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

Discussion > The Moral and Intellectual Poverty of Climate Alarm

Phil.

Been conversing with Ayla?
Can't be bothered to work out your meaning. Sorry.

May 8, 2016 at 7:12 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Kendall

Mr K.: good one …but, no. But you already know that – chloroflourocarbons, which (if memory serves me right) includes excellent fire suppressants. I think you can put your feet up and relax – there is definitely at least one who has a humour worse than yours! (Though he might not care, as he probably thinks that he is included in the Chosen Ones; there are going to be a lot of disappointed faces, should their dreams come true.)

May 8, 2016 at 7:58 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

25 April 2016
23:02

Distraction, the phenomenon was 'the warming hole', anomalous cooling in and around the central US, here it is in graphic form… and the first paper I put up used the phrase in its abstract and made clear the hole was not restricted to central areas.

An interesting regional feature of the spatial pattern of temperature trends is the lack of twentieth-century warming in portions of the United States. Folland et al. (2001) show that in the central and southeastern United States there was warming from the early 1900s to the 1940s, followed by cooling into the 1970s, and a resumption of warming thereafter. The net trends over the entire twentieth century are near zero. This contrasts with detectable upward trends in most other land areas during this same period.

Folland et al BTW was IPCC Third Assessment report, not exactly obscure.

Read the other references. Failure to even mention this work seems to me a prima facie example of intellectual bankruptcy. YMMV.

May 8, 2016 at 8:50 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Phil Clarke, "Folland et al. (2001) show that in the central and southeastern United States there was warming from the early 1900s to the 1940s, followed by cooling into the 1970s, and a resumption of warming thereafter."

Was this the cooling into the 1970's that led to the new ice age scare, that climate scientists now say, they didn't say anything about?

Did CO2 cause the previous warming, and the cooling aswell?

May 8, 2016 at 10:32 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

May 8, 2016 at 10:35 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Phil Clarke, look! Green Blob Elephant in the Room!

Courtesy of WattsUpWithThat

"American Meteorological Society disappears withdraws Gergis et al paper on proxy temperature reconstruction after post peer review finds fatal flaws
UPDATE: It appears the paper has been withdrawn and credit acknowledgement given to Steve McIntyre, "

We can all take your response as confirmation that anything by IPCC approved experts, can not be relied on, the American Meteorological Society included.

May 8, 2016 at 11:59 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

LOL! Watts more reliable than the peer-reviewed literature? Ho ho.

Instrumental temperature data for the pre-satellite era (1850-1980) have been so widely, systematically, and uni-directionally tampered with that it cannot be credibly asserted there has been any significant “global warming” in the 20th century.

Anthony Watts, 'Policy Driven Deception' June 2010.

The Earth is warmer than it was 100-150 years ago. But that was never in contention –  it is a straw man argument. The magnitude and causes are what skeptics question

Anthony Watts, WUWT October 2011.

You'll be aware (or maybe not) that the Gergis study reappeared as the major part of Neukom et al.?

You could also equally argue that the Geris story actually strengthens the reliability of all those papers that have not been withdrawn. Just a thought.

Of course, all science is in a sense provisional, peer review is just the first step towards acceptance or rebuttal of a particular conclusion, as Einstein nearly said 'it only takes one man to prove me wrong'. Peer review is a useful first filter, requiring a higher standard of evidence and proof than say, blog science.

I notice that the GWPF's report into surface station data, which was to publish all submissions and generate some peer reviewed papers just passed its first birthday with so sign of anything being delivered.

And its coming up to 4 years since your hero announced a paper proving that US temperature trends showed a 'spurious doubling due to NOAA station siting problems and post measurement adjustments.' Since then, nada.

Maybe peer review does work.Heh.

May 9, 2016 at 8:48 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

There are four decisions made in plotting these graphs that are problematic:

• Choice of baseline,
• Inconsistent smoothing,
• Incomplete representation of the initial condition and structural uncertainty in the models,
• No depiction of the structural uncertainty in the satellite observations.

Each of these four choices separately (and even more so together) has the effect of making the visual discrepancy between the models and observational products larger, misleading the reader as to the magnitude of the discrepancy and, therefore, it’s potential cause(s).
 

Schmidt eviscerates Christy

May 9, 2016 at 11:46 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Oh, yes, peer review … Diederik Stapel shows that to be infallible.

