I posted something like this over at my other blog but I suppose I should post it here as well. Folks ask me why I have not been blogging much here on climate, and the reason is that is has just gotten too repetitive. It is like the movie Groundhog Day, with the same flawed studies being refuted in the same ways. Or, if you want another burrowing mammal analogy, being a climate skeptic has become a giant game of Wack-a-Mole, with each day bringing a new flawed argument from alarmist that must be refuted. But we never accumulate any score — skeptics have pretty much killed Gore’s ice core analysis, the hockey stick, the myth that CO2 is reducing snows on Kilamanjaro, Gore’s 20- feet of sea rise — the list goes on an on. But we get no credit — we are still the ones who are supposedly anti-science.
This is a hobby, and not even my main hobby, so I have decided to focus on what I enjoy best about the climate debate, and that is making live presentations. To this end, you will continue to see posts here with updated presentations and videos, and possibly a new analysis or two as I find better ways to present the material (by the way, if you have a large group, I am happy to come speak — I do not charge a speaker fee and can often pay for the travel myself).
However, while we are on the subject of climate Groundhog Day (where every day repeats itself over and over), let me tell you in advance what stories skeptic sites like WUWT and Bishop Hill and Climate Depot will be running in the coming months on the IPCC. I can predict these with absolute certainty because they are the same stories run on the last IPCC report, and I don’t expect those folks at the IPCC to change their stripes. So here are your future skeptic site headlines:
- Science sections of recent IPCC report were forced to change to fit the executive summary written by political appointees
- The recent IPCC report contains a substantial number of references to non-peer reviewed gray literature
- In the IPCC report, a couple of studies that fend off key skeptic attacks either have not yet even been published or were included despite being released after the cut off date set for studies to be included in the report
- In several sections of the recent IPCC report, the lead author ignored most other studies and evidence on the matter at hand and based their chapter mostly on their own research
- In its conclusions, the IPCC expresses absolute confidence in a statement about anthropogenic warming so vague that most skeptics might agree with the proposition. Media then reported this as 97% confidence in 5 degrees of warming per century and 20 feet of sea rise
- The hockey stick has been reworked and is still totally flawed
- Non-Co2 causes of weather and weather related effects (e.g the sun or anthropocentric contributions like soot) are downplayed or ignored in the most recent IPCC report
- The words “urban heat island” appear nowhere in the IPCC report. There is no consideration of the quality of the surface temperature record, its measurement, or the manual adjustments made to it.
- Most of the key studies in the IPCC report have not archived their data and refuse to release their data or software code to any skeptic for replication
Oh, I suppose it will not be all Groundhog Day. I will predict a new one. The old headlines were “IPCC ignores ocean cycles as partial cause for 1978-1998 warming”. This report will be different. Now stories will read for the new report, “IPCC blames warming hiatus on cooling from ocean cycles, but says ocean cycles have nothing to do with earlier warming”.