Monday, November 23, 2015

debating a sock-puppet and another collection of informative links

This time we're at a comments thread to a YouTube video
By virtue of sharing a Nobel for "experimental discoveries regarding tunneling phenomena in superconductors" back in 1973 - contrarians bathe Ivar in an aura of climate science authority which the old guy certainly does not possess.
(fyi - )
Heck he even admits he's only done the most cursory reviews of articles - evidently he hadn't been paying attention to anything outside his microscopic tunneling and solid state physics for the past half century - not much of a background for pontificating on climate science, but oh boy, pontificate he certainly does.  Incidentally, it's not too difficult noticing that he nurses a grudge.

In any event, I owe "AL" an apology, he did post this list of specifics way back on the 9th, sorry for missing that, glad I stubbled on it this evening.   I don't want to ignore your challenge so better late than never (I have not changed or eliminated any of your words).  I'll keep it simple and let the links fill in the rest of the story. (I did some touch up editing 11/24/15 am)

AL wrote Nov 9, 2015:  +citizenschallengeYT
"Only four UN scientists in the IPCC peer-review process explicitly endorsed the key chapter blaming mankind for warming the past 50 years, according to this recent analysis."

Nonsense - You can find countless sources explicitly explaining that mankind is to blame for the warming of the past 50 years.  Claiming otherwise is an out and out lie!  Stop denying the CO2 we've put in the air, and the impacts of that increased atmospheric insulation on our climate.  Besides human drivers of global warming are not limited to increasing greenhouse gases, but that's a whole different compounding story I'll save for another time.

IPCC 2007
Climate Change 2007: Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis
Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report 2. Causes of change
Human influence on climate clear, IPCC report says
Summary - Climate Change 2013 The Physical Science Basis - 27 September 2013
How Do We Know that Humans Are the Major Cause of Global Warming?
Survey finds 97% agreement
What's causing global warming? Look for the fingerprints

AL continues: "One former UN IPCC scientist bluntly told the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) committee how the UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers “distorted” the scientists work. “I have found examples of a Summary saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said,” explained South African Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications."
Who is Philip Lloyd?  And why do you think his complaints put the manmade global warming consensus into doubt?  Can you explain the details of his complaint and findings?  If not then why are you pointing to him?

"Philip Lloyd is Managing Director at Industrial & Petrochemical Consultants (Pty) Ltd (profile archived here).  He also lists himself as a Professor at Cape Peninsula University of Technology.  This latter may be just an honorary post.  My research suggests so but is not definitive. 

Philip Lloyd describes himself as a "senior engineer" with the following specialties: Energy, petroleum industry, mining industry, extractive metallurgy, climate change.

Climate change you might ask? It turns out that, outside of his home country at any rate, the closest he has brushed with fame when it come to "climate change", apart from his two WUWT articles, is as Coordinating Lead Author of a chapter of an IPCC report.

Which report?  Well it's a 2005 report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage.

Which chapter was he coordinating lead author of?  It's not exactly a chapter, it's an Annexe.  And it's not the first Annexe, it's Annexe II: Glossary, acronyms and abbreviations.  Continued at:

And what do his vague complaints have to do with understanding what we are doing to our planet?  Or with learning from the science?  It takes more than lobbing pot shots and fomenting confusion.

AL continues: "Paul Reiter, a malaria expert formerly of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, participated in a past UN IPCC process and now calls the concept of consensus on global warming a “sham.” Reiter, a professor of entomology and tropical disease with the Pasteur Institute in Paris, had to threaten legal action to have his name removed from the IPCC. “That is how they make it seem that all the top scientists are agreed,” he said on March 5, 2007. “It’s not true,” he added."

I found this interesting response to one of Reiter's claims:

Extracts from Ofcom Complaint, by Category
Paul Reiter’s Resignation Allegations | 

[Comment 115: It is not true that Dr Reiter resigned from the IPCC.

Professor Martin Parry, co-chair of Working Group II for the IPCCs Fourth Assessment Report (2007), has reported (see:, PDF) that Reiter was not selected as an author, so could not resign from its writing group. He was invited to act as a reviewer, and he did so, contributing many comments on the first and second order drafts of the Health Chapter. Parry also states that he has not received any request from him to have his named removed from the list of reviewers of the Fourth Assessment.

For a some more background on Reiter:

AL continues: "Hurricane expert Christopher W. Landsea of NOAA’s National Hurricane Center, was both an author a reviewer for the IPCC’s 2nd Assessment Report in 1995 and the 3rd Assessment Report in 2001, but resigned from the 4th Assessment Report after charging the UN with playing politics with Hurricane science."

Oh yeah Landsea and his much dramatized 1300 rambling word long resignation.  Can you explain why I should be upset, because Landsea threw a hissy fit at being left out of a public presentation?  