Next, you will be telling us that “Instrumental temperature data for the pre-satellite era (1850-1980) have been so widely, systematically, and uni-directionally tampered with...” is not the case. While you might crow about the apparent dissonance, proper reading of them shows that both are essentially correct – there has been massive fiddling of the data, but few really doubt that temperatures have risen (most actually being grateful of that).

May 9, 2016 at 11:59 AM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

RR - It wasn't 'few', it was Watts, contradicting himself in black and white. One could soon find numerous other examples.

No global warming and uncontentious warming cannot both be 'essentially correct', that's too much cognitive dissonance even for BH.

Wonder what his position is today?

LOL.

May 9, 2016 at 12:11 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

If you read what I actually wrote, I certainly did not claim infallibility for peer review.

Straw Man much?

May 9, 2016 at 12:12 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Here's more turpitude reported on that most excellent of sites, WUWT. It is not just scientists, geographers, and computer programmers, not to mention psychologists and journalists, who have behaved badly, it may well be that the most awful stuff has come from NGOs and sundry other campaigners:

'In his 2007 book History of the Science and Politics of Climate Change, Bert Bolin, co-creator and first chairman of IPCC, deplored the denial of uncertainty, writing, “It was non-governmental groups of environmentalists, supported by the mass media who were the ones exaggerating the conclusions that had been carefully formulated by the IPCC.”

In 1997, Bolin told the Associated Press, “Global warming is not something you can ‘prove.’ You try to collect evidence and thereby a picture emerges.”

Soon’s study about the influence of the Sun on climate made him a target for alarmists, but Soon had defenders. In a 2013, Boston Globe article, iconic physicist Freeman Dyson praised Soon.

“The whole point of science is to question accepted dogmas,” said Dyson. “For that reason, I respect Willie Soon as a good scientist and a courageous citizen.”

The WUWT piece is about further exoneration of Willie Soon: Facts Clear Astrophysicist Soon of Wrongdoing While Indicting Journalists Covering Climate Debate

May 9, 2016 at 12:59 PM | Registered CommenterJohn Shade

Let’s review some of this again, shall we:

Instrumental temperature data for the pre-satellite era (1850-1980) have been so widely, systematically, and uni-directionally tampered with that it cannot be credibly asserted there has been any significant “global warming” in the 20th century.
Anthony Watts [my bold]. Would you deny that there has been any tampering with the records? Tampering to such an extent that a country showing a distinct fall in all raw records now have all showing a definite rise? Does that not make you just the slightest bit suspicious?

... no … I don’t suppose it does. After all, it is a source that you seem to trust as being infallible. Far better to ridicule those who do notice such discrepancies.

Phil Clarke:

No global warming and uncontentious warming cannot both be 'essentially correct'
[my bold] So, you agree – what warming there has been over the past century has been pretty uncontentious, it has to be admitted. At what point does it become “significant”?

May 9, 2016 at 1:05 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Phil Clarke, "Folland et al. (2001) show that in the central and southeastern United States there was warming from the early 1900s to the 1940s, followed by cooling into the 1970s, and a resumption of warming thereafter."

Was this the cooling into the 1970's that led to the new ice age scare, that climate scientists now say, they didn't say anything about?

Did CO2 cause the previous warming, and the cooling aswell?

May 8, 2016 at 10:32 PM | golf charlie

Any more Green Blob Elephants you want us to look at, rather than avoid this point again, from your own quotes?

May 9, 2016 at 2:32 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Not particularly interested in whether Soon did or did not properly disclose his sizeable inducements , but if I were the Koch Brothers or Southern, I'd be
wanting a refund.

May 9, 2016 at 2:36 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Lo and behold, that new WUWT article shows Greenpeace supporters (other than Phil Clarke) engaged in character assassination of people who disagree with the global warming cant. Quelle surprise.

May 9, 2016 at 2:47 PM | Unregistered Commentermichael hart

GC. What point am I avoiding? Its not clear.

The 'global cooling' scare largely occurred in magazines and popular science books, in the literature, as the BAMS article demonstrated, the majority of articles were about warming.

Even the pop sci books were equivocal, here is the foreward to 'The Cooling' by Lowell Ponte, published 1976.

The Cooling will be controversial, because among scientists, most of the matters it deals with are hotly debated. There is no agreement on whether the earth is cooling. There is not unanimous agreement on whether is has cooled, or one hemisphere has cooled and the other warmed. One would think that there might be consensus about what data there is - but there is not. There is no agreement on the causes of climatic change, or even why it should not change amongst those who so maintain. There is certainly no agreement about what the climate will do in the next century, though there is a majority opinion that it will change, more or less, one way or the other. 

Scary, huh?

May 9, 2016 at 2:51 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

that new WUWT article shows Greenpeace supporters engaged in character assassination of people who disagree with the global warming cant

Example? The article gives none.

May 9, 2016 at 2:54 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Oh, dear… having to fall back on the tired old cliché that denier/contrarian/call-them-whatever-epithetic-slight-you-will scientists are in the pay and bidding of Big Oil (or whoever is your bête noir of the month) does not make you any more palatable, nor your arguments more believable. Grow up a little, please, and play the ball, not the player.

May 9, 2016 at 2:57 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

RR - so we will hear no more about 'grant hungry' climate scientists hereabouts then? ;-)

It’s a matter of public record that all of Soon's research since 2002 was funded by fossil fuel interests, Southern Company - a large coal generator - alone providing nearly half a million smackers. The WUWT piece is misguided; there was never any question that Soon had broken any Smithsonian rules, it was the lack of disclosure to journals that caused him to be censured.

And the piece I linked to was about the quality of Soon's scientific work:

Soon’s work has been singularly poor for over a decade, first coming to prominence with theSoon and Baliunas (2003) debacle in Climatic Research which led to the resignation of 5 editors in protest at the way the paper was handled (and see more here). Another case associated with some very obvious shenanigans was Dyck et al (2007). More recently, his presentations at Heartland’s pseudo-climate conferences have come under renewed scrutiny for their level of incoherence.

May 9, 2016 at 3:22 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Phil:
Read and learn

And the paper your May 8, 2016 at 10:35 PM links to would have more credibility without the name of William S Connolley attached to it. Do watch where you're pointing that gun. You could lose a few toes.

May 9, 2016 at 3:44 PM | Registered CommenterMike Jackson

I repeat ...

Accordingly, writers who’ve accused Soon of wrongdoing despite evidence to the contrary are unethical and should be censured.

Example?

May 9, 2016 at 3:48 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

And the paper your May 8, 2016 at 10:35 PM links to would have more credibility without the name of William S Connolley attached to it.

Thanks, Mike. Next time I want a pure example of the ad hominem fallacy, I'll reach for that post.

The paper was a survey of the 1970s scientific literature on global cooling and/or warming, it found that studies predicting warming dominated even then. Care to point out, apart from disliking one of the authors, why it is incorrect?

May 9, 2016 at 4:02 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Here is something from the Scientific American (another institution tarnished by superficial eco-nesses - see their disgraceful treatment of Lomborg for example, or their lock-stock-and barrel collaboration with CO2-alarmism):
'Catastrophic Canadian Wildfire Is a Sign of Destruction to Come'. Cheap sensationalism. Par for their new course.

Here are some calmer, more evidence-based reactions to this wildfire event:

My final word is for the activists who are seeking to take advantage of Albertans’ misfortunes to advance their political agendas. Not only have you shown yourselves to be callous and insensitive at a time where you could have been civilized and sensitive but you cannot even comfort yourself by hiding under the cloak of truth since, as I have shown above, the data does not support your case.

See: https://achemistinlangley.wordpress.com/2016/05/04/on-forest-fires-climate-activist-arent-just-insensitive-they-are-also-wrong/

See this related graphic on C3: http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c01b7c85429e1970b-pi

And read this typically data-rich piece on NotALotOfPeopleKnowThat

Of course, this is not the first tragic and dramatic event to be exploited by CO2-alarmers, and it will certainly not be the last, but each time we see their sordid, ill-informed opportunism, we might hope that they have added another straw to the camel's back of political and public opinion that still seem to harbour trusting views about them.

May 9, 2016 at 5:46 PM | Registered CommenterJohn Shade

Phil Clarke, so you are incapable of acknowledging the cooling identified by Follande et al that went into the 1970s that you linked to?

How much are Greenpeace paying you, to ignore what you wrote? Or is there some other insanity at work here?

You have just proved Wikipedia 'expert' and Greenpeace activists William M Connolley writes stuff which he knows is not honest. Where is your problem? Would it easier for us all to assume you are no more than a ventriloquists dummy?

May 9, 2016 at 6:03 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie