The Irish Greens have apparently been annihilated in the country's elections, with the party losing all of its six seats.
Nothing like a bit of recession to concentrate minds on economic realities.
(H/T Don Pablo)
Booker looks at the involvement of the reinsurance industry in keeping the global warming thing alive, and quotes favourably from Willis Eschenbach's article at WUWT on the subject of Nature's recent article purporting to link flooding to global warming (which I confess I missed, but will now devote some time to).
When your results represent the output of four computer models, fed into a fifth computer model, whose output goes to a sixth computer model, which is calibrated against a seventh computer model, and then your results are compared to a series of different results from the fifth computer model, but run with different parameters, in order to show that flood risks have increased from greenhouse gases…” you cannot pretend that this is “a valid representation of reality”, let alone “a sufficiently accurate representation of reality to guide our future actions”.
You may remember that my Climategate Inquiries report was recently translated into Italian, and was published by a Turin-based think tank. Today I picked up my name being mentioned on Italian blog and I decided to get a machine translation. It was well worth it, because this must be one of the funniest pieces about my work to date.
The author appears to be a science writer and journalist called Mark F. Let's take a look at what he has to say - this is a machine translation tidied up by me. I think it's right though...
I very much enjoyed last night's lecture by Rob Wilson and it was good to have a couple of chats with him, both before and after the talk. I found him both charming and very engaging. He even gave my own lecture a plug, which was very kind.
Although aimed at a lay audience, Rob managed to squeeze a lot of science into the talk, and I particularly enjoyed the bits about non-climatological uses of tree rings, which is not an area I knew much about.
The press may be reporting that the Commerce Department investigation has given NOAA a clean bill of health, but Senator Inhofe is not so sure. In a press release yesterday he suggested that further investigation is required:
I want to thank the Inspector General for conducting a thorough, objective, and balanced investigation," Inhofe said. "NOAA is one of the nation's leading scientific organizations. Unfortunately, in reading past the executive summary, this report shows that some NOAA employees potentially violated federal contract law and engaged in data manipulation. It also appears that one senior NOAA employee possibly thwarted the release of important federal scientific information for the public to assess and analyze. Her justification for blocking the release was contradicted by two career attorneys in the Office of General Counsel. This is no doubt a serious matter that deserves further investigation.
"Also, the IG recommended that certain NOAA-related emails ‘warrant further investigation,' so I will be following up to ensure taxpayer dollars are being spent according to federal law, and that the public will get access to the science NOAA produces."
Steve Connor, the science editor of the Independent has published an email exchange with Freeman Dyson. I was more struck by what Connor said than Dyson's thoughts. This for example:
As you know these [climate] models are used by large, prestigious science organisations such as Nasa, NOAA and the Met Office, which use them to make pretty accurate predictions about the weather every day. The scientists who handle these models point out that they can accurately match up the computer predictions to real climatic trends in the past, and that it is only when they add CO2 influences to the models that they can explain recent global warming.
And how are the predictions made by these models turning out, Mr Connor?
There is a climate conference this weekend at Edinburgh. Speakers include Gabi Hegerl.
The programme can be seen here. It looks to me like a "gee up the activists" kind of thing, so I don't think I will be missing much.
(H/T Cameron by email)
There is an interview with Bjorn Lomborg here (H/T Chris by email). Anyone who has followed BL in the past will have heard most of it before, but I was struck by his statement that he still recycles.
Just to be clear, you are still green?
Absolutely. Obviously, I still recycle. I don't own a car.
My impression of most recycling is that it is very wasteful of resources, the chief exeption being aluminium. Given that Lomborg's claim to fame is that he checks out the numbers on these issues, I was surprised to see him say what he did.
Am I wrong? Do readers here recycle (if they can help it)?
This from reader Lance:
The Feb 11 Science magazine (v331, p649) states a new journal policy--they will now require that authors archive not only their data on a website (copy to be held at Science) but also their computer codes!
Think of the time and exasperation that Steve McI could have been spared had the journal that published the Hockey Stick had this policy in place.
On the other hand, the world would have lost the "rattlingly good" Hockey Stick Illusion as well.
I almost think that Science has been listening to M&M, WUWT, and Your Grace.
The new policy doesn't appear to be online. It's certainly welcome.
Too busy to post much, but there are a few interesting postings around the place that are worth a look.
Another month, another Climategate investigation. The Office of Commerce has found not wrongdoing among NOAA staff - although there is much of interest. The Office of Commerce report is here and deserves careful study. McIntyre has started looking at the details. News coverage here and here.
Leading insurer RSA has said that it's not clear that weather is any more volatile. Good news for sceptics, reckons the Evening Standard.
And, saving the worst till last, Richard Black's standards have sunk lower than even I thought possible.