Deniers and Believers

Just  a quick blog on some interesting observations today.  When this machine’s harddrive went down, I lost a ton of data.  Very oddly, the hd is partially bootable and I just at this moment realized that despite the fact that the laptop has only one drive bay, the SATA interface can be plugged into my primary machine at work. Perhaps I can recover my data after all.  Anyway, that’s slowing down my messing around with temp data but I have a really cool post from NicL where he used regularized regression with UAH and ground data to create a global trend. He asked me to wait until the morning for that though.

———-

From this link.

Skepticism is an honest search for knowledge. It is an approach to claims akin to the scientific method. It is a powerful and positive methodology (a collection of methods of inquiry) that is used to evaluate claims and make decisions. It is used to search for the (provisional) truth in matters and to make decisions that are based on sound reasoning, logic, and evidence. Skepticism is based on a simple method: doubt and inquiry. The idea is to neither initially accept claims nor dismiss them; it’s about questioning them and testing them for validity. Only after inquiry does a skeptic take a stance on an issue.

Today, I was thinking about skeptics.  After all, there are many writings around the internet discussing how climate sceptics are disorganized and don’t have a central point of belief, or consensus of message about which they congregate.    It’s a beautiful argument for those who don’t understand what makes a skeptic but as a questioning skeptical person, the answer is pretty obvious.  Ya’ can’t force a natural skeptic into a consensus (thus the URL), however, you can convince them of your position once you’ve laid out  your case in complete enough detail.

Rubber Stamp

Nature editor resigned from the unbiased and independent investigation of CRU.  Putting Phil Campbell (editor of Nature)on the CRU investigation panel was ridiculous from the beginning as he’s made his opinions known well before the “investigation”.   The panel bills itself as:

The independent Review is being led by Sir Muir Russell KCB DL FRSE.

Compare the first and second Phil Campbell quotes in bold below.

// In an interview last year with Chinese State Radio, enquiry panel member Philip Campbell, editor-in-chief of Nature said: “The scientists have not hidden the data. If you look at the emails there is one or two bits of language that are jargon used between professionals that suggest something to outsiders that is wrong.”

Dr Campbell has now withdrawn his membership of the panel, telling Channel 4 News: “I made the remarks in good faith on the basis of media reports of the leaks.

“As I have made clear subsequently, I support the need to for a full review of the facts behind the leaked e-mails.

It’s just another scientists playing politician and despite his necessary resignation, the nomination of this polyscientician shows the bias being intentionally built into the committee. This committee doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in you know where of an unbiased review.

Maybe they should take the associated press’s lead and lock five know-nothing left-biased reporters in a room for 8 hours a day and see what they think of the emails.

Editor of Nature forced to resign from climate review panel – WUWT

Bishop hill

The Team That Can’t Shoot Straight Climate Audit

Himalaya Glaciers as Studied By Local Scientists

In response to a recent guest post by Dr. Bhat and the Glaciergate nonsense by the IPCC.  I had a unique opportunity to ask what the opinions of himself or local scientists were of the state or future Himalayan glaciers.  His reply reminded me very much of the posts here where two state climatologists (George Taylor and Mark Albright) were forced from their jobs recently for presenting real data which did not support the consensus.  I’ve written two posts in the past on that situation.

http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/07/21/snowmen/

http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/07/23/nature-of-consensus-snowmen-ii/

In addition to his email posted below with permission, Dr. Bhat also sent 3 links to pdf’s on the topic which are linked after his letter.  These articles include papers on the state of the local glaciers and explanations of their current conditions.  As is regularly the case in climate science, there are several alternative explanations for the effects being measured and some politics affecting what portion of the science is being reported.

———–

Tributary glaciers that once reached the main valley of Nubra. a, Tributary glaciers withdrawn to cirques and b, Moraine deposits of tributary glaciers along the main valley walls.

Problems With The Precautionary Principle For AGW

Dr. Leonard Weinstein,

.

The idea that we should do something just in case it might warm enough to cause major problems brings up the counter point that we should actually do something in case it cools significantly instead. The reason the choice should favor the precaution for cooling is due to the fact that cooling may have much larger negative effects than warming (at realistic levels). Crop loss due to cooling would cause mass starvation. Warming would possibly cause some groups to relocate from very low-lying areas, or need to build water barriers, but this is far less likely to occur on a short time scale. Increasing glaciers would threaten land, where retreating glaciers would make land available. Human history has indicated that warm periods were generally productive times, and cold times much worse. Since the temperature is presently tending to dropping, and since we are in fact near the end of the present interglacial period (as compared to the several previous ones), worrying about cooling is potentially the far larger problem, especially with a growing population.

?gate

Well it looks like the IPCC was at it again. Up is down in climate science, proxy’s flipped, data chopped, sanity ignored and in this case loss is gain.  Just where did they get their numbers?  Again, I want to make the point written so many times here.  There are 3 working groups to the IPCC. Each of them MUST have a pre-determined conclusion in order for funding to flow in the organization.   It’s so simple.  The answers to the 3 groups are global warming is real and man made, global warming is dangerous, and global warming is difficult and expensive to fix.  Without those answers the whole debacle crashes.  This example was just the efforts of hard working bureaucrats making sure the problem was dangerous and expensive.

So it begs the question—Which gate would this be?

Guest post from Climatequotes.  Click the title to link to his blog.

———-

IPCC burned on claim of wildfires affecting Canadian tourism

In the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment report, section 14.2.7 Tourism and recreation of WGII, they make the following claim (emphasis mine):

“Climate variability affects many segments of this growing economic sector [Tourism]. For example, wildfires in Colorado (2002) and British Columbia (2003) caused tens of millions of dollars in tourism losses by reducing visitation and destroying infrastructure (Associated Press, 2002; Butler, 2002; BC Stats, 2003).”

Lets look at the references they cited. Associated Press, 2002 is referenced as:

Wishful Thinking

A little humor from De Smog Blog copied in full without permission below.  The author is clearly one of those who missed the fact that even the wildly biased NAS panel agreed with Wegman’s findings.  h/t Tom Fuller – link on right.  I don’t rely on panels myself but rather rely on my own understanding.  Unfortunately the majority of activists have little of that.  The post is full of unsubstantiated accusation but that’s ok because without it, it just wouldn’t be as funny.

Click the big title below to see the original.

—–

Wegman’s Report Highly Politicized – and Fatally Flawed

AGW: Restoring courtesy to the debate

Guest post – Lucy Skywalker aka Anne Stallybrass.

——————-

AGW: Restoring courtesy to the debate

When a situation has become so fraught, so polarized, that communication between opposing sides breaks down, “mediators” can be called in to set up a process that can enable and allow all parties to feel that they have been heard fairly. Recent engagement at WUWT with Roger Harrabin of the BBC suggests clearly to me a breakdown in communication, with all sides feeling misrepresented. I want to take the line among skeptics that Roger and the BBC are “innocent until proven guilty”, but to do so, I would ask for some conditions for courtesy’s sake. For not only does extra care with courtesy enable disputes to be resolved; I have discovered a surprise: courtesy is the best facilitator for scientific understanding itself to develop. In addition, many of the best scientists suffer from Asperger’s Syndrome (as did Einstein and Newton). Classically, this condition gives passion for Truth to the point of obsession with a narrow field of interest, and difficulty with “normal” human interactions and communicating skills. Thus the Aspies are likely to do the most brilliant science, but they seldom end up as heads of departments, let alone media reporters. They are the ones who understand crucial details that reporters fail to grasp or even to recognize as significant. I know because I had the condition, and still retain many habits developed to cope with that experience.

Model 2010 Human

It is the Air Vent and sometimes you have to let it out. I’ve got some guest posts to run today when I get time but in the meantime, some more lies from the world of science. I’m not a smoker, smoking is bad for your health, but third hand smoke is not a detectable effect and without even reading the paper everyone can tell  —- it is a lie!  It’s a flat out full of bull, unabashed lie.  And make no mistake, it comes right from the same politically progressive people who say they want you to be free.  They say they want equality for everyone.  They claim this is the path to utopia.  However, there is a teenie tiny price  — you MUST  live in the exact mold they prescribe.  You will:

A. Montford, Interviewed by the Register.

Cool interview with Andrew Montford.  – Check out his book, it’s excellent and will be added to the left of this blog next to the Climategate book by Mosher and Fuller, when I get time.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/02/08/andrew_montford_interview/

Precautionary Principle

This is the kind of thinking which get’s us down the wrong path.  The precautionary principle from Wiki stated below:

