Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« Ward off - Josh 367 | Main | The slow, green way to recycle »
Wednesday
Apr132016

Uncharted - Josh 366

Climate super sleuth Brandon Shollenberger discusses a strange climate expertise chart over on his blog which made us wonder about what kind of other data might be lurking down the dimmest corridors of climate science. Brandon and Anthony helped with locating the data points.

Cartoon by Josh

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (167)

A handy cut out and keep reference guide. Thank you.

Apr 13, 2016 at 10:23 PM | Unregistered CommenterJack Savage

Good to see that climate science has now got a graph to calibrate predetermined guesswork, against something or other, not quite so tekkyniggle.

97% of climate scientists want another payrise, based on their calculations of underperformance related pay.

Apr 13, 2016 at 10:38 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

No Phil Jones, or even M. Mann. Are they off the scale? Or is the chart merely a 2D projection of a multi dimensional space and they are lost within?

Apr 13, 2016 at 10:51 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Kendall

No Phil Jones, or even M. Mann. Are they off the scale? (Oh yes I see Mann is where I predicted). Or is the chart merely a 2D projection of a multi dimensional space and they are lost within?

Apr 13, 2016 at 10:57 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Kendall

lol. Classic. Make it a framed print and I will buy it.

Apr 13, 2016 at 11:01 PM | Unregistered Commenterhunter

Alan Kendall

Given that the "Nobel laureate" Mann's idea of "scientific method" is to sue anybody who coughs at his climate change denying hockey stick, and given further that he does this at no risk to himself, being funded by a bunch of morons who think that they are thereby "saving the planet", perhaps it is unsurprising that he is not featured.

As for Phil Jones, well, he's just an inconsequential "useful idiot".

Apr 13, 2016 at 11:11 PM | Unregistered CommenterWFC

Alan Kendall,, you have to scroll up to find Mann's level. Unfortunately only a privileged few, know how he got there, or have the access to view the appropriate data.

Apr 13, 2016 at 11:36 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Best ever. Super sophisticated. The data 'explanation' at WUWT is hilarious. A Keeper.
BTW recent globe upside down turned out to be true. Another Keeper.
Many Kudos. Fact based ridicule goes a long way against warmunists.

Apr 14, 2016 at 12:05 AM | Unregistered CommenterRud Istvan

I know Al Gore stretches right across the spectrum...erm or, actually, Al being a mental dwarf, does he just swallow the light?

Apr 14, 2016 at 12:27 AM | Unregistered CommenterAthelstan.

It looks like circular reasoning to me: assume "expert climate scientists" support the consensus, therefore high levels of consensus must signify expertise... (Ruth Dixon).
================================
That figures, climate change™ science is based on apriorism and over time naturally ends up going in circles.

Apr 14, 2016 at 12:39 AM | Unregistered CommenterChris Hanley

The names on that chart belong to some of the most gifted scientists, geniuses by any measure, that have ever existed.

Who else could be in charge of figuring out and solving the greatest existential thread ever faced by humanity?

I rest my case and will now accept your unconditional surrender.

Apr 14, 2016 at 12:59 AM | Unregistered CommenterAyla

Good Gaia
is there any other science that blathers on and on about 'consensus'?
producing contorted 'data' on the consensus as if consensus meant anything
part of my interest in this subject is watching to see how ridiculous this stuff can get
surely a corner will be turned at some point and sanity will prevail?

Apr 14, 2016 at 1:15 AM | Unregistered CommenterJohn Smith

Ayla, your perception is as incisive as a ton of blancmange has evah been. Never before in the fields of pleasant dreams, has so much taxpayer funding been gifted to so few by so many, for Fresh Air.

Paranormal climactic pseance is nearing a crescendo of shrieking psiren calls to action, but nobody is listening any more.

Apr 14, 2016 at 1:30 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

John Smith, in the former USSR there was a consensus of over 97% that Stalin was a fit and decent person. Climate science is examining his techniques, seeking to do better.

Apr 14, 2016 at 1:36 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

You are a good man, dear golf charlie.

Apr 14, 2016 at 2:03 AM | Unregistered CommenterAyla

@ Golf Charlie Apr 14, 2016 at 1:30 AM
I am sure that Ayls is really a comedian (or enne) and is happily extracting the proverbial.
As the say - 'joshing' you.
There that's my tuppence worth.

