Another Forbes article

[WXinCanton]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/patrickmichaels/2012/12/18/the-uns-global-warming-forecasts-are-performing-very-very-badly/

The forecasts are busting horribly

[FloridaJohn]

Here's his graph:

Which he then goes on to immediately say, "The very large grey zone is irrelevant to the forecasts that were made."

However, and please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the grey areas are bounding the 95% confidence range. In other words, whomever produced the graph (IPCC or other researcher), believed that the actual temperatures would fall within the grey range with a 95% confidence. If that's the case, then it looks to me like the models are still doing pretty good.

What will that graph look like when they add in 2012?

[skierinvermont]

You are correct John.. compare the statement by Forbes:

"The very large grey zone is irrelevant to the forecasts that were made."

to the caption to the figure:

"The 90% uncertainty estimate due to observational uncertainty and internal variability based on the HadCRUT4 temperature data for 1951-1980 is depicted by the grey shading."

The omission of this statement and the claim that the grey area is irrelevant is a horrific lie and it is shameful that anybody would print it.

[skierinvermont]

The deniers claim that the IPCC underestimates natural variability and then intentionally omit IPCC's recognition of the large variability created by natural variability.

Ironic.

[donsutherland1]

The author appears to be statistically illiterate. At a minimum, he appears to be unfamiliar with the concept of confidence intervals. Such intervals are not "irrelevant."

[FloridaJohn]

The author appears to be statistically illiterate. At a minimum, he appears to be unfamiliar with the concept of confidence intervals. Such intervals are not "irrelevant."

If only that were true. The author, Patrick Michaels, has actually published five papers related to climate change:

• "Analyzing ultraviolet-B radiation—is there a trend?" (1994)
  
• "Human effect on global climate?" (1996)
  
• "Analysis of trends in the variability of daily and monthly historical temperature measurements" (1998)
  
• "Decadal changes in heat-related human mortality in the eastern United States" (2002)
  
• "Changing heat-related mortality in the United States" (2003)
  

Each one of those papers (that I could get access to), show confidence ranges, lists caveats, and otherwise contains normal scientific language for describing the uncertainties in everyday scientific research.

Then he started working for the Cato Institute, and sold all of his scientific integrity to the highest bidder. Now his writings revolve around pushing the message of his employer, and he is no longer interesting in educating the public or pursuing scientific advancement. His sole purpose now is to confuse the public and obfuscate the truth, all in the name of the almighty dollar.

He is well aware of what the grey area means, as well as the "whiskers" on the temperature measurements. He just chooses to deceive.

[donsutherland1]

If only that were true. The author, Patrick Michaels, has actually published five papers related to climate change:

• "Analyzing ultraviolet-B radiation—is there a trend?" (1994)
  
• "Human effect on global climate?" (1996)
  
• "Analysis of trends in the variability of daily and monthly historical temperature measurements" (1998)
  
• "Decadal changes in heat-related human mortality in the eastern United States" (2002)
  
• "Changing heat-related mortality in the United States" (2003)
  

Each one of those papers (that I could get access to), show confidence ranges, lists caveats, and otherwise contains normal scientific language for describing the uncertainties in everyday scientific research.

Then he started working for the Cato Institute, and sold all of his scientific integrity to the highest bidder. Now his writings revolve around pushing the message of his employer, and he is no longer interesting in educating the public or pursuing scientific advancement. His sole purpose now is to confuse the public and obfuscate the truth, all in the name of the almighty dollar.

He is well aware of what the grey area means, as well as the "whiskers" on the temperature measurements. He just chooses to deceive.

This is much worse than I had thought. I had given him the benefit of the doubt that he wasn't sufficiently grounded in statistics to understand the role of confidence intervals.

[PhillipS]

I find it very telling that ALL of the self-proclaimed skeptics on this forum are silent when this sort of nonsense is debunked. Where is ORH, or Jong, or Snow?

[PhillipS]

It is interesting that one or more Mods are trying to impose censorship. When you go to the Resources tab, you can hover over a Mod's ID and see whether they are on-line.

Would the Mod who has been deleting posts care to address the paying customers and explain why you are censoring us?

[skierinvermont]

This forum has never deleted anything but the most offensive content. Off-topic, stupid, childish it has never mattered. It has all been tolerated. But all of a sudden a rogue Mod has come in here and started deleting posts and banning people because of a grudge. It's out of line.