The precautionary principle states that if an action or policy has suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of a scientific consensus that harm would not ensue, the burden of proof falls on those who would advocate taking the action. Effectively, this principle allows policy makers to make discretionary decisions in situations where there is evidence of potential harm in the absence of complete scientific proof. The principle implies that there is a responsibility to intervene and protect the public from exposure to harm where scientific investigation discovers a plausible risk in the course of having screened for other suspected causes. The protections that mitigate suspected risks can be relaxed only if further scientific findings emerge that more robustly support an alternative explanation. In some legal systems, as in the law of the European Union, the application of the precautionary principle has been made a statutory requirement.

I’ve seen several writings lately on the creating green jobs lie.  Now keep in mind, I am president and owner of a green company and as such should have a bias.  But as a small business of less than 100 employees, our company doesn’t have the sway with government officials to receive the breaks and incentives.  What’s more, we, like any honest business, recognize that our customers buying power determines our sales to a large extent.  Adding cost to energy, necessarily and absolutely will affect the cost of every single product on the planet, everything.  This is a reduction in buying power which will separate further the haves and have nots.  I plan to be on the have side of the line, but if our costs go up, our sales will go down from where they could have been.  Across the world economy limiting policies will result in less purchasing and less consumption and of course LESS jobs.

Tough Times

Ok, this is a bit difficult to blog on b/c it deals with a man so emotionally distraught but it’s very difficult to have sympathy for him. The same guy who would hide the decline, claim he didn’t, delete IPCC emials, claim he didn’t, write that he would rather delete temperature data than let people see it. He’s now had several death threats and was thinking of killing himself – all this occurred because he would not let people see the thermometer data. I doubt that a terrorist cell could create such loyalty.

I am sorry this cocky arrogant bastard is having such a tough time, but gee doc — all you had to do was share the damned data – and stop lying!

Those who have focused on Phil Climategate Jones, have misplaced their anger. Phil is guilty as hell for sure, but a lot of people around him knew it. They are also guilty. What’s more, I predict they will continue to be guilty over the coming years, having no remorse or punishment whatsoever for that which they fabricate. Instead the international climate business, which has been structured to reward exaggerations, will continue on unabated but perhaps more cautious. All that said, Phil can’t leave the group soon enough though, a few decades away from the stress of collecting and disclosing data would do him some good.

Click the headline below for the full article.

————-

I thought of killing myself, says climate scandal professor Phil Jones

THE scientist at the centre of the “climategate” email scandal has revealed that he was so traumatised by the global backlash against him that he contemplated suicide.

Travels in Europe-Part 1

Guest post by Tony Brown

—–

This is the view from the hill above my house circa 1890. It overlooks the town of Teignmouth on England’s South West coast, where a fascinating parade of characters have lived over the centuries.

Figure 1 View of Teignmouth, Devon http://www.oldukphotos.com/devon_teignmouth.htm

The question today is which of them should we follow in our next excursion into historic climate change, as evidenced by instrumental temperature records?

From my window I can see the landing place of the last invasion of England by a foreign power which destroyed the town in 1690 -a cannonball from the bombardment was found just a few months ago. Its location in French Street tells us who the culprits were. Central England Temperature (CET) during that year was a distinctly chilly 8.92C (although the South West would be markedly warmer due to the influence of the Gulf Stream and prevailing South Westerly winds).

Climatequotes, at it again.

This was just sent to me by email.  Click the title and give him a comment or two for support..

———–

IPCC bases claim of 1.3 billion agricultural workers on news article, changes title

It is now clear that the IPCC has made several factual errors in their Fourth Assessment Report. The Himalayan glaciers will not melt by 2035, and more than half of the Netherlands are not below sea level. I may have found another error. If it is not an error, it is certainly some very sloppy work.

In AR4, WGIII, section 8.4.5 Potential implications of mitigation options for sustainable development:

“Agriculture contributes 4% of global GDP (World Bank, 2003) and provides employment to 1.3 billion people (Dean, 2000).”

That is a fairly specific number, 1.3 billion. What census, survey, or study did they cite that came up with this number? Dean, 2000 is referenced as:

Dean, T., 2000: Development: agriculture workers too poor to buy food. UN IPS, New York, 36 pp.