For the record: 
"Dr. Trenberth participated in a press conference organized by scientists at Harvard on the topic "Experts to warn global warming likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense hurricane activity" along with other media interviews on the topic."

Landsea felt particularly slighted because he felt that: 
"... most recent credible studies that any impact in the future from global warming upon hurricane will likely be quite small." 

Arne what if Landsea was wrong?  What would it take for you to take a skeptical view of his simplistic claim?  More important why aren't you interested in listening to the other side of this story?  Here's a hint at what you're hiding from, this comes from an official response:

"The global warming influence provides a new background level that increases the risk of future enhancements in hurricane activity.", Kevin Trenberth

The vigorous hurricane season in the Atlantic in 2004, where 4 hurricanes hit Florida and flooding occurred along much of the eastern seaboard, attracted widespread media attention. Comments by a few scientists, including Landsea, suggested that there was no relation between these events and global warming. 

On October 14, 2004, a press conference called by the Harvard Medical School Center for Health and the Global Environment was held by teleconference with about 40 reporters to correct that impression and recognize that global warming is happening and hurricanes cannot be unaffected. 

Landsea took offense at Trenberth's participation in the news conference and what Trenberth said. Landsea issued a public letter on January 14, 2005 in which Landsea resigned from the IPCC but also made a number of charges that are not correct. There was considerable publicity about Landsea's letter, such as Trenberth and UCAR (Trenberth's employer) disputed Landsea's comments and UCAR posted the news release and NCAR Statement associated with Trenberth's comments online to show that several misquotes had been made. ...


What I wonder is why an expert such a Dr. Landsea would ignore physical realities such as:

6. It is likely that some increase in tropical cyclone peak wind-speed and rainfall will occur if the climate continues to warm. Model studies and theory project a 3-5% increase in wind-speed per degree Celsius increase of tropical sea surface temperatures." 
10. If the projected rise in sea level due to global warming occurs, then the vulnerability to tropical cyclone storm surge flooding would increase. 
Although, that was then, and this is now.  Look at the interesting little item I found:

Thursday, February 12 2015, 4:00 PM to 5:00 PM
Abstract - Climate variability and any resulting change in the
characteristics of tropical cyclones (tropical storms, subtropical storms, and hurricanes) have become topics of great interest and research within the past few years. 

Some recent scientific articles have reported a large increase in tropical cyclone energy, numbers, and windspeeds in many basins during the last few decades in association with warmer sea surface temperatures. These increases in tropical cyclone activity have been linked to man-made greenhouse gas changes.

This presentation will be given by Dr. Chris Landsea: Science and Operations Officer, National Hurricane Center.  It is free and open to the public. Jointly sponsored by the Honors Program, the ERAU Chapter of the American Meteorological Society, and Chi Epsilon Pi


It appears that Dr. Landsea has seen enough data to modify his earlier view - I wonder AL, are you capable of changing your conviction in light of enough solid evidence?  What would it take?

The impact of climate change on global tropical cyclone damage
What is the link between hurricanes and global warming?

AL continues: "McIntyre wrote: “So the purpose of the three-month delay between the publication of the (IPCC) Summary for Policy-Makers and the release of the actual WG1 (Working Group 1) is to enable them to make any ‘necessary’ adjustments to the technical report to match the policy summary. Unbelievable."
Oh dear, now you want me to trust McIntyre!?  Playing with numbers and setting impossible expectations is no way to learn about this planet you depend on for everything!

McClimategate continues: Yet another false accusation from McIntyre and McKitrick
Posted on March 10, 2010 
McIntyre's Mission: An Obsessive Quest to Disprove Michael Mann's Hockey Stick
By Kyla Mandel • Sunday, November 30, 2014
Stumbling Over Data: Mistakes Fuel Climate-Warming Skeptics

AL finishes with: Need more? (listing his sources as)



Yeah, I need something more serious.  Something that can teach me more than how to dance around facts and play mind games.

Your first dishonesty is depending on ClimateDepot and SPPI for information.  These people aren't the least bit into understanding climate science, right-wing political advocacy drives their existence.  

If you want to learn about our planet you must rely on people who spend their time studying our planet rather than orchestrating PR campaigns that misrepresent what the scientists' are explaining to us.

AL why doesn't it matter to you that Marc Morano's CV consists of being a political operative in the ruthless take no prisoners war of Republican national politics?

Get Rich or Lie Tryin': Climate Hustler Marc Morano

This Man Wants to Convince You Global Warming Is a Hoax

The spin doctors who will stop at nothing to obscure the truth

Fact Sheet

This SPPI is just as bad: 

"The Science and Public Policy Institute is a global warming skeptics organization which concerns itself with issues related to carbon dioxide and global warming. It is based in Virginia, USA and was founded in 2003. It was described by the New York Times as "a one-man operation that brings scientists to Capitol Hill on two issues: global warming and the health effects of mercury.""


Some more information regarding Giaever and his claims from the climate science library at

No comments: