Your donations are appreciated and help keep this site running. Even the smallest amount helps.

Only $3 USD/month
The man they can't recruit!
Welcome, Guest
Username: Password: Remember me

TOPIC: It isn't how climate scientists communicated their message its the message itself!

It isn't how climate scientists communicated their message its the message itself! 07 Mar 2014 12:32 #1

  • Orangeaid
  • Orangeaid's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Member
  • Posts: 11634
  • Likes received: 8018
It Isn’t How Climate Scientists Communicated their Message; It’s the Message

Over the past few months, there have been a number of articles about how the climate science community could have presented their message differently, or responded differently, so that they could have avoided the problem they’re now facing with the halt in global warming. Example: the problems with communications by climate scientists to the public were the subject of a recent editorial, and linked webpages, at Nature Climate Change titled Scientist communicators. In reading it, you’ll find the editorial is really nothing more than a rephrasing of manmade-global-warming dogma.

One of the climate science community’s primary problems was a very basic message…an intentionally misleading message. That is, it wasn’t how it was communicated; it was the message itself. I ran across that message again as I was searching for links for a chapter on atmospheric temperatures for my upcoming book The Oceans Ate My Global Warming. It appeared on the Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) Climate Analysis webpage. That webpage includes data that runs through 2013 in many cases, so it’s relatively new. Under the heading of TROPOSPERIC TEMPERATURE, RSS write:

Over the past decade, we have been collaborating with Ben Santer at LLNL (along with numerous other investigators) to compare our tropospheric results with the predictions of climate models. Our results can be summarized as follows:

Over the past 35 years, the troposphere has warmed significantly. The global average temperature has risen at an average rate of about 0.13 degrees Kelvin per decade (0.23 degrees F per decade).
Climate models cannot explain this warming if human-caused increases in greenhouse gases are not included as input to the model simulation.
The spatial pattern of warming is consistent with human-induced warming. See Santer et al 2008, 2009, 2011, and 2012 for more about the detection and attribution of human induced changes in atmospheric temperature using MSU/AMSU data.
The message from the climate science community has been and continues to be:

If climate models are not forced by manmade greenhouse gases, then the models cannot simulate the warming from the mid-1970s to the turn of the century, and

If climate models are forced by manmade greenhouse gases, then the models can simulate the warming from the mid-1970s to the turn of the century,

Both of which lead to the stated conclusion that only manmade greenhouse gases can explain the observed warming from the mid-1970s to the turn of the century.


The IPCC was blatant in their presentation of that misleading message in the 4th Assessment Report. It appeared in the AR4 Summary for Policymakers. The fourth bullet-pointed paragraph on their page 10 reads (my boldface):

It is likely that there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent except Antarctica (see Figure SPM.4). The observed patterns of warming, including greater warming over land than over the ocean, and their changes over time, are only simulated by models that include anthropogenic forcing. The ability of coupled climate models to simulate the observed temperature evolution on each of six continents provides stronger evidence of human influence on climate than was available in the TAR. {3.2, 9.4}
Last Edit: 07 Mar 2014 12:34 by Orangeaid. Reason: Link
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.
User(s) who Liked this post: pheony

It isn't how climate scientists communicated their message its the message itself! 07 Mar 2014 13:39 #2

  • Paul Tootall
  • Paul Tootall's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Fresh Member
  • Currently researching things they don't want you to know
  • Posts: 428
  • Likes received: 606
In other words, they see their lies are not working and are trying to come up with ways to still lie but have everyone believe them, just like true politicians.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.
User(s) who Liked this post: PFIZIPFEI

It isn't how climate scientists communicated their message its the message itself! 23 Apr 2014 09:56 #3

  • PFIZIPFEI's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Member
  • WORDS are my SWORD
  • Posts: 20376
  • Likes received: 7951
"The truth must be repeated over and over again,
because error is repeatedly preached among us, not
only by individuals, but by the masses. In periodicals
and cyclopaedias, in schools and universities; every-
where, in fact, error prevails, and is quite easy in the
feeling that it has a decided majority on its side."

~ J. W. v. Goethe

Johannes Lang "The Hollow World Theory" Blog
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

It isn't how climate scientists communicated their message its the message itself! 23 Apr 2014 17:04 #4

  • Frog
  • Frog's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Senior Boarder 
  • Government is simply a conspiracy against a nation!
  • Posts: 2072
  • Likes received: 1701
Reading the quoted element here gives the impression that there is some merit to the claims of the Officially recognised pro climate science community. When the substance of the article is a critique of the views that continue to be presented as proof, of anthropogenic impacts on the global climate - where none to support that claim seems to exist.