The UN IPS is the United Nations Inter Press Service. They cited a news article. This article was difficult to find, but I did get it.

Interestingly enough, the actual title of the article is different than the IPCC’s reference. The title is “Agriculture Workers Too Poor to Buy Food, Say Unions“. Here it is also referenced with the ‘say unions’ ending. But the IPCC’s reference drops the ‘say unions’ from the end. If you search for this article on IPS’ site, you get to see a link to the article with the title. It includes ‘say unions’. Is this an intentional omission of a reference to unions, or just sloppy work? Here is the article, see for yourself:

Dr. Pachauri is the product of subprime world polity

Guest post by Dr. Ismael Bhat Professor & Head,  Department of Geology & Geophysics, University of Kashmir

Dr. Bhat has a better understanding of the the IPCC Pachauri situation and mood of the Indian people than I.  In this post, he’s expressed strong views not only toward the Pachauri but the IPCC and the state of world government in general.  Although his writing style is different, it’s hard for me to read and not keep saying yup, um yup, yup.   The world has gone mad, and it’s in large part the peoples  fault for the leaders we elect and the systems we support.

You reap what you sow.

—————

M. I. Bhat

bhatmi at hotmail dot com

The exposure of scam after scam in such a short time has struck climate model ramp like a desert storm. The international super- model has crashed. The Head of the IPCC, Pachauri, stands undressed with the meltdown of his make-up in the torrid atmosphere created by the exposure of these scams. Skeptics are busy making exhibition of the used make-up and smearing it in dirt (after Russian Yamal brew, it is now Chinese herbs!). The ramp is suddenly deserted. There is none to catwalk the ramp and make a GW/CC statement. But then it had to happen. Fake art sells with ignorant only. Take it to the experts, you know it is junk. That is exactly what happened with IPCC report and its models. Ugly figures to the core covered under tons of make-up creams.

But climate models need not loose heart. News just in is that Vivid Entertainment is setting up a new ramp that should allow them much more than a catwalk. The news precisely is that “Vivid Entertainment has bought the film rights to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.” The film promises new (or real?) meaning to terms “Working Group 1, Working Group 2 and Working Group 3” and entirely “new interpretation” to peer-review process. Obama administration too should be happy: No more demand for bail out from this quarter! So a brand new and wide open opportunity for the international supermodel, his make-up (hockey stick) team and the whole lot of national/back street climate models to exhibit/sell off their wares.

There is just one likely hitch to this enterprise, though. The news comes, as it does, soon after the release of Pachauri’s novel, ‘Return to Almorah.’ Writing in the Telegraph, Robert Mendick and Amrit Dhillon find the novel “smutty.” I am afraid skeptics might cry ‘clash of interests’ here too. I would advise them to try to see the positive in it. Going beyond the IPCC’s latest guidelines, Vivid enterprise altogether eliminates need for chemicals to disinfect boots and clothes, be the climate models catwalking the ramp in Antarctica or anywhere on the globe! After all, who isn’t against use of too many chemicals, alarmist or skeptic? Moreover, I have the interest of my local, back street climate models in sight who, at a huge cost to us taxpayers, had just begun to learn their first catwalk steps on the Working Group II ramp.

Id’s Out

Detectives question climate change scientist over email leaks

An article about the emails at the guardian where some guy Patrick Condon is featured. I received a surprise call at home from a reporter David Leigh asking for Patrick this weekend, and was told my info was easy to find. I tried to find it myself for a twenty minutes without success, so I at this point I don’t believe the reporter. I asked him to use Jeff, which is my middle name and the one I use, and also the one everyone knows me by. I thought it important just to limit the warminista nutjobs on my porch, but apparently my polite request was declined. So just about everything is known about me now and I do consider it a risk. My only comfort now is that the crazies out there typically aren’t as well armed as I, and they typically have a more even temper

The article linked above discusses why Paul Dennis would have leaked the emails. I don’t believe Paul’s work is as skeptical as described, the paper he sent was referencing Steig et al’s Antarctic warming study and heavy warming trends in the peninsula region. Again, there is no way Paul was the one who released the emails which were pre-collected in a group on a backup server. Paul, as a paleoclimatologist, would have known that at least this one file which was pointed out by the hacker/releaser wasn’t news. – “0939154709.txt * Osborn: we usually stop the series in 1960″