Apr 14, 2016 at 2:05 AM | Unregistered CommenterDouglas

@ Douglas Apr 14, 2016 at 2:05 AM

Right. Consider yourselves Joshed.

Meanwhile, in other news, the Lysenko Admiration Club will be meeting in Mr. Cook's loo next Wednesday evening.

97% pure, and still it sinks.
========

Apr 14, 2016 at 2:59 AM | Unregistered Commenterkim

I look at Cook's best artwork, and just think of Pollock's. Pollock was rubbish at science aswell.

Apr 14, 2016 at 3:59 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

My apologies for implying Cook did all the work himself. In fact, what did he actually do, with this list of co-Authors to do all the sums for him?

John Cook1,2,3, Naomi Oreskes4, Peter T. Doran5, William R. L. Anderegg6,7, Bart Verheggen8, Ed W. Maibach9, J. Stuart Carlton10, Stephan Lewandowsky11,2, Andrew G. Skuce13, Sarah A. Green12, Dana Nuccitelli3, Peter Jacobs9, Mark Richardson14, Bärbel Winkler3, Rob Painting3, Ken Rice15

Apr 14, 2016 at 4:09 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Brilliant !

I read a research paper in which it was discovered that 99.7% of climate scientists are wage slaves.

James Lovelock on dumbo climate scientists

Sometimes their view might be quite right, but it might also be pure propaganda. This is wrong. They should ask the scientists, but the problem is scientists won't speak. If we had some really good scientists it wouldn't be a problem, but we've got so many dumbos who just can't say anything, or who are afraid to say anything. They're not free agents.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/mar/29/james-lovelock?

Apr 14, 2016 at 4:53 AM | Unregistered Commenteresmiff

I once readied a placard to carry to a small local protest of poetic and literary types over cuts to the National Endowment of the Arts budget, which rally, as it happened, was cancelled over weather worries. My placard:

Tax poets,
Line and rhyme;
Not poor clock slaves
For their time.

An organizer heard, and since she had a sense of humour, was amused.

These poor model slaves,
Super computers all the rave;
Push a button
But don't let on,
Just how much of it you gave.
=====================

Apr 14, 2016 at 5:58 AM | Unregistered Commenterkim

Ayla.

You get the same response as was given during the battle of the bulge (WW2 ", not my anatomy):

"NUTS".

Apr 14, 2016 at 6:14 AM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Kendall

golf Charlie,Apr 14: 1.30. "....but no-one is listening anymore".

Wishful thinking perhaps?

My recent experience viewing the ill-informed on the Guardian's website demonstrated just how many there are. Like the hordes of the undead from Game of Thrones. Not perhaps a perfect analogy because "Winter is coming" and not Thermageddon.

Apr 14, 2016 at 6:34 AM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Kendall

Ayla is not the Messiah, he's just a very naughty boy.

Apr 14, 2016 at 7:56 AM | Unregistered CommenterRoger Tolson

Is Josh in training to be a climate scientist? His correlation line looks suspiciously good.

Apr 14, 2016 at 8:26 AM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Kendall

I particularly like the way the data is all over the place, such that any line could be drawn through it but magically it fits a pre determined viewpoint... EXCTLY like Cook's work and a fair bit of climate science.

Apr 14, 2016 at 9:16 AM | Unregistered CommenterTinyCO2

A journalism version of this for the back of the T shirt?

Apr 14, 2016 at 9:40 AM | Registered Commentertomo

Stern is too low on the Y-Axis.

And the Wherefore-Axis

Apr 14, 2016 at 9:47 AM | Registered CommenterM Courtney

It's not really so surprising that published papers show a concensus when everyone knows that research won't be funded unless it supports the narrative, and papers that don't support the narrative won't get published anyway - as we saw from he ClimateGate papers: remember "...even if we have to redefine what peer-review means..."?

In fact, it's exactly what you'd expect.

Apr 14, 2016 at 10:11 AM | Unregistered CommenterAndrew Duffin

As John Smith points out, real scientists need to spend precisely zero amount of time trying to prove how many of their friends agree with them.

Apr 14, 2016 at 10:41 AM | Unregistered Commentermichael hart

When all of climate science's top brains can produce a 'Join the Dots' picture, that is devoid of any relevance to known science, you know they have given up on trying to justify their salaries any other way.

If you try joining the dots,with a bit of imagination, it almost says "DOH!"

Apr 14, 2016 at 11:09 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Andrew

The actual email from Phil Jones said “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is”

Pretty damning evidence of conspriratorial and biased 'gatekeeping' huh? Bang to rights.

