Archive for the ‘global warming’ Category

Climategate 1 and 2

Saturday, December 3rd, 2011

Climategate 1 is self summarized by the famous line:

Mike’s Nature trick  … to hide the decline.

Climategate 2 is self summarized by the theme:  ‘

help the cause

(more…)

Next climategate installment.

Wednesday, November 23rd, 2011

Climategate 2011

From Watts up (more…)

The cause of the decline

Sunday, October 16th, 2011

Lately there as been a lot of concern about the increasingly visible decline of the west, notably Peter Thiel on “The  End of the Future”: (more…)

“Arctic ice hits near record low”

Wednesday, September 28th, 2011

“Arctic ice hits near record low, Threatening Wildlife”

Since we have been observing the total ice area for thirty years, on average, assuming that there is no long term warming trend, arctic ice will hit a near record low one year out of ten.

But, of course, there are two poles, so in one year out of five either arctic or antarctic ice will hit a near record low. And of course, there is also the rest of the world to have near record events in. (more…)

Anthropogenic CO2

Friday, July 22nd, 2011

A replication of part of Clive Best’s analysis.

The theory of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming assumes a number of points without evidence, assumptions that might well be true, but which they have made no attempt to test.

One is that warming would be a bad thing, another is that the world is very sensitive to quite small CO2 greenhouse effect, supposedly because the CO2 greenhouse effect will be enormously amplified by the H2O green house effect.

And another is that human burning of coal and oil can have a significant effect on atmospheric CO2. (more…)

Hide the decline, part umpteen

Tuesday, April 12th, 2011

Stephan and Rachit cored lots of trees, to estimate weather in past years.  In a cold climate, near the tree line, a tree will generally grow more if the weather is warm than if it is cold, though lots of other things affect it too.  Still, if you check lots of trees over a wide area of very cold land, other factors will probably average out, and the rate of growth,the width of the tree rings, will largely indicate temperature.  And Stephan and Rachit cored a lot of trees, over a lot of very cold land, while being attacked by hordes of ravenous mosquitoes.

Yet somehow, strange to report, only about a tenth of the trees they cored were used to construct a hockey stick graph.  Most of their data was quietly buried as unwanted, but leaked in the climategate files documents/briffa-treering-external/stepan.  Recently Climate Audit took a look at this neglected data.

Why, you may ask, were some trees included and other trees, the vast majority of the trees, not included?

Climate Audit constructs a graph of growth.  The red line is the growth rate of the small set of trees the Anthropogenic Global Warmists chose to use for their hockey stick of doom.  The black line is growth rate for all of the trees that Stephan and Rachit cored while fighting off mosquitoes, including the vast majority of trees which the the Warmists somehow chose to not use.

Cherry picking a hockey stick

What the real data showed

Observe that the red line, the cherry picked trees, show something dramatic and unusual happening in the twentieth century, especially the late twentieth century, show something like a hockey stick.  The unselected trees, the vast majority of the trees, show a slight warming trend over centuries, but no more so in the twentieth century than in any other century.

No Pressure 10:10

Saturday, October 2nd, 2010

Murder children for a greener tomorrow.

Most honest political ad of all time.

By now, you have probably seen the No Pressure video, depicting the warmist wish fulfillment fantasy where they get to blow up the heretics.  It starts with a warmist teacher blowing up skeptical children, then depicts every people of every part of society being blown up, then finally the revolution devours its children, with a warmist blowing up another warmist for inadequate faith.

A lot of blogs are asking: “what were they thinking!”;

Cull the skeptics, Infocult, The Catastrophist, Fascistic New Video, Greens want to blow you up, Chicks on the right, Boom!, most self-defeating ad campaign ever, utter stupidity, decimation, massive Freudian slip.

Seems pretty obvious to me.  They were thinking about power, which is what the global warming campaign has been about from the beginning.

The fascinating thing is that before the shitstorm hit all the good and great signed on saying what a great video it is.  Blowing up children.  Ha ha!  So funny.  Serves them right for doubting their betters!

The video reveals the true character of our rulers.  They think that murdering people who disagree with them is funny.

One commenter gets it right in revolting

Politics, which fundamentally is a struggle to control the most violent organization in society, attracts people that are amoral or whom otherwise lack consideration for their fellow men. The more expansive the state, the more attractive it is to these people. The more they dominate the state, the more expansive and activist it becomes.It’s a vicious feedback loop ending only when the state kills the civilization that is its host, or so shocks the host’s sensibilities that the people rebel.

Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.

Friday, July 30th, 2010

Pajamas media has found an excellent quote from Richard Feynman, which skewers every global warmer:

“The Pleasure of Finding things out” by Richard Feynman, page 187

We have many studies in teaching, for example, in which people make observations and they make lists and they do statistics, but they do not thereby become established science, established knowledge. They are merely an imitative form of science-like the South Sea Islanders making airfields, radio towers out of wood, expecting a great airplane to arrive. They even build wooden airplanes of the same shape as they see in the foreigners’ airfields around them, but strangely, they don’t fly. The result of this pseudoscientific imitation is to produce experts, which many of you are-experts. You teachers who are really teaching children at the bottom of the heap, maybe you can doubt the experts once in a while. Learn from science that you must doubt the experts. As a matter of fact, I can also define science another way: Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.

