The Politicians of Fryentology

Anthony Watts is already covering this but I’ve been in a mood lately.  Climate ‘scientists’ are recommending rationing as a method for reducing CO2 output.

As the world meets in Cancun, Mexico for the latest round of United Nations talks on climate change, the influential academics called for much tougher measures to cut carbon emissions.

I”m not kidding, listen to this genius.

Wiki-liars

UPDATE AGAIN:  HuMcCulloch left this link in the thread below.  Larry Sanger, cofounder of Wikipedia says:

“The very problem with WikiLeaks, in my opinion, is that it’s irresponsibly dangerous,” Sanger said.

Check the full story in the link above.

UPDATE:  Steve McIntyre has posted his take on the issue and Ross McKitrick left this on the Climate Audit thread.

Ross McKitrick

Posted Nov 30, 2010 at 10:55 AM | Permalink | Reply

What a pair of blowhards. They were obviously unnerved by the question. They evidently like leaks that embarrass their political opponents, but in this case they found themselves tagged with a leak that had damaged the side they like; and since it seems to be more about political warfare against governments they dislike than some impartial ideal of transparency and freedom of information, they were stuck scrambling to make up a story about how it really served some nobler purpose. Of course they should simply have said that they weren’t the source of the leak, that it was in full circulation long before anyone looked to them for a copy and they didn’t know much about the details of what followed. But that would have been too humble, especially in front of a room full of simpering hero-worshippers. So they pretended to be insiders and proceeded to deliver a few minutes of sheer drivel.

While I was in the UK last fall, there was brief interest by the UK tabloids in the Russian angle, and an article appeared in the Daily Mail speculating that Russian intelligence officials had hacked the UEA and stolen the emails. But nobody took that line seriously and the story died within 48 hours. If Assange has a shred of evidence to support his lunatic theory he should release it. What’s with these secret communications between him and UK intelligence: out with it, Mr Wikileaks! Bloody poser.

On this issue at least they are nothing but fakes and cretins. Saying that UEA released all the background emails and whatnot to provide the full context is beyond idiocy; and Assange’s discussion of the “trick” is just painful to watch.

When Did Arctic Warming Start?

Guest Post By Arnd Bernaerts as previously posted by Verity Jones at Digging in the Clay.

Introduction

Figure 1.

The posting “Mapping global warming” (Jan. 18, 2010 by “KevinUK”) demonstrated convincingly that “much of the claimed global warming is hardly global at all. In fact it looks to be more accurately Northern Hemisphere warming, and for that matter primarily Northern Hemisphere WINTER warming!”. With interesting access to data and maps it is an enjoyable read, confirming that since 1880 there had been four distinct warming/cooling time periods i.e. from 1880 to 1909 (cold), 1910 to 1939 (warm)[1], 1940 to 1969 (cold) and 1970 to 2010 (warm). From the dates given, I would like to object the date 1909/10, which should not be considered as the change from a cold to a warm period, as this happened some years later towards the end of the decade beginning in 1910, between 1916 to 1920, presumably in winter 1918/19. Figure 1 reflects the situation from 1921 to 1930 (Details in the figures in the annex). Does it matter if we are precise in this respect? The answer is clearly yes. The more precisely a shift from a warm to cold period, and the region where it occurred is identified, the more it might be possible to identify the cause. For this reason the following discussion is about the start of the first pronounced warming period after the end of the Little Ice Age, which actually commenced as an Arctic warming, primarily close to the Fram Strait region.

Cancun’s Anti-Xmas

Cancun, the UN political scientists will take yet another shot to scam the public into solving climate change through limitation of usage.  Again, the fact that no evidence for man made climate change has reached any degree of certainty but worse yet they will again ignore the only option which can have any effect.  Nuclear power.

Scam’s for fools.

Frank’s view – find the decline

Frank whomever on another thread wrote this:

“So after you go around calling the CRU “a bunch of liars and scam artists” — based on nothing but innuendo — you have the temerity to lecture me on “calling names”?”

Actually I said they look like a bunch of liars and scam artists to me, but perhaps we should help Frankie figure out what CRU may have done wrong? He also ‘warned’ that he may mock me.

Of course, you’re perfectly free not to follow this advice, but in that case I’m also free to mock you in every way I can. Consider yourself warned.

It’s like he’s never read here before.   Yes I do have the ‘temerity’ Dr. Frank.  I also have little patience for those who would deny the shenanigans of CRU.

Apocalypse Soon

From Verity Jones digging in the clay  — Guest post by EDMH

We definitely need more so if anyone has something, let me know.   Jeff

————–

I have been reading a book which is crucially interesting and which sadly bode ill for the future, particularly for our children and our children’s children.
“Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air” by Professor David J C Mackay, see:

UEA boys Busted Again

What would a climate scientist do with data they don’t like?

Delete it.

Muir Russel report caught red handed deleting evidence of climate scientists being caught red handed manipulating the game.

Read the truth at Bishop Hill because you ain’t gonna get it from the main-stream climate propagandists.

They sure look like a bunch of liars and scam artists to me.  Busted again.

