Another lesson is that debates over forecasts and uncertainty often overshadow knowledge that is far more certain. Paul Somerville and Katharine Haynes of Macquarie University note wryly that “no action has yet been taken against the engineers who designed the buildings that collapsed and caused fatalities, or the government officials who were responsible for enforcing building code compliance.”[6]

The real tragedy of L’Aquila may not be that scientists led the public astray with their bumbled discussion of predictive science but, rather, that our broader obsession with predictions blinds us to the truths right before our eyes.

>>>>>>>

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/22/pielke-jr-on-lessons-of-the-l%CA%BCaquila-lawsuit-comparisons-to-lessons-learned-on-nws-forecast-falures/#more-72835

Couldn’t be more relevant to the current climate science situation.

‘Scientists Found Guilty In L’Aquila Earthquake Trial’

Seismic experts were sentenced to six years in prison and $10 million each in damages for not accurately predicting Italy’s fatal 2009 L’Aquila earthquake, which killed 308 and injured 1600.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/10/22/scientists-found-guilty-in-l-aquila-earthquake-trial.html

I wonder if climate scientists will be similarly held accountable for an inaccurate prediction of an unreal disaster.

Why would I? Why should I? When have I ever disputed “the fact” anyway? And it looks like maybe you’ve got it the wrong way around but who cares?

I repeat:-

I don’t give a toss about the CO2 emissions Rob. May I remind you that you are on the Defaulters List for failing to refute Eggert’s hypothesis that CO2 has negligible effect above about 200 ppm.

May I remind you that you have a history of “making stuff up”, as per your “Obama quote” above?

IMHO, the rest of your “arguments” are little better than numerology, crossed with glossolalia.

I don’t give a toss about the CO2 emissions Rob. May I remind you that you are on the Defaulters List for failing to refute Eggert’s hypothesis that CO2 has negligible effect above about 200 ppm.

1.0 out of 5 stars

Lies, misrepresentations, and a bible for climate change deniers,

October 16, 2011

By Peter Gleick “PGleick”

This review is from: The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert (Kindle Edition)

This book is a stunning compilation of lies, misrepresentations, and falsehoods about the fundamental science of climate change. It compiles the old arguments, long refuted, about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which summarizes the state of science on climate change. The IPCC reports — the most comprehensive summary of climate science in the world — are so influential and important, that they must be challenged by climate change deniers, who have no other science to stand on. LaFramboise recycles these critiques in a form bound to find favor with those who hate science, fear science, or are afraid that if climate change is real and caused by humans then governments will have to act (and they hate government).

Are you already convinced that climate change is false? Then you don’t need this book, since there is nothing new in it for you.
If you respect science, then you ALSO don’t need this book, since there’s no science in it, and lots of pseudo-science and misrepresentations of science. See, especially, the section trying to discredit the “hockey stick” — long a bugaboo of the anti-climate change crowd. Seven independent scientific commissions and studies have separately verified it, but you won’t find out about that in this book.

Really: save your money and battery life.

http://www.amazon.com/review/R3DB7LHRMJ14G5/ref=cm_cr_pr_perm?ie=UTF8&ASIN=B005UEVB8Q&linkCode=&nodeID=&tag=

From Amazon:-

http://www.amazon.com/Delinquent-Teenager-Mistaken-Climate-ebook/dp/B005UEVB8Q

Donna Laframboise’s new book causing reviews in absentia amongst some AGW advocates

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/16/donna-laframboises-new-book-causing-reviews-in-absentia-amongst-some-agw-advocates/

“The first fun part: Gleick apparently never read the book before posting a negative review, because if he had, he wouldn’t be intellectually slaughtered by some commenters who challenge his claims by pointing out page and paragraph in the book showing exactly how Gleick is the one posting false claims.”

“The other fun part? Gleick apparently doesn’t realize he’s up against a seasoned journalist, he thinks Donna is just another “denier”. Another inconvenient truth for Gleick is that she was a member of the board of directors of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association – serving as a Vice-President from 1998-2001.”

Volcanic versus anthropogenic CO2 emissions

Do the Earth’s volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities? Research findings indicate that the answer to this frequently asked question is a clear and unequivocal, “No.”

Human activities, responsible for a projected 35 billion metric tons (gigatons) of CO2 emissions in 2010 (Friedlingstein et al., 2010), release an amount of CO2 that dwarfs the annual CO2 emissions of all the world’s degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes (Gerlach, 2011).

The published estimates of the global CO2 emission rate for all degassing subaerial (on land) and submarine volcanoes lie in a range from 0.13 gigaton to 0.44 gigaton per year (Gerlach, 1991; Varekamp et al., 1992; Allard, 1992; Sano and Williams, 1996; Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998). The preferred global estimates of the authors of these studies range from about 0.15 to 0.26 gigaton per year.

The 35-gigaton projected anthropogenic CO2 emission for 2010 is about 80 to 270 times larger than the respective maximum and minimum annual global volcanic CO2 emission estimates. It is 135 times larger than the highest preferred global volcanic CO2 estimate of 0.26 gigaton per year (Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998).

http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php

If you have research to challenge these figures, then cite it.

Rob you haven’t even addressed the argument so how do you know it isn’t coherent and fact-based?

Reminds me of a certain Amazon book review that I can’t quite recall exactly (what was it Andy?).

So, do you seriously believe that Jo Nova’s financial data analysis is better than Bloomberg’s??

Like this one?:-

Our new island? Pumice float stuns Navy (+video, photos)

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10826068

And these ones?:-

Submarine Volcanoes

Scientists estimate that at least 80% of the world’s volcanism occurs in the oceans!

http://www.gns.cri.nz/Home/Learning/Science-Topics/Ocean-Floor/Undersea-New-Zealand/Submarine-Volcanoes

Maybe you need your eyes tested Rob.