The thread of fantastically stupid skeptic climate predictions

[LakeEffectKing]

The final min. (for any year) is heavily dependant on the arctic wind patterns that set up (for extended periods) during that time. All these predictions, while certainly entertaining, are certainly not ensconced behind mechanisms which we have skill at predicting at such lead times, with any significant accuracy.

[skierinvermont]

Isn't it the other way around?

It says "Minimum Arctic ice extent for 2011 to be greater than 2007"

"65% chance"

Doesn't that mean there's a 65% chance that this year will have more ice than 2007?

Yes that's what I said, Originally it was 40/60 on 2011>2007. Now it's 65/35. Which still seems pretty low to me. I'd probably go with 75/25. I assumed people guessing in the 5s would put the odds of 2011>2007 at at least 90/10.

At the start of April the odds were 40/60 on 2011>2007.. now it's 65/35 so people's thinking has gotten higher.

[skierinvermont]

Interesting...

I think the Intrade comparison roughly follows the difference between 2007 and 2011 (with a slight delay).

I don't know about that.. the bumps look more like they coincide with important announcements and I think people who would put money on this would know enough that extent in April bears almost no correlation to September. Maybe you're right but I don't think that's it.

I still think the April 5 might have corresponded to the April 5th improved ice age announcement from NSIDC and something else around April 15th corresponds to the big bump around then.

[Clifford]

The final min. (for any year) is heavily dependant on the arctic wind patterns that set up (for extended periods) during that time. All these predictions, while certainly entertaining, are certainly not ensconced behind mechanisms which we have skill at predicting at such lead times, with any significant accuracy.

True

Although there are several elements:

Wind patterns (and corresponding air temperatures).

Ice Volume / Thickness

Ice Distribution

Ocean Currents & "Fram Strait Flushing".

Ocean Currents & Temperatures

Each model seems to show slightly different information (PIPS, PIOMAS, Fowler, Topaz, JAXA).

And, unfortunately without having all the model inputs, and missing data at times.... it all comes down to an educated guess.

It is interesting to see the strength of the AGW bias in people's guesses.

[skierinvermont]

The final min. (for any year) is heavily dependant on the arctic wind patterns that set up (for extended periods) during that time. All these predictions, while certainly entertaining, are certainly not ensconced behind mechanisms which we have skill at predicting at such lead times, with any significant accuracy.

I don't pretend to be able to guess it closer than about .95 million sq km in either direction. +/- .95 million sq km is the 95% confidence interval using Tamino's method of fitting a curve to the sea ice decline. Last year the curve predicted 4.8 million sq km on the dot, which was exactly correct. The curve predicts about 4.7 million sq km this year so the actual result could fall anywhere between 3.75 million and 5.65 million.

Using the cumulative probability based on standard deviations this yields:

- a 96.7% probability that sea ice falls below 5.5

- a 62.4% probability that sea ice falls below 5

Thus, I have a 62.4% probability of receiving $20, a 34.3% probability of no payout, and a 3.3% probability of having to pay out myself.

I actually wouldn't use purely statistics to make my guess. Given the small gain in MY ice I'd probably bump the statistical prediction from 4.7 to 5.0. But this would tend to reduce my error bars and the odds would still be in my favor, perhaps something like this:

50% probability of receiving $20, a 40% probability of no payout, and a 10% probability of having to pay out myself.

Still good odds.

[LakeEffectKing]

True

Although there are several elements:

Wind patterns (and corresponding air temperatures).

Ice Volume / Thickness

Ice Distribution

Ocean Currents & "Fram Strait Flushing".

Ocean Currents & Temperatures

Each model seems to show slightly different information (PIPS, PIOMAS, Fowler, Topaz, JAXA).

And, unfortunately without having all the model inputs, and missing data at times.... it all comes down to an educated guess.

It is interesting to see the strength of the AGW bias in people's guesses.

Certainly, however I'd propose that the final number, as we approach the ultimate minimum, is highly (higher than during the freeze up, melt down, and maximum periods) dependent on the winds at the time vs. other given ice extent factors at that time.

[skierinvermont]

It's also arguable that the gain in MY ice actually means thicker ice. Of course the two correlate in the long-run, but there's reason to believe this year it might not be true. The last 24 months have been by far the warmest ever in the arctic which would mean even if the MY ice is not being flushed out by currents, it's probably not thickening up too much. PIOMAS also models the lowest spring volume on record. But even if we play it safe and assume that the gain in MY ice is meaningful, the odds are still in my favor. Ice volume is drastically lower in the post-2007 era than pre-2007 era. Since 2007 there have been 4 minimums and I would win the bet on 3 and no payout on the other.

[skierinvermont]

Tamino's 2011 prediction:

Like I said, I hedged a bit higher than this based on the MY ice and recent trends.

Remember, this is September monthly NSIDC. His prediction for Jaxa minimum is 4.63+/- .9. You get the idea though.

[tacoman25]

The thread title aptly illustrates the term "sinking to new lows".

Skiier has completely undermined any claims that he is unbiased or objective, that's for sure.

[tacoman25]

This thread is only for those major predictions that are so stupid they had no chance of ever being correct and reveal a fundamental failure to understand basic climate and weather science:

1) The 79 people who guessed UAH/RSS would come in below .32 (old baseline) and the 47 people who guessed below .13 in 2010 (Actual: .50)

You receive a...

FAIL

2) The 77 people who guessed GISS/HadCRUT would come in below .51, and the 42 people who guessed below .38 in 2010. (Actual: .55)

You receive a..

FAIL

3) Steven Goddard's prediction of a minimum of 5.5 million sq km for arctic sea ice extent in 2010. (Actual: 4.8)

You receive a..

FAIL

4)

You receive a..

FAIL

5)

Arctic temperatures remain at near record levels. ENSO state only weakly affects arctic temperatures.

You receive a..

FAIL

6)

Arctic sea ice this winter was at record low levels and remains at extremely low levels relative to average.

You receive a..

FAIL

7) Zucker's guesses of -.2 and (revised) guess of -.1C for UAH in 2011. JFMA temps are running .15C warmer than 2008 which finished at -.04C.

You receive a preemptive

FAIL

What happened to only grading actual scientific predictions, like you insisted we do when I brought up the failed AGW predictions? Guess that rule doesn't apply when you are starting a petty thread for the sole purpose of ridiculing your rivals in this forum.

Sad and utterly pathetic thread.

[skierinvermont]

What happened to only grading actual scientific predictions, like you insisted we do when I brought up the failed AGW predictions? Guess that rule doesn't apply when you are starting a petty thread for the sole purpose of ridiculing your rivals in this forum.

Sad and utterly pathetic thread.

Well we certainly agree that these predictions aren't scientific.

Yes, in terms of furthering my understanding of the science of climate change, I am only interested in grading scientific predictions. I'm not going to grade a scientist's reasoning and credibility based on a casual bet he might make on baseball or soccer or something unrelated to his published body of work. I'll grade his methodology and reasoning based on what he publishes in peer-reviewed journals. That's how scientists and their peers grade themselves and test hypotheses.

However, I'm not grading these predictions in an effort to further my own understanding. I'm grading them in an effort to improve the obvious serious lack of understanding on the part of the people making these predictions and anybody else who for even a mere second might consider such predictions plausible.

If people are going to make ridiculous unjustifiable predictions in direct contradiction with established physics and climate science, then they deserve to be ridiculed. I think the unobjective thing to do would be to sit idly by while people continue making these ridiculous unjustifiable predictions and continue their dangerous campaign of spreading disinformation.

[tacoman25]

Well we certainly agree that these predictions aren't scientific.

Yes, in terms of furthering my understanding of the science of climate change, I am only interested in grading scientific predictions. I'm not going to grade a scientist's reasoning and credibility based on a casual bet he might make on baseball or soccer or something unrelated to his published body of work. I'll grade his methodology and reasoning based on what he publishes in peer-reviewed journals. That's how scientists and their peers grade themselves and test hypotheses.