But what's this? This was a private exchange between two scientists, both of whom would have known that neither had the ability to 'redefine' peer review. Could it possibly have been hyperbole?

And what's this? Both papers (McKitrick and Michaels (2004) and Kalnay and Cai (2003)) were cited and discussed in the IPCC report.

You knew that - right? Bit of a rubbish conspiracy. And given that both papers have pretty much sunk without trace, it's just possible that IPCC AR4 would have been better without them in.

Just a thought.

Apr 14, 2016 at 11:13 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Re: Phil Clarke,

Its good to know that you think John Cook's paper is such an excellent piece of scholarly work.

Apr 14, 2016 at 11:18 AM | Unregistered CommenterTerryS

Would have been funnier if Brandon had his foil hat on.

Apr 14, 2016 at 11:21 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

TerryS - Bit of a leap there. I actually agree with this Professor

The consensus is of course in the high nineties. No one ever said it was not. We don’t need Cook’s survey to tell us that.

- Richard Tol.

https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2013/06/10/richard-tols-fourth-draft/#comment-822

Apr 14, 2016 at 11:24 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

TerryS, yes, we should assume that Phil Clarke is endorsing this paper.

Apr 14, 2016 at 11:26 AM | Unregistered CommenterTinyCO2

It's strange that Peter Gleick seems to have had such a radically different set of opinions to his brother James (who has written about chaos theory, the life of Feynman, etc.). Or perhaps that's just a consequence of sibling rivalry.

Apr 14, 2016 at 11:28 AM | Unregistered CommenterIt doesn't add up...

Phil Clark there's another chart with the line going the opposite way this one shows the supports for Environmentalism against UK job losses due to increased UK only Electricity Prices.

Phill call us Denier Conspiracy Theorists all you like we Climate Skeptics don't care but forty thousand British Steel workers losing their jobs we do care about that.

Shutting down Didcott perfectly good Coal Fired Power Station is going to kill lots more than the three demolition workers so far.

Apr 14, 2016 at 12:05 PM | Unregistered CommenterJamspid

Jamspid,

I see your three demolition deaths, and raise you the average 2.5 deaths a day from mining coal, [snip-manners]

Apr 14, 2016 at 12:17 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Phill call us Denier Conspiracy Theorists all you like we Climate Skeptics don't care but forty thousand British Steel workers losing their jobs we do care about that.

There are not 40,000 steel workers in the whole country - that's one of those inflated figures you get by including supply chain and so forth.

What proportion of the cost of steel is energy and what proportion of that cost is due to 'Green' policy measures?

It is a factor, but even if the climate change measures were removed, I find it implausible that the industry could compete with Chinese steel available at 583 EUR/tonne compared to an average EU price of 931 EUR.

Apr 14, 2016 at 12:40 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Phil Clarke, I'll see your 2.5 deaths a day from mining coal and raise you all the lives made possible from the industrial revolution that was built on coal. Millions or billions?

Apr 14, 2016 at 12:44 PM | Unregistered CommenterTinyCO2

but forty thousand British Steel workers losing their jobs we do care about that.

I hope you are not implying that I do not care. Actually there are not 40,000 steel workers in the whole country , that is one of those numbers inflated by including suppliers and so forth. Whatever, I think the industry is going to have to shed capacity over the next few years , but green energy costs are a relatively small part of the reasons.

I would be interested to know what you think the proportion of steel manufacturing costs is energy costs and what proportion of those costs is due to 'green' policies. I get a number less than 3%. I don't deny it is a factor, but even policy was reversed, I doubt it would make enough of a difference to overcome the huge price disadvantage we have compared to the Chinese.

Steel imports into the UK from the rest of the EU cost on average 897 euros a tonne in 2014, while Chinese steel imports were just 583 euros a tonne, says the EU's statistics agency, Eurostat.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34581945

Apr 14, 2016 at 12:53 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Tiny - so what? I didn't start the shroud-waving.

Apr 14, 2016 at 12:54 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

O/T @Jamspid made a point "there's another chart with the line going the opposite way this one shows the supports for Environmentalism against UK job losses due to increased UK only Electricity Prices."
He backed that up with a for instance "but forty thousand British Steel workers losing their jobs we (skeptics) do care about that."

@PhilClarke set to belittle that, Conspiracy he shouted "There are not 40,000 steel workers in the whole country , that is one of those numbers inflated by including suppliers and so forth."

Well 20,000, 30,000, 50,000 whatever ..We are not talking about a handful of jobs.
researchbriefings.parliament.uk said 2 weeks ago

in 2014
There were 535 businesses in the steel industry
These businesses employed 34,500 people
In any sector there are
#1 Direct jobs
#2 Contractor jobs (most industries now contracted out many of the workers for lower pay and easier sacking) That's why people make dramatic claims about job reductions, even at times when production is the same. And it makes it look like productivity has gone up. No the same bloke is now working for a contractor.
#3 Suppliers, transport co's etc, construction, electrcity industry
#4 Ancillary industries like TarMacadam
#5 Community jobs caused by wage spending of the above
I've worked for Scunthorpe Steel and would say that the 34,500 total only includes #1 and #2 and possibly only #1
cos "Tata's 15,000-strong workforce" and there are other direct steel employers aswell

Apr 14, 2016 at 1:47 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

Phil C:

and raise you the average 2.5 deaths a day from mining coal,

That equates to roughly 912 deaths per year in the mining industry, so I presume your stat relates to global coal mining as last year in the UK there were just 2 deaths:
http://www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/pdf/fatalinjuries.pdf
Most of the deaths that you are harping on about happened in the Chinese mining industry. All the more reason to mine more coal here in the UK, where H and S standards are much higher and those tragic deaths can therefore be avoided. Wouldn't you agree Phil?

Mind you, if you want to play "industry death bingo" you might like to note from the pdf I linked to above that deaths in UK farming were 18 times higher than mining. So Phil, going by your shonky logic, should we stop farming food because it is a dangerous industry? How would you be able to buy your vegan champagne?

If you want to look at a really life-threatening and polluting industry, you need to look at rare earth metals mining. Those are the metals that are needed in Phil's beloved 'renewable' energy bat-chompers and bird-fryers:
http://www.news.com.au/travel/world-travel/asia/baotou-is-the-worlds-biggest-supplier-of-rare-earth-minerals-and-its-hell-on-earth/news-story/371376b9893492cfc77d23744ca12bc5
Not so green now, are you Phil?

Apr 14, 2016 at 2:00 PM | Unregistered Commenterdavid smith

Sorry - I forgot that this blog doesn't automatically turn make links 'live'.
I'll use html tags next time!

Apr 14, 2016 at 2:03 PM | Unregistered Commenterdavid smith

Bottom Line : The Lewniverse have come up with a new paper :
- Based on their past record you know it'll be bollocks ..just PR not science
- But Brandon Shollenberger did by accident get to have a sneak preview before explained in video
..He noticed major flaws before
Yeh Well that's expected from having an author list with people like Like Lew, Cook, Dana, Oreskes our ken etc : John Cook1,2,3, Naomi Oreskes4, Peter T. Doran5, William R. L. Anderegg6,7, Bart Verheggen8, Ed W. Maibach9, J. Stuart Carlton10, Stephan Lewandowsky11,2, Andrew G. Skuce13, Sarah A. Green12, Dana Nuccitelli3, Peter Jacobs9, Mark Richardson14, Bärbel Winkler3, Rob Painting3, Ken Rice15

..And then after it was published in a majorly changed way, he still found flaws.
His conservative title :New Consensus Study Proves Its Authors Are Liars
Starting with the way it threw away one of its previous major focuses "James Powell who claims to have shown there is a 99.9% consensus on global warming"

So while claiming to examine the available studies, the authors intentionally exclude results from one study they knew is available then turn around and cite that study to support their views on a different matter. It's obscene.

I can't think of any word to describe this other than "lying."

..and there's more

- Then in a new post he highlights this bogus chart.
yeh well of course ..Their work is mostly BS , so it's only what we expected.

The surprising thing is the science industry really let's itself down by failing to call the Lewniverse out on their bogus papers/propaganda ..in a stupid tribalist manner.

Apr 14, 2016 at 2:13 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

Thanks for confirming that when I wrote (not shouted) There are not 40,000 steel workers in the whole country I was being 100%, spot on, completely and totally correct.

The rest is mostly misrepresentation. Really CBA.

Apr 14, 2016 at 2:23 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

david smith,

Contrary to popular belief, the stuff vegans eat is also produced by farmers.

(Shame on them...)

Apr 14, 2016 at 2:26 PM | Registered Commenterflaxdoctor

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>