Thirty Years of Nonsense

I have always found the global warming debate weird. I am not a "denier" or "skeptic" in terms of viewpoint. I'm not even a "warmist" or "alarmist." I've been called all these things, but the truth is I just don't care. My view regarding global warming has always been very simple - the people who claim it is a serious threat act in such a bizarre way, I don't believe them.

Think about the Hollywood movies where an alien invasion is coming to earth Think about the movies where an asteroid is heading to Earth to doom us all. Think about the movies where the Earth's magnetic core is going to... I can't even pretend to follow the plot of those ones. The point is, think about how the scientists in those movies behave. Sure, they do "crazy" things, but they have this air of sincerity and absolute honesty which makes it clear the audience really should listen to them. They risk everything, with no possible benefit to themselves, to try to help humanity.

Now look at the global warming debate. It's filled with people who routinely refuse to do something even so simple as say, "Yeah, sorry, I was a bit unclear there." Getting even the simplest of errors corrected in the global warming debate is like pulling teeth. Time and time again, I've experienced a reaction where pointing out even the simplest of errors is met with the attitude of, "How dare you?!"

It's crazy. If you believed global warming is a serious threat we must all band together to combat, would you act like a political pundit aiming to score points, or would you act like Jeff Goldblum in Independence Day and risk every aspect of yourself to try to make people believe there was a genuine threat?

Your answer to that says everything. And now, with the 30th anniversary of the (in)famous testimony by James Hansen to the United States Congress in 1988, we get a perfect encapsulation of what that answer is. I'd like to discuss it.

Before I continue, I want to point out I am not a climate scientist. I am not any kind of scientist. I don't intend to claim I am some sort of expert. I don't need to be one though. The issues I want to discuss today don't require any sort of scientific training or expertise to understand. All they require is one be able to recognize the difference between the complete and unadulterated truth and bald-faced lies. It's not too hard.

Forinstance, consider this tweet by Zeke Hausfather:

His point is a climate scientist, James Hansen, made projections of the future back in 1988 which were inaccurate for reasons his critics weren't adequately accounting for. Notably, Hansen thought there would be certain economic changes which didn't happen. That's a fair point. A person's view of on how the Earth's climate reacts to human behavior shouldn't be judged based upon that person's failure to accurate predict what human behavior would be over the next 30 years.

Things begin to go downhill after that tweet though. For instance, consider what Zeke says three tweets later:

The problem with this tweet is Zeke doesn't bother to inform readers that he's no longer considering Hansen's actual model. What Zeke is doing is re-analyzing Hansen's results to come up with new metrics he can use to judge the model. This might be fine, but it's the sort of thing a person ought to be clear about. Instead, Zeke then says:

Now, any curious reader would naturally wonder, "Why is Zeke talking about what Hansen's model could have projected from 1958 to 2018 when the model was made/used in 1988?" Zeke doesn't offer an answer. In fact, he doesn't even bother to refer to the issue, not even obliquely.

Zeke tells people we shouldn't judge Hansen's model by what he guessed would happen in the future because Hansen had to try to predict things about human behavior which he couldn't possibly hope to predict, but then, Zeke silently changes the the topic. Instead of looking at what Hansen's model might say about the future (as of 1988), Zeke says we ought to look at what Hansen's model says would happen from 1958 to 2018. That's a huge change in topic, one Zeke not only fails to discuss but completely glosses over.

Is it possible Zeke doesn't understand the difference between judging a person's projections about the future on what happens in the future and judging those projections on what happened in the past? No. That'd be stupid. Zeke clearly knows better than that. He knows fully well that including 30 years of what a model says about what has already happened along with 30 years of what will happen is misleading. He does it anyway.

Similarly, Zeke knows fully well how misleading he is being when he tweets:

The image he tweets is from an article by climate scientist Gavin Schmidt which claims:

Predictive skill is defined as the whether the model projection is better than you would have got assuming some reasonable null hypothesis. With respect to these projections, this was looked at by Hargreaves (2010) and can be updated here. The appropriate null hypothesis (which at the time would have been the most skillful over the historical record) would be a prediction of persistence of the 20 year mean, ie. the 1964-1983 mean anomaly. Whether you look at the trends or annual mean data, this gives positive skill for all the model projections regardless of the observational dataset used. i.e. all scenarios gave better predictions than a forecast based on persistence.

This is utter nonsense. What Schmidt claims is in 1988, a person with no knowledge of what would come in the future should have predicted the planet's average temperature wouldn't change over the next few decades. Based upon that claim, Schmidt says any model which predicted the planet would warm in the fut5ure would necessarily be skillful, and thus, "good."

