2012-02-02 14:07:22ClimateWatcher
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37

Dr. Stuart Munson-McGee, New Mexico State University, Faculty Chair

http://chemeng.nmsu.edu/che_faculty_smcgee.htm
http://chemeng.nmsu.edu/che_faculty_smcgee_page.htm
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/stuart-munson-mcgee/13/6b5/445

Banned, 2-2-2012, for multiple occurrences over the course of more than a year of outright falsehoods, accusations of impropriety and malfeasance, ad hominem, and lastly for outright falsification of a graphic to misrepresent IPCC models as being false; as noted by Tom Curtis in comments (all now deleted as replies-to-deleted):
http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=1252#73111
http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=1252#73116
http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=1252#73144

Daniel Bailey


Tom Curtis at 13:28 PM on 2 February 2012 (Email commenter)

Moderators, ClimateWatcher has been caught out in either a grotesque error or deliberate falsification. Since then he has decided neither to correct his error, nor to justify his misrepresentation of the IPCC. The proper conclusion, IMO, is that he cannot justify the misrepresentation and that the misrepresentation is deliberate. Where this my blog, that would end his posting rights. There should be zero tolerance for deliberate liars, as he has now proved himself to be.


Tom Curtis at 06:01 AM on 2 February 2012 (Email commenter)

For those readers who may be deceived by Climate Watcher's claims, here is the temperature record against actual IPCC model runs:



The pink and white lines overlaying the graph is Monckton's different, but similar misrepresentation of IPCC trends. (Click on the image for a dissection of that misrepresentation.)

What I would like you to look at is some of the actual model runs. For example, the lowest light orange model run, which shows a negative trend from 2000 to 2010. Or the upper of the light blue model runs, which shows a very slight positive trend from 2000 to 2016. Despite these example, Climate Watcher purports that positive trends within 75% of the actually predicted trend for the period under consideration "falsify" the IPCC predictions.

His claim is nonsense, and obviously so. Short term negative trends are well within the range of possibilities predicted by IPCC models because the rate of increase of temperature is currently small relative to year to year variability. This is well known to both climate scientists and so called climate "skeptics". Those fake skeptics, however, want to hide that fact.

It should be noted that both of the examples I picked finish near the model mean by 2100, so the initial low trends are due to modeled climate variability, not due to low forecasts from those models.


Tom Curtis at 05:29 AM on 2 February 2012 (Email commenter)

ClimateWatcher, I now understand your graphic. You have taken the temperature change projected by the IPCC for the end of the century, and posited them as a linear trend to generate the IPCC "predictions". In so doing, your IPCC "predictions" directly contradict the actual predictions from the IPCC.

Looking at those predictions, we see the prediction for the rise in temperature over thirty years between the periods 1980-1999 to 2011-2030 for the A2 scenario is 0.64 degrees, or 2.1 degrees C per century. In other words, your IPCC predictions are in approximately twice what the IPCC predicted over that period.

Given that the IPCC state predictions for the period 2011-2030, and given the known fact that with BAU, the IPCC predicts non-linear growth in temperature over time, so that trends early in the century are much smaller than trends late in the century, there is no possible justification for your error. You have either been both lazy and incompetent in not checking the actual data (and not understanding that temperature growth is not linear with BAU projections). Or you have known the truth and decided to not represent it as it was inconvenient to your message.

What is more, as a similar deceit by Monckton has been famously debunked, and you claim to be reasonably knowledgeable about the climate debate, that your error resulted from ignorance strains credulity.

2012-02-02 14:08:21
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37

Needless to say, account status reset, posting privileges revoked.

2012-02-02 15:34:15
Tom Curtis

t.r.curtis@gmail...
112.213.149.122

Thankyou!