Entries from June 1, 2007 - July 1, 2007
Bishop Hill
Well it's pretty crazy - bombs in London last week, nutters in Glasgow today. Sky is reporting that Blackpool airport is closed and that there is a (pretty questionable IMHO) report on LGF of the evacuation of the Royal Alexandra Hospital in Paisley, where the perpetrators of the Glasgow attack were taken.
The recent attacks appear to have been more or less entirely incompetent - the current bunch appear to be rather less technically adept than the IRA of old. This suggests that the panicked reaction of the government is rather overdone.
Update:
I was wrong - the BBC is confirming the evacuation of the Royal Alex and says that a device was found there. (No story online yet - just a headline in the ticker).
Leave a Comment
Anthony Watts and his volunteers continue to find startling bad practice in the siting of weather stations in the (allegedly) high quality USHCN network. The latest survey, of Waterville, Washington reveals a station with broken slats and peeling paint, and which is located on cinder chippings next to a car park.
This is obviously very embarrassing to the bureaucrats involved. They've retaliated by placing a major barrier in the way of the surveyors. Many weather stations are located at private homes, and surveyors had been telephoning ahead to ask for permission to visit. Our friends in the bureaucracy have now removed the contact details for the site operators from the public database. It's shameless, but was probably to have been expected.
Data integrity (or the appalling lack of it) seems to be a developing theme in the world of climate science. Cloud researcher Robert Maddox points out to problems with RRS (weather balloon) data. Our friends in the bureaucracy have moved the Tucson weather station (to a completely unsuitable location) and at the same time have replaced the instrumentation. This effectively prevents researchers from isolating the two effects. They also haven't been letting on that there are problems with all the new kit.
In the face of Freedom of Information requests, the IPCC has finally put the reviewers comments on the Fourth Assessment Report online. As part of the conditions for looking at the comments they demand that you agree not to reproduce them in part or in full! It's flabbergasting to see the IPCC say that it would be "inappropriate" to show the missing Briffa data (you know, where the tree rings suggested falling temperatures in recent decades). The truth is apparently inappropriate for the IPCC.
I was pondering the usage of the term "climate change" and how it seems to have taken over from "global warming" as a shorthand for the crise-du-jour. Is it really taking over, or have I just imagined it.
After searching around for a suitable tool to test the theory, I discovered that Google News now has an archive facility. This will let you do a search on a particular site and for a particular year. (If anyone knows of a better way to do this, do let me know. Google Trends won't do it because that's searches, not mentions on a site).
This is how things are at the BBC:
Which pretty much confirms what I'd thought. The growth in the BBC coverage is also startling. AGW has been a news issue for a long time now, so it's hard to come up with a rational explanation of these figures that is not conspiratorial.
Then, on the offchance, I thought I'd compare the growth of the total of the two terms in the BBC to all news organisations. This was quite interesting too:
You'll notice that the two lines are plotted on different vertical axes, but what it shows is that the two phrases were relatively more prevalent much sooner at the BBC than they were at other organisations.
So is this evidence of the BBC pushing an agenda? Perhaps. Probably, even. In order to prove it we would have to discount the possibility of a growth in the number of news organisations, or perhaps even the BBC getting having a relatively larger internet presence sooner than its competitors.
Gut feel says that this chart confirms my belief that the BBC has been acting as the publicity arm of the environmental movement.
But if our elected representatives now regard global warming as the greatest threat to the world, the idea that they should ban nothing is a joke. You'll explain to your little boy in 15 years' time, "No, of course we didn't ban anything because we were liberals, we were libertarians ... and we wanted to enjoy ourselves ... Fuck you!"'
"Oh," ministers - of all parties - say. "Encouragement works best." Does it bollocks! Regulation works best: you order them to reduce the salt content of these foods by 50 per cent by next Thursday week ... The whole thing is scandalous, but we've allowed them to get away with it because, by and large, government is scared of the big supermarket chains and always has been.'
Source: The Graun
It's interesting to think of these beliefs when you next hear Mr Humphrys interview an oil company executive or someone from a supermarket. I also remember him interviewing Ross Clark on the subject of red tape - a quite astonishingly aggressive interview for a book launch. Clearly his love of regulation momentarily (well, for the duration of the interview actually) got the better of his ingrained BBC balance on that one.
The guy is a deep green nutcase, paid for by you.
(As an aside, I've categorised this post as BBC and Greens. Is that tautological?)
Blogzilla wonders how Labour MPs and peers have got hold of private emails sent to the Foundation for Information Policy Research. Were they leaked, or has the government had them intercepted? Which is more likely - multiple leaks or multiple intercepts.
I wonder.
A Swedish paleogeophysicist has accused the IPCC of cherrypicking data and falsifying results in order to exaggerate sea level rise. Professor Nils Axel Mörner of Stockholm University has studied sea levels for four decades.
He points out the cherrypicking of tide gauge data
Tide gauging is very complicated, because it gives different answers for wherever you are in the world. But we have to rely on geology when we interpret it. So, for example, those people in the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change], choose Hong Kong, which has six tide gauges, and they choose the record of one, which gives 2.3 mm per year rise of sea level. Every geologist knows that that is a subsiding area. It’s the compaction of sediment; it is the only record which you shouldn’t use. And if that figure is correct, then Holland would not be subsiding, it would be uplifting. And that is just ridiculous. Not even ignorance could be responsible for a thing like that.
Then, he accuses them of introducing arbitrary adjustments to the satellite measurements of sea level - a sleight of hand which will be familiar to anyone who has followed the debate over the surface temperature records.
Now, back to satellite altimetry, which shows the water, not just the coasts, but in the whole of the ocean. And you measure it by satellite. From 1992 to 2002, [the graph of the sea level] was a straight line, variability along a straight line, but absolutely no trend whatsoever. We could see those spikes: a very rapid rise, but then in half a year, they fall back again. But absolutely no trend, and to have a sea-level rise, you need a trend.
Then, in 2003, the same data set, which in their [IPCC's] publications, in their website, was a straight line—suddenly it changed, and showed a very strong line of uplift, 2.3 mm per year, the same as from the tide gauge. And that didn't look so nice. It looked as though they had recorded something; but they hadn't recorded anything. It was the original one which they had suddenly twisted up, because they entered a “correction factor,” which they took from the tide gauge. So it was not a measured thing, but a figure introduced from outside. I accused them of this at the Academy of Sciences in Moscow —I said you have introduced factors from outside; it's not a measurement. It looks like it is measured from the satellite, but you don't say what really happened. And they answered, that we had to do it, because otherwise we would not have gotten any trend!
The accusations of IPCC scientists involving themselves in illegitimate data adjustments, cherrypicking and deception are coming thick and fast. It's high time that the mainstream media started to involve themselves in this scandal.
What a terrific story! According to the BBC, the Scottish Executive has introduced legislation which will require owners of badger or otter fur sporrans to obtain a licence. Apparently, as these animals are protected now, they feel that they have to check that you obtained it at a time when it was legal to kill them.
You absolutely could not make up the cringe-worthy micromanagement nannying of the Scottish Political Classes.
"Do you have a licence for that sporran, madam?"
Six months in prison or a £5,000 fine if you fail to comply.
Steve McIntyre notices some surprising features of the temperature record. Examining the figures for a couple of locations (gridcells) in California, the temperatures as calculated by NASA-GISS and UEA Hadley are in good agreement for most of the last century, but..
- they diverge by up to 0.5oC after 2000 - a time when the measurements should be improving
- the high temperatures recorded in the 19th century have been excised from recent versions of the Hadley figures, increasing the apparent warming trend
How, he asks, can these scientists claim to know the temperature a millenium ago to an accuracy of a couple of tenths of a degree when they have errors of half a degree in 2005?
Anthony Watts has got another truly hilarious example of poor weather station siting - this one's at a sewage treatment plant with the temperature sensor surrounded by brick walls and windows, and in close proximity to the sewage treatment tanks (which give off heat) and also to an air-conditioning unit exhaust.
I've done a short book review - this time one for small boys everywhere.