Irish Times David Robert Grimes Foams At The Keyboard…Mounting Frustration Now On The Verge Of Anger

Grimes_TwitterDavid Robert Grimes of the Irish Times latest piece pretty much tells us all we all need to know about the state of mind of climate alarmists nowadays: it’s one of mounting frustration that’s on the verge of exploding anger. Are calls for anger what one typically sees from the winning side of a debate? Certainly not.

What we are actually seeing appears to be the frustration one sees from the losing side, a side that had gone in thinking victory was sure. Like an 8-year old losing a checker game to a brighter 4-year old.

The humiliation is evident.

He writes: “If greenhouse emissions continue their steady escalation, temperatures across most of the earth will rise to levels with no recorded precedent by the middle of this century, researchers say.” Notice here how Grimes writes “temperature will rise” and not “temperature is rising“. He is telling us not look at the current model performance, but to just wait another 40 years. He has to do this because all the models have been dead wrong. And what Grimes fails to understand is that if the models are wrong today, then they can’t be used for the future. In fact neither Grimes nor any scientist has even a single scrap of data that would allow them to predict the future. It’s all scenario and speculation.

Misinterprets the warming stop as “bleak”

He writes: “The findings are bleak, but not unexpected.” False. The findings are unexpected. Not a single IPCC model got the temperatures for the last fifteen years correct. All overstated the temperature rise. So this is good news and certainly not “bleak”. Only psychologically abnormal persons would not feel some sense of relief. The stop in temperature rise is unexpected and thus can be nothing but good news – period.

Obsessive catastrophe wishers

Clearly Grimes comes across as an obsessive and irrational catastrophe-wisher. No data, news, or even therapy, are going to change the mindset of the obsessive alarmists. They seem to have an acute, unexplainable allergy to the bearers of good news, especially from “publications like the Daily Mail, the Wall Street Journal and numerous Murdoch press.” All good news that gets presented absolutely has to be defeated.

Grimes denies real data, embraces model scenarios

Grimes also accuses the skeptics of denialism, claiming they are practicing a “stubborn and persistent refusal to acknowledge what the evidence shows beyond all reasonable doubt.” All we can say here is that Grimes only needs to look at the performance of the models, storm statistics, Antarctic sea ice trends, the missing tropospheric hot spot, and especially the ABANDONED hockey stick. Who’s really in denial? Which scientists are puzzled by the missing heat and are scrambling to make up excuses for it?

Alarmist journalists qualified, skeptic ones not?

In his rant, Grimes gripes about the skeptic politicians and press, even attacking columnists James Delingpole and David Rose for challenging the science and claiming they have “no qualification to do so.” Such a stupid argument. Delingpole and Rose are just as qualified to challenge the science as Grimes and Borenstein are qualified to endorse it. In the end data decide, and not the scientists with the longest resumes. This guy went to Oxford?

Concedes complexity that skeptics claimed for years

Grimes also hints that climate science is too complex to be decided by the public: “Climate is a deeply complex system, not a simple thermostat.” Unfortunately this is not what the alarmist climate scientists told us for more than 20 years. In fact they told us just the opposite: Climate and global temperature boil down to the concentration of trace gas CO2. Even Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber said so on camera. And all their simple climate models told us the same. It is us skeptics who have been telling the world that the climate is far more complex and that the simple CO2-global temperature correlation was preposterous. And now that there has not been any warming in 15 years, the alarmists are now finally waking up and coming around to this reality.

Calls for anger, emotionalization have no place in science

Grimes is emotional and frustrated, and thus cannot be taken seriously anymore. His scientific understanding has been fatally compromised by his increasingly emotional state. Calls for mob anger and emotionalization have no place in science.

Finally Grimes writes: “Worse than this, depleting ice-sheets increase tectonic and volcanic activity as the confining loads on these systems are stripped away, increasing seismic activity.”

Now that I’m done laughing, to this I can only say that it amazes me that Oxford University would actually graduate people capable of such flaming nonsense. Grimes actually confuses far-fetched raw hypotheses as settled science.

From a science point a view, Grimes offers nothing. All we can do is give him high marks for entertainment. His behavior is exactly what us skeptics were looking forward to seeing from the spoiled elitist losers 10 years ago when were pretty sure we were going to win this debate. The entertainment begins.

Photo David Grimes, Twitter

 

7 responses to “Irish Times David Robert Grimes Foams At The Keyboard…Mounting Frustration Now On The Verge Of Anger”

  1. DirkH

    “And what Grimes fails to understand is that if the models are wrong today, then they can’t be used for the future.”

    Yes. Such a trivial fact and yet the warmists ignore it.

    “Only psychologically abnormal persons would not feel some sense of relief.”

    Normal does not mean rational. I hold he is irrational, yet normal. Normal people defend their beliefs without regards to the rationality of doing so.

    Grimes: “Climate is a deeply complex system, not a simple thermostat.”

    That is the *skeptic* argument; and the reason that the models fail. Well, you said so already.

    Grimes: ” “publications like the Daily Mail, the Wall Street Journal and numerous Murdoch press.” ”

    He doesn’t even know that WSJ *is* a Murdoch publication? If he knew he would write “and numerous OTHER Murdoch publications.”

  2. Jonathan Dickson

    What an ignorant man. He is probably quite unaware of just how ignorant he is.

  3. Walter H. Schneider

    Pierre, “The stop in temperature rise is unexpected and thus can be nothing but good news -” that depends on what we consider to be optimal, and that, in turn, depends on what areas of the globe will be affected by warming or cooling.

    Given that not all that long ago the area where I live (Central Alberta, Canada) was covered by thousands of meters of ice, the thought that the end of the Holocene is about 500 years overdue and may be coming any time soon is not all that attractive.

  4. geoff Chambers

    Grimes isn’t just a graduate, he’s a a postdoctoral researcher in radiation biology at Oxford University. I don’t find him at all entertaining, but rather worrying.
    Add the Greenpeace ad of a juvenile hoody threatening:
    “Either you’re for my future – or you’re against it, a friend – or you’re an enemy. I may just be a kid today, but tomorrow will be different. This is the last time I’ll be talking to you adults. You’ve had your chance to fix this problem, now we have ours. We won’t be cute.”
    http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2013/10/24/greenpeaces-menacing-angry-kid/
    and John Ashton, “top climate diplomat” talking at the Royal Society about “Reality and its enemies: climate change and its implications for the contract between science” and you start to see a pattern – zero tolerance of dissent.

  5. John F. Hultquist

    David Robert Grimes seems to be an amateur at deriving unjustified conclusions from minimal information and great leaps of imagination.

    I can show him how it is done:
    A large ice mass, the Puget Lobe of the Fraser Glaciation – Vashon stade, reached its greatest extent about 14,000 years ago. Then it melted and at 10,000 years ago the lowland was clear of this heavy load of ice. Then a massive earthquake happened and a tsunami raced across the Pacific Ocean and hit Japan.
    ~ ~ ~
    The above is true. Well, I did leave out the time of the earthquake – late January 1700. That’s just a mere 12,300 years. I’m not sure what ice-sheet melting Mr. Grimes is worried about but neither he nor I will be around for the presumed seismic activity. In fact the Cascadia Subduction Zone goes off on a much shorter interval than the glaciations. I fail to see the linkage in such things that Mr. Grimes thinks is there.