO2.

http://climaterealists.com/?id=4059

You claim that “[t]he models didn’t predict it because they gave too great a value to CO2.” This is factually inaccurate, although you can be forgiven for not understanding why it’s wrong – most people don’t get this particular nuance of climate modeling any better than you do. So here’s a quick education.

Climate models are run over and over and over in order to determine what general trends show up. Then those models are averaged together in order to remove short-term variations (aka “weather”), because those variations aren’t what the climatologists care about, and a single run of any model is statistically useless (ie it has an indeterminate amount of error) for making projections. In the process, though, the short-term variations that can “predict” periods of flat or cooling climate are intentionally removed in favor of more statistically robust conclusions.

I’ve pointed this study out to you before, and the fact that you’re making this BS argument tells me that you still haven’t read it, but here it is – again: Paper shows cooler periods entirely expected

It’s true that there has been no statistically significant warming since 1998. But this isn’t a statistically meaningful result. First, there was an unusually strong el Nino in 1998 that made that year unusually hot. In 2008 and thus far through 2009 there’s been la Nina conditions that have made the last year or so colder. And as a result, a statistical least-squares fit of a line to the data would be expected to show little warming for the last decade. But as the paper’s authors point out, if you choose 1999 as your starting point, all of a sudden there’s statistically valid warming again.

The problem, says the paper, is that natural variability is added atop the carbon dioxide (CO2) driven warming signal. And when that natural variability is greater on short time scales than the CO2 signal, then it’s all but inevitable that there will be decades where warming appears to stop only to start up again later. This is illustrated in the figure [below] for two periods in a single model run.

It’s a misconception that the Earth’s climate will warm perpetually without any variability – the real climate doesn’t work like that. Instead, the misconception is probably a result of poor communication about the differences between model averages (which intentionally smooth out the variability seen in the image above in order to discover underlying trends) and the results of a single model run. The Earth’s actual climate response is going to appear much closer to a single model run, with all the attendant peaks and valleys, than to any multiple model average.

The authors also analyzed the statistical significance of positive vs. negative trends in models and the measured data and found that even when negative trends existed in the model results, 0.0% of the negative trends were statistically significant to the 95% confidence interval. On the other hand, 26.0% of positive trends were statistically significant at the same confidence interval. This means that even when the models show negative trends, the trends are so small as to be effectively meaningless.

Here’s the image, BTW:

And then there’s this excerpt from a publication by Met scientists in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, which says in part:

Near-zero and even negative trends are common
for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.

The 10 model simulations (a total of 700 years of simulation) possess 17 nonoverlapping decades with trends in ENSO-adjusted global mean temperature within the uncertainty range of the observed 1999–2008 trend (−0.05° to 0.05°C decade–1). Over most of the globe, local surface temperature trends for 1999–2008 are statistically
consistent with those in the 17 simulated decades. (emphasis added)

In other words, there were 17 periods in 10 different model runs that were statistically insignificant from the real observed global temperature trend of the last decade.

So much for your “the models don’t predict it” canard.

I decided to take a half-step back on my calling D’Aleo a liar, though – he’s either a liar, or he’s so inept at statistics that he doesn’t understand that he’s misrepresenting the data. Either way, though, he’s not someone you should be looking up to as an authority on climate disruption.

It’s cooling Brian. The models didn’t predict it because they gave too great a value to CO2. It is now admitted even by Real Climate that there probably won’t be any more warming until at least 2020…and all your denial and name calling can’t change that.

The Dog Ate Global Warming
Interpreting climate data can be hard enough. What if some key data have been fiddled?

By Patrick J. Michaels

Imagine if there were no reliable records of global surface temperature. Raucous policy debates such as cap-and-trade would have no scientific basis, Al Gore would at this point be little more than a historical footnote, and President Obama would not be spending this U.N. session talking up a (likely unattainable) international climate deal in Copenhagen in December.

Steel yourself for the new reality, because the data needed to verify the gloom-and-doom warming forecasts have disappeared.

Or so it seems. Apparently, they were either lost or purged from some discarded computer. Only a very few people know what really happened, and they aren’t talking much. And what little they are saying makes no sense.In the early 1980s, with funding from the U.S. Department of Energy, scientists at the United Kingdom’s University of East Anglia established the Climate Research Unit (CRU) to produce the world’s first comprehensive history of surface temperature. It’s known in the trade as the “Jones and Wigley” record for its authors, Phil Jones and Tom Wigley, and it served as the primary reference standard for the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) until 2007. It was this record that prompted the IPCC to claim a “discernible human influence on global climate.”

Putting together such a record isn’t at all easy. Weather stations weren’t really designed to monitor global climate. Long-standing ones were usually established at points of commerce, which tend to grow into cities that induce spurious warming trends in their records. Trees grow up around thermometers and lower the afternoon temperature. Further, as documented by the University of Colorado’s Roger Pielke Sr., many of the stations themselves are placed in locations, such as in parking lots or near heat vents, where artificially high temperatures are bound to be recorded.

So the weather data that go into the historical climate records that are required to verify models of global warming aren’t the original records at all. Jones and Wigley, however, weren’t specific about what was done to which station in order to produce their record, which, according to the IPCC, showed a warming of 0.6° +/– 0.2°C in the 20th century.

Now begins the fun. Warwick Hughes, an Australian scientist, wondered where that “+/–” came from, so he politely wrote Phil Jones in early 2005, asking for the original data. Jones’s response to a fellow scientist attempting to replicate his work was, “We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”

Reread that statement, for it is breathtaking in its anti-scientific thrust. In fact, the entire purpose of replication is to “try and find something wrong.” The ultimate objective of science is to do things so well that, indeed, nothing is wrong.

Then the story changed. In June 2009, Georgia Tech’s Peter Webster told Canadian researcher Stephen McIntyre that he had requested raw data, and Jones freely gave it to him. So McIntyre promptly filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the same data. Despite having been invited by the National Academy of Sciences to present his analyses of millennial temperatures, McIntyre was told that he couldn’t have the data because he wasn’t an “academic.” So his colleague Ross McKitrick, an economist at the University of Guelph, asked for the data. He was turned down, too.

Faced with a growing number of such requests, Jones refused them all, saying that there were “confidentiality” agreements regarding the data between CRU and nations that supplied the data. McIntyre’s blog readers then requested those agreements, country by country, but only a handful turned out to exist, mainly from Third World countries and written in very vague language.

It’s worth noting that McKitrick and I had published papers demonstrating that the quality of land-based records is so poor that the warming trend estimated since 1979 (the first year for which we could compare those records to independent data from satellites) may have been overestimated by 50 percent. Webster, who received the CRU data, published studies linking changes in hurricane patterns to warming (while others have found otherwise).

Enter the dog that ate global warming.

continued

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTBiMTRlMDQxNzEyMmRhZjU3ZmYzODI5MGY4ZWI5OWM=&w=MQ==

The climate modeler admitted the models were wrong…the rest of your fiddle is faddle.

And so yes, touting it is hypocrisy.

As for your so-called cooling, I’ve addressed that as well with you more times than I care to count. And the result is that your claims don’t hold statistical water. The last time I ran the numbers, the “trend” that I looked at was so far within the noise that it would take at least 70 years for it to exceed one standard deviation (the point at which the trend is 63% likely to not be reproduced by random data, and the absolute lowest level of significance most scientists and statisticians accept). And the trend was one of D’Aleo’s 7 year trends. Oh, and it suffered from the traditional endpoint problem – it started in an El Nino year and ended in a La Nina year, artificially lowering any trend.

Facts, Judy. Data. Come back when you actually have some.

The disinformationalist trick of accusing the opponents of hypocricy when warmists get hoist on their own petards is manifest above.

The point of the article and Latif’s speech is that the models were wrong….and it is cooling…..(in spite of CO2 levels.)

You don’t have a leg to stand on anymore…so you try shooting the messenger from the floor.

Missed!

I’ve read other news sources (as opposed to editorial sources like the one you cut&pasted) like this one from >the UK Daily Mail, and they have a quote that smacks your editorial around a little:

However Dr Latif still believes that carbon dioxide released from the burning of fossil fuels stored underground for millions of years will still warm the planet in the longer term.

And this quote from a New Scientist article:

“People will say this is global warming disappearing,” he told more than 1500 of the world’s top climate scientists gathering in Geneva at the UN’s World Climate Conference.

“I am not one of the sceptics,” insisted Mojib Latif of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at Kiel University, Germany. “However, we have to ask the nasty questions ourselves or other people will do it.”

Regardless, though, I find it wholly unsurprising that you, who have touted David Evans’ disdain for climate models in general, are touting the results of a climate model that may agree with your own views. If all the climate models are bullshit, Judy, how is it that this model is suddenly, magically correct?

Your rank hypocrisy is showing, Judy.