However, I'm not grading these predictions in an effort to further my own understanding. I'm grading them in an effort to improve the obvious serious lack of understanding on the part of the people making these predictions.

If people are going to make ridiculous unjustifiable predictions in direct contradiction with established physics and climate science, then they deserve to be ridiculed. I think the unobjective thing to do would be to let people continue making these ridiculous unjustifiable predictions and continue their dangerous campaign of spreading disinformation.

Wow, you are really trying to defend this thread. Really trying.

Sorry, I don't buy it for a second. This thread is a blatant attempt to ridicule your main rivals on this forum and trash skeptics in general, and I don't care what rationale you dream up (claiming it's for the sake of science and the greater good - ha), it's completely classless.

Have a good one, I'm not going to waste one more second in this excuse for a thread.

[skierinvermont]

Wow, you are really trying to defend this thread. Really trying.

Sorry, I don't buy it for a second. This thread is a blatant attempt to ridicule your main rivals on this forum and trash skeptics in general, and I don't care what rationale you dream up (claiming it's for the sake of science and the greater good - ha), it's completely classless.

Have a good one, I'm not going to waste one more second in this excuse for a thread.

People who intentionally spread dangerous disinformation deserve nothing else than to have their predictions publicly criticized. People need to realize how truly stupid, baseless, and reckless such predictions are. The classless thing to do would be to be an apologist for that sort of behavior.

Year after year skeptics on this forum come up with all sorts of ridiculous predictions. And after they bust they come up with more. Now that the PDO has gone negative the new goalpost is the AMO. These predictions might just seem like run of the mill errors, but if one really understands the physical processes at play here, the predictions I have listed become an afront to basic logic and science. These aren't just predictions which had a chance of being right but weren't. These are predictions which are physically impossible and did not have an ounce of plausibility to begin with.

Besides, even if this is classless (I don't believe it is), I'd rather be classless than allow skeptics to continue their assault on reason and science and to continue to make these irrational, unjustifiable and dangerous predictions. Unfortunately these skeptics are getting more and more media coverage which only prolongs the time before this country does something about CO2.

[nzucker]

People who intentionally spread dangerous disinformation deserve nothing else than to have their predictions publicly criticized. People need to realize how truly stupid, baseless, and reckless such predictions are. The classless thing to do would be to be an apologist for that sort of behavior.

Any worse than Al Gore saying global warming is going to cause Katrina to smash into the US every season?

Any worse than James Hansen saying NYC will be underwater in the next century?

It's funny how you ignore the extreme predictions of the side you support, often excusing them by saying that they're "not official" or "just lively comments to the media." Therefore, you're implying that James Hansen, a public figure in charge of the world's most prestigious temperature/climate dataset, should not be held to poor predictions made outside of journals. However, everyone here on a casual Internet weather forum should be judged on what remarks they made off-hand, as much as 6 months or a year ago! Seems like a bit of a bias.

Also, meteorological predictions are difficult to make as the atmosphere is inherently unpredictable. Look at how badly the "expert panel" did on predicting the 2009 Arctic ice minimum, and that was a group of well-trained climatologists, some of whom had spent their entire lives visiting and researching the Arctic. Those figures certainly deserve far more ridicule for outlandish, extremist AGW prognostications than what some 18-year old guy says in a casual, late-night conversation on a weather forum.

[tacoman25]

People who intentionally spread dangerous disinformation deserve nothing else than to have their predictions publicly criticized. People need to realize how truly stupid, baseless, and reckless such predictions are. The classless thing to do would be to be an apologist for that sort of behavior.

Year after year skeptics on this forum come up with all sorts of ridiculous predictions. And after they bust they come up with more. Now that the PDO has gone negative the new goalpost is the AMO. These predictions might just seem like run of the mill errors, but if one really understands the physical processes at play here, the predictions I have listed become an afront to basic logic and science. These aren't just predictions which had a chance of being right but weren't. These are predictions which are physically impossible and did not have an ounce of plausibility to begin with.

