The thread of fantastically stupid skeptic climate predictions

[skierinvermont]

You didn't call them "fantastically stupid", did you?

I have variously called them "stupid," "irresponsible," "plain stupid," "indefensible," "exaggerated," etc. etc. ETC.

Are these not strong enough words for you?

At least you now implicitly acknowledge I have criticized them, which up until this point you have denied.

[tacoman25]

Not only have I criticized scientists for their predictions in peer-review and their comments to the media, but I have also started threads upon that basis.

There is no contradiction.

You concluded from the missed predictions in this thread that the posters who made them are stupid and their science is wack. And yet, you don't apply that same standard to actual scientists. You may admit they make off comments or predictions, but you don't then conclude that they are stupid wack jobs. Double standard, desite the fact that scientists should actually be held to much higher standards than posters on here - a concept you keep failing to grasp, or even address.

And you feel the need to make a thread here trying to prove that non-scientists are not scientific. Pointless.

[tacoman25]

I have variously called them "stupid," "irresponsible," "plain stupid," "indefensible," "exaggerated," etc. etc. ETC.

Are these not strong enough words for you?

At least you now implicitly acknowledge I have criticized them, which up until this point you have denied.

No, I haven't. You are dealing with so many people, you get these things mixed up sometimes.

If you woud slow down and actually read what I say, you might be able to adequately address what I'm saying.

[skierinvermont]

You concluded from the missed predictions in this thread that the posters who made them are stupid and their science is wack. And yet, you don't apply that same standard to actual scientists. You may admit they make off comments or predictions, but you don't then conclude that they are stupid wack jobs. Double standard, desite the fact that scientists should actually be held to much higher standards than posters on here - a concept you keep failing to grasp, or even address.

And you feel the need to make a thread here trying to prove that non-scientists are not scientific. Pointless.

Ok at least your argument is becoming more nuanced now.

However, I have, when deserved, said that it makes their science whack.. for example many of Gore's comments reveal he is either accidentally or more likely intentionally presenting wacked science. So Gore is whacked. Most of what he says or does is whacked.

I've said that Hansen's predictions are probably wrong, though i wouldn't go so far as to use the word whacked, considering they're still within the realm of possibility (unlike the predictions in this thread).

In other cases I have said that the comment is whacked but that it is clearly not representative of the individual's actual scientific arguments. For example the Hansen NYC comments, which are a direct contradiction to his own published work. The comments are wrong, and irresponsible, but they don't reflect on his peer-reviewed science. The same cannot be said for the predictions I have singled out. These predictions clearly do represent the beliefs and understanding of the posters that made them.

So Again,, who/what should I be saying is "whacked" (or "fantastically stupid" if you prefer) that I am not? (in order to be consistent with this thread)

[nzucker]

It was said in the same sentence as saying "heavy snow will return" and "snow will become a rare event."

The comments were reported WHOLE in the media as one complete comment.

Only in the blogosphere have people like you and Anthony Watts literally lopped off half the comment in order to twist his meaning. It's intentional manipulation and you should be ashamed. Tacoman has agreed to move on from these comments and so should you.

It seems like you're the one looking for a soundbite by lopping off half the comment.

Well then Viner's comments are meaningless drivel; you can't say children aren't going to see snowfall and then write about how much heavy snow there is going to be. In the article, it sounds as if his main point was that snowfall in Great Britain would become exceedingly rare, with most people not able to experience it on a consistent basis, except for some very unusual cases where there might be occasional heavy snow. So first of all, there is an inherent contradiction in the way he presents things: Children can't not know what snow is if there are going to be some heavy snows. Second of all, he was clearly using the NAO pattern of the 1980s and 1990s to justify global warming, which is a mistake that a climatologist should never make. His argument about the future being generally snowless was predicated upon the fact that it hadn't snowed much in England during the 1980s, 1990s, or early 2000s. Yet just a cursory glance at the NAO index could tell you why it hadn't snowed much, and the answer wasn't global warming. His tactic of exploiting snowless winters to hammer AGW into the public's mind was deceitful, and just plain wrong. Winter 09-10 and Winter 10-11 sent Viner packing, end of story. The ultimate irony was that December 2010 was the coldest on record, after the Met Office predicted a very mild winter.

And, just to further the argument, the idea of snowfall being rare in England isn't a major change in the climate. Most winters in Great Britain don't feature heavy snowfalls anyway; you need a great pattern that includes a strong -NAO block, preferably a high pressure over Scandinavia/Eastern Europe, and usually a descending polar low. These conditions aren't met very often, and that rare great pattern is always going to overwhelm global warming anyway. There have been plenty of snowless periods in England's history before. Even during the so-called "wintry" years of the Maunder Minimum, the Thames River froze over less than once every ten years! Even in George Orwell's books about London in the 1930s, snow was rarely mentioned; it was more often that he reported cold rain and clammy conditions in winter with temperatures hovering in the upper 30s or 40s.

[tacoman25]

Ok at least your argument is becoming more nuanced now.

However, I have, when deserved, said that it makes their science whack.. for example many of Gore's comments reveal he is either accidentally or more likely intentionally presenting wacked science.

I've said that Hansen's predictions are probably wrong, though i wouldn't go so far as to use the word whacked, considering they're still within the realm of possibility (unlike the predictions in this thread).

In other cases I have said that the comment is whacked but that it is clearly not representative of the individual's actual scientific arguments. For example the Hansen NYC comments, which are a direct contradiction to his own published work. The comments are wrong, and irresponsible, but they don't reflect on his peer-reviewed science. The same cannot be said for the predictions I have singled out. These predictions clearly do represent the beliefs and understanding of the posters that made them.

I don't care if you criticize other predictions. I've never said you haven't.

I just think it's ridiculous, pointless, illogical, and meanspirited to start a thread for the express purpose of making people on this forum look bad - by pointing out missed predictions. And then claiming that proves that skeptic science is flawed.

I took special exception to it because you were so quick in my other thread to say we shouldn't criticize predictions not made in scientific literature. That is hypocritical, and you can't act like you meant something else now and try to back pedal out of it.

[nzucker]

And you feel the need to make a thread here trying to prove that non-scientists are not scientific. Pointless.

Exactly, people are just throwing out casual banter on here about the climate. I'm much more concerned about errors in Hansen 1988, IPCC 2007, Hadley's new report, etc. These are true indictments of bias and poor research, whereas a random poll about global temperatures that most probably clicked without thinking, isn't. I don't understand why Andrew is wasting his time, and his reputation, doing this. All he's doing is alienating fellow members of the board and discouraging participation in climate threads since most people don't want to be judged as a fail when their casual predictions from 6 months ago go sour.

Besides, even if skeptics are wrong with their specifics, they are generally doing well in pointing to a reduced warming trend as well as the dearth of information in the IPCC 2007 report about solar activity, global cloud cover, the PDO, etc. Overall, if I had to judge the two sides honestly, I'd say those who are slightly more skeptical of AGW are winning. The Earth hasn't warmed much since 1998 (only about .06C/decade using UAH), and most of the public hasn't become convinced of the dire necessity of fighting global warming over other causes worthy of our dollars.

[skierinvermont]

Well then Viner's comments are meaningless drivel; you can't say children aren't going to see snowfall and then write about how much heavy snow there is going to be.

They are indeed self-contradictory.

However, I believe that a normal human being that isn't trying to be a hack literalist would be able to interpret the comments as saying that snowfall is going to decline on average in the long-run. So perhaps Viner is guilty of less than clear verbal communication skills.

But by chopping off half of his comment (multiple times) you are guilty of intentional manipulation.

It's absolutely fraudulent to chop off the half of his statement about "heavy snow will return" and "snow will become rare" while including the part about "children may never see snow"

[nzucker]

They are indeed self-contradictory.

However, I believe that a normal human being that isn't trying to be a hack literalist would be able to interpret the comments as saying that snowfall is going to decline on average in the long-run.

But that's not what he said. He said children won't see snow and might need to use virtual reality to experience winter.

He specifically exploited the +NAO period to hammer global warming into people's minds. Someone who has studied climatology should know better, and what he did was deceitful and misinformed.

Also, with the NAO expected to average more negative in the next 20-30 years, Britain will probably see more snowfall. The trend has certainly turned towards more snowfall here in the Northeast with better blocking patterns.

[tacoman25]

Again folks, these are skiier's own words from the other thread, in regards to judging AGW predictions.

Can we stick to the scientific studies themselves instead of sensationalized and manipulated comments that appear in the media?

So skiier wants us to stick to predictions made in scientific studies, not comments that appear in the media. However, he feels it's perfectly fine to criticize predictions made in an internet forum by non-scientists.

And in his mind, this all makes perfect sense.

[nzucker]

.But by chopping off half of his comment (multiple times) you are guilty of intentional manipulation.

It's absolutely fraudulent to chop off the half of his statement about "heavy snow will return" and "snow will become rare" while including the part about "children may never see snow"

It's not really fraudulent...it's his fault he can't decide what he means. Sounds like I know more about England's climate and how important the NAO is than one of the country's top climatologists

Also, when you are a top figure, you have to know your quotes are going to be shortened in media accounts, so you need to be careful of what you say. Viner clearly didn't want to be careful because he wanted the public to believe that recent snowless winters were caused by global warming, global warming was going to make this worse, and the precious British children wouldn't be able to experience their precious snow...notice the emotional appeal to childhood innocence against the machine-like "destruction of the environment/climate."

London in 12/2010, must be a virtual reality picture or something...what is that white stuff doing there?

[skierinvermont]

Exactly, people are just throwing out casual banter on here about the climate. I'm much more concerned about errors in Hansen 1988, IPCC 2007, Hadley's new report, etc. These are true indictments of bias and poor research, whereas a random poll about global temperatures that most probably clicked without thinking, isn't. I don't understand why Andrew is wasting his time, and his reputation, doing this. All he's doing is alienating fellow members of the board and discouraging participation in climate threads since most people don't want to be judged as a fail when their casual predictions from 6 months ago go sour.

Besides, even if skeptics are wrong with their specifics, they are generally doing well in pointing to a reduced warming trend as well as the dearth of information in the IPCC 2007 report about solar activity, global cloud cover, the PDO, etc. Overall, if I had to judge the two sides honestly, I'd say those who are slightly more skeptical of AGW are winning. The Earth hasn't warmed much since 1998 (only about .06C/decade using UAH), and most of the public hasn't become convinced of the dire necessity of fighting global warming over other causes worthy of our dollars.

You can bet your ass that if the predictions had turned out correct people would be claiming they "verified my thinking on the subject" to use a phrase you've repeated on this forum at least a few dozen times.

Moreover, the predictions I cited in general do represent significant thought and commitment upon the part of the people that made them. You spend significant effort insisting the arctic was in for major cooling even after I explained the correlation was quite weak to ENSO. You've also revised your 2011 temperature prediction several times, indicating significant effort. Steven Goddard insisted upon his ridiculous ice prediction over and over and over again all last spring and summer.

[skierinvermont]

Again folks, these are skiier's own words from the other thread, in regards to judging AGW predictions.

Can we stick to the scientific studies themselves instead of sensationalized and manipulated comments that appear in the media?

So skiier wants us to stick to predictions made in scientific studies, not comments that appear in the media. However, he feels it's perfectly fine to criticize predictions made in an internet forum by non-scientists.

And in his mind, this all makes perfect sense.

you're regressing.. I have already clarified (revised if you prefer) the comment

[skierinvermont]

It's not really fraudulent...it's his fault he can't decide what he means. Sounds like I know more about England's climate and how important the NAO is than one of the country's top climatologists

It is absolutely fraudulent to chop off half the comment and take it out of context. This is how to be a manipulative hack 101.

[nzucker]

It is absolutely fraudulent to chop off half the comment and take it out of context. This is how to be a manipulative hack 101.

No, it's not in this case...he made two contradictory comments so it's hard to know what part to use.

Also, he did talk about kids needing virtual reality to see snow and experience cold, so that justifies using the "Children just won't see it snow anymore."

[tacoman25]

you're regressing.. I have already clarified (revised if you prefer) the comment

You can't "revise" your way out of this. That's what you said, and you didn't change your tune until I pointed out the fact that this thread is hypocritical and demonstrates double standards.

And you still have not made anything close to a convincing case for why you felt it was so important to point out how non-scientists can be wrong when making scientific predictions. Or how that proves anything about skeptical science in general.

[skierinvermont]

Also, when you are a top figure, you have to know your quotes are going to be shortened in media accounts, so you need to be careful of what you say.

The quotes weren't shortened in the media. The quotes weren't shortened until you shortened them in your unending hackery.

[skierinvermont]

You can't "revise" your way out of this. That's what you said, and you didn't change your tune until I pointed out the fact that this thread is hypocritical and demonstrates double standards.

I'm not allowed to change my mind? And I'm not changing my mind NOW, the comment is clearly technically at odds with dozens of comments and threads I have made in the past criticizing scientists' comments to the media.

[tacoman25]

I'm not allowed to change my mind? And I'm not changing my mind NOW, the comment is clearly technically at odds with dozens of comments and threads I have made in the past criticizing scientists' comments to the media.

It was directly comparable, because it was in response to a thread started about AGW predictions. This thread is about predictions. You have criticized scientists from time to time (mainly skeptical ones), but that isn't the same thing as systematically breaking down their predictions and critiquing them.

And again, you are comparing scientists to weather geeks. You don't think actual scientists should be held to a higher standard? And you still haven't been able to answer one simple question: why do you think it's so important to start a thread showing how non-scientists can be wrong about scientific predictions? What does this prove? It's absolutely pointless, and that's why the first couple pages of this thread had nothing but garbage.

[skierinvermont]

It was directly comparable, because it was in response to a thread started about AGW predictions. This thread is about predictions. You have criticized scientists from time to time (mainly skeptical ones), but that isn't the same thing as systematically breaking down their predictions and critiquing them.

And again, you are comparing scientists to weather geeks. You still haven't been able to answer one simple question: why do you think it's so important to start a thread showing how non-scientists can be wrong about scientific predictions? What does this prove? It's absolutely pointless, and that's why the first couple pages of this thread had nothing but garbage.

Because hopefully it will cause people to stop filling this science forum with unscientific predictions and to rethink their understanding.

Like I said if you would like to consider it a revision go ahead but I think I have been very clear in criticizing scientists when necessary.

Here's where I stand:

1) Scientists comments or predictions which are representative of their peer-reviewed work should be judged freely, along with their peer-reviewed work.

2) Scientists comments or predictions which are not representative of their peer-reviewed work should still be judged as wrong, irresponsible and/or exaggerated, but shouldn't reflect upon peer-reviewed science.

3) The predictions I have cited in this thread I believe are representative of the arguments and understandings of the posters that made them. I tried not to cite any casual off-hand predictions. Even in the cases where they are off-hand and casual, we can still agree the predictions and any poorly thought out methodology behind them is wrong (similar to #2 above). I am NOT using these predictions to discredit OTHER unrelated reasonable arguments that might be made by skeptics.

I believe 1,2,3 are consistent.

[tacoman25]

3) Steven Goddard's prediction at WUWT of a minimum of 5.5 million sq km for arctic sea ice extent in 2010. (Actual: 4.8)

You receive a..

FAIL

The funny thing about this one is that several non-skeptic experts were off by greater amounts than this in 2008 and 2009 (not sure about 2010, I don't remember seeing the predictions).

But since Goddard is a skeptic, the fact that he was wrong in this prediction means he doesn't understand the science correctly. No word on those non-skeptics who were even more wrong other years, though. I mean, they had the AGW science right, so how could they have been so wrong about sea ice extent?

[skierinvermont]

The funny thing about this one is that several non-skeptic experts were off by greater amounts than this in 2008 and 2009 (not sure about 2010, I don't remember seeing the predictions).

But since Goddard is a skeptic, the fact that he was wrong in this prediction means he doesn't understand the science correctly. No word on those non-skeptics who were even more wrong other years, though. I mean, they had the AGW science right, so how could they have been so wrong about sea ice extent?

And in 2008 and 2009 I lambasted those predictions and suggested they were relying too heavily on statistical methods based on the decline in multi-year ice, which they were.

In 2010 the predictions were better overall.

[tacoman25]

Because hopefully it will cause people to stop filling this science forum with unscientific predictions and to rethink their understanding.

Like I said if you would like to consider it a revision go ahead but I think I have been very clear in criticizing scientists when necessary.

Here's where I stand:

1) Scientists comments or predictions which are representative of their peer-reviewed work should be judged freely, along with their peer-reviewed work.

2) Scientists comments or predictions which are not representative of their peer-reviewed work should still be judged as wrong, irresponsible and/or exaggerated, but shouldn't reflect upon peer-reviewed science.

3) The predictions I have cited in this thread I believe are representative of the arguments and understandings of the posters that made them. I tried not to cite any casual off-hand predictions. Even in the cases where they are off-hand and casual, we can still agree the predictions and any poorly thought out methodology behind them is wrong. I am NOT using these predictions to discredit OTHER unrelated reasonable arguments that might be made by skeptics.

I believe 1,2,3 are consistent.

#3 is the one I find inconsistent (upon your "revisions"). You are still holding weather geeks on an internet forum to the same (if not higher) standards as professional scientists. Makes no sense.

All this thread proves is that some people on here have said things that turned out to be wrong. Thank you, Captain Obvious News.