If what they claimed had been based on any scrap of verifiable evidence they wouldn't have to re-brand mid flow, fake data or devise new tactics to market their deception. These people have be actively involved in scientific fraud on a global scale and they seem to think they will regain some credibility. Leopards 'n spots?
It’s hard to imagine how the IPCC can claim that the climate models with only natural forcings could somehow represent “the alternative hypothesis of just natural variations”, when the models with natural and anthropogenic forcings cannot simulate the “natural variations”.

Let’s return to the quote from the Technical Summary about the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation. They wrote:

A number of studies have investigated the effects of the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO) on GMST. Although some studies find a significant role for the AMO in driving multi-decadal variability in GMST, the AMO exhibited little trend over the period 1951–2010 on which the current assessments are based, and the AMO is assessed with high confidence to have made little contribution to the GMST trend between 1951 and 2010 (considerably less than 0.1°C). {2.4, 9.8.1, 10.3; FAQ 9.1}

First, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation is represented by detrended North Atlantic sea surface temperature anomalies, using the coordinates of 0-70N, 80W-0. Refer again to the model-data comparison in Figure 8.

Second, it’s of little importance if the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation contributed little to the global mean surface temperature from 1951-2010. What is important is that the IPCC is overlooking the fact that they tuned their models to naturally occurring upswings in the sea surface temperatures of the North Atlantic and North Pacific, and extended their projections from those upswings…without considering the likelihood that the upswings would be followed by a naturally occurring downturns in the surface temperatures of both basins. In other words, they did not tune the models to the long-term trends of the Northern Hemisphere sea surface temperature datasets, which account for the multidecadal variations; they tuned the models to the recent high-trend period that represents only one-half of “cycles”. See Figures 9 and 10.

Fig. 9

Fig. 10

Yet the climate science community somehow seems surprised that global surface temperatures have stopped warming. They look more and more foolish with every passing year and with each new IPCC assessment report.


As I have presented on numerous occasions over the past 5 years, ocean heat content data and satellite-era sea surface temperature data both indicate that naturally occurring processes are responsible for the warming of the global oceans, not manmade greenhouse gases. If this topic is new to you, please refer to the free illustrated essay “The Manmade Global Warming Challenge” (42MB) for an introduction. The discussions and documentation are much more detailed in my ebook Who Turned on the Heat?

Full Article

"Whenever you're in conflict with someone, there is one factor that can make the difference between damaging your relationship and deepening it. That factor is attitude." William James
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.
User(s) who Liked this post: PFIZIPFEI

It isn't how climate scientists communicated their message its the message itself! 02 Sep 2014 08:32 #5

  • rodin
  • rodin's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Spam Killer
  • Posts: 4862
  • Likes received: 1818
To understand who rules over you look to whom you tube can't criticise

The media isn't there to cover the news
It's there to cover the news up

All establishment lies pass through three stages
First, they are accepted as being self evident
Second, they are exposed by diligent research
Third, they are enforced

"Communism is the bloodiest, most difficult and the most terrible way from capitalism to capitalism" from Under the Sign of the Scorpion by Juri Lina
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

It isn't how climate scientists communicated their message its the message itself! 02 Sep 2014 14:29 #6

  • Orangeaid
  • Orangeaid's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Member
  • Posts: 11634
  • Likes received: 8018
When IPCC model predictions are wrong it is time to ditch the hypothesis

The key requirement for the method of science is scepticism.

The scientific method is to make falsifiable hypotheses and then to check the hypothesis by gathering the evidence to check the falsifiability.

The IPCC and the Global Warming Orthodoxy have been making alarmist predictions for the last 20 years and their hypothesis comes in three parts:

That global warming is occurring and will continue for at least the next 100 yearsThat human activities are the primary cause of the global warming being observed, andThat man-made emission of carbon-dioxide is the most significant human activity driving climate change.

In the last 20+ years, comparing actual observations show that each one of these 3 parts of this global warming hypothesis is  – at best – oversimplified and – at worst – just plain wrong. “Wrong” in the sense that the causality proposed does not exist and that the mechanisms proposed for the causality are incorrect or non-existent. The IPCC predictions are being proved wrong and it is time to ditch the hypothesis.

IPCC predictions falsify global warming hypothesis

The 27th January article in the Wall Street Journal “No Need to Panic about Global Warming”  by a number of scientists displaying true scientific scepticism was immediately criticised by members of the Orthodoxy. The original authors now reply to these criticisms in the WSJ:

Editor’s Note: The authors of the following letter, listed below, are also the signatories of“No Need to Panic About Global Warming,” an op-ed that appeared in the Journal on January 27. This letter responds to criticisms of the op-ed made by Kevin Trenberth and 37 others in a letter published Feb. 1, and by Robert Byer of the American Physical Society in a letter published Feb. 6.

