Oh go on guess, who do you think it was. Well, you’re wrong: it was Piers Corbyn. To be fair to Piers, he doesn’t appear to use the “honour” himself, its been used for him on his signature to the recent OPEN CLIMATE LETTER TO UN SECRETARY-GENERAL: Current scientific knowledge does not substantiate Ban Ki-Moon assertions on weather and climate, say 125-plus scientists. Those 125 are the usual pile of NN, non-scientists, and a very small sprinkling of people with reputations. Though this time no-one with anything close to first-rank in met/climate: even Lindzen and Christie have deserted. I think this in aid of opposing Doha. It seems rather sweet and naive of them; I can’t see the point.
As far as I can see, the only interesting bit of the “open letter” is
The NOAA “State of the Climate in 2008” report asserted that 15 years or more without any statistically-significant warming would indicate a discrepancy between observation and prediction.
But it isn’t true (as you’d expect). The bit they are misreading appears to be:
ENSO-adjusted warming in the three surface temperature datasets over the last 2–25 yr continually lies within the 90% range of all similar-length ENSO-adjusted temperature changes in these simulations (Fig. 2.8b). Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervalsof 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.
So this is the familiar situation: the denialists are cherry-picking their starting year of 1998. If you don’t do that, or if you take out ENSO (as the 2008 report explicitly did; or as Foster and Rahmstorf did), then you see the warming you expect.
* The Winner of This Year’s ‘Best Climate Predictor’ Award (Clue: It Wasn’t Al Gore!) (the article is such drivel I don’t think its even worth shredding).
* Doubling Down on Climate Change Denial
Its fish in a barrel time, but Corbyn seems to have had his International Conference. It doesn’t look very exciting. As RB says: Did the meeting live up to its billing of “refuting, totally, the CO2 theory of warming”? Hardly. Because doing that seriously doesn’t mean refuting it to my satisfaction, or yours, or that of the audience scattered about the Imperial College lecture theatre on Wednesday; it means convincing the greater community of climate scientists, and that brings us back to… publishing. What some in the sceptical camp do not appear to appreciate is that published, peer-reviewed science is not only the sole way of establishing and improving theories; it’s also, now, the only route to the policymakers they want to influence. Modern-day ministers and their scientifically-qualified advisers are absolutely not going to listen to half-developed, unpublished theories or complaints about fraud and conspiracies.
James scores Piers for Feb (if you don’t know who I’m talking about, well lucky you, err I mean wrt P not J, of course :-); but meanwhile, our nasty Free Press has been annoying nice Piers, leading him to say (thanks DM):
Weather Action forecasts are a commercial product and publication of any part of them in any media or on the web is not permitted except with the agreement of Weather Action. Owing to gross misrepresentation of our forecasts by the Guardian and more seriously and persistently by The Times (Paul Simons) and related gross distortions circulated on the web Weather Action has no alternative but to apply this policy firmly. Consequently:
1) Media or web users who wish to quote from the forecast must check what they have in mind with Piers Corbyn of WeatherAction and preferably use an issued summary form (below for this month [needless to say, the said summary doesn’t exist – WMC]) which is written to give an accurate rendering of essential points without giving away the detail which subscribers have paid for.
2) The Guardian and the Times and any media which carries articles by Paul Simons are explicitly forbidden from quoting any aspect of any WeatherAction forecast until further notice.
Oh dear, next he’ll be blacklisting James. Mind you, his own site leads with “Forecast errors in Jan and mid Feb…” so I guess even Piers has realised he couldn’t sell them as successes. He also needs to update his “latest news” section, which is attempting to sell forecasts for April 2007 :-). Is Piers taking the piss out of himself?
I never made the first team, I just made the first team laugh
I can take the killing, I can take the slaughter, but I don’t talk to Sun reporters