the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

Nature of Consensus – Snowmen II

Posted by Jeff Id on July 23, 2009

There are actually a couple of really interesting stories in blogland these days.  From my snowman post, I’ve become interested in exposing how those in power have worked so hard to maintain consensus that people actually lost their jobs as state employees for discussing the DATA!  The stats for the Air Vent picked up an incoming link from this article written by George Taylor Climate scientist who previously held the official position of Oregon State climatologist for DECADES!

The row is over the determination of snow pack in the northwest of the United States, where George Taylor and Mark Albright (two state climatologists) dared present data which did not support the pre-determined conclusion that the ice is melting.  George has some amazingly strong words for the Real Climate scientists as well as Phil Mote, the man who took over his job when George was forced to take early retirement.

From an article presented at ICECAP.

Washington Governor Gregoire recently sent a letter to the Washington House delegation in which she stated that the snow pack has declined 20% over the past 30 years: “Last month, a study released by the University of Washington shows we’ve already lost 20% of our snow pack over the last 30 years.”

Actual snow pack numbers show a 22% INCREASE in snow pack over the past 33 years across the Washington and Oregon Cascade Mountains:

These boys are pissed, and from the outside it seems rightfully so.

Arguing this point made George Taylor, state climatologist for decades in Oregon a target (he took early retirement) and cost the assistant state climatologist in Washington, Mark Albright, his job. Phil Mote, the alarmist professor and author of a discredited work on the western snowpack for the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society doesn’t accept criticism lightly. He ironically was appointed to the state climatologist position George Taylor held in Oregion. It was Phil who fired Mark for challenging his findings. That is the way it is in the university climate world today, real data doesn’t matter so don’t bother to look and if you need to pick and choose carefully. Anyone who disagrees publically and risks funding need look elsewhere for employment.

George shows the 1950 to 1997 trend and the longer term trend analysis for several stations with good records showing no discernible long term trends.

The biggest thing regarding what’s currently happening with these findings is that they are meeting some resistance to publication currently in the Journal of Climate where others apparently don’t want ‘Actual’ data published.  George continues with this blasting of Mann and Steig for their incorrect antarctic work, followed by the RC post which is linked along with the referenced graphs in the snowmen post:

The story doesn’t end there as this post by Jeff ID called SNOWMEN tells, another climate schiester, Eric Steig who made the headline last year when he worked with Michael Mann, the king of data fraud to eliminate the antarctic cooling of the last several decades. Eric chimed in against Taylor and Albright defending Mote and making false or at least uninformed claims about trends. It is clear from Steig’s Real Climate post never even looked at the whole data trends. Jeff correctly notes “These plots are of specific stations, however they demonstrate that at least for the above locations the 1950-1997 trend is a cherry pick, nothing more.”

It’s disgusting that climate science cannot accept even a local report of increased snowpack.  It certainly doesn’t end global warming, climatology can continue on with their claims of doom, however this discovery could have an impact on the flow of federal funds for continued study.

I debated about including this next paragraph because it uses the F word.  I don’t know myself who deserves to make the list presented (excepting my favorite one), the Steig Antarctic paper is not-good but I hesitate to call it fraud.  Rather it looks like bad math, however difficult it seems to accept such obviously inflated trends and present it as a paper in Nature.  Either way, these are VERY strong words from one climatologist to another, and true to form for the Air Vent, I’m not going to pretend they didn’t happen:

Unfortunately this bad analysis has gotten people promoted and been used by state governments to make unwise decisions like supporting the flawed and costly and totally unnecessary WCI (Western Climate Initiative), which Paul Chesser writes about in this American Spectator story here. Climate frauds like Mann, Mote and Steig have a lot to answer for, if the governments measures inflict major pain on the citizens and the globe continues to cool in its natural rythym.

I fully agree that climate scientists need to do a better job and have even seen evidence fraud but climatologists can rest assured that none of them will ever see real punishment by a government seeking ever more power and money.  Several of them will, however,  loose their fame in time as fair minded scientists see the endless holes in their work. It’s my firm belief that Michael Mann will not be known for predicting past temperatures from proxy data in 30 years but rather as ex-influential scientist who prolifically wrote bad math for reasons not stated.  It may not be entirely climatology’s fault that the certainty and consensus of global warming has been obviously exaggerated because the government has implemented a clear system of rewards for certain scientific conclusions and apparently in this case —- punishment for anything less.

Washington Governor Gregoire recently sent a letter to the Washington House delegation in which she stated that the snow pack has declined 20% over the past 30 years: “Last month, a study released by the University of Washington shows we’ve already lost 20% of our snow pack over the last 30 years.”