When someone says science teaches such and such, he is using the word incorrectly. Science doesn’t teach it; experience teaches it. If they say to you science has shown such and such, you might ask, “How does science show it-how did the scientists find out-how, what, where?” Not science has shown, but this experiment, this effect, has shown. And you have as much right as anyone else, upon hearing about the experiments (but we must listen to all the evidence), to judge whether a reusable conclusion has been arrived at. . I think we live in an unscientific age in which almost all the buffeting of communications and television words, books, and so on are unscientific. That doesn’t mean they are bad, but they are unscientific. As a result, there is a considerable amount of intellectual tyranny in the name of science.

Genuine science is replicable. And “replicable” does not mean two priests recite the same doctrine, it means they explain what they did in such a fashion that anyone else could do it also.

If they refuse to explain, they are not scientists, but priests of Gaea.

Unsupported and unexplained politically correct pseudo science appears all the time in “Science” and “Nature”
For example:

Despite the fact that these papers appeared in top journals like Nature and Science, none of the journal reviewers or editors ever required Briffa to release his Yamal data. Steve McIntyre’s repeated requests for them to uphold their own data disclosure rules were ignored.

This sort of thing (that PC science is in practice exempted from data disclosure, and proudly proclaims results on the basis of secret evidence) has been an ongoing scientific scandal from the very beginning of the global warming movement, and everyone aware of this unscientific practice should have realized that global warming science is not science, but politics and religion, and that global warming scientists are not scientists, but priests of Gaea.

Environmentalism, and several other isms, are state sponsored religions, which because of state backing have the privilege of publishing their holy texts in scientific journals despite conspicuous and infamous failure to comply with the standards and rules of those journals.

Nine years later, Briffa’s Yamal data for twentieth century temperatures turned out to be that one tree of ten selected trees grew unusually rapidly during the twentieth century as compared to fossil trees of the same type from the same area. These ten trees were selected by Bricca after a great many other trees in the same area were measured, but the rest of the measurements were not included.

The larger population of trees, taken as a whole, shows much the same growth pattern as the fossil trees.

Take out one tree from those ten, Yamal06, and most of the evidence for climate change vanishes. Restore the much larger set of tree measurements from which the ten trees were selected, and all of the evidence for climate change vanishes – the population as a whole is has the same growth rates as the fossil trees.

Take out one tree from half a dozen graphs of global warming in near a dozen papers, and suddenly they do not show global warming any more.

Bricca has, at this time, not yet explained why those ten trees, and not other trees in the same area measured in the same survey. And whatever his explanation, ten trees is not enough.

The government likes data that supports more government power, rewards those that tell it what it wants to hear, and punishes those that tell it what it does not want to hear.

Environmentalism is a state sponsored religion, for it is perfectly visible to anyone that wants to look that it is not subject to the same standards as normal science, the story of Briffa and the Yamal data being one example of a great many.

People have lost their jobs for reporting that glaciers are advancing in a particular area, even though they fully agreed that most glaciers are retreating. This makes it hard to tell whether most glaciers are indeed retreating.

Environmentalism generally, and the Global Warming movement in particular, acts like a holy and sectarian religious movement, a religious movement backed by state power, not like science.

Recent events prove that on certain topics, they do not carry science, but are mere megaphones for the holy ranting of the priesthood.

Science is not that which the state decrees to be science. It is that which follows the rules of science, which unwritten rules correspond, more or less, to the written rules of the older and more prestigious journals.

If these journals are reluctant to apply these written rules on certain sensitive topics, then what appears on those sensitive topics will not be science, and hence what appears or fails to appear in such journals is not an indication of truth, but of religion.

In particular if the replacement hockey stick had been genuinely peer reviewed, then, in accordance with the unwritten rules of science, and the written rules of the older and more prestigious science journals, the data and calculations supporting the graph would have been made available. Had the data and graphs been made available, people would have objected nine years ago that ten trees are not enough.

Since not genuinely peer reviewed, since not in conformity with journal rules, therefore not genuine science, therefore mere theology.

The boot comes down hard on the Institute of Physics

Friday, March 5th, 2010

As you doubtless know by now, the Institute of Physics gave a wonderfully politically incorrect report on Global Warming.

Predictably the boot came down on them hard.

Academia is indeed like a communist country.  They don’t shoot dissidents in Academia, but communist thought control seldom found it necessary to shoot  people.  It mostly  worked by quietly blighting the lives of troublesome people.  (more…)

Exegesis on the Institute of Physics report on the CRU emails

Tuesday, March 2nd, 2010

The Institute of Physics tells us.

The Institute is concerned that, unless the disclosed e-mails are proved to be forgeries or adaptations, worrying implications arise for the integrity of scientific research in this field and for the credibility of the scientific method as practised in this context.

In plainer words, climate science lacks credibility.  That climate scientists tell us we are doomed unless we repent of our sins against Gaea is not good reason to think we are doomed.

The CRU e-mails as published on the internet provide prima facie evidence of determined and co-ordinated refusals to comply with honourable scientific traditions … This extends well beyond the CRU itself – most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other international institutions who are also involved in the formulation of the IPCC’s conclusions on climate change.

Yes, they are condemning the entire field, not just Phil Jones, not just Hadley CRU

… proxy reconstructions are the basis for the conclusion that 20th century warming is unprecedented. Published reconstructions may represent only a part of the raw data available and may be sensitive to the choices made and the statistical techniques used. Different choices, omissions or statistical processes may lead to different conclusions. This possibility was evidently the reason behind some of the (rejected) requests for further information.

In plainer words, evidently the reason that Climate scientists refused to make their data available because if other people looked at the data, they would have concluded the climate scientists were full of $#@%. This is a reference to the alternate climate reconstructions in Steve McIntyre’s report on the CRU emails. (more…)