John Cook Has Low Veracity Sensitivity

“The exception tests the rule.” Or, put another way, “The exception proves that the rule is wrong.” That is the principle of science. If there is an exception to any rule, and if it can be proved by observation, that rule is wrong.

-Richard Feynman

Unbelievable crap about climate sensitivity over on Cook’s site. Alarmists have now thrown Hansen’s 1988 predictions under the bus, and have reverted back to his pre-historic 1981 predictions, from the days before he became an alarmist.

Lindzen’s Clouded Vision, Part 1: Science

So why is Cook ignoring the 1988 predictions? Simple – because they show extremely low climate sensitivity and obliterate his attack on Lindzen. Climate sensitivity is less than Hansen’s zero emissions Scenario C.

The evidence shows that climate sensitivity is much lower than Hansen hypothesized. So how do they react? By bumping the forecasts upwards. Climate alarmism  nothing to do with science.

We’ve learned from experience that the truth will come out.
- Richard Feynman

About these ads

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to John Cook Has Low Veracity Sensitivity

  1. pwl says:

    GISTEMP uses fabricated data adjustments and other statistical lies to elevate the temperature. Since it’s manipulated data it’s bogus data. GISTEMP can’t be trusted. GISTEMP can’t be used. All conclusions drawn from analysis that depend upon GISTEMP’s statistical lies are thus invalid due to Hansen et al.’s statistical data fabrication fraud. In science you can’t make up data, sorry Hansen but the truth has come out.

  2. Dave N says:

    If the world sank into an ice age, they could declare Schneider and Lamb as being “right”.

  3. slimething says:

    I haven’t read that paper. How does it differ from Hansen’s post-1988 meme? Was it found with the dead sea scrolls or something?

  4. NoMoreGore says:

    Repeatedly adjusted Gisstemp seems aligned with (repeatedly adjusted) GISS Model. What are the odds? This is as long as the odds that Dessler would have the exact same expression as his Fiance’ :-)

  5. “Alarmists have now thrown Hansen’s 1988 predictions under the bus, and have reverted back to his pre-historic 1981 predictions, from the days before he became an alarmist.”

    Steve, I’m not sure that is correct. Hansen’s 1981 prediction still shows 3-4C of warming by 2100.

    The 1981 prediction just starts off slower, meaning that it will take an additional 10 years to falsify.

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/04/evaluating-a-1981-temperature-projection/

    It’s also worth reading:

    http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2012/05/02/comments-on-the-poor-post-lessons-from-past-predictions-hansen-1981-by-dana1981-at-the-skeptical-science/

    • dmmcmah says:

      Pielke’s post was interesting but this “dana” character is a kid who’s been brainwashed since birth on eco-leftist-babble. I think its great that Pielke takes the time to refute dana’s claims but at the end when he talked about dana “eating crow” I felt kind of sad for Pielke, because that indicates he believes these people are sincerely debating and can be convinced by evidence. But the truth is its an evangelical religion for them so no amount of logic or data will work with those nutcases.

      • What is strange about that website is that they can cherry pick out all the bits and pieces of particular predictions that came out correct while ignoring all the aspects of the prediction that failed. Then they compile this stuff together seemingly unaware that the material is internally inconsistent.

        • dmmcmah says:

          Well its not strange once you realize you’re dealing with religious fanatics cloaked in the veneer of science.

  6. Scott says:

    What you really need to do is plot the IPCC projections from each report starting in the year they were made vs. the actual temperature anomalies that followed. That’d really open people’s eyes.

    -Scott

  7. Shooter says:

    Cook is a cartoonist. He has no credentials in science, so he has room to talk about climate change “denial”.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s