Monday, November 28, 2011

Warmist David Appell on losing his religion: "it does raise questions about how much purported unanimity has been artificially created by IPCC reports, and whether the full state of uncertainty is being communicated...The would-be policy makers need to stop getting ahead of the science"

Quark Soup by David Appell: Is This Climate Science’s Thermidorian Reaction?

Obviously the first was the release of a new batch of emails. It doesn't show anything nefarious, but I think it does raise questions about how much purported unanimity has been artificially created by IPCC reports, and whether the full state of uncertainty is being communicated. And why are people talking about deleting emails? Why is Ms Kathryn Humphrey from UK's Defra saying the government wants a strong message?
...
The other thing that gives pause was the Schmittner et al Science paper that finds a lower value for climate sensitivity (2.3 K instead of 3.0 K), and, more importantly, a smaller range of possible warming, especially at the top end.
...
And I'm really fed-up with dishonest reporting everywhere, especially among bloggers. Some people are very wrapped up in this and, indeed, now have careers and a modicum of fame that depend on their extreme views. I'm not going to even mention some prominent deniers because they're clearly fools who say they will accept the results of a study but then find any reason, however slight, to change their mind. But, for example, Climate Progress didn't even mention this week's Science study, even though commenters there are asking for a reaction. That's just bullshit, particularly from someone who says we could get 10 F warming (5.6 C) by the end of the century and writes completely alarmist crap like this and this.

And from an organization who refuses to reveal who signs their paychecks.
...
The other thing I'm fed up with are the routine announcements like the IEA's recent 'unless we solve this problem in 5 years we can't avoid dangerous warming.' Who decided 5 C is "dangerous" but 1.9 isn't? Or that if we cut them in 7 years instead of 5 we're screwed? Come on.

Come back to me when you find the 30 thousand billion billion Joules that go missing every year. (And, no, I'm not blaming any scientist for this, because it's a very difficult problem and people are working hard on it and the energy accounting they've already done is amazing. The would-be policy makers need to stop getting ahead of the science.)

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

Appell should read Reginald Newell's paper from the 1970s where he deduced that a doubling of CO2 would cause a 0.25 C warming. There is a good chance he was correct. I believe he was fired for reaching this conclusion, so the AGW scientists have been nasty for a long time.

Contrapundit said...

David Appell remains a warmist stooge.

His talk of a "Thermidorian Reaction" in climate science is akin to Anthony Weiner saying Dems should rethink Obamacare -- a couple months before it was rammed through.

"I'm not going to even mention some prominent deniers because they're clearly fools" -D Appell

SBVOR said...

Don't count on Comrade Appell losing his religion anytime soon (or, ever).

He's a lifer.

David Appell said...

Anon 7:29 pm -- what is the citation to Newell's paper?

David Appell said...

SBVOR: Do changes in the AMO phase account for the large increase in total ocean heat content of about 22 x 10^22 J, as shown on http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/ ?

If so, where has this heat come from?