Gavin Schmidt is a liar. There's no other explanation for this. Schmidt knows fully well climate scientists wouldn't expect the planet's temperatures to stay constant at any point. They certainly didn't expect such back in 1988. The fact a climate model predicted there would be warming in no way indicates that model was "skillful." Plenty of people in 1988 would have predicted the planet would continue warming as it had for the last 30 years because... after 30 years of warming, it's easy to guess there would continue to be more warming. Also, the planet has been coming out of an ice age so warming is sort of what you'd expect because "warmer than an ice age" is not a difficult thing to predict.

Zeke knows this too. He understood the same problems I understood when I saw the article by Schmidt. Zeke knows far more about this topic than I do so if something was obvious to me, it was certainly obvious to him. But... he apparently didn't care. In the same way, he apparently didn't care about how misleading the graph he tweeted out here was:

Let's leave aside the outright dishonesty of including data for 1958-1988 in one's analysis of the accuracy of a 1988 model's ability to predict/project the future. That's obvious and damning enough on its end. Instead, let's consider the graph Zeke shared. What does it show? To a naive viewer, it shows two trend lines and finds they are very similar. To a person who understands it, it shows Zeke is a deceitful prick.

I don't like accusing people of dishonesty, but let's be clear about this. The lines Zeke shows are meaningless. What he did was create two linear models over data and generate the slope of the line created by those models. That slope was in the form of Ax + By, with A being the slope and B being some constant value added to it (thus setting the baseline for the model).

Each model had its own A and B. Zeke decided he wanted to show what each model's A value was. However, he knew showing a single numerical value for each A would be uninteresting to most. So instead, he decided not to show what A's value was. Instead, he decided to create a graph with a line whose slope was A for each model. That is, to compare single numerical values, Zeke decided to show a graph whose results relied upon multiple parameters... and pretend that was the same thing. The most immediate impact is showing lines like this makes the visual impact far greater than just showing numerical values (e.g. .44 and .48 seem nowhere near as similar as lines in that graph). Another impact, however, is the B parameter in Zeke's models. He simply ignored it. He calculated that parameter, then he... just threw it away because accurately showing his results would not create as compelling an image as what he could create via deceit.

Does any of this mean Hansen's model was wrong? No. I'm not attempting to judge that. Why would I bother? Climate communicators have demonstrated time and time again the truth doesn't matter. Even on the most basic of factual matters, they don't care about getting things correct. Consider this tweet by Roz Pidcock, an official spokesperson for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC):

Here, she says the IPCC won't comment on draft versions of its reports. This was a response to media articles about leaked versions of an upcoming IPCC report. She links to a press release by the IPCC on this issue, a release she helped author, which says:

Draft reports are provided to governments and reviewers as confidential working documents and must not be publicly distributed, quoted or cited. This is out of respect for the authors and to give them the time and space to finish writing before making the work public.

For these reasons, the IPCC does not comment on the contents of draft reports while work is still ongoing. Journalists or others seeking context or background information can contact Jonathan Lynn, Head of Communications, IPCC, or Roz Pidcock, Head of Communications, IPCC Working Group I Technical Support Unit.

This is utter BS. For the last major IPCC report, the IPCC released a draft version of its report to the public while (falsely) claiming it was the final version of the report. The IPCC engaged in a publicity campaign based upon the draft version of its report, holding numerous press conferences and hosting many public events based upon it. As a result, most people took the draft version as the genuine, final report. Indeed, later on I was forced into a strange discussion with a climate scientist Richard Betts based upon that false narrative, as documented here.

I contacted the IPCC about this false statement in their official press release. They gave me the response I expected, which was basically they didn't "really mean" draft versions of their reports when they said that, but rather. What they really meant is certain draft versions couldn't be shared with the public or commented upon, but other draft versions could be. Their press release was factually untrue, but... it just doesn't matter. The IPCC knows the press release they gave says untrue things, but they don't care.

And that is the constant theme of climate communication. It's not that any given error, untruth or misleading statement a climate communicator makes is of crucial importance. They probably aren 't. Some might be though. Nobody can know. How would we? Are we supposed to spend time every time anyone says anything about climate science to check to what extent it is misleading/inaccurate/dishonest? Of course not. NObody will do that. Not even climate communicators know to what extent the inaccuracies and deceptions extend. Nobody does.

In the end, nobody knows what the truth actually is. The reason for that is nobody really cares. The scientists and communicators claiming global warming is a threat humanity must band together to combat have decided absolute integrity and honesty isn't something they're interested in. Everyone else has decided they aren't interested in parsing the half-truths and lies to try to get at the truth. What is "real" and "true" just doesn't matter. To anyone.

