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.