“Is It Time To Stop The Insanity Of Wasting Time and Money On More Climate Models?” (2015-09-14). Wait a second. Hasn’t the only faintly credible denialist argument been that all the climate modelling and climate projections are too preliminary? We should keep waiting, twiddling our thumbs, until perfect data and projections are in hand? Then, presumably, the denialists will swing into righteous eco-warrior action. No, for Dr. Tim Ball it’s now about wasteful funding. Apparently ignorance is again bliss.
I still flick a bored eye over to Anthony Watts’ clown convention every now and then, and this post made me laugh enough to spend a moment scrolling through the “science.”
Today Anthony has loaned his dunce’s pulpit to Sky Dragon kook Dr. Tim Ball so he can mutter that climate projections aren’t as precise as he requires, that there aren’t enough “stations”, and that if you copy and paste carefully enough even the IPCC can be made to admit that the data is awful. Shut the whole thing down!
Hard to put much credence in Dr. Ball’s “career as a climatologist” (actually he’s a retired geographer and semi-pro Letter to the Editor writer) when he’s still trying to sell the out-of-context “hide the decline” source code quote from 2009. That dog won’t hunt. Also, does he really think that climatologists are trying to forecast climate? Ball seems to have a very rudimentary notion of how his alleged profession gathers climate data, or how it is used. Most of his gotcha quotes stop just before the actual meaning is explained, but this can possibly be put down to a short attention span.
Hell, Dr. Ball seems to have even forgotten that “stations” aren’t the only way we gather climate data. Maybe he should dust off those National Geographic magazines and look for articles about “satellites.” They’re brill. They go everywhere!
Actually, Dr. Ball seems to hold Australian garden-variety denialist and conspiracy enthusiast (ask her about the Rothschilds) Joanne Nova in high esteem, so perhaps he’s hidden an admission of poor judgement amongst his contemptuous bluster.
Seems to go along with the view from some conservatives, who argue that the scientific evidence is weak and that we stop supporting scientific research on climate.
Like Ben, I too have a degree in geology (Ohio State 1960). I followed with a masters in civil engineering and and years of experience modeling water quality in rivers and estuaries using methods similar although much less complex, of course, than the computer models used to simulate and, yes, predict, warming of the earth’s climate. I was just reading the !PCC 2015 Summary for Policy makers report and came across the following quote: “Multiple lines of evidence indicate a strong, consistent, almost linear relationship between cumulative CO2 emissions and projected global temperature change to the year 2100 . . .” Why run such complex models if the relationship is “almost linear”? Just pick your desired temperature, read off the necessary CO2, and allocate the associated emissions to the world polluters.
[Sorry for the delay approving this comment. What you reasonably suggest is a significant motivation for denialist opposition to climate action! They are fighting against accountability. – Ben]
[As opposed to your placeholder website? Or maybe you saw some crickets just as you were typing. – Ben]
Meanwhile, back on planet Earth (as opposed to the fantasy land that Watts &co inhabit), Peter Sinclair points to new research that suggests that things could actually be worse than any denier could contemplate in their most titillating ‘ooo, the economy is about to recover’ daydreams.
And now I remember why it was I decided to give up following all this crap (because it’s so depressing being reminded that so many examples of homo fatuus brutus are so witlessly ignorant).
Hmm… I was hoping for a reasoned argument to convince me that imminent catastrophic climate change is a real threat and why Anthony Watts is 100% in error. If there is such an argument it is certainly not found on this blog. Just adhominum insults with no point by point factual data. Like Diogenes, my search for an honest and cogent critique of his work continues….
[I’ve always thought of Diogenes as the original troll, but the Cynic connection also seems to fit you. Wait, shouldn’t you be claiming to be the reincarnation of Galileo? – Ben]
Dear Aaron, ‘the debate’ is long over. Wake up and smell the roses.
I think you will find it isn’t. You are being conned.
[After 4 years your cutting reply is to talk to yourself in the mirror? Please. – Ben]