And that's why I don't care about global warming. Why would I? If Jeff Goldblum ran up to me panting and panicking telling me the world would end soon, I'd listen. If a person postures on the internet with half-truths and outright lies to tell me the world might end, I won't listen. Why would I?

As a final thought, back in 1988 James Hansen said:

The climate model we employ has a global mean surface air equilibrium sensitivity of 4.2C for doubled CO2. Other recent GCMs yield equilibrium sensitivities of 2.5-5.5C, and we hav prsented empirical evidence favoring the range 2.5-5C (paper 2). Reviews by the National Academy of Sciences [Charney, 1979; Smagorinksy, 1982] recommended the range 1.5-4.5C, while a more recent review by Dickison [1986] recommended 1.5-5.5C.

The latest IPCC report said the planet's climate sensitivity is 1.5-4.5C. That means in the last 30 years, we have made exactly no progress on the central issue of how much will the planet's temperatures change based upon human activity. After 30 years, we are at the exact same point as we were before on this most crucial of issues. I think that does a lot to show why people just shouldn't care about the global warming debate.


  1. Seconded. The whole thing is just tiresome and frustrating. It's actually
    amazing that I can still be appalled at the lack of analytical thinking
    displayed in public by climate scientists (and often so called skeptics too).

    Imagine if all this effort and money had been expended on energy
    research and/or education?

  2. JonA, what, you want us to imagine how much people could have screwed up those fields if they had tried? 😛

  3. Yeah, you're probably right. Although I'm not from the USA I'm
    starting to see Libertarianism as not so crazy after all 🙂

  4. Brandon, not only should this post be used by high school and college classes in critical analysis, it's also profound on the topic of global warming. Indeed, would Jeff Goldblum risk making deceitfully exaggerated presentations or be as earnest and non-personally invested as possible if he needed to warn the world?

    Actually, it would be interesting to audit a course in critical thinking and see what that means on today's campus.

  5. My view regarding global warming has always been very simple - the people who claim it is a serious threat act in such a bizarre way, I don't believe them.

    How is NASA and every single scientific community on the planet behaving in a bad way?

    Now look at the global warming debate.

    There isn't one. For bonus points, there is no debate on the moon landings either. Nor the link between smoking and cancer. Or evolution.

    ….would you act like a political pundit aiming...

    NASA doesn't act like a pundit. Nor does any other scientific community on the planet. Problem solved.

    Before I continue, I want to point out I am not a climate scientist. I am not any kind of scientist. I don't intend to claim I am some sort of expert.

    Probably you are not a medical researcher or oncologist either. Maybe you know nothing about the moon or rockets. The underpinnings of modern biology? Maybe not.
    That's not a criticism. The vast majority of people would be in the same category too.
    However, there are scientific communities out there that do the work. They claim expertise because...they really are experts and have the work to prove it.

    If a person postures on the internet with half-truths and outright lies to tell me the world might end, I won't listen. Why would I?

    Well, some 'person' on the internet may well be feeding you half-truths. Who knows?
    Even lying to you? Sure. The internet can be a bad place.
    But if you think about it, getting your scientific information from some person is maybe not a good move in the first place.
    You can do much, much better for all kinds of scientific 'debates' out there.
    NASA and every scientific community on the internet.

    Thirty Years of Nonsense

    NASA has not been involved with nonsense for thirty years. All those other scientific communities would have noticed.

  6. Oh god, it's Cedric Katesby again. I'm not sure he has ever written anything in his life without saying "NASA" in it. It's weird. He goes to post after post saying, "But NASA! But NASA! But NASA!" But hey, at least he makes no attempts to hide his true colors and just goes right for the propaganda. Debate over global warming? "There isn't one." Anyone who says there is no debate over global warming is either delusional or dishonest. No genuine scientist would ever say that. They wouldn't because scientists have tons of debates over global warming all the time.

    On the upside, he links to a video that shows just how little people telling everyone else about science tend to know about science. That video claims Galileo was not challenging the scientific consensus of his times, but rather, represented the scientific consensus and merely challenge the religious dogma of the time. That's complete nonsense. Galileo was popular with the church, to the point the pope was a fan of his. When he made claims about planetary movement, the church did not say it was unacceptable. The church challenged him to prove his claims were true.

    Galileo couldn't do so. At the time, the available evidence was too murky to prove any view of planetary movements was correct. Given that Galileo couldn't prove his theories true, the church told Galileo he would be allowed to teach his theories as theories but not teach them as fact. Galileo balked at this, insisting his theories were fact even though there was no proof for them. He then spat in the face of the pope who had been a supporter of his by publishing a book teaching his theories as fact and repeatedly insulting the pope. That is what got him in trouble, being placed in indefinite house arrest in what were quite lavish homes. But of course, knowing any of this would require actually looking at history not just repeating the memes you hear from your friends.

    On an administrative note, Cedric Katesby, it is a standing rule of this site people are not allowed to post links without providing input of their own as to what people are supposed to get from those links. If you want to link to something, that's fine, but you need to say something about why people should bother clicking on it/what you think they should glean from it.

  7. ..for the propaganda.

    NASA doesn't do propaganda. Global scientific conspiracy theories are unworkable. They're simply silly.

    "Anyone who says there is no debate over the moon landings is either delusional or dishonest. No genuine scientist would ever say that. They wouldn't because scientists have tons of debates over the moon landings all the time."
    Not really.
    There's a scientific consensus that we really did go to the moon. Any debate happens in the scientific world and it's related to details. The overall scientific consensus doesn't change.

    "Anyone who says there is no debate over evolution is either delusional or dishonest. No genuine scientist would ever say that. They wouldn't because scientists have tons of debates over evolution all the time."
    Not really.
    There's a scientific consensus that evolution is real. Any debate happens in the scientific world and it's related to details. The overall scientific consensus doesn't change.

    Rinse and repeat for the link between tobacco and cancer.
    In fact, rinse and repeat for the scientific consensus on pretty much any topic out there.

    Before I continue, I want to point out I am not a climate scientist. I am not any kind of scientist. I don't intend to claim I am some sort of expert.

    That's why I pointed out NASA and the work they do. They really are experts.
    So are all the other scientific communities out there.

    I am not a "denier" or "skeptic" in terms of viewpoint.

    Science deniers do exist. They go to extraordinary lengths to rationalize their position. There are science deniers on evolution. On vaccines. The shape of the earth. Germ theory. And climate change.
    On a practical level, what are you doing or saying that a science denier would not do or say?

    ..for the propaganda.


  8. This is very attention-grabbing, You are an excessively skilled blogger.
    I have joined your rss feed and look forward to in the hunt for more of
    your great post. Also, I've shared your web site in my social networks

  9. Hey I am so happy I found your blog, I really found you by mistake, while I was
    researching on Google for something else, Anyways I am here
    now and would just like to say thanks a lot for a marvelous post and a
    all round enjoyable blog (I also love the theme/design), I don?t have
    time to read it all at the moment but I have book-marked it and
    also added your RSS feeds, so when I have time I
    will be back to read more, Please do keep up the excellent b.

    Feel free to visit my web-site ::

  10. Hey! Do you use Twitter? I'd like to follow you if that
    would be okay. I'm undoubtedly enjoying your blog and look forward to new posts.

  11. Excellent beat ! I would like to apprentice while you amend your site, how could i subscribe for a blog website? The account aided me a acceptable deal. I had been tiny bit acquainted of this your broadcast provided bright clear concept

  12. Have you ever considered about including a little
    bit more than just your articles? I mean, what you say
    is valuable and all. However just imagine if you added some great visuals or videos
    to give your posts more, "pop"! Your content is excellent but with images and clips, this site could undeniably be
    one of the best in its field. Excellent blog!

  13. Greetings from Colorado! I'm bored to tears at work so I decided to check out your blog on my iphone during
    lunch break. I really like the knowledge you present here and can't
    wait to take a look when I get home. I'm shocked at how fast your blog loaded
    on my mobile .. I'm not even using WIFI, just 3G
    .. Anyhow, fantastic blog!

    Also visit my website [ПЕРЕЙТИ]

  14. I know this if off topic but I'm looking into starting my own blog and was curious what
    all is needed to get set up? I'm assuming having a blog like yours would cost a pretty
    penny? I'm not very internet savvy so I'm not 100% sure.
    Any suggestions or advice would be greatly appreciated.
    Thank you

    Feel free to visit my website :: Best Health CBD

  15. Definitely believe that which you said. Your favorite reason seemed
    to be on the internet the easiest thing to be aware of.
    I say to you, I definitely get annoyed while people consider worries that they just do not
    know about. You managed to hit the nail upon the top and
    also defined out the whole thing without having side-effects , people could take a signal.
    Will probably be back to get more. Thanks

    Feel free to visit my web site;

  16. I think what you posted was very logical. But, think on this, suppose you were to write a killer headline?
    I am not saying your information isn't good., however suppose you added something to possibly grab a person's attention? I mean Thirty Years
    of Nonsense | Izuru is kinda vanilla. You might peek at Yahoo's home page
    and note how they create post titles to get viewers to click.
    You might try adding a video or a pic or two to
    get readers excited about everything've written. Just my opinion, it might make
    your blog a little livelier.

    Also visit my web blog :: Cialophin Pills

  17. Hi, I believe your website could possibly be
    having browser compatibility problems. When I look at your web site in Safari, it
    looks fine however when opening in IE, it's got some overlapping issues.
    I merely wanted to give you a quick heads up!
    Other than that, wonderful website!

  18. Hello there, You have done a great job. I will certainly digg it
    and personally suggest to my friends. I'm sure
    they'll be benefited from this site.

  19. Hey! I just wanted to ask if you ever have any issues with hackers?

    My last blog (wordpress) was hacked and I ended up losing months of hard work due to
    no back up. Do you have any solutions to protect against hackers?

  20. I love your blog.. very nice colors & theme. Did you make this website yourself or
    did you hire someone to do it for you? Plz reply as
    I'm looking to design my own blog and would like to know
    where u got this from. thanks

  21. Very good blog you have here but I was curious if you knew of any message
    boards that cover the same topics discussed in this article?

    I'd really like to be a part of community where I can get feed-back
    from other experienced individuals that share
    the same interest. If you have any suggestions, please let
    me know. Thanks!

    Here is my page;

  22. Hi, i think that i saw you visited my site so i came to “return the favor”.I'm
    trying to find things to enhance my web site!I suppose its ok to use some of your

  23. You actually make it seem so easy with your presentation but I find this
    topic to be actually one thing that I think I'd by no means
    understand. It seems too complex and very large for me. I'm having a look ahead to your subsequent submit, I will attempt to get the grasp of it!

  24. I'm honored to obtain a call coming from a friend immediately
    he discovered the important guidelines shared on your site.

    Examining your blog publication is a real excellent experience.
    Thanks again for considering readers much like me, and I desire for you the best
    of success being a professional in this field.

    Here is my web site ::

  25. This is the perfect blog for anybody who hopes to find out about
    this topic. You realize so much its almost hard to argue with you (not that I actually would want to…HaHa).

    You certainly put a new spin on a topic which has been written about for ages.
    Great stuff, just wonderful!

  26. Wonderful paintings! That is the type of info that are supposed to be shared around the web. Shame on the search engines for now not positioning this publish upper! Come on over and discuss with my web site . Thanks =)

  27. This is really interesting, You are a very skilled blogger.
    I have joined your rss feed and look forward to seeking more of
    your wonderful post. Also, I've shared your web site in my social

  28. I was wondering if you ever thought of changing the page layout of your blog? Its very well written; I love what youve got to say. But maybe you could a little more in the way of content so people could connect with it better. Youve got an awful lot of text for only having one or two images. Maybe you could space it out better?

  29. Its like you read my mind! You seem to know a lot about this, like you wrote the book in it or something. I think that you could do with a few pics to drive the message home a little bit, but instead of that, this is excellent blog. An excellent read. I'll definitely be back.

  30. Thanks for the post. My spouse and i have continually seen that a lot of people are eager to lose weight as they wish to look slim along with attractive. Nevertheless, they do not constantly realize that there are other benefits just for losing weight also. Doctors state that obese people suffer from a variety of conditions that can be directly attributed to their particular excess weight. Thankfully that people who're overweight as well as suffering from numerous diseases can help to eliminate the severity of their own illnesses by way of losing weight. It is easy to see a steady but notable improvement with health while even a negligible amount of weight reduction is reached.

  31. I loved as much as you'll receive carried out right here.
    The sketch is attractive, your authored material stylish.
    nonetheless, you command get bought an edginess over that you wish
    be delivering the following. unwell unquestionably come more formerly again as exactly the same nearly very often inside
    case you shield this increase.

    My blog post fun88

  32. I enjoy you because of all your valuable efforts
    on this web page. Gloria enjoys participating in investigations and it
    is easy to see why. All of us hear all concerning the compelling method you render effective strategies through this web blog and therefore attract participation from visitors on this subject matter and our
    own princess is without a doubt being taught a whole lot.
    Enjoy the rest of the year. You are always carrying out a wonderful job.[X-N-E-W-L-I-N-S-P-I-N-X]I am really impressed with
    your writing skills as well as with the format on your
    weblog. Is this a paid topic or did you modify it yourself?
    Anyway keep up the nice quality writing, it's uncommon to look a great blog like this one these days.

    My website - can berber carpet be professionally cleaned

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *