Comments on: Is ENSO “responsible for recent global warming?” No.

By: Mann exonerated by PSU inquiry: “No substance to the allegation” « Deep Climate

Fri, 02 Jul 2010 01:20:33 +0000

[...] Indeed, there is every reason to believe that the situation at Climate Research was not as described in the “Climategate” emails; it was much worse. The editor at the centre of the controversy, Chris de Freitas, has long-standing ties to anti-science lobby groups such as Friends of Science and the International Climate Science Coalition. And a preliminary look at the papers by Patrick Michaels and others greenlighted by de Freitas appears to show several with broad conclusions not supported by the analysis (my recent piece on Michaels and Paul Knappenberger describes one egregious example). That’s an ongoing problem with de Freitas in his own work, as well, as seen in the wretched 2009 McLean et al paper and associated press releases attributing global warming to ENSO. [...]

By: McKitrick gets it wrong on IPCC « Deep Climate

McKitrick gets it wrong on IPCC « Deep Climate — Tue, 06 Apr 2010 02:26:52 +0000

[...] the ties to industry-funded PR and “astro-turf” groups like Friends of Science and to the International Climate Science Coalition, as I’ve previously discussed. Certainly, McKitrick’s description of the Climate [...]

By: JM

JM — Tue, 30 Mar 2010 14:21:48 +0000

I like how John Nicol avoids the fact that the substance of this paper, such as it is, has already been dealt with. Quick! Change the subject! The denialists blew it again!

By: In the beginning: Friends of Science, Talisman Energy and the de Freitas brothers « Deep Climate

Wed, 02 Dec 2009 04:26:24 +0000

[...] was not its flawed science. Rather, it was the alacrity with which the authors co-operated with the intellectually dishonest public relations campaign organized by Tom Harris’s International Cli…. The authors even lent their names to a press release that made the outrageous and wholly [...]

By: Revisión científica, pero no es El Niño « Cambio climático

Revisión científica, pero no es El Niño « Cambio climático — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 18:04:06 +0000

[...] http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2009/07/surprising-conclusions-from.html http://deepclimate.org/2009/07/30/is-enso-responsible-for-recent-global-warming-no/ No hay tendencia: http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/07/24/old-news Suavizados utilizados (eliminan [...]

By: brazil84

brazil84 — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 09:31:03 +0000

After wading through all your invective, it seems to me your point is simply that McClean et al overstate their case. Although I haven’t read their paper, I think you are probably right.

It looks to me like climate is chaotic in the same way that weather is chaotic. Which is part of the reason it seems likely the warmists have overstated their own case.

My opinion only.

[DC: McLean et al do not merely "overstate" their case. They have no case. The analysis here and elsewhere shows that SOI has had a slight cooling effect over the last thirty years, although it can explain much of the interannual variability in temperature.]

By: Climate change Bytes and Blogs VI « Greenfyre’s

Climate change Bytes and Blogs VI « Greenfyre’s — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 00:50:08 +0000

[...] Is ENSO “responsible for recent global warming?” No. Deep Climate reports that: A barrage of criticism has forced the authors and their champions to [...]

By: John Nicol

John Nicol — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 09:28:37 +0000

Having read the comments made on the so called "Open Mind" by Tamino and others, none appears to give one any confidence that the McLean et al. paper will be contradicted scientifically any time soon. The suggestion for example that the ENSO conditions can act to change the Global Temperature on an annual or short term basis does not provide any reason that a particular sustained condition of that phenomenon can not produce a particulat temperature distribution over the globe which controls the effective temperature, as it does. Most if not all all of the comments seem to concentrate on trying to diminish the status of the authors and JGR reviewers, which immediately leaves the distinct impression that the critics lack the confidence and obviously the ability to discredit the science by properly formulated counter arguments. This has the effect of reducing what could be a stimulating debate on the science, to a simplistic, and dare I say at times quite childish, attempt to make unsubstantiated claims about the aims of the authors. On a personal note, I am at present enjoying a discussion with a person who takes the completely opposite view of the Climate Change debate from mine and we both agree that we are really enjoying the process with out any insults or politics. This person a retired professor of physics sought me out for this purpose. We disagree but respect absolutely each others views and spend our time trying to show scientificaslly where the other is wrong. We concede points to each other and argue others to the death, just as scientifi debate used to be. It is very refreshing. I compare this with the continuing unscientific material which is used in vain attempots to degrade the Mclean paper. John Nicol [DC: The authors have repeatedly claimed both in the paper, and in three press releases, that their analysis demonstrates that a shift in ENSO is "responsible for recent global warming" and accounts for "any temperature trends that might exist." Those assertions are clearly false, as are a number of others made along the way. Please reread this comment by McLean et al and Tamino's response. Tamino says: Expect a comment on your paper to appear soon in JGR. I can hardly wait to see how you'll respond there. I have no reason to doubt him. ]

By: John Nicol

John Nicol — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 22:07:14 +0000

It is interesting to note the scramble for information on the characteristics of the authors of this paper before considering the science behind it or the author’s qualifications. It is also noteworthy, that most scientists who read a paper, will generally read it several times over a period of several weeks, whether or not they agree with the findings and no matter how familiar or otherwise they might be with the topic before putting pen to paper. We also note that in previous posts, the opponents of McLean et al. have been quick to demand a peer reviewed paper rather than a comment on the internet. In this case, the appearance of a peer reviewed paper questioning the wisdom of blaming all of global warming on carbon dioxide brings out the best of insults extending right up to the publishers of JGR!

Let’s just wait and see what appears next month or the monhs following in JGR.

[DC: I think you'll see a response in JGR sooner rather than later, if comments at Open Mind are anything to go by.

Many of the authors' most absurd claims were made in press releases disseminated through contrarian blogs. I can see no reason why they should not be answered in the real science blogs like Open Mind and RealClimate]

By: Meet Alan Gibbs, builder of amphibious HumVees and “climate science” coalitions « Deep Climate

Sat, 01 Aug 2009 20:45:17 +0000

[...] Comment Policy ← Is ENSO “responsible for recent global warming?” No. [...]