– Hello, Mr. Amman. We have here for you one persecution pizza with pepperoni!
– You must be mistaken. I am currently toeing the party line, and thus not persecuted.
– Would you like to be persecuted by us? We have Team Member discount. 10 for the price of 1.
– No, thanks.
– Are you sure?
– Yes.
– So, what do we do with this persecution pizza?
– Take it to Michael Mann.
– Where does he live?
– In Hollywood.
– Where exactly?
– Ask Roger Pielke.
– Which one?
– Whatever. Can I go back to the game now? Lewandowski just scored.

(thanks to Neven).


* Sunny Afternoon

Here comes a border collie

BorderCollie Whew, that’s a relief. The Arbiter has finally spoken, and I can stop trying to think for myself. Not that I was trying very hard. No one really likes thinking for themselves anyway – if you can its hard work, and if you can’t its not pretty.

Yeah, I should probably have had a tl;dr version, which is that sensitivity is still about 3C.

Well, that’s the only bit people care about really. Mialambre continues:

The discerning reader will already have noted that my previous posts on the matter actually point to a value more likely on the low side of this rather than higher, and were I pressed for a more precise value, 2.5 might have been a better choice even then. But I’d rather be a little conservative than risk being too Pollyanna-ish about it.

Of course that’s not the bit the septics picked out (incidentally, notice that Young James has become a Hockey Team scientist; I’m not quite sure what he’s done to be awarded that distinction; probably its a sort of attempt at a Lomborgian “I was once an env” or summat); they chose:

makes a high climate sensitivity increasingly untenable. A value (slightly) under 2 is certainly looking a whole lot more plausible than anything above 4.5.

(that from an email to Andy Revkin [ref]). That’s a somewhat regrettable quote, because its easy to misinterpret it. The wackos alreay have, but I’ve already seen sane (but, it would seem, careless) people interpret it as “likely < 2”, which isn’t what it says. Since he’s already said in the blog post “sensitivities above 4.5°C are extremely unlikely (less than 5%)”, all that says is that “< 2 is more plausible that extremely unlikely” which isn’t very parseable.

The point of James’s post isn’t to argue for a particular value, but to attack the “long tail” of high sensitivities stuff, and the IPCC reporting. Its a very readable post, so I see no point in re-writing it here.

This is all wrapped up around pre-release of the IPCC AR5 report, and the wildly exciting Lewis estimate of sensitivity. Like most people who’ve looked at this JA has doubts about Nic Lewis’ analysis, as I think some of his choices are dubious and will have acted to underestimate the true sensitivity somewhat. I still think that if Lewis thinks his estimate has any value, he should write it up nicely and try to get it published. But he won’t.

Meanwhile… remember how AW was going to sue the pants off Greg Laden, or something? What happened to that? Did it just fade away like a pile of ill-thought out ranting under the light of reason?