Besides, even if this is classless (I don't believe it is), I'd rather be classless than allow skeptics to continue their assault on reason and science and to continue to make these irrational, unjustifiable and dangerous predictions. Unfortunately these skeptics are getting more and more media coverage which only prolongs the time before this country does something about CO2.

You just regurgitated the same thing as your last post.

As I said...this thread is a waste.

[skierinvermont]

Any worse than Al Gore saying global warming is going to cause Katrina to smash into the US every season?

Any worse than James Hansen saying NYC will be underwater in the next century?

It's funny how you ignore the extreme predictions of the side you support, often excusing them by saying that they're "not official" or "just lively comments to the media." Therefore, you're implying that James Hansen, a public figure in charge of the world's most prestigious temperature/climate dataset, should not be held to poor predictions made outside of journals. However, everyone here on a casual Internet weather forum should be judged on what remarks they made off-hand, as much as 6 months or a year ago! Seems like a bit of a bias.

Also, meteorological predictions are difficult to make as the atmosphere is inherently unpredictable. Look at how badly the "expert panel" did on predicting the 2009 Arctic ice minimum, and that was a group of well-trained climatologists, some of whom had spent their entire lives visiting and researching the Arctic. Those figures certainly deserve far more ridicule for outlandish, extremist AGW prognostications than what some 18-year old guy says in a casual, late-night conversation on a weather forum.

The thing is, I have criticized all of those predictions before.

Also the arctic sea ice predictions have improved substantially in the last couple years. The low predictions were somewhat understandable following 2007 given the melt season in 2007 and the mass exodus of MY ice in winter 07-08 were unprecedented events. We were in unchartered territory.

And you are certainly free to criticize comments or predictions made by Hansen outside of the peer-review process. I disagree with the El Nino prediction for example. But that doesn't mean that his peer-reviewed work on climate sensitivity is wrong. What predictions from Hansen have I not adequately criticized to your satisfaction?

1) His 2011-2012 Nino prediction.

I strongly disagree with it but think it's a plausible prediction given OHC.

2) His comments regarding NYC 20 years down the road.

The comments are clearly colorful, dramaticized, off-the cuff and poorly thought out. I wouldn't even consider them "predictions" since they directly contradict his actual predictions in the literature. Should he be making colorful comments? No. But that's human nature and I'm not surprised. I don't think it reflects at all on his publicized and peer-reviewed works, especially considering it's in direct contradiction to his publicized work. The statements I've quoted in this thread clearly are predictions and represent deeply held opinions and mis-understandings about climate by the people that made them. These predictions have been made over and over again and the individuals in question have made arguments in defense of their predictions. This is completely unlike Hansen's NYC comments which are clearly not deep seated opinions and he has actually argued against those very same comments.

3) His 1988 climate model.

The model showed slightly too much warming. Newer models usually use a lower climate sensitivity which could explain the difference, although it still falls within the modern confidence interval. He has since revised that model and published a verification of the original model which says it showed too much warming.

4) His future sea level rise predictions.

Are higher than the consensus and I side more with the consensus.

5) His argument that we need to stabilize at 350ppm.

Is also wrong. It disagrees with the consensus of climatologists and economists and fails to include a true cost-benefit analysis.

If there is anything else I have not criticized vigorously enough to your satisfaction please let me know.

[Snow_Miser]

Just one word. Sad.

[k***]

skierinvermont pwn'd yall

[LakeEffectKing]

skierinvermont pwn'd yall

lol

[tacoman25]

skierinvermont pwn'd yall

pwn'd!!

Yeah, let's all make threads ridiculing fellow members and pointing out every time we can think of where they made a prediction that was off. Then let's try to pass that off as a constructive attempt to stand up for the science or some crap like that. Cause that's why this forum exists!