How a Scientific Integrity Act Could Shift the Global Warming Debate

This is the first guest post I received.  It looks like several others have volunteered over the next few days.  My thanks to everyone planning to help out.

Jeff

——–

By Sean M O’Brien

Up until now, peer review has been held up as the gold standard in scientific discourse. Recent developments in the climate science arena, such as Climategate, have led many to conclude that peer review is not all that it is cracked up to be. Having said that, peer review may well be perfectly adequate as a scientific standard when the issues in debate are the mating habits of squirrels. However, if the issue in debate is whether or not trillions of dollars should be spent combating global warming, perhaps a new more rigorous standard should be applied.

No time at all

As you may have noticed, there haven’t been a lot of posts lately.  Over the past several weeks, I’ve become more and more busy with work.  Now I’m working every night and weekend at home, the result of course is that I’m way too busy to play around with technical blogging. You may have noticed the trend away from my own technical posts as things became more busy over the last several weeks, that is just time becoming more scarce.  I really want to mess with Ljungqvist data some more, would very much enjoy one more crack at Mann08 and have some Antarctic stuff I want to do as well but there just isn’t time right now.  It’s unlikely that I will have any time for this stuff in the next few weeks either.

So, this is a formal invite to anyone who would like to help out and keep tAV going over the next few weeks to create guest posts on any topic related to climate.   As you know agreement politically or on climate is not a requirement for tAV (disagreement is preferred), so if you have something to write send me an email.

It sure is nice to have a spot to let the pressure of an insane world out.  I wonder what will happen if I don’t blog for a while?  Maybe I’ll crack!  I do have two book reviews to write up on a couple of excellent books you should know about and some time over Thanksgiving but we’ll see what gets done.

 

 

Climategate Anniversary

By John Pittman

On 11/28/2009, JeffID graciously posted an article of mine https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/28/context-2/#more-6449 . Now that the anniversary is approaching, I wanted to go back and look at some items of interest including a couple of predictions I made. I started the article with a comment about the apologists Anne Kelly and George Monbiot reactions to Climategate, and wrote:

Expect others to soon follow trying to downplay what occurred. This development, from just an influence to a catastrophe, will be detailed, and it will show that there will probably be a long line of misleading apologists in the near future.

Talk about an understatement. We have had at least 3 investigations that were so interested in downplaying what occurred, to call them investigations is simply misleading. To show that there are scientific reasons for skepticism regarding temperature reconstructions, I relist some of the more interesting quotes with my bolding.

Climategate, a year of comedy.

It has been almost a year now since the UEA emails known as climategate were revealed.  What has followed has been a year of hilarity as one scandal after another followed.  Just think about how funny it was when Pachuri (head of the IPCC) published his sex book, Mann publishing one self exonerating editorial after another all to try and prevent Cuccinelli from getting the other 12,000 emails publicly released.  Just how did the IPCC accidentally transpose the time when the Himalayan glaciers would vanish from 2350 to 2035 and fail to change it when notified (don’t worry the glaciers will be there in 2350 and in 2035 becaus these guys  don’t really know).  “Scientific”Applause for Chavez’s hitleresque anti-capitalist rant in Copenhagen!  hahaha. I’ve been laughing almost daily as these guys trip over themselves trying to make the case for global CO2 governance.  The politicians are starting to realize that the whole topic is poison for their careers and if nothing else, climategate has had the fortunate effect of at least slowing the implementation of stupidity.

Green energy which costs you more to ‘create’ jobs.  How insane a world, and how funny when the politicians realize they can’t push that lie on the public.  Nobody in America believes that anymore, well at least not as many.

Blackboard on Eq 34

The M10 hurricane paper discussion is continuing now at the blackboard.  I haven’t mentioned it much but I do consider it one of the best examples of blog based science on the internet.  As usual, I’m way way too busy to have fun, but the discussion has lapsed into the derrivation of eq 34 which is what Nick initially brought up when the paper was first being discussed here.

Link here.

Hide the Incline!

UPDATE: I’m totally wrong!

I understood some of the images as being after the event. Look though at the diffusion of the contrail in the shot below where the plane is still glowing at the top.The contrail behind had a long time to diffuse so this is not  a missile.

OOPS!  It takes only one image to disprove a theory!  At least it was fun.

——–

A missile plane was launched off our coast today, in case you are new here, I’m an aeronautical engineer.  I’ve watched rockets and planes my whole life.  Today a mysterious missile was launched off the California coast which was very disconcerting.    The pentagon is calling it everything except what it was.

No US agencies are claiming responsibility

Col. Dave Lapan, a Pentagon spokesman, told reporters the video is so far “unexplained” by anyone in the U.S. Military.

Multiple sources are giving false potential explanations while couching their words but this video should kill the whole plane concept outright…

Rain on the blackboard

Lucia has an interesting post on condensation at the blackboard.  Now that I’m understanding Anastassia’s claims better, I’m not sure this relates at all to her work but that doesn’t stop it from being interesting.

Link here if you’re interested.

He’s a Denier

Coming up on a year since Climategate and Minnesotans for Global Warming has a new song commemorating the event.

The denier mantra doesn’t bother me as much as some, it doesn’t describe skeptics anyway.

H/T Brian H.