Another example of their bogosity:

It occurs to me to wonder whether this error in the GISS-E2-R ocean mixing parameterisation, which gave rise to AMOC instability in the Pliocene simulation, might possibly account for the model’s behaviour in LU run 1. It looks to me as if something goes seriously wrong with the AMOC in the middle of the 20th century in that run, with no subsequent recovery evident.

But let’s make wealth-destroying policy based on this!

[Update on January 28th]

Insights from Karl Popper to break the gridlock in the climate debate.

It’s sad how so many people who (ironically) accuse me of being a “climate denier” or a “science denier” are so profoundly ignorant of how science actually works.

[Bumped]

[Update a while later]

An analysis from Judith Curry and Nic Lewis on the latest climate crap from Mann et al:

As I see it, this paper is a giant exercise in circular reasoning:

1. Assume that the global surface temperature estimates are accurate; ignore the differences with the satellite atmospheric temperatures
2. Assume that the CMIP5 multi-model ensemble can be used to accurately portray probabilities
3. Assume that the CMIP5 models adequately simulate internal variability
4. Assume that external forcing data is sufficiently certain
5. Assume that the climate models are correct in explaining essentially 100% of the recent warming from CO2

In order for Mann et al.’s analysis to work, you have to buy each of these 5 assumptions; each of these is questionable to varying degrees.

You don’t say.

Matt Ridley on how they’ll save the world.
The conclusion:

The one thing that will not work is the one thing that the environmental movement insists upon: subsidizing wealthy crony capitalists to build low-density, low-output, capital-intensive, land-hungry renewable energy schemes, while telling the poor to give up the dream of getting richer through fossil fuels.

(Yes, behind paywall, but google the headline and you should be able to read it.)

[Update a while later]

I’m very sorry to hear about Piers Sellers’ illness, and hope for the best, but this NYT op-ed seems to me to be delusional:

All this as the world’s population is expected to crest at around 9.5 billion by 2050 from the current seven billion. Pope Francis and a think tank of retired military officers have drawn roughly the same conclusion from computer model predictions: The worst impacts will be felt by the world’s poorest, who are already under immense stress and have meager resources to help them adapt to the changes. They will see themselves as innocent victims of the developed world’s excesses. Looking back, the causes of the 1789 French Revolution are not a mystery to historians; looking forward, the pressure cooker for increased radicalism, of all flavors, and conflict could get hotter along with the global temperature.

Last year may also be seen in hindsight as the year of the Death of Denial. Globally speaking, most policy makers now trust the scientific evidence and predictions, even as they grapple with ways to respond to the problem. And most Americans — 70 percent, according to a recent Monmouth University poll — believe that the climate is changing. So perhaps now we can move on to the really hard part of this whole business.

I hope that will change next January. As Ridley points out (as does Alex Epstein), it is the poor who would be hit the hardest byaabandoning fossil fuels (particularly with plunging prices), much more so than by “climate change.”

Put me in the “Maybe/Yes” camp.

Judith Curry says we can’t understand climate without understanding the underlying natural cycle. And we don’t.

It’s insane to be making policy decisions on the basis of our current state of knowledge.

[Update a while later]

“Science journalists are not science advocates, and scientists are not science.”

Yes, scientists are not science. Corollary: There is no such thing as a "science denier." https://t.co/WCPG64bmNu

— Rand Simberg (@Rand_Simberg) December 30, 2015