We agree with Mr. Trenberth et al. that expertise is important in medical care, as it is in any matter of importance to humans or our environment. Consider then that by eliminating fossil fuels, the recipient of medical care (all of us) is being asked to submit to what amounts to an economic heart transplant. According to most patient bills of rights, the patient has a strong say in the treatment decision. Natural questions from the patient are whether a heart transplant is really needed, and how successful the diagnostic team has been in the past.

In this respect, an important gauge of scientific expertise is the ability to make successful predictions. When predictions fail, we say the theory is “falsified” and we should look for the reasons for the failure. Shown in the nearby graph is the measured annual temperature of the earth since 1989, just before the first report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Also shown are the projections of the likely increase of temperature, as published in the Summaries of each of the four IPCC reports, the first in the year 1990 and the last in the year 2007.

These projections were based on IPCC computer models of how increased atmospheric CO2 should warm the earth. Some of the models predict higher or lower rates of warming, but the projections shown in the graph and their extensions into the distant future are the basis of most studies of environmental effects and mitigation policy options. Year-to-year fluctuations and discrepancies are unimportant; longer-term trends are significant. 

From the graph it appears that the projections exaggerate, substantially, the response of the earth’s temperature to CO2 which increased by about 11% from 1989 through 2011. Furthermore, when one examines the historical temperature record throughout the 20th century and into the 21st, the data strongly suggest a much lower CO2 effect than almost all models calculate.

The Trenberth letter tells us that “computer models have recently shown that during periods when there is a smaller increase of surface temperatures, warming is occurring elsewhere in the climate system, typically in the deep ocean.” The ARGO system of diving buoys is providing increasingly reliable data on the temperature of the upper layers of the ocean, where much of any heat from global warming must reside. But much like the surface temperature shown in the graph, the heat content of the upper layers of the world’s oceans is not increasing nearly as fast as IPCC models predict, perhaps not increasing at all. Why should we now believe exaggerating IPCC models that tell us of “missing heat” hiding in the one place where it cannot yet be reliably measured—the deep ocean?


In summary, science progresses by testing predictions against real world data obtained from direct observations and rigorous experiments. The stakes in the global-warming debate are much too high to ignore this observational evidence and declare the science settled. Though there are many more scientists who are extremely well qualified and have reached the same conclusions we have, we stress again that science is not a democratic exercise and our conclusions must be based on observational evidence.

The computer-model predictions of alarming global warming have seriously exaggerated the warming by CO2 and have underestimated other causes. Since CO2 is not a pollutant but a substantial benefit to agriculture, and since its warming potential has been greatly exaggerated, it is time for the world to rethink its frenzied pursuit of decarbonization at any cost.

Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris; J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting; Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University; Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society; Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences; William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton; Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.; William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology; Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT; James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University; Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences; Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne; Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator; Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem; Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service; Antoninio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva.

Source: Concerned Scientists Reply on Global Warming
Last Edit: 02 Sep 2014 14:31 by Orangeaid.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Related topics

Topic subjectRelevanceDate of latest post
A message to men13.13Saturday, 22 September 2018
Frothy's Friday Message12.84Wednesday, 23 November 2016
Beautiful songs with a real message....12.7Saturday, 20 July 2013
What Is The Message Of The Biblical Character Known Of As 'Jesus'?12.7Thursday, 26 January 2017
Netanyahu's Merry Christimas Goyim Message!12.56Saturday, 30 December 2017
Laura Eisenhower's Message to the Dark Controllers12.56Thursday, 16 April 2020
Anyone here a member at "Straight Dope Message Board?"12.56Friday, 02 June 2017
USS Lincoln strike group deployed to send Iran 'clear and unmistakable' message, Bolton says11.92Wednesday, 08 May 2019
Moderators: novum, rodin, Flare
Powered by Kunena Forum

Annual Server Target

Whether its 50 cents or five dollars, your donations are appreciated and help keep this community site running so we can all continue to enjoy using it. Secure transactions via paypal.
This target is to meet our server cost for one year, June 2020 - May 2021, in USD.
$ 340 - Target
( £ 255 GBP )
donation thermometer
donation thermometer
$ 70 - Raised
( £ 53 GBP )
donation thermometer
Most Recent Donation $50 USD
28th August 2020

No one is obliged to donate, please only donate what you can afford. Even the smallest amount helps. Being an active member is a positive contribution. Thank You.