And while we're at it, let's be huge hypocrites by using NON-SCIENTIFIC statements by amateurs as evidence that "sketics are detached from reality", right after we insisted in another thread that only AGW predictions MADE BY REAL SCIENTISTS IN REAL SCIENTIFIC ARTICLES should be judged.

pwn'age!!!!

I'm so glad this forum exists for us to start threads trying to pwn!! each other. In the spirit of things, I think I'll start a dick measuring thread next!

[ORH_wxman]

People who intentionally spread dangerous disinformation deserve nothing else than to have their predictions publicly criticized. People need to realize how truly stupid, baseless, and reckless such predictions are. The classless thing to do would be to be an apologist for that sort of behavior.

Year after year skeptics on this forum come up with all sorts of ridiculous predictions. And after they bust they come up with more. Now that the PDO has gone negative the new goalpost is the AMO. These predictions might just seem like run of the mill errors, but if one really understands the physical processes at play here, the predictions I have listed become an afront to basic logic and science. These aren't just predictions which had a chance of being right but weren't. These are predictions which are physically impossible and did not have an ounce of plausibility to begin with.

Besides, even if this is classless (I don't believe it is), I'd rather be classless than allow skeptics to continue their assault on reason and science and to continue to make these irrational, unjustifiable and dangerous predictions. Unfortunately these skeptics are getting more and more media coverage which only prolongs the time before this country does something about CO2.

lol, and the alarmist irresponsible predictions from the AGW camp haven't gotten coverage?

Or maybe its ok if they get coverage because "they are trying to promote the science" or "save the planet" or whatever garbage excuse that makes it fine vs some skeptic who says the opposite.

Pure hypocrisy and the type of back and forth inexcusable behavior (from both sides) that completely ruins the science aspect of the debate and any cordial or civilized exchange of ideas.

[nzucker]

The thing is, I have criticized all of those predictions before.

But in the end, you forgive Hansen for his mistakes and hold him in high regard, unlike the skeptics.

Anyway, dude, it's not as if people are being irresponsible by posting skeptical predictions about global temperatures and arctic sea ice which sometimes end up being inaccurate due to bias. No one is running public policy based on what BethesdaBoy writes on americanwx.com at 3am while he's high off his ass. World leaders aren't making their decisions about global warming legislation based on Internet skeptic blogs. I think the exaggerations and alarmism from people like Al Gore, James Hansen, and Hadley's guy Viner are far more heinous because they're actually determining how money is spent, how much taxes we pay on fossil fuels, how much of the budget goes to carbon reduction versus other important matters. In other words, the AGW bias of these public figures is running the agenda, in ways that may be mistaken...skeptic posts on americanwx.com aren't changing what Obama does about the Kyoto Protocol.

It's amazing how you continually try to excuse Hansen for his "colorful language" while you lambaste skeptical posts about arctic sea ice minima or temperature trends, writing that they are a huge "FAIL." Where is your sense of hypocrisy, Andrew? If you feel fine excusing Hansen and Viner for their exaggerations, why shouldn't that same leniency apply to skeptic posters? In fact, I'd argue that they deserve more leniency because they are not learned scientists/climatologists who not only should know better, but who influence what the whole world thinks about climate change. There's a much bigger onus on James Hansen to be fair and balanced than there is on Bethesda.

[skierinvermont]

lol, and the alarmist irresponsible predictions from the AGW camp haven't gotten coverage?

no, of course not. I think I've been pretty clear in my disapproval of such media comments.

What I object to is using comments in the media to then try and undermine well reasoned peer-reviewed work.

[tacoman25]

no, of course not. I think I've been pretty clear in my disapproval of such media comments.

What I object to is using comments in the media to then try and undermine well reasoned peer-reviewed work.

Oh really? But you don't object to using statements made by weather geeks on an online forum to undermine the skeptical viewpoint?

Wake up, skiier. You're the one that needs a reality check here. If you want to stick strictly to the science, than do that. But don't claim one thing in one thread, and then start a whole other thread that makes you look like the biggest hypocrite ever.

[skierinvermont]

But in the end, you forgive Hansen for his mistakes and hold him in high regard, unlike the skeptics.

Anyway, dude, it's not as if people are being irresponsible by posting skeptical predictions about global temperatures and arctic sea ice which sometimes end up being inaccurate due to bias. No one is running public policy based on what BethesdaBoy writes on americanwx.com at 3am while he's high off his ass. World leaders aren't making their decisions about global warming legislation based on Internet skeptic blogs. I think the exaggerations and alarmism from people like Al Gore, James Hansen, and Hadley's guy Viner are far more heinous because they're actually determining how money is spent, how much taxes we pay on fossil fuels, how much of the budget goes to carbon reduction versus other important matters. In other words, the AGW bias of these public figures is running the agenda, in ways that may be mistaken...skeptic posts on americanwx.com aren't changing what Obama does about the Kyoto Protocol.

It's amazing how you continually try to excuse Hansen for his "colorful language" while you lambaste skeptical posts about arctic sea ice minima or temperature trends, writing that they are a huge "FAIL." Where is your sense of hypocrisy, Andrew? If you feel fine excusing Hansen and Viner for their exaggerations, why shouldn't that same leniency apply to skeptic posters? In fact, I'd argue that they deserve more leniency because they are not learned scientists/climatologists who not only should know better, but who influence what the whole world thinks about climate change. There's a much bigger onus on James Hansen to be fair and balanced than there is on Bethesda.

As explained about 5 times now:

I do NOT approve of the exaggerated claims in the media. They're obviously wrong and therefore should not have been said. What I object to is using these statements which are clearly not thought out and are frequently in direct contradiction to the same scientists' peer-reviewed work, in an effort to undermine the peer-reviewed work.

There are literally 10s of thousands of climate researchers out there. Even if just one of them makes a poorly thought out off-hand remark it gets blogged about for eternity and then people like you read it and become fascinated by these comments and try to use them to undermine actual science.

So there are two very clear differences between this thread and my lack of outrage about certain scientists' comments:

1) The predictions in this thread represent deeply held beliefs that have been repeated over and over and over. Arguments have been advanced in favor of these predictions. This is unlike Hansen's comments for example, which he has actually argued directly against. His colorful comments are contradicted by dozens of other of his own comments to the media and in his peer-reviewed articles.

2) I'm not using this thread or the comments quoted to try and disprove peer-reviewed science.

[tacoman25]

As explained about 5 times now:

I do NOT approve of the exaggerated claims in the media. They're obviously wrong and therefore should not have been said. What I object to is using these statements which are clearly not thought out and are frequently in direct contradiction to the same scientists' peer-reviewed work, in an effort to undermine the peer-reviewed work.

There are literally 10s of thousands of climate researchers out there. Even if just one of them makes a poorly thought out off-hand remark it gets blogged about for eternity and then people like you read it and become fascinated by these comments and try to use them to undermine actual science.

So there are two very clear differences between this thread and my lack of outrage about certain scientists' comments:

1) The predictions in this thread represent deeply held beliefs that have been repeated over and over and over. Arguments have been advanced in favor of these predictions. This is unlike Hansen's comments for example, which he has actually argued directly against. His colorful comments are contradicted by dozens of other of his own comments to the media and in his peer-reviewed articles.

2) I'm not using this thread or the comments quoted to try and disprove peer-reviewed science.

Translation: it's ok for me to have a double standard, because the real science is on my side.

It's not ok to point out failed AGW predictions, because those undermine the science (supposedly), but it's perfectly ok to ridicule those who are more on the skeptic side...because skeptics are just out to make scientists look bad and are very dangerous creatures.

[skierinvermont]

Oh really? But you don't object to using statements made by weather geeks on an online forum to undermine the skeptical viewpoint?

Wake up, skiier. You're the one that needs a reality check here. If you want to stick strictly to the science, than do that. But don't claim one thing in one thread, and then start a whole other thread that makes you look like the biggest hypocrite ever.

I'm not using these comments to undermine any well-reasoned skeptical arguments. I'm using them to undermine the specific flawed reasoning that underlies such comments.

And as I've said, I do disapprove of Hansen's colorful comments as they are obviously wrong. What more do you want me to say? They're WRONG, STUPID, EXAGGERATED and IRRESPONSIBLE. I have said all of this before. What more do you want me to say? Please tell me.

All I have said in defense of them is that they are poorly thought out and unreflective of his or other scientist's actual peer-reviewed work, and therefore should not be used to undermine said work.

You are trying to make a black and white comparison to something I said months ago in a completely different context. You'll note that in that thread I was quite clear that the comments he made were wrong. So I ask again, what more do you want me to say in criticism of them? I've asked this question several times in this thread and nobody has given me an answer.

[tacoman25]

I'm not using these comments to undermine any well-reasoned skeptical arguments. I'm using them to undermine the specific flawed reasoning that underlies such comments.

And as I've said, I do disapprove of Hansen's colorful comments as they are obviously wrong. What more do you want me to say? They're WRONG, STUPID, EXAGGERATED and IRRESPONSIBLE. I have said all of this before. What more do you want me to say?

All I have said in defense of them is that they are poorly thought out and unreflective of his or other scientist's actual peer-reviewed work, and therefore should not be used to undermine said work.

You are trying to make a black and white comparison to something I said months ago in a completely different context. You'll note that in that thread I was quite clear that the comments he made were wrong.

It doesn't matter what your intent is (not to mention you are making major assumptions about others intent). You started a whole thread blatantly outlining mainly comments made by people on this board as evidence that skeptics made some very stupid and unscientific predictions. And yet, you insisted recently (not months ago) in another thread that AGW predictions should only be evaluated if they are made in actual scientific articles. That's pretty black and white, and it makes this thread a joke...not to mention just petty for singling out statements by some of your main opponents on here as evidence.

[nzucker]

All I have said in defense of them is that they are poorly thought out and unreflective of his or other scientist's actual peer-reviewed work, and therefore should not be used to undermine said work.

Why shouldn't they be used to undermine his peer-reviewed work? If he wants to present an unreasonable viewpoint to the media, then it's his personal choice to endanger the general belief in his scientific papers. I think it's entirely fair that skeptics criticize Hansen for bias and exaggeration; he's opened these doors himself through his activist lifestyle and extreme comments. His data has even been corrected by skeptics for inaccuracies and mistakes, further undermining his own publications as well as the temperature dataset he runs, GISS.

You are willing to take every off-hand comment and use it to generalize that everything skeptics say is dangerous and irresponsible, faulting them for their entire philosophy through a few failed predictions, and yet you refuse to apply the same standard to scientists (who in my opinion should adhere to a higher standard than Internet skeptics). It's clearly a DOUBLE STANDARD. If skeptics can be discredited for a flawed prediction in the manner that you're castigating Bethesda and me, labeling us as irresponsible and deliberately prejudiced, then why shouldn't scientists have to deal with this reality as well?

[skierinvermont]

And yet, you insisted recently (not months ago) in another thread that AGW predictions should only be evaluated if they are made in actual scientific articles.

I clearly did not mean that such comments could not be evaluated at all. What I clearly meant was that comments which are not representative of peer-reviewed work should not be used to undermine peer-reviewed work.

I evaluated the given comments myself. I said they were wrong and should not have been made. So how can you accuse me of saying that Hansen's comments should NEVER be evaluated, when I have evaluated those comments myself dozens of times? It's a direct contradiction. I've said Hansen's off-hand comments are wrong and irresponsible more times than I can count. And yet you continue to claim that i've said these comments should never be evaluated.

So again I ask, what more would you like me to say about Hansen's comments that I have not already said? I've asked this 4 times now. No answer yet.