[tacoman25]

And in 2008 and 2009 I lambasted those predictions and suggested they were relying too heavily on statistical methods based on the decline in multi-year ice, which they were.

In 2010 the predictions were better overall.

But in this thread you are somehow trying to tie Goddard's miss to the fact that he's a skeptic? Even though it's obvious non-skeptics have difficulty predicting ice extent as well?

[skierinvermont]

Thank you, Captain Obvious News.

I don't think it's so obvious. I think posters on here have made stupid unscientific completely implausible predictions over and over and over again and when they turn out wrong they are forgotten and nobody remembers them.

When people make predictions which end up right the poster will frequently bring up the prediction and claim it "verifies my thinking."

[skierinvermont]

But in this thread you are somehow trying to tie Goddard's miss to the fact that he's a skeptic? Even though it's obvious non-skeptics have difficulty predicting ice extent as well?

I don't think it's that hard to predict. I think most posters on here have done a better job than agw-experts or goddard over years past. I think the experts are doing a better job now after realizing that the loss of all the MY ice didn't mean we'd lose all of our extent in summer.

It's certainly possible that with really good weather patterns we could get 5.5.. but given the weather patterns are not predictable 6 months in advance, starting from a prediction of 5.5 is a terrible idea. If we had a really bad weather pattern we could have ended up below 2007 even given the ice is much thinner than it was at the start of 2007.

[tacoman25]

I don't think it's so obvious. I think posters on here have made stupid unscientific completely implausible predictions over and over and over again and when they turn out wrong they are forgotten and nobody remembers them.

When people make predictions which end up right the poster will frequently bring up the prediction and claim it "verifies my thinking."

I think it's sad and pretty silly that you felt the need to make a whole thread pointing out how people on here can be wrong. I'm sorry you can't see why. But hopefully it makes you feel better, at least.

[tacoman25]

I don't think it's that hard to predict. I think most posters on here have done a better job than agw-experts or goddard over years past. I think the experts are doing a better job now after realizing that the loss of all the MY ice didn't mean we'd lose all of our extent in summer.

It's certainly possible that with really good weather patterns we could get 5.5.. but given the weather patterns are not predictable 6 months in advance, starting from a prediction of 5.5 is a terrible idea.

Regardless, you mentioned Goddard's miss because he's a skeptic. It's that simple, and it clearly shows that this thread isn't simply about getting the truth out there...it's about criticizing those you disagree with and trying to make them look bad. Yay.

[skierinvermont]

Regardless, you mentioned Goddard's miss because he's a skeptic. It's that simple, and it clearly shows that this thread isn't simply about getting the truth out there...it's about criticizing those you disagree with and trying to make them look bad. Yay.

And if lots of experts come out and predict 3.8 this summer I promise you I will make a thread about that, as I have in the past.

[BethesdaWX]

I feel I need to Clear things up for you skier.

1) The Busted Predictions in a Poll for arctic ice, etc, have NOTHING to do with "Bad Science", predictions can bust with good science, and Succeed with Bad science. You saying "bad predictions" is one thing... but "stupid bad science" is a load of nonsense, especially when you don't give reasons why.

So, no the predictions made were not "Nonsense", because it is impossible to predict natural variability to a reaosnable extent every time..... its not like AGW caused .25C warming in the Arctic in 2 yrs... It has everything to do with Natural Variability with the +QBO & -NAO/-AO combination, you have a slower Jet, and a delayed cooling to the globe is an examplew of what happens during conflicting signals.

For one, My Disclaimer was "Unless conditions become unfavorable for Ice/Temps".... ..........................What you don't seem to understand, AGW has not caused .25C of warming in the Arctic in 2 years. What happened this year was obviously a result of Natural Variability that Just Happens. The AMO, a more -AO/-NAO thru Mid JAN, and a Slower Arctic Jet Stream combined with the +QBO are very unfavorable for Ice/Cold temps in the Arctic. Its that Simple.

2) You are no better, smarter, or more "scientifically adept" than anyone else here, just to make sure you understand that.

"Massive AGW" has no more credibility than "Minor AGW", especially with temps behaving how they have recently. Its one thing to say "AGW" is a fact, its another thing Completely to Say "Massive AGW is a fact".... which is Not True. Its really the significance that Matters here. Whether AGW will be "Massive", or lost in the Noise of Natural Variability, as I lean towards, is another story.

This thread really accomplished nothing, this is the perfect way to make enemies.