Actual snow pack numbers show a 22% INCREASE in snow pack over the past 33 years across the Washington and Oregon Cascade Mountains:

14 Responses to “Nature of Consensus – Snowmen II”

  1. Jeff Id said

    I’ll be out for the next few days. There are as usual some cool things planned for next week.

    Have a great weekend!

  2. Mark T said

    Bad math becomes fraud when your errors are pointed out and you choose to ignore them.

    Mark

  3. Carl Gullans said

    Is there really no more to this story? I’ve read the progression of the arguments against Steig’s paper on this site and Climate Audit; you’ve certainly shown that he could have used better methodology in his project, but he appears only to have made honest mistakes. Is Mote in the same boat, or is he in better company with Mann (who I would have no problem calling a fraudster)?

  4. Bob H said

    Stieg unfortunately (for him) had the help and support of Mann and hence is painted with the same brush. I think bad analysis borders on fraud when one is unwilling to apply humility and admit mistakes were made and then to make suitable revisions. Stieg would be best off in the long run to consult Ryan and the Jeff’s to publish a top-notch paper. I see this as the only way he can salvage his reputation in the long run.

    As for the snowpack analysis, the data is there (see my replies in Snowmen), it was selectively picked to give the desired result. That is fraud.

  5. Mark T said

    but he appears only to have made honest mistakes.

    They were honest mistakes. Then he pretended they were not mistakes at all and everyone else just doesn’t “get it”… and then the mistakes became dishonest.
    Mark

  6. Bob H said

    For Stieg, there is still some hope to recover his pride and his reputation from his first antarctic study…amend it based on Ryan’s and the Jeff’s analysis, then expand it to ask why the peninsula is abnormally warm, and search for the cause.

    As to Snowmen, it was a political hack job since the years anayzed and the stations analyzed had to carefully picked. I think this study is beyond hope and certainly will damage the author’s reputation.

  7. Joshua Nieuwsma said

    Well, I’m no climate expert nor have I measured the Cascade snowpack. But since I was a kid nearly every year my family, and more recently myself, have crossed the Snoqualmie pass and always observed the water levels in the reservouir just east of the pass. In the 90’s it was very low. Exceedingly low it seemed to us. Ditto the early 2000’s, though a little higher. But the last 3 years it has been full to the brim every spring. I’ve never seen it so full before. That would lead me to think, at least, that there was a great deal of snowfall in the mountains…

  8. DJA said

    The common definition of fraud requires the fraudster to gain material advantage by deception.
    Obviously there is no material advantage in the actions of these people. Fraud is not the correct word to use. One can however use other words found in Roget for “wrong” and “improbity”. The ones that I regard as appropriate are
    dishonest, lack of principle, laxity, unscrupulousness, disingenousness, untrustworthy, deviousness, unprincipled and unethical.
    No doubt there are many more.

    The Snowmen stories describe “wrong” and “improbity” exceedingly well.

  9. David Jay said

    RE: #8:

    If you are in the climate science community, you DO gain material advantage by contributing to warmist literature and you are materially disadvantaged when you stand against the warmist postion. Only those with tenure can stand against the flow…

  10. Colin Aldridge said

    Greater or smaller snowpack is most likely, IMO, mainly influenced by precipitation except for snow at marginal altitudes. The disapperaing snow at Kilimanjaro being a celebrated example. I am slightly suprised that the AGW enthusiasts haven’t claimed that warmer temperatures = wetter air = more snow = deeper snowpack…. They might actually be right!! I don’t know enough about snowpack distribution by height and winter precipitation trends to judge … but such a study would be informative rather than the one dimensional slanging match described above!!

  11. Page48 said

    RE: #8, “Obviously there is no material advantage in the actions of these people. Fraud is not the correct word to use.”

    Are you kidding?

    What part of “grant funding” do you fail to understand.

    I’m sorry to be so blunt – I’m sure you are a nice person. Naive, though.

  12. DJA said

    Page 48
    We are on the same side here, what part of “dishonest, lack of principle, laxity, unscrupulousness, disingenousness, untrustworthy, deviousness, unprincipled and unethical.” do you disagree with. I didn’t realize that Washington Governor Gregoire was part of the “grant funding”
    However fraud fits than it is a criminal offense , let’s sue the bastards

  13. DJA said

    Page 48,
    Sorry “bastards” is a part of the Australian language and it does not reflect upon ones parentage.

  14. Page48 said

    Re: #13
    Maybe I didn’t read you closely enough. Sorry if I offended!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 140 other followers

%d bloggers like this: