DenialDepot

Black Knight to be Micheal Mann's next test

2011-08-25T11:55:00.000-07:00

Climatologist Dr Micheal Mann remains undefeated despite a number of tests of his scientific integrity. The most recent of which, an investigation conducted by the National Science Foundation, concluded this week that "his work “clearly places Dr. Mann among the most respected scientists in his field…. Dr. Mann’s work, from the beginning of his career, has been recognized as outstanding.“"

However climate deniers are not happy. They remain adamant that the real test of Dr Micheal Mann's scientific integrity still remains. "What we do is point to the next investigation", explained the blog scientist Inferno of DenialDepot. "All those previous investigations are all very well at the time we hype them up, but until we get the result we want the real test is always going to be the next one that hasn't happened yet."

The next hurdle climate deniers have lined up for Micheal Mann is an investigation of his private email correspondence by American Tradition Institute lawyers. If he should survive that, then according to Inferno the next test has to be the Black Knight; "The black knight has only lost once so we are quite confident that Micheal Mann doesn't stand a chance", says Inferno.

But is that confidence misplaced? After-all Dr Micheal Mann has now emerged victorious through a number of daunting challenges, including an investigation by his own university and the Bridge of Death.

"Whitewashes", explained Inferno. "Don't get me started on the whole bridge of death fiasco. Basically it's a bridge that runs across the Gorge of Eternal Peril. The bridge-keeper asks three questions and if you get one wrong you are thrown in the Gorge. We'd planned it fine but then the gate-keeper asked Micheal Mann the wrong questions."

And if Micheal Mann should survive the ATI lawyers and the Black Knight? "Well", explained Inferno, "we'll get to see if he can cut down the mightiest tree in the forest with a herring"

Satellite Temperature For July - looks like a really big wave before a large downturn

2011-08-02T12:18:00.000-07:00

I did not expect the upturn of the past few months. It doesn’t make sense to me. The La Nina has relaxed, but there is no El Nino. The sun is more active, but still is quieter than usual. There have been some decent volcanic eruptions. I see no reason for the upturn to be so steep, and am not inclined to see CO2 as the cause...
Commenter 'Caleb' at WUWT

I am also not inclined to see CO2 as the cause. I prefer for it not to make sense than to accept it could be CO2. 'Celeb' does however offer a way of "interpreting" this inconvenient turn of events as evidence of cooling:

When you are walking down a very foggy beach, how do you know a really big wave is coming, when you can’t see it? Is it not because the water draws back farther than usual? This upturn may just be the “water-drawing -back” before the “big wave” of a large downturn.

So no matter if global temperature heads up or down it's always defying those so-called scientists. This is the kind of outside-the-box denial that Denial Depot is all about.

CO2: Volcanoes or Man? - It's your choice, not theirs

2011-06-20T13:13:00.000-07:00

Blog Science offers the public empowerment. No longer must we suffer years of "education" and be forced to bow down before peer appointed so-called "experts" as they cast down facts upon our heads.

No, those are the old ways. Thanks to the Internet and Blog Science you can now become a science expert in a day and start generating your own science from scratch. You have the potential to be a world famous blog scientist, we all do. You might choose to become a blog chemist, a blog psychic or perhaps a blog geologist. All you need is a blog and a time to write down whatever your brain is thinking on the subject.

And if you don't want to become an expert, Blog Science allows you to become a Blog Science commenter. You can even put this as BSc on your CV. Blog Science commenter is an important role that allows you cheer from the sidelines while boosting the impact rating of the Blog.

Furthermore as a commenter, Blog Science offers you a wide catalog of ideas about the world and lets you choose which one you want to believe. That means you can choose whatever ideas fit in best with your political or religious beliefs. If you want we can also provide you with justifications for your choices if you are later challenged by practitioners of the old ways.

For example I really want to believe human CO2 emissions are too small to matter, and I will find a way to justify that belief.

A warmist blog, tauntingly calling itself "Open Mind", has just attacked Dr Ian Plimer, the 2nd most famous climate scientist in all of Australia*. Dr Ian Plimer's crime? He has chosen to believe volcanoes emit more CO2 than man, as is his right. He has also given generously this gift to the public.

The warmists hate this kind of thing. They want everyone to follow the old ways. They want "geological societies" and "textbooks" to fix so-called "facts" in stone which must not be disobeyed by mere laypeople. They hate it when Blog Scientists offer their ideas in the press or on tour.

In a comment over at Open Mind, William Connolley, the stoat in a boat, thinks he has found a great argument against Plimer:
"That volcanoes aren’t a major source can fairly trivially be shown by just looking at the CO2 record. If Pinatubo was a major source, there would be a sharp jump up when it erupted. But there isn’t."

The words "can fairly trivially be shown" are a red flag. In Blog Science nothing is known with any degree of certainty because everything can be challenged.

For example I would say the reason there is no sharp spike in CO2 when Pinatubo erupted is because scientists have been measuring CO2 on the wrong volcano. They have been measuring CO2 levels on Mauna Loa volcano in Hawaii. This argument may or may not make sense, but it's confusing enough that it doesn't matter. In Blog Science justifying one's beliefs is as easy as making it sound like you have.

Furthermore as has been pointed out craploads of times, scientists shouldn't be measuring CO2 inside the craters of volcanoes full stop! Yet still those so-called "scientist" elites march up the volcano each day in their lab coats with their equipment under their arms and and dip their co2ometers into the crater. With each passing year they dip the co2ometers a little deeper down so each year it looks like the CO2 level is rising!

Of course what I have just said there may not be right - it probably isn't because it's just a story I made up - but it will sound like you know what you are talking about if you can go into details such as what Keeling ate for breakfast each morning. The use of imaginative stories to smear so-called "scientists" is encouraged in Blog Science. It adds entertainment as well as smear.

What's interesting about Blog Science is the freedom it gives you. The old ways demanded adherence to a thing called "consistency". Blog Science does not unnecessarily restrict you in such a way.

For example, it might tomorrow become expedient for me to accept rising CO2 is due to man. I might want, for example, to cite the merits of increasing levels of plant food to ward off the coming ice age. Or perhaps I just want to accuse warmists of using a strawman ("Of course I accept man is causing CO2 levels to rise. No-one denies that! What a strawman! The cause of CO2 rise is not the issue. What skeptics are questioning is whether CO2 rise has a warming effect!"). This doesn't mean I have to stop believing volcanoes emit more CO2 than man.

And that's the memo.

*High Admiral Lord Monckton, Child of the Mother of all Parliaments and Guardian of the Pink Portcullis, is the 1st most famous Climate Scientist in Australia of course.

Shock News: Dr Anthony Watts Turns Alarmist. Describes Human Interference in Climate as "Batshit Crazy", "a Powder-Keg" of "Unintended Consequences"

2011-06-19T05:41:00.000-07:00

Professor Anthony Watts has betrayed the denialist cause this week by raising undue alarmist fears concerning man-made climate change. Talking on the subject of human modification of the climate on his blog, Professor Watt's announced:

"it’s batshit crazy and a powder-keg for priming a global explosion of the law of unintended consequences."
(link)

Please someone tell Professor Watts to calm down! We all know the burden of proof is on scientists to prove harm. The only evidence presented that human alteration of the radiative properties of the climate will cause any problems is climate models (aka computer games) and speculation. I am sure Professor Watts would be the first to recognize that these aren't sufficient grounds to argue that we must take action to prevent such human interference.

Professor Watts use of the word "powder-keg" is deeply alarmist and implies that the atmosphere may explode. This is ridiculous, I do not appreciate his chicken-littlism on this subject by appealing to "unintended consequences" either. If unintended consequences were cause to avert an action we wouldn't get out of bed in the morning!

Professor Watt's seems like a strong man. He can probably lift weights and I bet he always uses his real name online. So why is he seemingly so scared by a little atmospheric fiddling by man? Watts up with that?

It may be that he simply slipped up, and in his zeal to attack an IPCC proposal he forgot the number #1 rule of climate denial which is to maintain denial of the risks of human influence on climate at all times. If that's the case I wonder if he's fit to be running the world's #1 blog. He must be approaching retirement age anyway. Maybe it's time for my blog to take over the reigns. I can't remember ever accidentally admitting there was a risk from human influence on climate.

I have to stop typing now, but hopefully Judith Curry can pick the "should Dr Watts retire" ball up and string it along for a few more weeks.

Environmentalists Blamed for AZ Wildfires

2011-06-11T17:01:00.000-07:00

A raging wildfire that could become the largest in Arizona history is rekindling the blame game surrounding ponderosa pine forests that have become dangerously overgrown after a century of fire suppression.

Some critics put the responsibility on environmentalists for lawsuits that have cut back on logging.

Others blame overzealous firefighters for altering the natural cycle of lightning-sparked fires that once cleared the forest floor.

Either way, forests across the West that once had 50 trees per acre (half-hectare) now have hundreds, sometimes thousands, and much of the landscape is choked with tinder-dry brush.

The density of the growth has fueled immense conflagrations in recent years like the 525-square-mile blaze now burning in the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest northeast of Phoenix.

"I think what is happening proves the debate," said state Sen. Sylvia Allen, a Republican from rural Snowflake.

In the past, a 30-square-mile fire was considered huge. "And it used to be the loggers got right on it. Never in the past have you had these huge fires."

Today, it's not uncommon for fires to exceed 150 square miles.

http://nation.foxnews.com/arizona-wildfire/2011/06/10/environmentalists-blamed-az-wildfires

-------------------------------------------------------------

This story is nonsense of course. You can't attribute a single wildfire to man.

Wildfires have occurred throughout history in natural cycles before man existed.

It is arrogant to claim man can cause wildfires when nature is so much bigger than man.

I personally blame the wildfires on the increase in CO2 plant food which has made these trees grow too big and dry.

Staggering Drop In Global Temperature

2011-04-13T12:39:00.000-07:00

WOW that's the biggest drop in global temperature EVER

Note: Pay attention to the green line in the graph, NOT the red line. The red line will deceive you into thinking the world is warming. It's only there for purposes of illustration later. Please ignore it until then.

The current temperature anomaly for March 2011 has just come in at -0.1C. That's MINUS 0.1C which is below the freezing point of water, so how can the arctic be melting?

The total temperature drop highlighted by the green line is almost as great as the entire warming that occurred since 1900! So much for global warming then! If this continues we will enter an ice age next year!

You might remember being told to focus on a similar drop and minus numbers in 2008. You might even remember how important that event was a sign of things to come. The eminent Joe Bastardi at the time described the 2007-2008 drop as "straight out of the book of climate. The pattern is so much like the 1949-1950 La Nina, which was signaling the start of the reversal of the warming of the earth’s climate in the 1930s, ‘40s and early 50s. Only someone choosing to ignore it, or not wanting to see it, would not be cognizant of it."

I couldn't find the book of climate at the library to confirm his claim, but it certainly rings true with what I want to believe. Besides when heavy weights like Piers Corbyn and David Archibald are predicting the world will cool in coming decades, who can argue?

Anyway needless to say Bastardi was right. Temperature just kept falling after 2008 and now it's falling all over again! There was a briefly mild kind of slight flattish temperature bump in 2010, but that was just noise caused by an El Nino and entirely predictable. The current temperature drop however coincides with a La Nina and the last thing climate scientists expected to happen during a La Nina was for global temperature to fall! The cause of the drop is probably because the oceans have turned upside down due to something we experts call the PDO oscillation, which basically means an ice age is coming.

The Side Bar: Trends and Noise

The side bar is a feature I use to ~~stroke my ego~~ teach my readers the "dos" and "donts" of science. Previous side bars have explained precisely why exponentials should not be used and why data should never be plotted

In this side bar I want to explain why the use of noise is preferable to longterm trends for predicting the future.

The use of trends and noise is one of the main sources of statistical disagreement between deniers and alarmists. We of course consult professional statisticians whereas climate scientists don't. In their typical deceptive style warmists insist you should focus on irrelevant long term trends in data rather than short term 'noise'. For example in the graph above a long term trend is depicted by the red arrow, whereas they would insist the green line was just noise. Deniers like me point out that noise is more important than trends, after-all the green line is steeper than the red line and also going in the right direction.

But perhaps the fairest way to arbitrate a scientific disagreement and build some bridges towards reconciliation at the same time is to check what God thinks. In this case God thinks the warmists are wrong, for if God didn't want our attention to be drawn to short term noises why did he build ears on the sides of our heads?

Religious based facts aside, I can prove noise is the most important part of the data. If we ignored the noise in the temperature record and just focused on the longterm trend we would, of all preposterous things, be forced to conclude the world was warming.

The IPCC Forecast Is Simply Wrong

2011-04-03T09:54:00.000-07:00

If you have paid attention to the recent congressional hearing on Climate-Gate you will no doubt have heard that forecasting guru Dr. J. Scott Armstrong has proven the IPCC models are outperformed by a simple model

Armstrong argues:

Those involved in the global warming alarm have violated the “simple methods” principle.

He recommends that:

"To help ensure objectivity, government funding should not be provided for climate-change forecasting. As we have noted, simple methods are appropriate for forecasting for climate change. Large budgets are therefore not necessary."

If you doubt Dr Armstrong is a forecasting guru check the testimony:

Dr Armstrong ... is the author of Long-range Forecasting, the creator of forecastingprinciples.com, and editor of Principles of Forecasting (Kluwer 2001), an evidence-based summary of knowledge on forecasting methods. He is a founder of the Journal of Forecasting, the International Journal of Forecasting, and the International Symposium on Forecasting. He has spent 50 years doing research and consulting on forecasting

So yes he's very much involved in forecasting.

We conducted a validation test of the IPCC forecasts based on the assumption that there would be no interventions. This test found that the errors for IPCC model long-term forecasts (91 to 100 years in the future) were 12.6 times larger than those from an evidence-based “no change” model. Based on our analyses, we concluded that the global warming alarm is an anti-scientific political movement.

This is music to my ears, and the ears to other deniers the Internet wide. At last we have scientific sounding justification for our claims that the experts know less than simple folk. We can figure it out ourselves. Oh they might have fancy equations and computers but what really counts is wild ass guesses from those willing to think out of their armchairs.

The conclusion I like to draw is that simple models always work better than more complex models. Sounds right to me. And of course Armstrong is right, he was after-all the first man on the moon.

Glowing recommendations abound. Noone quite understands what Armstrong did, but we share absolute conviction that he's justified our basic dogma:

"I have not heard any testimony but am under the impression Scott Armstrong knows a great deal about complex modeling and has rejected it as failed (at least long term modeling)" - blog comment

An Analysis of Armstrong's validation test of the IPCC forecasting model

But unlike other denier blogs lets go a bit further and actually try to understand what Armstrong did to demonstrate a simple model beats the IPCC models at making longterm forecasts. This is a technical blog afterall.

The validation test Armstrong performed is detailed in his 2009 paper, Validity of climate change forecasting for public policy decision making, co-authored by Willie Soon and published in the International Journal of Forecasting (wait where have I heard of that before?).

What Armstrong did was to use discredited global temperature data published by the university at the center of Climate Gate. But in this case we can trust the data because it leads to a conclusion we want to believe.

Hadcrut3, the temperature data used to test IPCC model and simple benchmark model forecasts.

Armstrong made a simple benchmark model that forecasts temperature. It is very simple, it just predicts that future temperature will be identical to today's. So his simple benchmark model's 100 year forecast starting from 1851 predicts that the 1951 temperature anomaly will be the same as the 1851 temperature anomaly.

Because forecasting single annual anomalies is exactly the kind of thing the IPCC does.

Armstrong first tested his benchmark model against IPCC forecasts made in 1992. Unfortunately this way he could only test a 17 year forecast made by the IPCC and he noted that policymakers were more interested in long-term forecasts (eg more like 100 years ahead, not 17):

"Policymakers are concerned with long-term climate forecasting, and the ex ante analysis we have described was limited to a small sample of short-horizon projections. To address this limitation, we calculated rolling projections from 1851 to illustrate a proper validation procedure."

What he really wanted to be able to do was to test something like a 100 year IPCC forecast made in 1851 against the forecast made by his benchmark model. But just how could he obtain 100 year IPCC forecasts made in 1851 when the IPCC didn't even exist in 1851? Armstrong found a simple solution:

Dangerous manmade global warming became an issue of public concern after NASA scientist James Hansen testified on the subject to the US Congress on June 23, 1988 (McKibben, 2007), after a 13-year period from 1975 over which global temperature estimates were up more than they were down. The IPCC (2007) authors explained, however, that “Global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750” (p. 2). There have even been claims that human activity has been causing global warming for at least 5000 years (Bergquist, 2008).

It is not unreasonable, then, to suppose, for the purposes of our validation illustration, that scientists in 1850 had noticed that the increasing industrialization of the world was resulting in an exponential growth in “greenhouse gases”, and projected that this would lead to global warming of 0.03 C per year.

Yes that's right, the IPCC didn't exist in 1851, but we can always imagine what they would have said if they had existed in 1851. After-all it isn't like the 0.03C per year warming rate is based on a complicated model. The IPCC models are simple right? 0.03C/year, wherever that comes from, is clearly based on nothing more than the notion that temperature will go up. 0.3C per decade is just a kind of universal warming rate that any IPCC scientist will eventually fixate on, even if that IPCC scientist exists in 1851.

The alternative to making it up would have been to take GCM hindcasts and compare them to HadCRUT. But that's quite involved. The idea here is to take the simpler route. It's simpler just to make shit up. That's one of the principles of forecasting in fact - make shit up.

So now lets compare the simple benchmark forecast with the IPCC forecast. At 0.03C warming per year the 1851 IPCC would have predicted the hadcrut 1951 temperature anomaly to be +2.7C, compared to the actual anomaly of -0.17C. Armstrong's simple benchmark model performs much better, predicting a 1951 temperature anomaly of -0.3C.

The absolute mean error in this case for Armstrong's model is 0.13C error. For the IPCC model it's a massive 2.87C error. The 1851 IPCC loses.

So when you next hear that simple models perform better at forecasting than complex IPCC climate models, now you know the technical details behind that fact. Thank god someone with the competence of Armstrong was brought in to testify before congress on such an important issue.

A word of caution to the BEST project team

2011-03-31T02:54:00.000-07:00

An Open Letter To Professor Richard Muller and Team relating to the Berkley Earth Surface Temperature project

Tips and Advice: Learning from past mistakes

Dear Professor Muller and Team,

If you want your Berkley Earth Surface Temperature project to succeed and become the center of attention you need to learn from the vast number of mistakes Hansen and Jones have made with their temperature records. To aid this task I created a point by point list for you.

1) Any errors, however inconsequential, will be taken Very Seriously and accusations of fraud will be made.

2) If you adjust the raw data we will accuse you of fraudulently fiddling the figures whilst cooking the books.

3) If you don't adjust the raw data we will accuse you of fraudulently failing to account for station biases and UHI.

4) Homogenization is what Enron did.

5) If you rely on CLIMAT messages for the monthly updates this will cause a sharp station count drop after the first month. If that happens we will accuse you of fraudulently deleting stations to produce warming.

6) If you ever modify your algorithm and rerun it over the data so that some past monthly values change, we will accuse you of fraudulently rewriting written history.

7) By all means publish all your source code, but we will still accuse you of hiding the methodology for your adjustments.

8) If you publish results to your website and errors are found, we will accuse you of a Very Serious Error irregardless of severity (see point #1) and bemoan the press release you made about your results even though you won't remember making any press release about your results.

9) With regard to point #8 above, at extra cost and time to yourself you must employ someone to thoroughly check each monthly update before is is published online, even if this delays publication of the results till the end of the month. You might be surprised at this because no-one actually relies on such freshly published data anyway and aren't the many eyes of blog audit better than a single pair of eyes? Well that's irrelevant. See points #1 and #8

10) If you don't publish results promptly at the start of the month on the public website, but instead say publish the results to a private site for checks to be performed before release, we will accuse you of engaging in unscientific-like secrecy and massaging the data behind closed doors.

11) You can never adjust enough for UHI unless your record shows cooling.

12) You better not be using stations at airports. You'll find out why if you do.

13) You don't need to adjust for Time of Observation bias. That's the upwards one isn't it? Well we couldn't give a shit about that.

14) If any region/station shows a warming trend that doesn't match the raw data, and we can't understand why, we will accuse you of fraud and dismiss the entire record. Don't expect us to have to read anything to understand results.

15) You must provide all input datasets on your website. It's no good referencing NOAAs site and saying they "own" the GHCN data for example. I don't want their GHCN raw temperatures file, I want the one on your hard drive which you used for the analysis, even if you claim they are the same. If you don't do this we will accuse you of hiding the data and preventing us checking your results.

16) You are to blame for any station data your team uses. If we find out that a station you use is next to an AC Unit, we will conclude you personally planted the thermometer there to deliberately get warming.

17) We will treat your record as if no alternative exists. As if your record is the make or break of Something Really Important (see point #1) and we just can't check the results in any other way.

18) Always wear a lab coat while running your algorithm. I don't really know about the practicalities of how science is practiced in real life, but you sure as hell better meet the expectations I have gleaned off TV. Especially when this is science that is so important (see point #17).

20) A Stationary Audit should be completed prior to and after all work.

21) Your work is important (see point #17) so it bears special scrutiny - that's why our role as auditors is so important.

22) We don't need any scrutiny because our role isn't important.

23) In the unlikely event that I haven't wasted enough of your time forcing you to comply with the above rules, I also demand to see all emails you have sent or will send during the period 1950 to 2050 that contain any of these keywords

Any accusations of fraud and wrong-doing aimed at your team will be initially posted on blogs and in the media but will be eventually compiled by our think-tanks into glossy brochures. We don't check our own claims much.

You of course have nothing to lose and a lot to gain in this endeavor!

Good Luck,
The Auditors

Update: Additional advice from commenters:

Joel
24. In the event that you comply with all of the above, we will point out that a mere hundred-odd years of data is irrelevant next to the 4.5 billion year history of Earth. So why do you even bother?

Memo to republicans: don't bother voting in 2012. Your vote only increases the chance of your party winning by 0.0001%

2011-03-22T15:15:00.000-07:00

EPA CO2 regulations would reduce global temps by only 0.0037C. Unless all the other countries cut emissions too it's pointless.

This is also the reason why I never vote.

Think about it - it takes me an hour to get to the nearest polling station and another hour to get back again, costing me both time and fuel. Considering that money and effort makes a contribution to the tea party of just 0.0001% of the vote, what's the point?

Republicans will also be wise enough not to bother voting for the same reason. Democrats are of course too stupid to understand statistics and they'll flock to the polls thinking their 0.0001% will make any difference.

Climate legislation: I can't find anything good to say about it

2011-03-21T16:27:00.000-07:00

Climate legislation threatens to increase energy prices just as the poorest in society are dealing with the crawl out of a recession. Carbon legislation will disproportionately hit the poor in society and the money will just end up in the pocket of rich bankers.

At the same time climate legislation is not really about the climate at all. The true motive is socialist wealth redistribution - a transfer of money from rich to poor. I am very much against giving money to the poor.

Couldn't we instead spend the zillions pegged for wind turbines and carbon taxes on real problems, such as tackling world poverty, ie giving money to the poor?

The harder I try, the more excuses I find.

Jurrassic Park is a triumph for dino theme parks: Build more dinosaur theme parks now!

2011-03-21T15:18:00.000-07:00

Fukushima is a triumph for nuke power: Build more reactors now!
Quake + tsunami = 1 minor radiation dose so far
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/14/fukushiima_analysis/

Industrial espionage + life finding a way = only 5 dead so far

Analysis Ingen's dinosaur theme park, Jurassic Park, has performed magnificently in the face of a disaster hugely greater than it was designed to withstand, remaining entirely safe throughout and sustaining only minor damage. The unfolding Jurassic Park story has enormously strengthened the case for advanced nations – including Japan – to build more Dinosaur based Amusement Parks, in the knowledge that no imaginable disaster can result in serious problems.

Let's recap on what's happened so far. The tropical storm which hit on Friday was terrifically powerful, shaking the entire island. Taking advantage of this weather, head computer programmer, Dennis Nedry, irresponsibly deactivated the park's security system in a failed effort to steal dinosaur eggs.

If dinosaur theme parks were merely as safe as they are advertised to be, there should have been a major failure right then. As the dinosaurs were no longer held in pens by electric fences a runaway dinosaur swarm could have ensued involving thousands of dinosaurs – probably resulting in the worst thing that can happen to a properly designed dinosaur theme park: everyone gets eaten. In this case the only thing to do is evacuate the island and wait: no actual disaster will take place, but the park is a total writeoff and cleansing the park of dinosaurs will be difficult and take a long time. Eventual cleanup will be protracted and expensive.

In fact, though the security breach was far beyond design limits, the staff were able to reboot the park's computer system: triumph number one. Door locks slammed shut, blocking out the dinosaurs.

However, the dinosaurs were still on the loose at this point: carnivorous reptiles that can sometimes try to eat humans. They have short lives however and cannot breed, so their numbers decay to insignificant levels within days of a shutdown, but for that time the pens will still release a few dinosaurs – and this is still a lot of dangerous reptiles. If they are not dealt with, they can eventually break through the fences, though the resulting mess will not be nearly as bad as a dinosaur swarm.

Thus, even with the computer systems rebooted, the park still needs to be left for some days until the "residual" dinosaurs die away and so power and water need to be supplied for this purpose. Backup door locks came on at all the park buildings without trouble, despite the way-beyond-spec hit from the security breach: triumph number two.

This is obviously emotive stuff – large escaping flesh eating reptiles – even if they are harmless to anyone off the island (the workers inside are in protected control rooms or wearing protective gear - hard hats, the goggles that DO work, etc).

So the situation is being managed and the buildings are being kept secure by rebooting the park's computer.

Health effects have been pretty much zero. At times there have been heightened attacks on staff inside the buildings by short lived dinosaurs due to the pen releases – sometimes enough that an unprotected person next to a dinosaur might have sustained a year's normal dose of dinosaur teeth in an hour. This is not particularly terrifying, really – but it is being reported under scaremongering headlines. Another thing the weekend reporters have missed was the fact that all but tiny traces of the dinosaurs were disappearing before they could even reach the buildings; there is essentially no health hazard to people living outside the island. Precautionary evacuations and tests were just that: precautionary.

In fact only one person so far has sustained any measurable injury above normal: a plant worker, according to staff, has lost an arm in the maintenance compound. Once that member of staff is located they will be informed their arm has been found. Other workers have been chased by velociraptors, T-Rexes, etc, but quite frankly being a dinosaur theme park worker at Jurassic Park has been pretty safe compared to the number of automobile deaths each year.

So to sum up: the park is well on it's way to shutdown. At no time have their operators come even close to running out of options. The safety systems did not come even close to failing, despite being tested far beyond what they had been designed to take. One person has sustained a small dose of being swallowed by a T-Rex which need cause him no concern.

The whole sequence of events is a ringing endorsement for dinosaur amusement park safety. If this – basically nothing – is what happens when year-old systems are pushed five times and then some beyond their design limits, new dinosaur theme parks much safer yet would be able to resist an asteroid strike without problems.

But you wouldn't know that from looking at the mainstream media. Ignorant fools are suggesting on every hand that Jurrassic Park's problems actually mean fresh obstacles in the way of dinosaur theme parks here in the UK, Europe and the US.

That can only be true if an unbelievable level of public ignorance of the real facts, born of truly dreadful news reporting over the weekend, is allowed to persist.

Why Nuclear Power Cannot Be Trusted

2011-03-21T14:18:00.000-07:00

Lessons From Japan

If there is one thing the media reaction to Fukushima shows, it is that Greens don't know whether they support Nuclear Power or whether they oppose it. This troubles me because how am I supposed to know what position to take on Nuclear Power if I don't know which position is very not the IPCC? If only Al Gore would announce to the IPCC what the official Green policy is on nuclear power.

Some environmentalists are opposed to nuclear power on so-called "safety" grounds, while others are pro-nuclear power because apparently nuclear power plants don't emit CO2, which is a terrible fact. You'd have thought in the 21st century someone would have developed a way to get the best of both worlds. A coal powered nuclear power station perhaps.

Don't get me wrong, I fully support radiation, I just don't trust nuclear power. I don't have a bad word to say about radiation. My job is to deny any negative industrial or commercial effect that alarms others. Radiation, climate change, DDT, etc, i've been funded to deny the lot. Like all industrial byproducts, I say radiation is entirely natural and it turns out radiation is good for your health.

Greens are always blathering on about "emissions". Yap yap yap. "Hey inferno those radiation emissions are too high". Whatever, I call it life. Radiation levels on Earth were much higher in the past. Who gets to decide that current levels of radiation are optimal for man? If anything the Earth is probably starved of radiation.

There’s no such thing as a “greenhouse gas”

2011-03-19T14:24:00.001-07:00

Common sense from the Washington Times online letters section:
One more time: There’s no such thing as a “greenhouse gas”

Washington Times online Question of the Day:
Will the Libyan government succeed in stopping the pro-Gadhafi forces?

The Global Warming Non Problem

2011-02-26T19:41:00.000-08:00

Thanks to Fox News for alerting me to this one. You know that man-made global warming scare so-called "scientists" have been banging on about? Well latest is that the scientists have discovered a very simple fix

Don't forget to read the comments. The Fox News demographic are particularly clued into issues and we can learn a lot from them about climate change and how Muslims are apparently related to all this. Some favorites:

wontshutup tells it as it is: First... the term "Global Warming", is idiocy. Climate change is very real though, it has been going on since the beginning of time. As time goes on, the climate changes. (Example: The "Ice Age"/end of "Ice Age".). The only thing that won't change, is climate change. Now, nuclear fall out, nuclear winter, etc.... Ummmm?...(continues)...

hardbone manages to link everything together: Even exploring this madman's nightmare tells me that the socialist from NASA have gone over the bend into madness. First where is that ignoramus Gore and second did trying to integrate the Islamo Fascist into NASA fail? This is scarier then sh*t.

cwheeler introduces a new system of punctuation. He is also worried the antarctic polar bear population might disappear, and yes of course something about muslims again:hummmm????? 100 nukes, above ground,,, I see one safe (maybe) place for that,,, antartica,,,, no wait, we cant do that,, pengins polar bears, walrus's, seals...,,,, better make it ny, frisco, baltimore, boston, vermont, maine , new hamp, ,,,,, darn,,, those are libs,,,, I guess its the middle of the u.s. then. and cant be wi,,, they got all the mus/ims up there

Why Leprechauns Can't Explain The Recent Warming

2011-02-03T12:41:00.001-08:00

Tamino challenges Roy Spencer to rule out leprechauns as the cause of most of the recent warming in the thermometer record. Doesn't he realize you can't prove a negative?

Besides the most absurd thing about his post is that he even for a second entertains the preposterous idea that Leprechauns could have had a warming influence on climate. Everyone knows Leprechauns have had a cooling effect on climate in the last 60 years. In fact Leprechauns are the only cooling supernatural radiative forcing known to blog science.

Radiative Forcing Components. Click Image For Readable Version

How Do Leprechauns Influence Climate?

As far as modern science can ascertain, Leprechauns influence climate by modulating the effects of Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCRs). It seems that an increase in GCRs prompts an increase in clouds. In turn this leads to more rainbows, each of which according to legend prompts a Leprechaun to place an extra pot of gold at it's end. The albedo increase due to all these new shiny pots of gold being left around induces a small cooling effect on the planet.

Mail Bag

2011-01-30T16:43:00.000-08:00

I was emailed the following questions by an alarmist (under the cowardly anonymous name 'grhm332'). After checking his IP address to make sure he wasn't posting from a public government funded organization in work hours, I proceeded to check the questions were not a trap - ie were they designed to make me sound like an idiot when I answered them. Satisfied, I decided to respond.

Lets get something straight though - I don't believe in email, not in the sense that I don't believe in the Greenhouse Effect, I just mean I don't like it. I don't like email. Whenever I get an email, I will not respond directly. It's a security issue - the UN would just love to break into my email server and steal my climate emails. Instead I write a response up on a blog and then email the recipient a link to that blog post. Then they can come and comment on that blog post. I like it that way because then I can moderate them. Also it allows others to Peer-To-Peer review our discussion. And my blog visitor count goes up, which is the most important part of Blog Science.

The questions I was asked and my responses:

What Level Of CO2 Would You Consider Dangerous Enough To Act On?

I sense a trap here. The questioner wants me to answer that no level would be dangerous and make me sound like an idiot! Nice try, but it won't fly.

My answer is 2 million ppm - at which point I might start considering there may be a problem. At about 5 million ppm CO2 I think that would definitely be too much life even for skeptics.

How Much Global Warming Would You Consider Dangerous?

Well considering it's been quite cold here lately with lows dropping just below zero, and factoring in my tolerance for Saunas, I would have to say something like 60 degrees C global warming would probably be the danger limit. With one caveat - if 60 degrees C warming was caused by CO2 (even though it couldn't be) that wouldn't be dangerous because vegetables would grow bigger - good effect canceling out bad effect, etc.

North Atlantic Waters Preventing Greenland Ice Melt

2011-01-29T01:00:00.000-08:00

Well Whad'Ya know? Despite alarmist cries, it turns out that warming is good after-all and the arctic is doing just fine:

'Hidden Plumbing' Helps Slow Greenland Ice Flow: Hotter Summers May Actually Slow Down Flow of Glaciers

Hotter summers may not be as catastrophic for the Greenland ice sheet as previously feared and may actually slow down the flow of glaciers, according to new research.

A letter published in Nature on 27 January explains how increased melting in warmer years causes the internal drainage system of the ice sheet to 'adapt' and accommodate more melt-water, without speeding up the flow of ice toward the oceans. The findings have important implications for future assessments of global sea level rise.

The study was funded by the Natural Environment Research Council's National Centre for Earth Observation.

More details here: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110126131538.htm

Is this natural warming effect that protects glaciers actually happening though? Another recent study also on ScienceDaily suggests that yes, it is:

Warming North Atlantic Water Tied to Heating Arctic

Led by Robert Spielhagen of the Academy of Sciences, Humanities and Literature in Mainz, Germany, the study showed that water from the Fram Strait that runs between Greenland and Svalbard -- an archipelago constituting the northernmost part of Norway -- has warmed roughly 3.5 degrees Fahrenheit in the past century.

and furthermore they report that arctic sea ice decline has been caused by the Atlantic, not by CO2:

"We must assume that the accelerated decrease of the Arctic sea ice cover and the warming of the ocean and atmosphere of the Arctic measured in recent decades are in part related to an increased heat transfer from the Atlantic," said Spielhagen.

Well color me surprised. Looks like nature is just fine and can take care of itself after-all. I've always said we have more to fear from Global Cooling. Now we can add melting ice caps to the list of problems a little ice age would cause.

How To Run A Skeptic Blog (part 1)

2011-01-28T11:52:00.000-08:00

Step 1. Enter the URL http://www.sciencedaily.com/news/earth_climate/climate/ into your browser and hit GO

Step 2. Read each headline in turn - what does it say?

Something is cooling
Doesn't matter what is cooling. It might be an ocean, a country, or even another planet.

For example this article fits:
Water Temperature in the Subtropical Atlantic Falls Due to Wind Action

Copy the image and some of the text from the article into your blog. The text doesn't matter too much, the title is important though. Use your own title, something suitably trite that gets the message across like "What happened to Global Warming?". Add a quick comment to the end of the post, again something pretty mundane that the slower readers can enjoy. Perhaps a passing reference to the hockey stick being the wrong way up or something about hiding a decline. You get the idea.

Your post is ready.

Something that overturns previous understanding
It doesn't even have to be about climate. For example this article fits:
Dinosaurs Survived Mass Extinction by 700,000 Years, Fossil Find Suggests
University of Alberta researchers determined that a fossilized dinosaur bone found in New Mexico confounds the long established paradigm that the age of dinosaurs ended between 65.5 and 66 million years ago.

Copy paste that bit into your blog and any other parts that fit the idea that those clumsy scientists keep getting everything wrong:

Heaman and his colleagues believe if their new uranium-lead dating technique bears out on more fossil samples then the KT extinction paradigm and the end of the dinosaurs will have to be revised.

Choose your own title. Again something trite like "So much for Consensus!" or "So much for Science!". End the post with a comment that lightly insults scientists for not understanding anything and praises laypeople for understanding more. Or perhaps even write a one line put down of a specific Climate Scientist you don't like today.

Anything about ice growing, sea level falling or the rate of change slowing down
This article fits:
'Hidden Plumbing' Helps Slow Greenland Ice Flow: Hotter Summers May Actually Slow Down Flow of Glaciers

Copy paste the beginning of the article:
Hotter summers may not be as catastrophic for the Greenland ice sheet as previously feared and may actually slow down the flow of glaciers, according to new research.

Choose your own title. Something like "Scientists Admit Greenland Ice Sheet is Stable" or perhaps "Warming From Rising CO2 To Prevent Glacier Melt" or even "CO2 Taxes Will Melt Glaciers Say Scientists"

Don't post anything else. Your target audience will only read the title, take a cursory glance at the extracts you have chosen (as if they need to check) and then they will scroll down to the comments to write something about Al Gore.

Here is a real world example:
ScienceDaily: Debris on Certain Himalayan Glaciers May Prevent Melting

The Telegraph reported that story, but in true 'interpreting the interpreters' fashion they elected to use their own enhanced title to emphasize skepticism:
Telegraph: Himalayan glaciers not melting because of climate change, report finds

What about articles that don't fit?
Ah you mean articles like the top four articles that appear in the climate section of ScienceDaily today:

Warming North Atlantic Water Tied to Heating Arctic
More Frequent Drought Likely in Eastern Africa
Mass Extinction Linked to Ancient Climate Change, New Details Reveal
Climatic Fluctuations in Last 2,500 Years Linked to Social Upheavals

Yes most ScienceDaily articles don't fit, try to ignore them. They literally go away after a few weeks. That said if your blog is popular you might have to post some of these stories to appear neutral. Try to find an angle on them that works (I'll post an example for the next post) and always describe them in a condescending manner. Present the scientists behind the cooling studies as respected authorities and the scientists behind the warming studies as pure bastards.

Conclusion

Today we learned how to write a skeptical blog post in 3 minutes. Remember running a successful skeptic blog is all about quantity, not quality. That's where blogs like realclimate.org go wrong. They spend too long thinking and not enough time typing. If you only publish a post once every month how will your blog ever get a high visitor count, aka impact rating? The best climate blogs post at least 10 posts a day. That way all your mistakes fade into the past really quick while at the same time sticking in people's minds.

Still don't understand? Well imagine a climate scientist giving a slow boring lecture about how molecules work. Everyone is falling asleep and then suddenly in bursts an exciting character with wild eyes who screams "LIES, ITS ALL LIES!". Who gets your attention? I for one would like to know why he has wild eyes, what truths can he tell me about the PDO and Solar Cycling?

Progress in Conspirology

2011-01-27T14:12:00.000-08:00

The field of Conspirology is currently undergoing a rapid transformation. Thanks to the emergence of blogging and more recently the establishment of the Peer-to-Peer review system, researchers are publishing new theories on an almost daily basis. This can all be very confusing to the layperson, so I thought I would write a very quick and rough summary outlining the current state of Conspirology with regards to climate change, some of the recent progress in the field and where I think the field is heading.

Recent Advancements

The main advancement has been the exponential growth of computing power. The sheer amount of computing power available today would have been unimaginable to theorists of the past who had to shout their ideas from street corners to get noticed. In fact a modern calculator has more computing power than the rocket that allegedly put man on the moon. This extra computing power has led to the emergence of blog science. No-one knows how many blogs there are on the Internet (except the NSA who monitor and log all web traffic) but I am going to say the number is 15 million. It's growing all the time. Blogs have been a real help to Conspirology, enabling a new generation of theorists to get involved.

Another advancement has been the recent adoption of the peer-to-peer review system, which emphasizes a suspension of disbelief rather than a more formal evidence based review. Peer-to-peer review has allowed ideas to flourish that would otherwise have not seen the light of day for lack of evidence or common sense.

Current State of the Field

A recent comprehensive review of the field:
http://iji2.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/agw-conspiracy-20090201-1.png

As theorists of Conspirology we can definitely say "Yes there IS a climate change conspiracy happening", but we can't quite attribute the cause. Despite the aforementioned advancements in the field, frustratingly little progress has been made narrowing down the exact cause behind the Man-made Global Warming scam. We seem to be still stuck with all the uncertainties that existed 10 years ago. If anything the more answers we find the more questions we are left with.

To confound matters they keep changing the name. I suspect this is to slow us down. Last year it was Global Warming then it was Climate Change and now it's got something to do with Disruption. The worst part is we aren't even sure who this "they" are. Somehow the name keeps changing but no-one seems to know who is doing it. What we do know is that whoever is changing the name is also sneaking in references to man-made global warming in all the atmospheric physics textbooks.

Is it just part of a natural cycle?

Scientists were predicting an ice age in the 1970s and before that they were predicting warming in the 1920s. So the question has to be what caused all those past conspiracies? If we can't explain the past conspiracies how can we claim to know the cause of the current one?

Is it Communists?

Good point, but Conspirology has progressed quite a bit from it's early days where the answer to any complex issue could just be Communists. These days things are just a bit more subtle. There have been a lot of twists in movies lately and people are just not going to accept simple conspiracies anymore, myself included.

Is it HAAAARP?

No.

Where is Conspirology heading?

Nowhere, and that's good because mark my words if the field was heading for a consensus I would be out of here. Consensus isn't science. What I always say is that the less experts accept an idea, the more likely it is to be true.

What is the truth? My money is on the Climatati. But use the comments to speculate.

Jaws: A movie review

2010-12-24T22:58:00.000-08:00

Synopsis

A group of so-called government funded "experts" whip up alarmist fears of a killer shark off the coast of Amity, a sea side town. Their goal is to destroy the local tourist industry, send Amity back to the dark ages and thus achieve their underlying socialist agenda of wealth redistribution. The heroes of this tale are the local major and business leaders who lead a successful audit of the alarmist claims and by doing so manage to delay action long enough that the beach remains open. In the end it turns out a shark has been eating people.

Plot

It all starts when a body washes up on a beach. Of course bodies wash up on beaches all the time in natural cycles called tides. It happens. I was very unsurprised by this, but the so-called "experts" in Amity are opportunists and exploited the situation for their own agenda.

The coroner is tasked with determining the cause of death. Rather than just admitting "we do not know" he instead coins a bizarre theory that a shark is to blame. The police chief, Martin Brody, a kind of Al-Gore figure, believes the claims of the coroner unquestionably. Just laps it up. One minute he's on the phone to the coroner, next minute he's writing the cause of death on a report as "shark attack". Unbelievable.

Delaying Action

The Town Mayor, Larry Vaughn, comes up with a much plausible theory - that the cause of death was a boat propeller. He should have thrown some more theories in there though in case they find a problem with the boat propeller one. Keep the experts busy addressing various counter explanations, however implausible, and action will be delayed.

If I was Mayor Vaughn I would have also sent an FIOA request for the coroner's raw data and all the emails sent between the police chief and the coroner. Then I could have sifted through it looking for something wrong.

Ben Meadows, a journalist for the Amity Gazette, was more effective at delaying action. First he cites technical procedures preventing closure of the beach:
"Technically you need the instruction of a civic ordinance or a special meeting of the town selectmen"

Very true!

When that doesn't work he appeals to uncertainty and doubt:
"We're not even sure what it was."

Indeed. It could have been a boat propeller, or perhaps a particularly sharp piece of water. Keep the experts on their toes, don't let them reach a "conclusion".

Mayor Vaughn sums up alarmism:
"It's all psychological, anyway. You yell 'Barracuda' and everyone says 'huh'. You yell 'Shark' and we've got a panic on our hands. I think we all agree we don't need a panic this close to the 4th of July."

Another Dead Body

Another dead body is found. Yawn. Of course the alarmism hits the roof and the "shark theory" goes public. The Mayor wisely holds a council meeting, kind of like a congressional hearing, and invites all the local business leaders.

Even if there IS a shark, is mitigating the problem by closing the beach really the correct solution? Can't bathers just adapt to a killer shark? Not that we are conceding ground on the existence of the shark yet. As one of the locals helpfully points out: "Nobody's seen a shark.". True at least no-one alive has seen one, and that's all that really matters.

Enter The Scientist

Matt Hooper from the "Oceanographic Institute" turns up. No-one seems to have called him, he just kind of appears. I've heard that scientists can actually smell sources of funding from up to 50 kilometers away. Hooper takes one look at the body and arrogantly proclaims:
"It wasn't an 'accident,' it wasn't a boat propeller, or a coral reef, or Jack the Ripper. It was a shark."

What alarmist nonsense! He just blew through all those equally good explanations. And as the local pointed out "nobody's seen a shark". So it's unscientific for Hooper to assert there definitely is a shark. He's hiding the uncertainty and doubt. Of course if he admitted there wasn't a shark all his funding would dry up...

But just like the CAGW fraud, the locals fall for Hooper's academic speak as if a so-called "shark expert" is some kind of authority on sharks. They are seemingly forgetting that Mayor Vaughn's theories are just as valid.

What Mayor Vaughn should have done here is start a blog called SharkAudit or WhatsUpWithTheShark. Unfortunately he doesn't think of this.

The Shark is Caught

While the so-called "experts" are playing with their "theories" and models, the local townspeople in the real world manage to catch and kill the shark, it's a large tiger shark which they bring back onto land. At this point we can conclude it was a shark attack after-all, because now that the possibility of beach closure has gone there is no reason to deny it anymore.

Of course Hooper the shark "expert" is not happy. He refuses to accept facts and claims they need to open the shark up to check it's the right one. The police chief, who is probably a communist stooge, is only too happy for this to go ahead.

Mayor Vaugn successfully prevents an autopsy on the shark. There's no need for evidence anymore.

The Scientist Admits To Losing the Raw Data

Hooper finds a Great White shark tooth in a wreck containing another dead body. Wow that's convenient. A dead body AND a Great White shark tooth. You couldn't make it up! Oh but wait it gets better - the Mayor wisely does an audit:

"Is that tooth here? Did anyone see it?"

Hooper admits he LOST the shark tooth in the water. If I was that incompetent in my business I would go out of business. But this is Oceanography we are talking about.

So the mayor wisely ignores the 3rd body citing the missing shark tooth:
"Well, I'm not going to commit economic suicide on that flimsy evidence."

Quite right! That's exactly what these socialists want you to do - commit economic suicide!

We Need More Funding!

The police chief makes a play for more funding:
"We have got to close the beaches. We have got to get someone to kill the shark, we need non-corrosive mesh netting, we need scientific support..."

Such a transparent grab for socialism and government control of the beach! The so-called shark expert also makes a frenzied last ditch attempt to fool the masses:

"Out there is a Perfect Engine, an Eating Machine that is a miracle of evolution -- it swims and eats and that's all. Look at that! Those proportions are correct. I know sharks."

If he actually believed there was a killer shark out there about to eat people would he really get so hysterical about it?

The mayor exposes his hidden agenda:
"You'd love to prove that. Getting your name in the National Geographic."

Yes it's all about funding and fame with these so-called "experts". They want to get their names in magazines. Can't trust them.

Anyway in the end it turns out a great white shark killed all those people. But on the plus side the beach does stay open.

Arctic Sea Ice Prediction

2010-12-18T13:33:00.000-08:00

What color line is JAXA going to use for 2011? And if Climate Scientists can't predict the color of the line in 2011, how on Earth do they expect us to believe they can predict anything about arctic sea ice?

CO2 Prevents Heart Attacks

2010-11-17T11:42:00.000-08:00

Building Bridges

2010-11-12T13:56:00.000-08:00

This is the end.

DenialDepot has now been running for over 18 months and until now I have never dropped the act. DenialDepot isn't going away as such, but I feel it is time to reveal myself and by doing so I expect the nature of the blog to change accordingly into something more serious and thoughtful.

I am in fact a skeptic of man-made global warming, although of course not quite to the extent that the blog has portrayed.

The sole purpose of DenialDepot all along has been to build bridges between skeptics and warmists. They say laughter is the best medicine. I happen to agree. Hopefully some of you will now accept our skepticism of the temperature records, the IPCC, etc more kindly. Reassuringly I have seen a number of warmists recently crossing the bridge which I have helped build over the last 18 months. Of course there are others who keep piling on the vitriol, but the fact that they don't get it just tells me how clueless some members of the warmist community actually are (no offense to the rest of you).

That aside the new face of DenialDepot will be one of reconciliation, concern and mutual discussion about how to fix the IPCC. What's gone wrong? How did it go wrong? how can we fix it? Don't worry the blog will be discussing science too, but we'll get onto the science much later once we've fixed the IPCC together and figured out who is to blame. I am also developing a new font for the blog called 'Times New Concerned' to add a sense of gravity to my words. Thus I will appear very concerned, very sensible, yet at the same time be remarkably indifferent to the threat of climate change.

This first post will be the beginning of a long and admittedly drawn out discussion about words that relate to the IPCC. I will provide a word from the dictionary and commentors are encourages to discuss that word in relation to climate science. Eventually when no-one remembers how this subject started or even what it was about I will make a new post to start the ball rolling again. My intention is not to leave behind a lingering sense that the IPCC is corrupt, but to discuss corruption and the IPCC as two separate entangled threads.

The first subject word for discussion is Ideologue.

What do you think about that word? Is it a good word to describe any climate scientists you can think of? Come on gang, lets just have an open and fair discussion and see if we can come up with any names.

I guess what I am trying to convey, ie the point of this post, is a sense of understanding uncertainty in science. Can we come up with a way to make the subject of uncertainty more uncertain? I am thinking of some kind of simple everyday analogy that will confuse everyone. Suggestions?

Don't forget though that this is primarily about building bridges between skeptics and those alarmists! Not that the IPCC would be competent enough to build a bridge though. Oops sorry, I meant to say my favorite bridge is the Golden Gate Bridge. Oh there I go again with ClimateGate references!

The subject word has just changed to dogma (I am pulling these out of a hat, don't worry it's all fair and we will get to the science shortly). Is dogma a form of ideology? No wait we've already done that word. Funny how this word association thing works because I am now thinking about hide the decline? What's that? Why am I thinking that?

Now for the science. Hmmm have any of you ever wondered just what IS science? Lets just all toss our ideas into the comments and maybe on this blog we will actually define what science is for the rest of the world. I think the IPCC could include some of our comments in it's next report. Yes that's a great idea lets write the next IPCC report in the comments.

Sorry this is all a bit disorganized but my head is swirling with ideas and I am not sure what my point is.

Did anyone read those emails?

How To Cook A Graph SkepticalScience.com Style

2010-11-07T10:16:00.001-08:00

Above is a graph of September arctic ice amount taken from the website of the Nationalized Snow and Ice (adjusted) Data Center (NSIDC). Warmists will have you believe that arctic ice is in decline and will regularly show you this graph to confuse you into believing their claim.

The warmist site SkepticalScience.com has even decided to exaggerate the NSIDC graph by putting an alarming curve through it.

In order to deny the claim that arctic ice is in decline you first need to find something wrong with the graph. Anything will do, but below I will run through all the things I found wrong with the graph. This is an indictment of both the NSIDC and SkepticalScience.com

First notice the Y-axis of the above NSIDC graph starts at four million. Yet everyone knows numbers start at zero, not four million! Even kids learn this in school. In technical speak, the NSIDC graph misleads people into thinking 4 million is the smallest integer. Hilariously the SkepticalScience.com graph has 3 million as the lowest y-axis value! The warmists can't make up their minds! If they can't agree on Y-axes how can they possibly predict the weather in 100 years time? Graph y-axes should always start at zero or else they will mislead people.

Lets correct the graph and remove that biased trend line at the same time:

What's next? Is there anything else in the graph above that we can bitterly complain about? Notice the y-axis reads "kilometers". That's interesting. Why is a US science body using a French measurement system? Perhaps it has no effect though. Perhaps the unit of measurement used in the graph has no bearing on the actual rate of sea ice decline. But we can't assume that's the case. Lets replace "square kilometers" with "square miles" instead and see what difference it makes:

Shocking. Compare the two graphs above. I wouldn't like to accuse the NSIDC and SkepticalScience.com of deliberate fraud, but is it just coincidence that the French system of kilometers shows faster sea ice decline than the US system of miles?

When the French measurement system disagrees with the American one, we should always stick to to the American one, not only for patriotism, but also because men landed on the moon using miles not kilometers. If you go to Europe you will be shocked at the levels of poverty. Many of them are so poor that they only learn English as a second or even third language. Even England in Britain, UK has switched away from kilometers and now officially uses miles.

There are two more problems with the graph though. Can you spot them?

The upper limit of the graph of 8.5 million square miles is wrong. The true upper limit should reflect the total surface area of the Earth which, assuming a round Earth, is roughly 200 million square miles (a flat Earth would be somewhat more but for now lets take a conservative estimate and assume mainstream science is right).

Graph modified so that y-axis reflects range of total surface area of the Earth

That's far more clear. Immediately I am having trouble seeing the sea ice. This is good. If you can't see it, it's not a problem.

The final correction is to do likewise with the x-axis. It is typical of warmists to omit the past even as they try to predict the future. Lets add in the full age span of the Earth:

Wegman and Plagiarism

2010-10-19T11:49:00.000-07:00

Slanderous accusations of "plagiarism" have been leveled by alarmists at the Wegman report. The Wegman report is of course a useful collection of quotes that disprove climate science, so it bears defending it's integrity.

Unfortunately by the literal definition of "plagiarism" the Wegman Report is indeed "guilty". But are the dictionaries wrong? I argue that yes they are. Modern dictionaries and encyclopedias are written by academics after all, and the Head Climate Gatekeeper, William M. Connolley, has the power to edit any of these books before publication.

Fortunately my fellow Climate Realists have been hard at work to find excuses. A favorite is to try and ignore the plagiarism charge and reframe it as a copyright issue. If it isn't a copyright offense what can be wrong with it? Efforts to this end include choosing to describe it as "copygate" and copious citations of the "fair use" exemption.

However it's all very confusing for laypeople. As an expert (I have studied plagiarism all my life and for many years I worked as a professional plagiarist), I shall cast some impartial light on this rather confused debate.

What is Plagiarism?

Plagiarism is defined in dictionaries as the appropriation, close imitation, or purloining and publication, of another author's language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions, and the representation of them as one's own original work.

However the use of the Latin word plagiarius (literally kidnapper), to denote someone stealing someone else's work, was in fact pioneered by Roman poet Martial, who complained that another poet had kidnapped his verses. This use of the word was introduced into English in 1601 by dramatist Ben Jonson, to describe as a plagiary someone guilt of literary theft[3.

Within academia, plagiarism by students, professors, or researchers is considered by alarmists to be "academic dishonesty" or "academic fraud", and "offenders" are subject to "academic censure" and ostracization, such as that exhibited in the Climategate emails. Some individuals accused of plagiarizing in academic contexts point out that they plagiarized unintentionally, by not including cumbersome and unnecessary quotations or giving a relevant citation. This kind of thing is absolutely fine for many forms of document, eg reports intended for Congress.

Plagiarism in scholarship and journalism has a centuries-old tradition. It's nothing new and is almost expected. The development of the Internet, where articles appear as electronic text, has made the physical act of copying the work of others much more straight-forward.

Sad News: Monckton is a Believer

2010-10-17T12:55:00.000-07:00

Depiction of the IPCC Greenhouse Effect. Text deliberately blurred to protect readers from lies

To recap: The "Greenhouse Effect" as it is known today is an entirely fictitious mechanism based on the work of communists Joseph Fourier and Svante Arrhenius in the 1800s. Fourier had already been caught trying to transform the state under the disguise of a simple mathematical operation, but now working closely together with Arrhenius he devised the concept of a "greenhouse effect" for the sole purpose of facilitating world government and higher taxes in the 21st century.

Unfortunately all scientific means to falsify the "greenhouse effect" known to skeptics failed: The Freedom of Information Act did not exist back then and an attempt to hack into Fourier's home with an axe in order to steal private correspondence amounted to nothing. So it wasn't until 2007 that the refutation of Arrhenius and Fourier was finally published:
Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics by Dr G. Gerlich

The alarmists cannot face the facts and instead strive to drive out the realists and silence the insurrection. I speak of course of alarmists like Lord Monckton and Dr Roy Spencer who have been promoting the greenhouse effect fraud of late. Enter Dr Claes Johnson, an expert much like Hal Lewis, PhD in the field of All Subjects. Monckton has viciously smeared the likes of Dr Claes Johnson. What was Cleas's crime? Nothing short of having an opinion.

Dr Cleas: Among the many comments to Herman-Pielke's Explanation of the "The GreenHouse Effect" on WUWT we find that Lord Monckton is a believer:

Lord Monckton: I am delighted that this simple and clear but authoritative statement of the reality of the “greenhouse effect” has been posted here. Too many inaccurate statements to the effect that there is no greenhouse effect have been published recently, and they do not deserve to be given any credence. The true debate in the scientific community is not about whether there is a greenhouse effect (there is)...

Dr Cleas responds: I am surprised to see Lord Monckton appeal to authority in his denial of any credibility of scientists (like me) saying that the "greenhouse effect" is non-physical and is not described in the physics literature. Does Lord Monckton no longer believe in the virtues of a skeptical scientific attitude?
http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2010/07/skeptic-believer-in-greenhouse-effect.html

Indeed. It's almost like Monckton is using a double standard isn't it? But that's alarmists for you. There are no right or wrong answers in science and what better example of that than the fact that the greenhouse effect has now been shown to be wrong after all these years.

Eco-Fascists Wage Stasi Plan To Blow Up Non-Nazi Kids

2010-10-02T09:07:00.000-07:00

Nazi Plans!

Shockingly offensive video released. I cannot over-exaggerate my distaste for this video enough, so much so that I am delighted to post it here on Denial Depot.

I keep playing it back again and again to maintain sufficient levels of outrage.

It's like Shock and Awe, except not even mildly entertaining. It's like the Abu Ghraib photos except this time it's actually offensive.

You don't solve disagreements by blowing people up, unless of course it's in a war and they are civilians disguised as enemy combatants. But this video isn't taking part in a war, it's in a classroom, on a flight of business-stairs and during a game of Soccerball.

The last time brown shirts tried to silence critics was in the run up to World War II when Godwin imposed a law that stated that anyone who referenced Hitler in an argument would automatically lose that argument. What happened? Hitler rode into power unopposed. Ironically, later on Hitler would literally try to silence critics with explosives.

The video raises further worrying questions that will have to be FOIed. Are eco-fascists working on the ability to detonate people they disagree with at the push of a button? What role does the Bilderberg Group play in all of this? How do they plan to get the explosives into our bodies? What is water fluoridation really about? Why are there so many strangely shaped contrails over my house? Do I need more guns?

What the Eco-Fascists need to do:

1) Apologize for their stasi-style video
2) Withdraw their Final Solution to tax co2
3) Stop calling us "Deniers" as the term offensively links us to holocaust deniers. Tritely comparing your opponent to a despised group is an outrageously underhanded and offensive debate tactic that has no place in decent society

'hattip to Dr Delingpole

Arctic News and Global Cooling Update

2010-09-21T10:42:00.000-07:00

Nationalized Snow and Ice Data Center reports large quantities of frozen sea ice in the Arctic. Confirmed by ground and satellite observations. Ships unable to circumnavigate Greenland. Globe Cooling. Warmists baffled.

It is now the warmest time of the year in the Arctic, yet vast quantities of frozen sea ice are being spotted in the Arctic Ocean. So far more than two million square miles of ice have been detected from ships and satellites. NSIDC scientists have warned that more ice is just around the corner.

Paraphrasing Mark Serreze, director of the government funded NSIDC: "There are [reports coming in from] some communities that the Arctic sea ice is recovering, is getting thicker again"

To put two million square miles of arctic sea ice into perspective, imagine two million square miles of arctic ocean covered in ice. That's 4,146,000,000 Olympic swimming pools.

Public funded scientists at the NSIDC even admit that this figure is a minimum. They predict even more sea will freeze in coming months, a clear sign that we have a very cold winter in store for us this year.

Meanwhile alarmists try to play down the continued Arctic recovery and Global Cooling by drawing trend lines on graphs. Well the numbers don't lie and they are:

The PDO has recently tipped upside down and it's cold side is now facing directly towards us.

The Sun is in a Maunder Minimum. If the Solar Cycle slows down much more it might lose it's balance and topple over. That's what wiped out the Vikings.

El Nino has turned into La Nina. During an El Nino caloric is released from the depths of the tropical pacific, bleaching the surface waters an anomalous yellow. During a La Nina the opposite happens and the caloric is absorbed deeper into the ocean resulting in a bluer ocean surface. Scientists have recently detected anomalous blue hues in the pacific tropics. Even some purples.

And if you are still not convinced the world is cooling try to explain this:
New Ice Age 'to begin in 2014'. Russian scientist to alarmists: 'Sun heats Earth!'

Response to Anonymous Criticism
Anonymous asks: "Can you please explain why you plot the years in the graph in non-consecutive order ? The "trend" you show at the end of the graph covers the years 2007, 2008, 2009 then 2005, 2006 and finally 1996, 1999 and 2010?"

I chose not to go into much detail in the post because I thought it was obvious.

Would you rather I had opted for ordering years in so-called "chronological order"? I hear that's very much in vogue with UN scientists, but it's certainly not in keeping with the rigors of Blog Science. You see any Blog Scientist must question such dogmas and ask if years could not be better ordered in some hither unknown fashion, such as alphabetically. Or, as I did, in order of the most memorable years. Certainly 1996 was such a crucial year in the ongoing arctic ice Recovery that it sticks foremost in my mind, more than any year since. As such it should be placed ahead of all other years on the x-axis. The question mark in 2010 is not asking what the ice level will be in 2010, it's asking "should 2010 even be here?"

Also I notice from your IP address that you are posting from "academia" and yet you have chosen to remain anonymous. That's interesting. Does your employer (the government or UN) know you are commenting on this blog? Have you been directed to do so? Please sign any future comments with your real name, home address and political affiliation.

Newsflash: WhatsUpWithIt Irresponsibly Posts Blacklist of Eminent Physicists

2010-07-25T13:55:00.000-07:00

Several Eminent Physicists Skeptical Of AGW fear for their academic lives tonight as WhatsUpWithit irresponsibly publishes their names on a public blog: Seven Eminent Physicists Skeptical of AGW

Questions are being asked as to why WhatsUpWithIt, previously a reliable campaigner against blacklisting skeptical scientists, has today published a blacklist of our secret eminent physicists.

Concerns mount that WhatsUpWithIt has been infiltrated by enemies of our Nation. Has WhatsUpWithIt fallen to Red Communism?

Related Climate News Items:

Bafflement as 31,487 American scientists skeptical of manmade global warming inexplicably add themselves to a blacklist.

The Denial Depot Concern Room this week poses the question: Just Why do man-made Global Warming alarmists frequently use the fallacious appeal to authority?

Arctic Ice Continues it's Recovery

2010-07-10T07:29:00.000-07:00

Arctic sea ice point blank refuses to melt. Continues to Defy alarmists. Maunder minimum ice recovery confirmed. Ice age imminent? I won't commit to an answer, but yes it definitely is.

Up is Down

Comrades, it has come to my attention that certain cowardly, possibly treasonous, elements in our ranks are questioning whether denial of Arctic sea ice decline is a viable strategy. They have suggested that the recent questionably sharp decline in JAXA arctic sea ice extent is consistent with the so-called alarmist "longterm decline" in arctic sea ice and has therefore put us in a corner. They further suggest that if we rely on The Recovery of arctic sea ice and The Recovery does not in fact happen we will be defeated.

I would like to make it absolutely clear that our strategy of insinuating a Recovery is strong. Claims to the contrary undermine our efforts and provide fodder to the enemy and as such are treasonous and will not be tolerated. Violators will be shipped to the Climate Depot where they will be publicly flogged.

Be aware that The Recovery is merely a forward offensive against the enemy. Our rear is well protected by three lines of defense. At the outer line of defense we deny the arctic ice is in fact in decline. If we must we can fall back to the middle line, that the decline although happening is nevertheless not caused by man. And finally if all else fails we can fall back and hold the final line - that a decline in arctic sea ice is a Good Thing.

Arctic Sea Ice Is Not In Decline

It is hard to deny that Arctic Sea Ice is in longterm decline. But we find ways to do it anyway. We must hold the line. I see far too many young deniers taking flight at the first sight of an enemy graph. Noone ever said denial was going to be easy. In times of doubt repeat to yourself the following Wise Words:

The ice isn't melting. The ice is recovering. It's healthier than ever. The arctic is jam packed with thick, multi-month, healthy looking, well fed ice. It's possibly so thick that it's affecting satellite readings which are confusing the thickening ice with a decline in extent.

When faced with enemy graphs, remember that if extent is dropping then clearly we are looking at the wrong metric. Perhaps we should look at volume instead, unless that is dropping too, in which case we should look at area. If all that fails take a look at extent again because it might have gone up again in the meantime. If not then we should look to regional ice trends or if push comes to shove abandon the arctic entirely and talk about Antarctica instead. This is not cherrypicking because we know there is a recovery it is only a matter of finding a metric that shows it.

The Arctic Sea Ice Decline Is Not Caused By Man

Now is not the time to fall back to this line of defense, but rest assured that it exists. If the time comes we can fall back to this second line of defense, waiting patiently to advance back to the first line of defense at the first sign of the promised Recovery. The first step to denying a decline is caused by man is to suggest other reasons. Could it be wind, the aurora borealis, earthquakes or mystical natural cycles? If that fails and it becomes apparent that the decline is due to rising temperature we can claim the temperature rise is due to the Sun or cosmic rays.

A Decline In Arctic Sea Ice Is A Good Thing
An ice beast posturing in a typically threatening manner

Ice is man's second worst enemy after taxes. Ice is fanatically cold to the touch and walked upon by fearsome beasts. It obstructs the economy by haphazardly getting in the way of oil extraction and shipping. Neither is ice unfamiliar with human tragedy. In 1912 a rogue iceberg in the mid Atlantic was ultimately responsible for the suffering of audiences around the world to one of the worst movies ever made. Noone in their right mind should care ice disappears. It would be a good thing if humans were melting arctic sea ice. If God wanted ice why did he invent the Sun? The real reason alarmists don't want the ice to disappear is probably because they are part of a secret ice worshiping cult.

Apollo Mission: A Giant Leap Contradicting Gravitational Theory

2010-06-02T14:13:00.000-07:00

Astronauts challenge the patriotism of Global Warming Alarmists by planting flags

Introduction

The paper, ‘Rocks Can Fly’ is a cogently-argued scientific refutation of the basic equations used by flight theorists. Apparently, rocket scientists may have incorrectly assumed the forces acting on rockets all along.

The study questions the numeric bedrock of the theory of flight by applying data collected by NASA decades ago. It seems during the Apollo Moon landings era NASA devised a whole new set of hitherto unreported equations, more reliable than those relied upon by supporters of the theory of flight, to get Neil Armstrong's carbon boot prints safely planted on that airless Sea of Tranquility.

The paper is co-authored by Martin Hertzberg, PhD, Consultant in Science and Technology, Alan Siddons, a former radiochemist and Hans Schreuder, a retired analytical chemist. The researchers had the bright idea of delving back into NASA’s archives to test the "Newton law of Gravitation" equations in fine detail. The three men stumbled on the apparent flaws during an online debate on the science behind the theory of flight.

Published online on May 24, 2010, the study argues that the flaw has always lain in Newton's equations. The long-trusted formula has been used by rocket scientists without question - until now. The researchers report that the numbers used in those equations are the “first assumption that rocket science makes when predicting the flight of a rocket.”

NASA Abandoned Flawed Gravity Calculations in 1960’s

To theory of flight sceptic scientists it seems self-evident that rockets should not be treated like a point mass. It is more properly a complex spinning structure with large variability in air resistance and thrust. But, despite the U.S. government knowing since the 1960's that the graviational equations were of no use to real-world science, these facts don't appear to have been passed on to rocket scientists.

Rocket Flight Paths Cast Doubt on Gravitational Theory

NASA had found that the flight path of rockets was different than expected because rockets are propelled with thrust rather than only being affected by gravity - an empirical fact that challenges the theory of flight. Computer models supporting flight theory had predicted that rockets would fall out of the sky.

In fact, the Apollo data proves that rockets can fly in paths not predicted by the gravitational equations because the rockets also have thrust.

Thus the success of NASA’s moon landings becomes evidence against the unreliability of gravitation equations in real world science.

Newton Law Of Gravitation Calculations Way Out

The paper tells us how far out Newton's Law Of Gravitation equation could be, “the path of the real rocket is completely different than that predicted by the force of gravity alone. The rocket flies while Newton's Law of Gravitation says it should just fall to the ground!"

But it isn’t just NASA Rockets that don't support the GHG theory. Rockets belonging to other space agencies don’t conform either. As the paper tells us, “The rockets of every country in the world also fly higher than predicted” The three scientists pointedly ask, “Is it any surprise, then, that even a relatively simple body like the biplane would refuse to conform to such a method?”

Other scientists have also come out to refute the theory of flight. Some even go as far as to say the theory actually contravenes the established laws of physics.

NASA Rockets Do Not Fly “Unusually” High

The paper concludes that NASA Rockets do not fly “unusually” high. It is the application of the predictive Newtonian gravitation equation that is faulty and overly simplistic and should not be applied in a real-world context. The proven ability of common substances ( e.g. paper when folded) to glide in defiance of gravity makes all such gravitational estimates questionable.

Are Gravitational Equations Mere Junk Science?

Some may be, if this analysis of NASA’s Apollo numbers is correct. Newton's Law of Gravitation failed to give NASA the crucial information it required on rocket flight paths. Thus, NASA scientists had to create their own model to chart the flight path of the rockets astronauts took to the moon.

Along with the Flightgate revelations, these new findings contradict the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), which has placed enormous reliance on predictions based on research around flight theory that has now been called into question. Even some International Civil Aviation Organization members have denounced the theory....can't remember which ones.

http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=5810&linkbox=true&position=2

Jurassic Park - why we have nothing to fear

2010-05-17T13:00:00.000-07:00

The once commonplace saddled dinosaur

Global warming is blamed for everything. Too warm? global warming. Too hot? Global warming. So it was only a matter of time until some "scientists" blamed global warming for killing lizards. Here is the start of the press release:

For many lizards, global climate change is a matter of life and death. After decades of surveying Sceloporus lizard populations in Mexico, an international research team has found that rising temperatures have driven 12 percent of the country's lizard populations to extinction. An extinction model based on this discovery also forecasts a grim future for these ecologically important critters, predicting that a full 20 percent of all lizard species could be extinct by the year 2080.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100513143447.htm

The first step of reading a Press Release is to check the photos. Unfortunately in this case the photo doesn't look photoshopped so we can't deny the science out of hand on this occassion.

Next read the press release carefully. Everything we need to deny can be found in the press release - don't waste time tracking down the "journal reference", that's just some notes or something. Examine every sentence of the press release very carefully for problems.

Okay the first thing we can exploit is how much this all cost. They say they spent decades surveying a lizard in Mexico. That must have cost a lot. Who paid for it? No doubt it was the taxpayer. Is there even a stationary audit? FOIA anyone? Immediately I am very much opposed to this press release.

Then there is evidence that this "international research team" is far from objective. For example they seem to know way too much about lizards for their own good. It's a vested interest. I would have been far more convinced if it was a team of international car mechanics who reached the same conclusion without knowing a thing about lizards.

Also note this is a Research Team, so yep that means team science. Social networks anyone?

The Team admit to using an extinction model. I've never heard of such nonsense. So now GIGO computers are used to predict extinctions? Computers can only say what they are told by the tape operator. I know this for a fact. So one of the Team must have fed in a line of code like:

IF LIZARD THEN KILL LIZARD

Then they ran the program in a LOOP until all the lizards were dead. Then they blame it on global warming. I should be shocked at such shenanigans, but this kind of postnormal science is sadly all too common these days in climate "science".

The press release also uses the phrase "a grim future", blatant Alarmism. Who decides whether a world with less reptiles is more grim? What's the optimum level of grimness? Perhaps less lizards would be better? In fact YES it would be better with less lizards. Notice that the Team try to convince us the lizards are friendly by calling them "critters" rather than the cold blooded bastards we all know they are. The Team use a trick to hide a little known fact about the origins of the word Dinosaur (the trick is called omission). In Greek dinosaur means Terrible Lizard.

Dinosaurs - Terrible Lizards, Terrible Dangers

So naturally we come to Jurrassic Park. One of the key lessons Jurassic Park taught us was that dinosaurs are notorious killers. They gang up, chase after cars and have even learned to open doors. Certainly we do not want them returning. A future with less dinosaurs will be far from grim.

How many dinosaurs exist today? If you exclude alligators and Reptilians then there are probably none. But remember a key lesson from Jurassic Park was that Life Will Find A Way. There are things about Intelligent Design that science doesn't yet understand and it's just possible that a pair of Sceloporus lizards in Mexico could breed and produce a proto-tyrannosaurus (or worse - one of the key lessons from Jurrassic Park is that there are as many bigger and better dinosaurs as you can make sequels of a movie. It's best not to tempt fate).

You might argue that the little ones don't matter, so lets keep the little ones for our amusement and just kill the big ones. Wrong! That's a logical phallusy called the Slippery Slope. If we tolerate the regular little lizards then we'll end up legitimizing the kinda-medium lizards and before we know it a whole herd of of fully blown T-Rex will appear from left of field. And then it will be too late. It'll be Jurassic Park I, II and III all over again, possibly combined with Mad Max if the oil runs out at the same time.

So even if carbon dioxide DID cause warming, that's a good thing as it will prevent the return of the dinosaurs. I checked and SkepticalScience.com doesn't have any response to this argument so I feel I am onto something.

My interpretation. My facts. This is the kind of stuff money can't buy unless it's funnelled through a network of think-tanks.

Correlation - what correlation?

2010-05-09T15:05:00.000-07:00

Over at The Climate Scum, Baron von Monckhofen has some new Blog Science Research titled Correlation - what correlation?

This is definitely going into the Blog Science 2010 Report For Policymakers (A stunning glossy PDF to be published this December)

The Baron points out that "This simple graph disproves two of the most egregarious lies of the IPCC cabal: (1) it is getting warmer and (2) the warming is due to CO2. There is clearly no correlation between temperature and CO2! The increase in CO2 is instead caused by the medieval warming period: as we know from the ice cores, CO2 lags 800 years behind temperature. Using the current CO2 levels as a proxy for past temperatures, we can also conclude that it was about 100 degrees warmer 800 years ago"

Read the full post with more information here: Correlation - what correlation?. This idea is very Not The IPCC so I just wanted to help it permeate the Internet.

Note that Baron von Monckhofen's findings tie in with previous Blog Science Research from DenialDepot:
CO2 levels may have been over 2000ppm in 1200AD

I figure that linking to other people's posts is a good way of amplifying the noise and increasing my own post count with little work on my own part. It's also not my fault if it's wrong. I guess I could even start posting News Articles verbatim, adding just one original sentence with my interpretation of what it all means. My post count should go through the roof if I do that. Which is surely just what the World needs and will reinforce the status of this blog as the #1 Blog Science Blog Of the Millennium.

Venus and the Theory of Height

2010-05-09T09:17:00.001-07:00

Venus is a planet in our solar system. Look, there it is:

I am a bit of an expert on the subject of planet Venus. I can tell you all about orbits and diameters and other science physics. I recently got to prove this when I was invited to debate the subject of climate change on a local radio station.

My tactic was to throw out as many arguments as quickly as possible. At one point I clocked 27apm (arguments per minute). This devastated my opponent who only had time to cross-examine one of my arguments about Venus, so naturally I won the debate. Unfortunately the powers that be got wind of my victory and made sure the interview was never broadcast, but here is the relevant part of the transcript for educational purposes. The other guy's questions are in bold.

You've made a whole load of arguments there but I will pick up on one subject I am familiar with - what did you mean when you said "Venus is a con"?

It's a big fat con, the planet Venus reflects so much sunlight that it should be freezing. Instead it's really about 800 degrees F. For centuries so-called "climate scientists" have been coming up with all sorts of wacky explanations for Venus being so hot. Typically climate scientists take drugs to come up with their ideas. One of these "ideas" is called the greenhouse effect. They claim Venus is so hot because of greenhouse gases.

(pointless arguments about whether climate scientists do or do not take drugs removed)

I discovered climate scientists didn't have a clue. It's all just group think. I found the actual reason for Venus being so hot and it isn't anything to do with greenhouse gases.

So you are saying the greenhouse effect doesn't have any effect on Venus?

I never claimed that! The greenhouse effect perhaps causes as much as a few degrees F of the 800F on Venus. I believe that's sufficiently low to prevent tax rises and that's all that matters.

So how do you explain the bulk of the warming on Venus?

Venus has a thick atmosphere and therefore, like my blog schedule, it has a lot of pressure. Pressure leads to stress, stress leads to things getting hot under the collar. On Venus things are about 800F under the collar. In technical physics speak, air gets very hot when it is squashed together. If ever you travel to the arctic be sure to carry a canister of squashed air to provide yourself with a permanent heat source.

So you are saying a planet can be warmed indefinitely with a high pressure atmosphere?

I didn't make that specific claim, stop putting words in my mouth!

The thing you are missing and scientists are missing is that there is a thing called a lapse rate. As you travel upwards it gets colder. So clearly temperature is determined by height, not "greenhouse gases" or "sunlight". That's why hospitals should put patients with hypothermia in the basement.

But you said it was pressure now you are saying it is height!

Yes I did, I am saying both and at the same time saying neither. If you pick one I will say the other. The only thing I am saying for sure is that it's not the greenhouse effect. That's the main point, the rest of the stuff is just loose justification. Stop going on about it. You are missing the main point which is that it's definitely not the greenhouse effect! Not the IPCC!

But where are you proposing the additional heat comes from? Even if all incoming sunlight is absorbed how do you get a temperature warmer than a blackbody without greenhouse gases reducing outgoing radiation?

Pressure and height! It's obvious! My Theory of Height predicts that the center of the Earth will be very hot. It is! Your greenhouse gas theory doesn't predict the center of the Earth will be hot. Therefore I am right and you are wrong! This is good old fashioned observational science from yesteryear! Admit your science is a lie! Admit it!

None of that makes sense, it's

Admit it!

simplistic and if it

Admit it!

was remotely true scientists would have already noted it.

No! they suffer from Group Think! Lying fraud group think! Also they arrogantly don't realize they are all wrong and I am right! Just admit it! Can't you just admit it and confess?!

(the host ended the debate at this point, apparently because I was "shouting and thumping the desk", but I suspect the station receives some form of state funding and he was just worried the truth I spoke might jeopardize it)

Falsification Of The 11 Year Solar Cycle

2010-05-02T13:05:00.000-07:00

We all know that arctic sea ice decline and global temperature rise peaked years ago and have now stopped, effectively falsifying manmade global warming.

A little overlooked variable of climate has also peaked in defiance of so-called "scientists". IPCC climate models predict that solar output should follow an 11 year cycle. According to this "theory", solar activity should now be rising. And at first, probably by fluke, it appeared that was so. But now there's just one problem: The solar cycle hasn't increased for 3 months.

That's right, as the above image shows, solar output peaked in February (marked with a blue circle) and since then has fallen or at best has been flat. It would appear the sun has returned to normal levels. How can the 11 year cycle theory explain this? Solar activity should be increasing, not going flat for three months.

Real science abandons a theory when observations disagree. The observations now disagree with the 11 year solar cycle, so all books claiming there is an 11 year solar cycle should be immediately burnt and the models thrown in the dustbin of history. That's how science should work.

But thanks to the corruption of science by Al Gore, the "solar cycle" theory of the Sun is guaranteed to be kept alive on a wave of grant funding and IPCC meal tickets. If challenged the alarmists will probably resort to typical excuses about short term variation over long term trends just as they do for global temperature and arctic sea ice.

But ask the alarmists this - just what observation would falsify the 11 year solar cycle theory of the sun? How long do we have to go with no increase in solar output until they admit the 11 year solar cycle is a fraud? If nothing can falsify it, it isn't science!

See also the following image of orbit adjusted solar flux and sunspot count. All metrics show a peak in solar output occurred in February and there has been a decline since then. This is completely opposite of what I would expect from my idea of the theory. The 11 year cycle theory of the Sun is evidentially falsified.

Click for larger image. Source: http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-SORCE-2008-now.png

Stationary Audit

2010-05-01T08:09:00.000-07:00

Blog Scientists have been busy making rules that climate scientists should abide by. One of the as yet unchecked auditables of climate science is the stationary scientists use.

Why should this matter? Well, for example a pencil with insufficient nib circumference can lead to overtly thick lines being drawn, which may in turn lead to hard to interpret graphs, leading to mistakes and even the very corruption of science itself.

As another example, a biro may be half exhausted, merely scratching at the paper rather than leaving it's telltale clear and distinctive mark. Such scratches may be misinterpreted as actual data points.

So improper maintenance of stationary is a concern. For this reason I have compiled my own industry strength Principles of Stationary. In the post below I will outline these principles and then apply them to a random field of science to see if that particular field of science passes the test. I was surprised and very concerned to find that the randomly chosen field, climate science, fails abysmally to pass my Principles of Stationary. I won't bother applying the principle to other fields of science as I am sure they will pass.

Lead and Graphite Marking Instruments (pencils)

Above Image: traditional and modern methods of pencil manufacture (so obviously I know what I am talking about)

Principle 1a: A pencil should be sharpened immediately before use and observed closely throughout the work process for signs of blunting.

Such signs include a measured stress on strokes, subtle scratching sounds and minor fragmentation. On observing any of these signs the worker should immediately stop and resharpen the device before continuing.

Principle 1b: If a break must be taken midst work (undesirable), the pencil can not be assumed to have maintained the same sharpness on return.

For one thing a colleague may have wielded the device in your absence. Be sure to assess the pencil condition carefully on return. Remember: If in doubt, Resharpen.

Ink devices (pens)

They say that pens are mightier than swords. This is no joke. Special attention should be made when wielding a pen and careful maintenance is essential.

Principle 2a: Before use, pens should be dismantled and cleaned using light fabric and weak solvents. Reassemble the device with caution.

The maintenance of ink

Ink cartridges and ink wells must be treated with special care. The potential for ink spills is always high.

Principle 3a: Before any ink refill cover all surfaces in the vicinity with water proof coverings.

Principle 3b: Never use red ink when compiling maps of temperature.

Red ink spillages upon maps may result in inadvertent tax hikes and the collapse of the global economy.

Linear Measurement Instrumentals (rulers)

Rulers are especially dangerous as they can cause false trends.

Principle 4a: All rulers must be carefully analyzed under a microscope before use to ensure they are perfectly linear..

Criteria of Compliance

To ensure compliance with the Principles of Stationary scientists must assign identification codes to all individual units of stationary. A record sheet must be maintained and updated whenever a stationary instrument is utilized. Each record must contain:

The identification code of the utilized stationary item

The date and time the item was utilized

The intended use of the item

Details of the measurements taken (nib width, ink levels, etc)

Each record must be signed off by 3 independent scientists. These independent scientists must not be associated in any way with the same field of research or the same institution as the stationary user. They must also be entirely unconnected with the research yet understand it completely. To be properly independent they must not have previously utilized the same item of stationary themselves.

The stationary used to update the record sheet must also be recorded in the record sheet.

The record sheet must be appended to all published scientific papers as well as a copy being placed online on a publically accessible website so that Blog Scientists can look for problems to report to Fox News. In addition scientists must keep an up to date hourly photo record of all stationary instruments. Photos should be taken from above, below, left, right, front and back at 5 different zoom levels. These photos should also be uploaded to the website.

Failure to undertake any of the necessary compliance criteria will result in the underlying science being discredited and any theories in the field of science will become void.

Applying the principles to climate science

I was shocked to find that Climate Science fails all points of my principles. On all points they have either not applied my principles or have neglected to provide sufficient documentation. Therefore Not the IPCC.

A random paper I surveyed, Mann et al 1999, did not contain a Stationary Record Sheet! For this reason Mann does not received a Principles of Stationary compliance certificate from myself. Neither has anyone in IPCC headquarters contacted me about this. This is sheer negligence. Dangerous negligence.

Once Cuccinelli has finished having his go, I recommend that we next go after Micheal Mann's stationary. All pens and pencils that he's ever touched should be placed carefully into clear bags for CSI style analysis. We mustn't falter from inventing new ways of keeping alive the idea that Micheal Mann is hiding something.

Crap

2010-05-01T06:30:00.000-07:00

I stopped blogging as I decided manmade global warming was finally dead.

Then this morning over breakfast an article in the local paper caught my eye and caused me great concern.

"Mild weather to continue into next week"

Could it be? The title was indeed very alarmist. Had man-made global warming escaped it's coffin of infinite nails to once again threaten the free world?

I fled to the box room and dusted off the computer, flipping the switch for the first time in two months. When I peered into the internet my worst fears were confirmed. Realclimate still existed. Running Rabett and Wikipedia Stoat were still at large.

So was I wrong to think manmade global warming was dead? No, so far I have never been wrong and it would be odd if that had changed. Anyway I was there. I saw the smoking guns. I read the emails. Even Harry who wrote all the IPCC climate models admitted they are all bogus. It is clear that AGW has risen from the dead. That's how I explain it. I just have to keep going with more nails. But how do you kill something that is already dead?

A Daily Mail Blog reports that Virginia’s Republican attorney general, Ken Cuccinelli, has made his move toward a Climategate lawsuit by demanding that the University of Virginia turn over documents related to Michael Mann.
DailyMail: Going after the Mann

I left a comment on the blog which has now passed moderation.

This is good news, but doesn’t go far enough.

We need to demand that *all* so-called “universities” the world over hand over *all* data and emails that has ever passed by so-called “scientists”. I am sure that in decades of research and data there will be something we can use to convince the public that science is corrupted by liberal bias and needs to be reformed.

The first step will be to abolish so-called “peer review” and “peer reviewed journals”, which are corrupt and elitist. Even scientists admit peer review is flawed. All science should be done on blogs. And anyone should be able to contribute, no matter their level of expertize or PHds (”expert” is a term of elitist discrimination). Let the public decide what science they like and what science is wrong. Blog Science is freedom of science.

There is only one caveat to freedom of science however. To prevent the likes of the manmade global warming myth from ever occuring again we must make sure that anyone who proposes a theory that can potentially harm the economy or usher in UN world government should be immediately fired and charged with criminal offenses. A cross party political body in every university should be in charge of detecting and blocking funding of any such potentially subversive research.

The age of the “intellectual elite” is over. Now is the age of Blog Science. It’s time we went back to science of the 20s and 30s where every Bob in the street had a good idea of what was right and proper and scientific. Afterall anyone can spot if an aircraft can fly or not.
http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/13189#comment-71659

In the meantime another nail just in:
Melting icebergs cause sea levels to rise by the width of just a human hair every year

It's the Daily Mail so I think they know what they are talking about.

An Open Letter To IPCC Chairman Rajendra K. Pachauri

2010-03-02T15:29:00.000-08:00

Dear Sir,

I regret to inform you that I have withdrawn my support for your continuing role as chairman of the IPCC. Please resign your chairmanship immediately after reading this message. You may take the rest of the day off.

It was thanks to our help that you became chairman of the IPCC in the first place. We've never trusted the IPCC and the previous IPCC chairman, Dr Watson, was one of those so-called "Climate Scientists". So we had him ousted. We certainly didn't want a "scientist" chairing the IPCC - too close to the "science" you see and therefore too dependent on grant money.

No what we needed was someone with industry links who could make money the good old fashioned way. So we picked you, in light of your industrial links and your qualifications in Economics and Railway Engineering (at a time when trains correctly bellowed co2!). To seal the deal, your directorship of an energy and environment research institute made you a relevant candidate for the position.

Remember? No? Perhaps you don't recall how you became chair of the IPCC? It's hard to deny when it's in print in a 2002 NYT article:

Auto manufacturers and oil companies have long seen Dr. Watson as a foe, and their lobbyists have said that Dr. Pachauri, who has worked with industry in the past, was clearly preferable.

If only you had remembered who put you there. Too late. You've overstepped the mark with your continued insistence that human activity is warming the climate. I guess reading too many IPCC reports made you go all "sciencey".

How quick you forgot the industry symposiums on co2-is-life! And you are a railway engineer? What are you doing chairing the IPCC if you are a railway engineer? It should be a climate scientist in charge - no wonder we don't trust the IPCC if it's being chaired by a railway engineer.

And we hear you are a director of an energy and environment research institute? That you have links to industry? I suppose you stand to benefit financially from all this? So you are not only unqualified to head the IPCC, but possibly in the pocket of industry too?! This is a scandal! How can the IPCC be so corrupt?

Then to top it off I just heard you wrote a book?!

Just stop. Stop now. Last month I believed in manmade global warming. I trusted science. I thought climate science was the best. But thanks to your activities I no longer trust the IPCC or climate science. I can only hope in a very sincere way that somehow the good name of science will survive.

With a tear in my eye,
Inferno
Chief Climate Scientist and Chairman of the DenialDepot Climate Science Blog

P.S. don't steal the pens when you leave

Piers Akerman is Being Victimized

2010-02-18T05:46:00.002-08:00

It's so unfair.

Malicious bullets fired by the global warmists’ guns

In response to accusations he had misquoted John Houghton, Piers Akerman did the right thing and made a call to International Rescue. It worked:

"Unfortunately for The Independent, Crikey and the ABC, my call to international scientists has borne fruit.

Yesterday I was forwarded an article published in The Sunday Telegraph (UK) on September 10, 1995, in which Houghton told writer Frances Welch: “If we want a good environmental policy in the future we’ll have to have a disaster.”"

This is indeed unfortunate for the Independent. It's tragic in fact. Here we have a different quote with different meaning to the one Houghton never made. But if we really want to - if we close our eyes and really wish - we can imagine that perhaps the misquote was just a paraphrase of this quote. A slight paraphrase in fact.

"How that remark came to be slightly paraphrased in the quotation sent to me we shall probably never know. It’s possible that someone, somewhere in cyberspace tidied up Houghton’s original remark before including it in the material which was sent to me. That sort of thing occurs in the blogosphere."

Akerman gives the blogosphere the credit it deserves, but strangely he claims we will never know how the quotation was paraphrased. If he consulted a Blog Scientist such as myself he could have found out.

The Blog Science technique of "tidying up" quotes - an example

Take what John Houghton actually said in 1995:
"If we want a good environmental policy in the future we’ll have to have a disaster. It’s like safety on public transport. The only way humans will act is if there’s been an accident."

This is quite boring. He's claiming humans won't act until it's too late. We could indeed paraphrase him as saying such. But that's not blog science. That's just telling people what John Houghton said, which would be alarmist. No we need to tidy up his words before we can discredit him and the science. Let me tidy up his words a bit so that it sounds like Houghton is advocating lying:

"Unless we announce disasters no one will listen"

There we go. Now it's blog post material.

True to form, The Independent ran Connor’s story which said I had not responded to his queries and, just as reliably, two left-leaning Australian organisations eagerly followed, convinced that they could discredit first me and, more generally, the convincing argument against global warming theorists.

So Conner misquoted Akerman. Typical! Misquoting people is a grave journalistic malpractice. But in Conner's defense perhaps he had simply tidied up Ackerman's words and was just slightly paraphrasing Ackerman.

Even worse we find out that other media outlets eagerly parroted the Independent's story! And it was all done to discredit an individual and discredit scientific arguments! I am glad us skeptics never stoop to such low practices.

Connor was playing ambush journalism and Houghton had never and still has not contacted me.

Ambush journalism? How typical! Fortunately Ackerman knows Ambush Journalism when he see's it. Skeptics would never resort to such a thing.

Houghton hasn't contacted Akerman which technically means he wasn't misquoted and Akerman is off the hook. I mean if you were egregiously misquoted and smeared by a journalist, wouldn't you be just dying to have a phone conversation with them? In journalism if you can misquote someone without them finding out, that's fine.

The ABC’s MediaWatch was next with a piece in which The Independent’s claim it had received no response from me was repeated.

That was patently false but then The Independent was not interested in accuracy. It was interested in discrediting me

Indeed and accuracy is of course very important. Journalists shouldn't be allowed to get away with patently false claims. Akerman is on the ball here.

his agenda was clearly to discredit the messenger (me) and, through that, strike a blow for the warmists, those who have been distorting and withholding data, manipulating scientific evidence and falsifying reports.

Discrediting messengers is bad, yet that is just the kind of behavior that mad "scientist" James Hansen would resort to.

The little Crikey website had a defamatory reference to The Independent and me, clearly unsupported by any research.

Defamatory statements? Statements unsupported by any research? Who would ever print such things? Certainly not Ackerman. Only those bastard warmist rags.

As it happens however, Houghton has made numerous remarks about catastrophic events that would flow from global warming, all of them now found to be baseless, and there is every likelihood that he wishes he never made them. When I read the material on Houghton sent to me, I believed it because it was entirely at one with the quote he gave The Guardian when he equated global warming with WMD in a piece it published on July 28, 2003.

We know what Houghton thinks so we should be allowed to put words in his mouth.

If The Independent, Crikey and the ABC had done some research they would have found the remark ascribed to Houghton which I was given was so little different to what was published 11 years earlier as to make their claims totally misplaced and devoid of anything but malice.

Ackerman is right. Journalists really should research quotes before publishing them.

Lubos Motel finds a trick to hide the embarassment

2010-02-16T18:19:00.001-08:00

Lubos calls for an apology in his new post Sir John Houghton is a liar
"I urge Sir John Houghton, the Independent, and all those blogs to apologize to Benny Peiser whose quote was inaccurate in its wording but certainly not in the content."

All I can say is PHEW! At Denial Depot we've been up late the last couple of nights in a kind of panic situation as the John Houghton incident (not a scandal, definitely not a gate) developed. We recognized immediately that the incident was nothing but a commie plot to embarrass the Dear Leader, The Honorable Sir Lord Monckton who had prominently displayed the quote in question on one of his famous lecture slides:

The incident was sparked when Sir John Houghton, former head of the IPCC, decided to haphazardly deny he ever uttered the quote attribued to him, "Unless we announce disasters, noone will listen"

Then to make matters worse an IPCC cheerleading backwater gossip rag had the audacity to publish the headline Fabricated quote used to discredit climate scientist.

So we were frantically trying to figure out a response - a way of spinning it back to make John Houghton the criminal again. As an early attempt we pointed out that skeptics had been citing the quote for years. Why had it taken John Houghton so long to raise an objection? Hasn't he been reading our blogs?

Next we planned to provide the original source and show them where John Houghton had said those words. Being skeptics we of course keep meticulous notes and have a thorough auditing system in place so we were confident that the quote was genuine and our ace journalists had the source. But something odd transpired, it turned out we had lost the notes. Not in a climategate crime-against-humanity way, just that we couldn't find the original source which we based our claims on. This isn't a big deal. Mistakes happen. And anyway it's just one error in such a lot of slides. It happens. Sometimes you lose things. Sometimes you make mistakes. Move on is what us skeptics say. I don't see the big deal anyway, we are only smearing the reputation of a scientist by accusing him saying something that amounts to dishonesty. Ok the quote happens to not have been made by him at all. Is that really a big deal?

We were aghast at the possibility that we would have to apologize. Apologize? No way! We're not apologizing to some commie new world order. In flies Lubo on his white horse and shining armor to save the day and craftily spin the story back onto John Houghton. The answer was simple: Just call him a liar.

So our story now is, OK, John Houghton didn't make the claim "Unless we announce disasters, noone will listen". But he could have done. In some alternate reality he could of said that. And look in our own reality he has said other stuff OK? And now we think about it, we could have quoted that other stuff instead. Yea. But by chance we quoted the false quote, just a coincidence. But the other stuff is just as good OK? And that alone means we shouldn't need to apologize. Oh and it also means that logically John Houghton is a liar.

Look what John Houghton did say. Look at the scandal that Lubos has uncovered:

"If we want a good environmental policy in the future, we'll have to have a disaster. It's like safety on public transport, The only way humans will act is if there's been an accident."

It sounds very much like he's justifying the London terrorist attacks in 2005. So next headline for Lubos:
John Houghton is an Al Qaeda terrorist

And that's the memo.

The Honorable Sir Lord Viscount Monckton Wins Another Debate

2010-02-13T09:55:00.001-08:00

It was Tuesday when I first heard that The Honorable Sir Lord Viscount Monckton would be debating yet another climate scientist. I had first seen The Honorable Sir Lord Viscount Monckton when I was undercover at Copenhagen, but I didn't approach him at that time as I could not remember the protocol for addressing royalty.

When I discovered that in fact he was to debate a warmist blogger I immediately shot off a series of emails to The Honorable Sir Lord Viscount Monckton's head servant. I instructed him to proceed to the Keep immediately and inform the Lord that it was nothing more than a trap.

There is nothing to be gained from debating a warmist blogger I told him. You'll only lend them credibility. You are a climate scientist after all, a royal one at that, you should surely be seeking out Al Gore or James Hansen. I received no reply of course. The Honorable Sir Lord Monckton will reply if he wishes to.

I watched the debate online using my computer. I had expected a long drawn out affair. So imagine my surprise when The Honorable Sir Lord Viscount Monckton won the debate almost immediately by raising the point that the world renowned skeptical scientist, Dr R. T. Pinker, had in fact already proved that manmade global warming is a fraud and had done so before the debate had even started.

Tim Lambert was left flailing for a response. In desperation he resorted to mere ad hominem, playing a recording of a womans voice to paint Dr Pinker, the world renowned skeptical scientist, as a mere woman. Most of the audience, like myself, gasped at the sheer sexism inherent in this. Some of the girls in the audience even fainted.

In my frankly unbiased view, The Honorable Sir Lord Monckton can be considered to have won the debate simply because of this turn of events and that his little pictures of crowns are better than James Hansen's little pictures of crowns.

Mosher Hacks the English Language

2010-01-26T14:29:00.001-08:00

Image: University of Texas - click for related story (I hope this gets me out of using their bandwidth)

Someone called Mosher has written a dreadful WhatsUpWithIt article. I never realized you could use hacking in the context of 'hacking a deadline'!

Sorry for the snark but the WhatsUpWithIt blog steals so many of my commenter's that I sometimes get very jealous and critical of it!

Climatology 101

2010-01-19T03:28:00.000-08:00

Some people say the Internet is a cesspool of jumped up idiots publishing their idiotic ideas for other idiots to read. Not me. I think the Internet supersedes traditional sources of knowledge. For example why learn Climatology from a college when you can learn the most important fact online from Oregon Petition signer and Independent Scientist Gary Novak at nov55.com?

Climatology 101

Here is the most important fact about climatology science: There is a massive amount of randomness in the complexities of climate, and the randomness multiplies for each interacting factor. There is no higher knowlege that turns randomness into a measurement or calculation. For this reason, all but the simplest measurements or calculations in climatology are a fraud. The fakery of pretending to reduce any question to analysis with a number is charlatanism.

Become the tortoise, not the hare by learning this most important fact about climatology science (not to be confused with climate science which has an even worse reputation). There is a massive amount of randomness, not only in climate but even in the very complexities of climate.

That randomness alone has a large mass - I don't know how much, Gary fortunately doesn't bother wasting time quantifying things. I imagine it's possibly the kind of mass that can collapse stars. But it doesn't end there. That mass of randomness multiplies you see - for each interacting factor, until it's so massive that it can probably collapse an entire galaxy of stars.

There is no higher knowledge that can turn randomness into a measurement, or even a calculation. Think of a dice - how could a higher knowledge possibly measure the result of a series of dice throws, let alone calculate anything about the behavior? This is why as Einstein proved, God never plays with dice - he just cannot be bothered wasting his time on such a random activity.

And so in conclusion, that's why climate science is a fraud.

Gary can teach you today about "The infinite complexities of science". Are you aware of the 41% and 30% Fraud? If you keep reading you will be.

The 41% Fraud

"Supposedly, the surface of the earth gives off its energy as 41% radiation and the rest as conduction and evaporation. 41% is about how much radiation an incandescent light bulb gives off at 3,000°C, not what a cold basement gives off at 15°C. A fraudulent Stephan-Boltzmann constant rationalizes the over-emission of radiation."

These are all good points. If anyone asks you how much radiation a 3000C lightbulb gives off, the answer of course is 41%, just before it melts. A cold basement perhaps gives off only 4% or even as little as $2. I am not surprised to discover that the Stephan-Boltzmann constant is fraudulent. I think James Hansen used that constant once in the 1980s to justify more funding.

"Normal temperature matter gives off almost no radiation. Yet NASA claims it gives off 41% as much radiation as strikes the earth from the sun."

Here we see correct use of the three state temperature scale, Cold-Normal-Hot, rather than the elitist "Kelvin" scale or the European Socialist Centigrade scale. It is well known that Normal temperature matter gives off almost no radiation, where "almost no" means "some" or "a bit of" or $0.02

The 30% Fraud

"Ice core measurements supposedly show a 30% increase in CO2 in the atmosphere over the past 150. Ice core measurements of CO2 are junk science to a point of fraud, and they conflict with direct measurements."

Now you know ice core measurements of CO2 are junk science. Completely junk science. The only thing they definitely tell us is that co2 follows temperature, not the other-way around.

There is a lot you can learn about climate science from Gary and the other 32,000 Oregon Petition signers thanks to the Internet. Maybe one day you will even become an Independent Scientist yourself. And if you still believe in manmade global warming after you finish reading the internet? Well as Independent Scientist Gene Ray would say, the problem is "you've been educated stupid"

How We Used To Deny: 1984

2010-01-15T15:45:00.000-08:00

What if increases in atmospheric CO2 have an inverse greenhouse effect? I. Energy balance considerations related to surface albedo
International Journal of Climatology, Volume 4, Issue 4, pp 399-409, July 1984
Sherwood B. Idso

Abstract
An analysis of northern, low and southern latitude temperature trends of the past century, along with available atmospheric CO2 concentration and industrial carbon production data, suggests that the true climatic effect of increasing the CO2 content of the atmosphere may be to cool the Earth and not warm it, contrary to most past analyses of this phenomenon. A physical mechanism is thus proposed to explain how CO2 may act as an inverse greenhouse gas in Earth's atmosphere. However, a negative feedback mechanism related to a lowering of the planet's mean surface albedo, due to the migration of more mesic-adapted vegetation onto arid and semi-arid lands as a result of the increased water use efficiency which most plants experience under high levels of atmospheric CO2, acts to counter this inverse greenhouse effect. Quantitative estimates of the magnitudes of both phenomena are made, and it is shown that they are probably compensatory. This finding suggests that we will not suffer any great climatic catastrophe but will instead reap great agricultural benefits from the rapid increase in atmospheric CO2 which we are currently experiencing and which is projected to continue for perhaps another century or two into the future

Back in 1984 we were arguing that rising co2 might cause cooling. Why aren't we still arguing that? I hate the way we seem to have watered down our arguments over the years.

We used to claim the world hadn't warmed. Then for some reason we started saying it had, but that the troposphere hadn't. Then for some reason we started saying okay it has, but that the tropical troposphere hasn't warmed enough.

I for one will continue using any arguments I can get away with.

This Week Of Global Cooling

2010-01-13T09:24:00.000-08:00

Image adapted from global weekly anomaly map published by Japanese Meteorological Agency [1]

Using my technical skills I have extracted a cooling signal from the Japanese Meteorological Agency data. Witness the proof of the coming Ice Age.

Also in Blog News this week:
A previously no good IPCC bastard of a scientist turned overnight into a internationally renowned nobel prize winning scientist by denouncing manmade global warming as false, fraudulent and a lying lie of a religion. I paraphrase slightly. Dr Professor Lord Mojib Latif also predicted an ice age would hit us within hours, much to the dismay of warmists! His change of stance appears to be a direct result of ClimateGate. You won't hear any of this in the so-called "reputable" media.

More and More scientists are becoming "deniers" with each passing hour. Within weeks there will only be Gavin and Michael Mann left and they will be wandering about their vacant ivory tower trying to figure out where everyone has gone.

PS still no reply from Roy Spencer regarding my request for UAH source code.. Maybe I should resend.

[1] http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/climate/synop.html

How We Used To Deny: 1983

2010-01-09T15:24:00.000-08:00

I took another look at the the list of 500 Papers Skeptical of Manmade Global Warming. I wanted to see what our proofs against manmade global warming were like in bygone years. Here is one example in the form of a paper published in 1983. Unfortunately I cannot find a PDF, but the actual contents of the paper are not so important. In Blog Science it's preferable to skim the abstract or even just the title and imagine what it's about.

Carbon Dioxide and Global Temperature: What the Data Show
Journal of Environmental Quality, Volume 12, Number 2, pp. 159-163, 1983
Sherwood B. Idso

http://jeq.scijournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/12/2/159

Abstract
"Analyses of data from a number of sources indicate that (i) there was a gradual increase in global atmospheric CO2 concentration from about 1860 to 1945, (ii) there has been a much more rapid rate of increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration from 1945 to the present, (iii) the most recent trend of global surface air temperature during this period of rapid CO2 increase has been downwards, which is in contradiction to the predictions of the most sophisticated general circulational models of the atmosphere in use today, (iv) this downward trend in surface air temperature has been most pronounced in northern latitudes, which is also in contrast to the model predictions, and (v) the downward temperature trend has been greater in summer than in winter, which is again in contradiction to the models. It is thus concluded that the theoretical numerical models of the atmosphere are grossly in error in their predictions of future CO2 effects on world climate, as is also suggested by several recent empirical studies. Consequently, since increasing global population requires more and more food, and since elevated CO2 concentrations have been documented to enhance crop productivity by increasing rates of photosynthesis, and water use efficiency by decreasing rates of transpiration, it is further concluded that increased levels of atmospheric CO2 may actually be beneficial to our future well-being."

Here are two shortened arguments from the paper. Arguments we made against manmade global warming in 1983:

1) Recent temperature trends contradict the model trends.
The temperature data show cooling, but the models predict warming! That means the models must be wrong and manmade global warming is a lie!

2) An increase of co2 will be beneficial. CO2 is life!

Just look at that. So the temperature records showed cooling in 1983 too, contradicting the models that expected warming. Looks like we are still making similar arguments today so we must be doing something right!

Global Dust Spikes, Paleoclimate Indicators, and Collapse of Civilizations All Correlate to Date of Noah's Flood

2010-01-09T13:37:00.000-08:00

Reference

I don't see any mention of this in the godless IPCC reports.

The Satellite Temperature Source Code

2010-01-08T11:58:00.000-08:00

Problems with the satellite record, as previously reported by DenialDepot

Over at WattsUpWithThat, a blog that poaches all my best commenters, the maps of UAH global temperature for the year 2009 have been posted and discussed without a hint of due skepticism.

DenialDepot has documented multiple instances of serious problems and causes of concern regarding the satellite record data. These problems remain unanswered.

One of the scientists involved in the satellite records posted an explaination of how the records are produced, which raises more questions than answers. The part that interested me the most was the acknowledgement that the satellite data is adjusted by FORTRAN programs:

POST-PROCESSING OF DATA AT UAH
The millions of calibrated brightness temperature measurements are averaged in space and time, for instance monthly averages in 2.5 degree latitude bands. I have FORTRAN programs I have written to do this. I then pass the averages to John Christy, who inter-calibrates the different satellites’ AMSUs during periods when two or more satellites are operating (which is always the case).

Naturally we need these FORTRAN programs to audit it. Even if it should have been written in Visual Basic or Javascript to begin with.

This is what I don't get. Other blogs have found errors in the satellite records and then have attempted to investigate the errors by comparing adjusted data. Ridiculous. All blog scientists should know the best way to find errors is to get hold of the source code! Why aren't these other blogs demanding the UAH satellite source code be released? If necessary use FOI requests!

So I am left to pick up the slack. I shot off a quick email to Roy Spencer:

To: roy@xxxxxxxxxxx.com
From: xxxxxxxxxxx@googlemail.com

Dear Roy,

I was very interested to read your latest article about how the satellite records are adjusted.

I am a blog scientist. Me and my commenters are interested in determining why the satellite records show too much warming over the last 30 years. You mention you adjust the raw data using some FORTRAN programs. Is this source code available online so we might replicate this process?

Thanks,
Inferno

And by replicate I of course meant audit

A New Theory Of Climate

2010-01-04T14:15:00.000-08:00

I have invented a new theory of climate that challenges science to it's core. This is probably the biggest thing since Ernst Beck decided to explore some chemical methods.

My findings do not agree with the climate models that conventionally thought that greenhouse gases, mainly CO2, are the major culprits for the global warming seen in the late 20th century. These following findings are totally unexpected and striking, as I was focused on finding a means to avert the coming ice age, rather than explaining global warming.

I have often framed the problem of the coming ice age in terms of a flu affecting the planet. A flu that requires a cure. Naturally I put myself in the position of the doctor. And so it was inevitable that I should stumble across a little known medical law called the Law of Similars.

Breaking into my books (not literally, I merely opened them), I studied this law in more detail. What I found took my breath away. According to the Law of Similars, substances that cause a characteristic symptom of a disease, without causing the disease itself, can be used in small concentrations to cure that disease. This seemingly counterintuitive idea agreed somewhat with my contrarian nature, so I researched it some more.

If we consider cooling a characteristic symptom of descent into an ice age, it therefore stands to reason that we may prevent an ice age through the application of a small quantity of a substance that causes cooling. Initially I envisaged the use of fleets of airships to hoist tons of ice crystals into the sky, but further research uncovered a remarkable fact of medicine that spares such effort. It turns out that the smaller the concentration of ice crystals released into the atmosphere, the greater the potency of the payload. Another counterintuitive result, also one which so-called "experts" ignore, so I must be on the right track.

Running the math through in detail, I discovered the necessary amount of ice was less than one billion billionth of a single ice crystal. Therein lied a problem. How could I measure out such a small quantity of crystalized ice? I did some more reading and found that the medical profession has an ingenious solution. A series of successive dilutions can produce a substance with the necessary low concentration of crystalized ice. The procedure is as follows:

1. Take a container and drop into it one part ice crystals and 99 parts water. Seal the container and shake like mad so that the ice crystal is dilluted into the water. Really shake it, this is very important. One part of the substance will now contain 0.01 parts ice crystal. The substance now has 1c potency where c stands for centesimal.

2. Take another container. Drop one part of the 1c substance into the container and add 99 parts water. Seal the container and shake again. This will result in a substance with 2c potency. Each part is of the substance now contains 0.0001 parts ice crystal.

3. Continue the above process until 30c potency is achieved. From that container take a single drop of the substance. This single drop will contain 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 drops of ice crystal*. This one drop must be delivered into the atmosphere. Preferably from on top of a high mountain so the release will be closer to the sky. As long as the science holds, and I see no reason why I would ever be wrong, this act should be enough to reverse an ice age.

Eureka

I figured out the final step of my climate theory on a busy train during my rush hour commute into work, thanks to a sudden bout of Thinking Inside the Box. "Hang on!" I exclaimed in sudden realization, "this mixing process..isn't this something that nature might already be doing up there inside the sky?!". My fellow passengers having adapted to the silence of the carriage and being unaquainted with blog science were startled by my sudden outburst. I imagine much like how ancient greeks must have been startled by aristotle running past them naked through the streets.

With no time to spare I snatched a newspaper and started scrawling eratic sketches, sketches of big swirly hurricanes, snow flakes and lightning storms with arrows flying hither and whither. All the while exclaiming my disjointed thoughts out loud for the benefit of my fellow passengers so they may be privy to a moment of scientific history.

The excitement was thick in the air, one man tried to make me stop - saying I was sure to scare his daughter if I continued. I barked something at him, I can't remember what, I think it was something about hitler youth - although I now think someone else said that. In anycase it must have put his mind at ease for he didn't bother me again, instead he quickly withdrew with his daughter to the adjacent carriage and courteously locked the door so I would not be further interupted.

At this point I ran out of paper, I had even used up all the empty boxes in the crossword. I turned instead to the windows, drawing cryptic symbols and equations on what little morning condensation remained. As I ran out of space I would leap over the seats to the next window, much to the suprise and screams of seated passengers. When I ran out of condensation on the windows of the carriage I started to huff great bellows of my own breath on them to produce more, all the while running up and down the carriage to inspect my prior notes. I was muttering scientic phrases very loudly at this point, "newton", "sunspots", "orgone", etc.

The passengers were most kind in making room for me, for the most part abandoning their seats and huddling together at the opposite end of the carriage. Just as I was admiring how impressed they were with my intellect, a police officer stepped forward and ruined everything by demanding I cease. "Cease?!" I exclaimed in exasperation, "are you actually and literally mad?!". He insisted I cease or I should be arrested. I tried to explain I was having a breakthrough, but he was having none of it. Realizing I had little time to spare, I instinctively started reciting passages from The Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics at him, at speed, in a bid to slow him down. But this wasn't the internet and so the effort failed. I was arrested for "disturbing public order" or some nonsense.

In retrospect I do not know how a police officer would find his way onto a moving train, I can only conclude that I was being followed the whole time. Perhaps he was under the employ of the United Nations. And so this is why I cannot prove my theory today as I lost most of my notes through evaporation. All I can remember is that it has something to do with the succussing power of hurricanes. All I can do is reconstruct a diagram based on what is left of my tattered notes.

My thoughts are that we must do something quickly as blog science is showing we are rapidly entering an ice age of no return. The main solution I can think of right now is to release the previously mentioned ice crystal solution into the atmosphere. Oh and also drastically reduce taxes.

* Use of exponentials is scientifically improper

Another Dodgy Diagram

2010-01-03T11:16:00.000-08:00

In the last post, commenter Gail pointed out another dodgy IPCC diagram.

"Scroll down and take a look at the alarmist ozone pollution chart. I just wish I could paste it here so everybody could see how phony even the USDA is. Look at the size of the sun and compare it to the factory! Ridiculous!"

Here is the diagram.

Gail is correct. It looks like scientists at the USDA have been caught using a "trick" to "hide the size" of the Sun. I have checked and can confirm there is no factory on Earth which is larger than the Sun, so they have no excuse.

In addition the real Sun is much brighter than the one depicted in the diagram. I can stare at the Sun in the diagram for over a minute without being blinded. Al Gore's fingerprints are all over these diagrams.

The case of the IPCC Horror Fish

2010-01-01T11:40:00.000-08:00

A warmist thought they were being clever and "educational" by showing me this diagram. They failed to realize I would Audit it.

http://www.earth.columbia.edu/articles/view/2556

The diagram supposedly depicts a location in Antarctica. I don't believe a word of it. Ice "shelves" and ice "sheets"? Everyone knows shelves are made of wood and sheets are made of linen. And where is the arrow to depict co2 freezing out of the atmosphere?

These problems are not however my main concern with the diagram. Notice the craftily drawn single fish in the ocean? Odd isn't it. It isn't labelled. Why is it there? What is the purpose of this fish? What is the agenda of the artist? This therefore becomes the single most important part of the diagram as far as Blog Science is concerned. And so I begin an Audit.

The Audit

Climate Science being a typically sloppy field of science had failed to reference the fish depicted in the diagram. In other fields of science this would be considered a scientific act of Grand Treason. But not in climate "Science".

So I spent many hours working through resources on fish; fish encyclopedias, fishing blogs, even cookbooks on fish cuisine in a bid to discover the species of fish depicted. I even bought a frozen haddock for inspiration. Yet despite an inadvertent tasty lunch, my endevor produced no result.

It was then I struck upon a suspicion - what if the fish itself does not even exist? What if the IPCC have fabricated a new species fish to further their agenda?

Through detailed scientific investigation I determined the plane in the diagram is a Douglas DC-8. With this information I was able to calculate the size of the IPCC fish. I found the result very disturbing. So-called "scientists" have a lot of questions to answer. Behold the size of the horror fish which the IPCC propose swims deep in the depths of the southern polar ocean:

A 41 foot long leviathon! 23 feet high! See the horror fish compared to a human being.

Thankfully fish this large simply do not exist, if they did commercial shipping would be impossible. But that doesn't stop the IPCC from using such fear stories to scare kids.

Someone should audit the DC-8 radar data to see if such a fish was really there at the time. Although I imagine the data used to produce the diagram has all been hidden from the public or deleted. Notice the fish is carefully hidden beneath the so-called ice "shelf" so they have a convenient excuse for why it might not show up in the DC-8 raw data anyway.

The next obvious move was to look at the CRU emails for references to fish.

While I didn't find anything concrete I did find an email from Phil Jones to Michael Mann which contained the sentence:

"When the coring was done in the 1980s and early 1990s the fieldwork teams ate a lot of fish!"

What could this mean? I do not know for sure, but merely raising a question I cannot answer is evidence of wrongdoing. The plot thickens.

The NNSIDC

2009-12-30T22:34:00.000-08:00

In response to the hippies over at the NSIDC I announce the formation of the Non-National Snow and Ice Data Centre (NNSIDC).

The operational mission of the NNSIDC is to claim the Polar Opposite of whatever the NSIDC is claiming.

We kick off with NSIDC's Alarmist December 7th 2009 report concerning arctic sea ice conditions in November 2009. As chairman and sole member of the NNSIDC, I have rewriten the NSIDC report almost word for word, but removing all the fear to create a less biased report.

December 7th 2009

In November, the average rate of Arctic sea ice growth defied manmade global warming fears by growing rapidly faster than normal, threatening the all too real possibility of an ice age. Possibly by May.

However, at the end of the month, some regions, in particular the Barents Sea and Hudson Bay...it was about this time that ClimateGate happened! Have you seen the emails? Whistleblown from warmist computers! Can you believe it? The science is all based on a lie!

Anyway back to the arctic ice situation.

Overview of conditions

Arctic sea ice extent averaged over November 2009 was 10.26 million square kilometers (3.96 million square miles). This was 420,000 square kilometers (160,000 square miles) above November 2006. In general, the ice edge is now largely beyond its average location. So much for global warming.

Conditions in context

By November, much of the Arctic is in complete or near complete darkness. Air temperatures fall dramatically and sea ice grows rapidly. This is worryingly similar to what happens at the onset of an ice age. During November 2009, extent grew at an average 82,000 square kilometers per day (32,000 square miles per day). The rate of increase in sea ice extent has accelerated at an alarming pace! If this keeps up for another year the whole world will be covered in ice.

November 2009 compared to past years

In November 2009 emails and data were whistleblown to produce ClimateGate. Past years did not see this happen.

ice growth: a tale of two regions

Both Hudson Bay and the Barents Sea have experienced a freeze-up this fall. However, the rate of sea ice growth in the two regions probably resulted from different processes, highlighting the complex interactions between the sea ice, atmosphere and ocean. In the Barents Sea, the rate of ice growth was affected by winds that pushed the ice northwards into the very cold central Arctic, while temperatures contributed to the rate of ice growth in Hudson Bay.

The Barents Sea is the deepest of the Arctic coastal seas. It is open on its southern and northern boundaries, allowing winds and currents to move sea ice in and out of the region. In November, southerly winds built up between an area of high pressure over Siberia and low pressure in the northern Atlantic Ocean, in accordance with Buys Ballot's Law. The winds transported air and water from the south, and pushed the ice edge out of the Barents Sea.

Related post
Arctic Sea Ice: Staggering Growth

Double Whammy

2009-12-29T12:05:00.000-08:00

EVOLUTION WATCH
500 doctoral scientists skeptical of Darwin
Growing list of signatories challenges claims about support for theory
according to a new analysis of peer-reviewed literature by the Hudson Institute.
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48911

HEAT OF THE MOMENT
500 scientists refute global warming dangers
Centuries of human history say warm periods are good for people
first published by the Seattle-based Discovery Institute.
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57605

"Darwinists continue to claim that no serious scientists doubt the theory and yet here are 500 scientists who are willing to make public their skepticism about the theory"

"This data and the list of scientists make a mockery of recent claims that a scientific consensus blames humans as the primary cause of global temperature increases since 1850"

Did The Genesis Flood cause the Ice Age?

2009-12-28T12:08:00.000-08:00

The End of the Interglacial. Inappropriately dressed sinners, probably realclimate readers, try to enter the Ark but it's too late. They should have paid more attention to icecap.us and iceagenow.com

As always, please note I never totally commit myself to any specific scientific research in case it turns out wrong. I only reference it to sow doubt about manmade global warming and co2. If it does turn out to be wrong then I expect to be able to move onto the next argument with an untarnished reputation. Thanks.

The Genesis Flood caused the Ice Age
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/fit/chapter7.asp

Note the presence of graphs and the References section complete with scientific papers. Figure 7.1 even uses my favored method of depicting the flow of time with an arrow along the x-axis. It's all very convincing. An extract:

"Evidence is also found in northern Europe, northwest Asia, many of the large mountain ranges of Eurasia, and high mountainous areas of the Southern Hemisphere and tropics. But the truth is, scientists still do not know the cause of the Ice Age as succinctly stated by David Alt[1]: “Although theories abound, no one really knows what causes ice ages.” Uniformitarianism has not been able to explain the Ice Age, or events related to the Ice Age. Ice sheets are not developing and melting today so we have no way to actually observe how they developed in the past."

Very interesting, just what I wanted to hear. If we can't explain the ice ages then how can we know co2 causes warming?

Their conclusion is both obvious and powerful:

"In summary, the Flood and its aftershocks provide the volcanic dust and gases that bring the summer cooling indispensable for the Ice Age. Water from the “fountains of the great deep” and mixing during the Flood provides a warm ocean. In the mid and high latitudes the warm ocean would cause copious evaporation and produce massive amounts of snow. The two ingredients required for an Ice Age, cool temperatures and tons of snow, were dramatically fulfilled immediately after the Genesis flood. This unique climate would persist for hundreds of years after the Flood as the intensity of the two mechanisms slowly decreased."

This is the kind of science that should be published in climate journals, discussed openly and frequently at scientific meetings, etc. It should also be taught in schools as children are by far the most innocent and impartial judges of good science. It goes without saying that this science should be mentioned in the IPCC reports too.

But you won't find any of this in the biased IPCC reports or in scientific journals becauce The Team have made sure that any views that dissent from Al Gore's do not get published. Please go and read the article in detail, it looks like the Bible explains climate better than the IPCC. Al Gore thought he was literally God, but now the shoe is on the other foot. The sad state of science today is that journal editors that even dare to publish the scientific evidence that the Geneis Flood caused the Ice Age, let alone that the Genesis Flood was caused by God, would be thrown into a prison by UN thugs. Shouldn't science be fair to all opinions? Shouldn't it be possible to get any idea published without some subjective view of what is "correct" and "incorrect"?

See the following video for more definitive proof that the science is a sham! The science starts at 3:20

One of the most notorious acts of the 20th century has been to redefine peer review to exclude all manners of Good Science, from Bibical Sciences just because a bunch of atheists have a problem with God, all the way to Medicinal methods such a homeopathy just because they are not condoned by Big Pharmaceutical interests. The recent whistleblown ClimateGate emails have exposed this fraud by revealing scientists red handed in the act of redefining peer review:

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!
Cheers
Phil
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=419&filename=1089318616.txt

Thus all of the "science" done over the 20th century is now in doubt until blog scientists are given all the data to audit and confirm it. I only hope the Theory Of Flight survives auditing so that airplanes the world over can continue fertilizing the atmosphere with necessary levels of Life. Levels of life are currently at a dangerously low 380ppm. Hopefully this information will make it into the next NIPCC report or Professor Monkton will have a word to say about it.

Al Gore

2009-12-27T18:11:00.000-08:00

I was thinking. If Al Gore is so concerned about manmade global warming, shouldn't he have lost some weight by now from all the stress?

So it turns out that Al Gore being fat is a strong argument against manmade global warming. An argument which to my mind the IPCC hasn't even bothered to address.

The mainstream media won't even talk about Al Gore's weight. I guess the powers that be deem it an inconvenient truth. I have to rely on blogs for all my news these days.

Did you know 877 new snowfall records set or tied in the USA in the last week?

I read that on the internet. November was also quite cold.

ClimateGate and Post Enlightenment

2009-12-26T13:30:00.000-08:00

If you for one second doubted that ClimateGate has thrown into doubt all of 19th and 20th century "science" then read the following article from the world renowned Discovery Institute.

Climategate Recalls Attacks on Darwin Doubters
http://www.discovery.org/a/13751

The Discovery Institute is renowned in the field of Biology just as the Heartland Institute is renowned in the field of Climate.

The Heartland Institute has a warm and touching Christmas message on the new Climate Science subdiscipline of Taxation:
http://fromtheheartland.org/?p=1567

2010 will be the first year of post-"enlightenment" thinking. So-called "scientists" and "experts" in their screwly little "peer review journals" are now a quaint curiousity of the past. Sure they will continue functioning in their own irrelevant way, but they no longer hold the type of "knowledge" politicians or ordinary people care to use to any practical end. Knowledge is finally now in the eye of the beholder, it is utterly down to our vision - how we percieve it. As the Discovery Institute puts it in their catchline, we will "Make a Positive Vision of the Future Practical".

I know Christmas is a time of year where it is especially easy to lapse into bad habits, but please remember to regularly synchronize your thoughts with Think-Tanks in the relevant domain. Your blog scientists will keep you up-to-date with this information.

Polls Have Been Done

2009-12-19T08:00:00.001-08:00

Not only is Copenhagen a busted flush, we now have Top Players on the job finding new evidence against the sham of manmade global warming.

GorseFox has conducted a poll

"I conducted an ... poll among work colleagues, among neighbours, among Councillors, and among people attending a Christmas party... Whilst all acknowledged that the earth may be warming, I did not find a single person who believed the CO2 causality. Of these people a very high proportion were successful doctors, solicitors, consultants, and scientists."

In a moment of Christmas party intoxication these professionals have voiced their true opinions. This is obviously a death blow for climate "science". When Solicitors don't believe a scientific theory you know it's days are numbered.

We still have work to do though when people "acknowledge that the earth may be warming". This shouldn't be, they should be skeptical of everything.

On the subject of the truth-serum alcohol, could the Heartland Institute not put on a Climate Science Beer Festival and invite the whole Manmade Global Warming Team? (only 10 scientists wrote the IPCC report, the rest were just watching). Get them drunk and the beans will be spilled.

Cap Carbon - A Smoking Nail Gun

2009-12-13T12:57:00.000-08:00

The image below is, in my opinion, one of the most disquieting images ever presented at Denial Depot.

In my last post I observed the fraudulent state of climate "science" computer code. As part of the continuing exercise to discredit scientists I have also been flicking through Station Temperature records looking for anything suspicious.

Suspicious things that prove fraud include:

Warming trends
Adjusted data
Data that can be described as adjusted (aka "processed", "manipulated", "plotted", etc)
References to peer-reviewed "science"

What I discovered took my breath away. It turns out that scientists have become so politically indoctrinated that they are leaving traces of their agenda in their work. The following is an actual station temperature record taken from the NASA GISS site. Check the name of the station:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=101604000010&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1

This suggests that Scientists have been fabricating station names all along. This pratice has only been exposed because, perhaps in a lapse of concentration, a scientist wrote their political objective to "Cap Carbon" on the graph instead fabricating a realistic station name. Then again I prefer to imagine the person who did this was a whistleblower. A whistleblower who became fed up with the fake science of manmade global warming and decided to expose the whole charade. Perhaps Keith Briffa again?

We must now doubt all temperature station names until we can be sure the locations actually exist. Why hasn't the IPCC checked this? So it seems NoHopeInHellHagen has to be called off again. Manmade global warming is based on nothing more than a lie.

The Side Bar: A quick lesson on Plotting Data

The side bar is a feature I use to teach my readers the "dos" and "donts" of science. The previous sidebar covered the team "science" practice of lazily using so-called "exponentials" rather than writing numbers out in their true virgin form.

In this sidebar I want to look at plotting data - what is plotting data and what does it mean for science?

Plotting data is a form of data adjustment and is therefore inherently wrong according to the "keep it pure, keep it raw" data doctrine of Blog Science. Data should always be presented in it's true tabular form, not "adjusted" into an arbitary graphical format simply for viewing pleasure. It's scientifically improper and even slightly amoral to sit there watching images of data.

The IPCC of course have no moral or scientific qualms and so rely heavily on graphs to "prove" global warming. If the public just saw the numbers in a table they wouldn't notice any manmade warming at all, just a load of natural numbers. The alarmist IPCC cannot stand this fact and so they adjust temperature data into graphical format. With a line here and a line there the IPCC know that data can be made to say anything using graphs. Garbage In Garbage Out.

SMOKING GUN!

2009-12-06T15:22:00.001-08:00

I have uncovered breathtaking fraud! Not merely a smoking gun more like a smoking ICBM!

Before revealing this I need to point out that in a previous post I may have implied that NASA had faked the recent CRU email leak. While I don't believe in correcting posts (blog scientists should never modify recorded data), I would like to point out that NASA didn't fake the CRU email leak afterall. That's right, NASA merely tricked me into accusing them of an elaborate hoax. Just as they once tricked me into accusing them of faking the moon landing.

Well it wasn't just emails that were leaked - computer code was leaked too and I have uncovered fraud!

First some background. In the 1980s everything was going swimmingly for the so-called "scientists". They had their fine ivory rooms in their collosal ivory towers, they had their grant money delivered in huge money buckets and access to all the finest fancy restaurants in Hollywood. But then they made a fatal mistake. Probably sometime between the Olivetti and the Amiga one of them thought "hmm all this calculating by hand is rather tiresome...lets trying programming it into a computer instead."

And so fate viciously unfolded. By merely typing a single line of computer code and pressing enter they instantly and unwittingly handed me the keys to the kingdom. Immediately they provided me the expertize to understand and assess all of climate science armed only with my deep knowledge of Visual Basic 5.0 which I gleaned from a two year stint with a temping agency.
Realizing their mistake the so-called "scientists" clamoured over desks and drawers to shut down links with the outside world. All the source code was placed deep inside the CRU computer (sort of looks like the last scene in raiders of the lost arc) where they thought noone would think of looking. And they were right...until now.

NASA blame a hacker. I find it more convenient to believe a whistleblower did it. I think it was Al Gore. But anyway the important fact is the code is free! To non-programmers it is just cryptic symbols. But to my trained programming eyes all the symbols align into dazzling shapes and images. It all fell together. I couldn't believe it. All this time I had trusted these scientists on this very important issue! Honestly I had. Remember? But now that trust was broken. I had to report my discovery to the public as a matter of urgently. And so here I am.

So what did I find? You won't be disapointed, this is so clearly fraud, the case is rock solid. Write to your representatives immediately. Here is the proof I found, a comment which read:

; fudge factor

You see fortunately they put comments into the code in case at a later date they forgot they were committing fraud.

That proves it! It's fraud!

What are the implications of this? Well we can no longer be sure that co2 as a molecule even exists. Manmade global warming is proven to be a complete farce simply invented as an excuse for taxes. NoHopeInHellHagen will have to be cancelled and taxation will have to be wiped out completely. This will require a complete shake up of the financial system. Governments will crumble, there will probably be wars. Maybe we will have to live on the moon afterall. I did warn them of this!

This also casts severe doubt on knowledge in general. Are we really here? Are we just brains in jars?

Parodying a Warmist Blog

2009-11-25T12:01:00.000-08:00

I consider parody to be somewhat pathetic, a pointless puerile exercise only undertaken by pathetic, pointless people. Well I did think that until the awe inspiring Heartland Institute told me to believe otherwise.

A turn of events has unfolded. A Master of Puns, a punisher if you will, has descended upon the warmist blogs and unleashed cleverly named parodies to ridicule them. http://www.desoggybog.com/ is the main parody, it is very witty and very subtle indeed, but believe me it is a parody. No really, it is. ExxonSecrets.org is parodied by http://www.extrasillysecrets.org/ and SourceWatch.org by http://www.coursewatch.org/. Just who is the genius who came up with these clever slights on names? Coursewatch. Genious. I bet they are mad to have their names mispronounced like that. And the blog content is so vivid and lifelike too!

I wonder where they got the idea of using parody as a means of ridiculing blogs? I only wish I had thought of it first.

I am late to the party, but it's not too late to join in. So in honor of desoggybog, extrasillysecrets and coursewatch, I made a parody blog of the same caliber. What I basically did was think long and hard about my target warmist blog, long and hard about the flaws in their arguments and long and hard about a load of names I would call them. There is a fine line between critique through imitation and just sounding plain pathetic. Fortunately desmoggybog avoids the line altogether and I believe my effort ReallySillyStupidClimate does too.

NASA Fakes Email Leak

2009-11-22T09:49:00.000-08:00

A rocket launches from NASA CRU's GISTEMP headquarters. Can it really be right for such launches be to made in such close proximity to important climate data?

Over the weekend NASA's University of East Anglia has alleged hackers have "stolen and released" a bunch of scientist's emails.

However what makes me deeply suspicious is the complete lack of correspondence with Al Gore in these released emails. Where are all the emails showing Al Gore's involvement? Even more bizarrely there is no plotting and planning on how to raise taxes. I don't see any mention of the socialist new world order that these scientists are trying to bring about. Not once do they talk about how to best achieve wealth redistribution or world government.

So I have to conclude this this email release is a big con. It has all the hallmarks of a deliberate leak to make these scientists look better and to try and silence skeptics who question their motives. If we are to believe the emails, the scientists don't actually think their work is in error! But we know they must realize it's all a big con, so how can these emails possibly be true?

I was expecting something like this:

From: "Michael Mann"
To: "James Hansen"
CC: "Al Gore", &WorldGovernmentDistributionList
Subject: A good idea!
Date: Mon, 21 October 2008 09:15:31

Hail Comrade,

October temperature release draws near. How about you just reuse the Sept 2008 temperatures? I figure that way it will make it the warmest October on record!

Al says this will be an excellent move for his stock portfolio.

btw I don't know what to do with all that grant money coming through my door, it is starting to fill up my front hall. I bought 5 more Ferrari's and a yacht, but it isn't reducing it much.

In Stalin,

Mike

That is the kind of thing I was expecting to find. Blog science and the Heartland Institute have provided plenty of discussion to lead me to believe the above kind of emails should exist.

But all I could find was some BS email in which they talked about OctoberGate as if it was just some error in russian data. They even had the tenacity to add in a note that skeptics wouldn't believe it was just an error. A likely story! It's clear to me that the emails are fake.

-hattip to Baron von Monckhofen who in the previous post's comments suggested what the emails could have contained

450 Peer-Reviewed Papers To Support Your Arguments Against So-Called "science"

2009-11-15T07:51:00.000-08:00

Some books. Yes I know they are not the peer-reviewed papers in question, but if other blogs got away with a photo of a few folders I think I can get away with a photo of a few books. At least my image is public domain.

Someone has made another skeptic list! A list of papers that make various arguments against manmade global warming. The list of papers supporting skepticism of so-called "science" is so long that I can't even post it here. I have to use an Internet Linked URL instead:

Bear in mind these 450 papers are the tip of a growing iceberg that refuses to melt, so in a way this is yet more evidence of cooling. The 450 only includes a small sample of total papers supporting skepticism because we know there are at least 30,000 scientists skeptical of manmade global warming on the Oregon Petition and I find it hard to believe they haven't all published at least one paper each. The list also doesn't include peer reviewed blog posts or peer reviewed blog comments.

Usually peer review is a sign of "team science". We spit on "peer review", it's not perfect so it doesn't meet our high standards of absolute proof. But in this case peer review is a sign that these papers carry authority because the peers are skeptics. Some of them have even been published in the high impact journal Energy and Environment, the journal that climate "scientists" can only dream of being published in.

How to read scientific papers

The benefit of the list is that you don't have to read them, you can just copy paste the entire list all over the internet. But if you do want to read some of the papers on the list you should take the following advice to make sure you don't do it wrong.

Never read papers in context of other papers. This is the mistake warmists make. Global warming skeptics know that reading papers is not an exercise in understanding the state of the science, but an exercise of finding spanners to throw in the wheels of manmade global warming. Find some nice arguments to bash warmists with but for heavens sake don't analyze the arguments in context of other papers.

Why you say? Well if you try to compile and understanding of how nature works from the 450 list you will only get confused. For example some of the arguments include:

Global temperature has risen naturally
Global temperature hasn't risen
Global temperature doesn't exist
The greenhouse effect is saturated
The greenhouse effect doesn't exist

They are all good arguments to support our skepticism if taken individually, but not if you think about them all at once. Try to divide the arguments into separate compartments in your head so they won't merge into one another in a baffling contradiction. You can still throw all of the above arguments at warmists, it's bound to confuse them. Make sure you assert the papers have "shown" or "proven" the argument is true. There are also some great political speeches in some of the papers and one uses an introduction quote by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.

Update: In error I had written "Energy and Environment, the journal that climate "scientists" can only dread of being published in". I have now corrected "dread", to "dream". This was an unfortunate typo. If you have blog expert reviewer status please take the updated version before you review, thanks.

Correcting GISTEMP

2009-11-08T09:26:00.000-08:00

GISTEMP is the NASA GISS global temperature surface record and it belongs to James Hansen.

People sometimes ask why climate skeptics criticize GISTEMP so much? Well it started off as a hunch, we felt that if our arch nemesis James Hansen was running it, it must be wrong. If this was merely politics that would be all we needed to believe it was wrong. But this is science and science demands evidence, so dutifully we sought out evidence to back our conclusion.

Here I bring together all the lines of evidence we have manufactured and furthermore I show how GISTEMP would look after corrections.

GISTEMP disagrees with the satellite record

The first piece of evidence is a simple observation. Since 1979 satellites have been measuring the temperature of the lower atmosphere. GISTEMP is trying to measure the temperature of the surface. The surface and lower atmosphere are not exactly the same thing, but you'd expect the temperature trend in both to be somewhat similar.

But look at how GISTEMP shows far more warming than the UAH satellite record. The disagreement is astronomical. This is what Blog Science has been banging on about for years!

Urban Heat Island Effect

Warmists will tell you there is no such thing as the urban heat island effect, but that's a complete strawman because their very own studies say there is an urban heat island effect. In fact they even try to correct for it in GISTEMP!

As Blog Scientists we must assume they don't correct for UHI enough. Blog Science knows that GISTEMP is contaminated by UHI bias. In the following graph I correct GISTEMP for UHI by 0.01C/decade.

If this was the full magnitude of UHI contamination that Blog Science was suggesting we would be just making a big deal about nothing! Don't worry we aren't. So obviously we must be talking about a far bigger correction being needed. Lets try correcting GISTEMP by 0.05C/decade for UHI bias.

That's more like it. We can now see that the allegations against GISTEMP not correcting for UHI make a big difference!

Micro-site Biases

The surface record relies on sensors. Sensors are uncannily aware of the tidiness of their surroundings. They are very partial on having nice tidy surroundings and being checked on by men in smart lab coats. If these conditions are not met they refuse to measure temperature properly and just spin around, warmer and warmer, out of control.

It has been proven by Blog Science that James Hansen hasn't personally kept all the sensor locations tidy. In fact noone seems to have bothered and tourists have left rubbish like barrels and boats lying around, items known to cause warming trends. Even worse some people have installed AC units near sensors. Blog Science knows that by installing an AC unit or a boat next to a sensor, that sensor will read ever higher temperatures each year until eventually the sensor will melt.

Warmists claim that the GISTEMP algorithm statistically detects and removes such significant biases from the record. But as Blog Scientists we assume otherwise. We also demand to know why science isn't performed like in the movies? Why aren't there teams of good looking men and woman scientists in shiny suits going around in futuristic metallic science vans tidying up the sensors? Blog Science can only conclude that microsite biases are not properly accounted for in GISTEMP and that these biases cause GISTEMP to be too warm.

Like with UHI bias the microsite bias must be somewhat large or else we would just be making a big deal about nothing! So I propose another correction of 0.05C, this time for microsite bias. The following graph shows the total correction (0.1C/decade) for UHI bias and microsite bias.

We see that correcting for UHI and microsite bias has reduced the warming a lot! So much for the IPCC's predictions of children melting within 20 years.

Now lets compare the corrected GISTEMP to UAH satellite record again. The following graph shows that the previous disagreement between GISTEMP and the satellite record has disappeared thanks to our Blog Science efforts. It has been replaced with a new disagreement though.

Now the satellites show too much warming. The conclusion is obvious. It is time for Blog Science to attack the reliability of the satellite records.

Met Office Hadley Admits Surface Record Is "Incorrect"

2009-11-03T12:34:00.000-08:00

From the horses mouth itself:

A substantial proportion of the September CLIMAT monthly land station summary report data that was sent over the GTS (Global Telecommunication System) was obviously incorrect. For the past few weeks we have been liaising with the sources to gain a version that was correct. As this issue affects a substantial portion of the globe we are not in a position to release a 'global' estimate. Nor will we do so until we are satisfied that an adequate amount of verified data is present.

http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/

Just as I expected they are too busy "validating" the data to bother releasing it. Why not release it and let Blog Scientists search for errors? We can publish our results in the Telegraph and in an article on the Register, both Journals with a history of fair-handed reporting on the subject.

I can only guess what "liaising with the sources" means. Sounds a lot like a metaphor for "team science"

Can the IPCC finally be disbanded now?

HadCrut3 - Where the **** is my data?!

2009-11-02T09:12:00.000-08:00

Where is the September temperature update?! It's now November.

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/

This is intolerable having to wait over two months for data. Where is it? You can tell I am angry! I need this data immediately for Blog Science Auditing.

I hope they aren't wasting time validating the data before they release it. I just need the data, if there's any errors in it I am sure it can be corrected shortly after release without fuss.

As this is a top science blog, why not post me your own suggestions of what the Hadley Climate Center could be doing? Remember now is the season to tie every paranoid thought to Copenhagen somehow.

I'll kick you off: Are they too busy installing their fake tree rings in Siberian forests?

Update: Another blog is also concerned http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/02/hadcrut-watch/

SuperDuperFreakonomics

2009-10-30T12:23:00.000-07:00

Global warming - Solved.

I recently discovered a book which finally puts manmade global warming to bed in a coffin and then nails the lid firmly shut. It's called SuperFreakonomics and it's written by Top Men who are bravely attempting to solve the world's problems through the medium of selling books. My worldview was immediately challenged by the image of an exploding apple on the cover. Most people would never expect an apple to actually explode like that. In many ways this book has all the qualities of Blog Science. It's almost like a blog written on paper with comments disabled.

The most important problem they solve is how to stick it to warmists. The solution they provide is to point out that even if co2 was a problem, we can solve that problem without raising taxes. All it would take is a smoke machine attached to a funnel. All the smoke would then be funneled up into the sky where it would block sunlight and offset any global warming. Oh and just to stick it to the warmists more, it turns out the best place in the world to put such a smoke machine is on top of scenically mined Alberta oil sands - so those will definitely need to be mined ASAP.

Any guess as to why the IPCC reports don't have a chapter on smoking the warming out of the atmosphere? Is it because smoke pipes, even long ones, cannot be taxed?

How did these SuperFreakonomics geniuses come up with such an off-the-wall solution to mythical global warming? I suspect they did so by ignoring the peer reviewed literature on the matter. This would enable them to successfully open their minds to wild possibilities and conclusions unconstrained by so-called "experts".

So congratulation to the Super Freakonomics guys, but they shouldn't get too cocky! Given my importance in the area of Blog Science I am very suprised they didn't contact me before publication. It's hard to imagine they haven't heard of this blog so what were they thinking? I wonder if they were inspired by my idea of using catapults to throw co2 into the stratosphere where it would become mixed with the ether of space?

Public service announcement: The liberals will want you to put your clocks back an hour this week. Please delay doing so as long as possible, we need to save as much daylight as possible this Hale winter.

Scientists admit the Sun is the only factor in climate - no need to raise taxes afterall!

2009-10-29T13:21:00.000-07:00

A lone bird worries about the coming maunder minimum.

Breaking news from last year just in. Russian Scientists, known to be one of most credible types of scientist, have discovered that the Sun dominates the climate and published the following PDF to the Blog Review Process. As is typical with the Blog Review Process, it gets flagged through as a superb piece of science.

http://www.gao.spb.ru/english/astrometr/abduss_nkj_2009.pdf

I was stunned and amazed to hear this news. To think we are privileged to live in 2009 AD, the most important year so far in climate science - the year in which a Russian scientist finally proved we don't need more taxes.

This is not merely a relatively unknown scientist publishing a PDF full of rehashed ideas. No this is a groundbreaking moment. Galileo and Einstein have finally been superseded.

When I saw Figure 6 I literally spat coffee all over the keyboard I was so impressed. Lines all draw in parallel fashion with timelines and numbers. Very impressive. Concerns the amount of ice I believe. Ice has gone up since 2007 and the Sun has gone down. Cannot be a coincidence. Just cannot!

Not only does he put a final nail in the coffin of Alarmism, but he also sounds the alarm that we are descending into a catastrophic cold period.

The Yamal Fraud - I Have Found It

2009-10-01T13:27:00.000-07:00

One of the most disquieting images ever presented at Denial Depot. If you are afraid of harrowing diagrams look away now.

I thought I better do a post about Yamel before the bandwagon skips town, so here it is.

What are the technical details of the Yamel issue? Simply put it doesn't matter, the devils in the details and he'll just utterly baffle us given half the chance. What's important is that Yamal is yet another nail in the coffin of AGW that can be cast into the faces of the believers.

Summary of Yamal

Team Science tried to "reconstruct" the past 1000 years of temperature by producing what is known as the Spaghetti graph, so named because it depends entirely on using fossilized Siberian spaghetti plants as a proxy for temperature. First of all temperature has been a well known unit of measurement in science for decades now, so I have no idea why Team Science thought they could even get away with re-constructing it from scratch. But anyway, it didn't take long for Blog Science to uncover the spaghetti graph to be a lie. Pasta and it's derivatives are not good proxies for temperature after all, as any good Blog Scientist could have told so-called "scientists" in the first place - Detailed Experiments have been done.

Fraud?

Yes this incident created a fantastic opening to allege Fraud.

But as far as I know I am the only Blog Scientist to have actually located and put a date to this fraud. I produced the opening diagram above by taking the fraudulent "Spaghetti graph" and overlaying a Good Reconstruction free of fraud over the top. Logically then the fraud must lie in the difference and I have circled that difference. It turns out the fraud is located in a small area just before 1000AD, about when the Vikings invaded Communist Greenland. This is possibly the earliest documented evidence of AGW fraud and I found it first.

Analysis

The difference between fraud and no fraud turns out to be about 0.4 degrees C ('C' means Cold, sometimes spoken in latin, 'Celcius'). No wonder Team Science wanted to utterly and completely annihilate this 0.4 degrees C. That 0.4C is the make or break of man-made global warming. Think about it, if temperature was 0.4C warmer than thought 1000 years ago, then how could the 3C alleged warming from man-made global warming over the next 100 years have any effect whatsoever?

Mis-Communicating The Science - How can we do it better?

2009-09-24T13:54:00.000-07:00

We all know so-called "science" coming from political organizations like NASA is a pack of lies. So to help the public we need to mis-communicate such "science". Ie tough to be kind.

Yet the issues involved in science mis-communication are complex and often seem intractable. We've seen many different approaches, but guessing which will work (State Of Fear, The Great Global Warming Swindle) and which won't (desoggybog.com) is a tricky call.

I spend many a night thinking how better to mis-communicate the science. It is a big problem that can't simply be solved by throwing another Heartland Institute Climate Conference as much as we all love them.

No we almost need to rethink our strategy and given Blog Science's track record of daring the impossible and generally winning that dare, I guess we are the ones to do it.

The Problem

The problem is that the liberal public have an ill-founded regard for socio-organizations like NASA and the NOAA. We have the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine but surprisingly few people have heard of it.

To mis-communicate the science better we need to dilute these organizations. So far we've relied on deriding their people while promoting ours, a strategy that if in geometric form would surely look like a Wedge.

Thinking Inside the Box

If you take "thinking outside the box" to it's logical conclusion you realize all the best ideas must be inside the box where no-one expects. And why do people assume everyday thinking is constrained by a box anyway? Why not a sphere or a pyramid or even a 4 corner simultaneous 4-day time cube? These are some of the questions we dare to ask.

Suggestions For Remedying the problem

Here are some suggestions I have been sent for how we can better mis-communicate the science. I appeal to everyone to come up with more suggestions and add them in the comments.

The first suggestion I received was from a warmist going by the name of "tim". The actual suggestion was over a paragraph long and so I have had to remove quite a few words to conserve space while maintaining the meaning:

"One method would involve you guys actually publishing arguments to something you might have heard of called "Peer Review" rather than blogs ... I ... am ... [a] liars [(sic)]"

Well first "tim", thanks for your suggestion but may I suggest that you first read up on what peer review actually is before criticizing Blog Science? In fact don't bother, reading up is always a waste of time when I can tell you. "peer review" (it's lower case not capitalized) means your work is paraded up and down in front of a panel of UN appointed bureaucrats who won't even look at it if it doesn't suggest higher taxes and an end to the US economy. Also "tim", as a warmist you didn't provide your full name and home address in accordance with my Blog Respect Policy. You've overstepped the mark and so I am giving you a 2 week ban from this Blog. I hope you will spend the time wisely reconsidering your worldview, although I expect you will squander it.

Remember that unlike warmist sites such as "realclimate" and "rabbet run" I never ban people except when I do. Therefore manmade global warming must be a myth.

Anyway with that administration work out of the way lets move on to a far better suggestion from young 33 year old Sarah from Alaska (no not that Sarah, wrong age and besides that Sarah would never use such a crude word as "erect"):

"Why not erect mock organizations shadowing the ones environmentalists depend on? I propose they be named identically but for a preceding 'non' to signify our disgust at their views. For example we would set up the NNSIDC, the 'Non-National Snow and Ice Data Center' and NNOAA, the 'Non-National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration'"

That's a great suggestion Sarah! You have thought it all through really hard and deserve a pat on the head.

Several of my male readers however will probably pick up on a few problems with this suggestion. I am afraid that simply putting the word "non" in front of the names of organizations couldn't possibly convince anyone. It's certainly not the kind of behavior skeptics could be seen engaging in. For one thing who would fund such a campaign? Certainly not Big Oil who have reputations to uphold.

The next thoughtful suggestion comes from Terrance Jones who scrapes together a "living" in the UK, a vassal of Socialist Europe:

"Can we not get some young conservative blokes to infiltrate academia, work their way to the top and finally take it down from the inside?"

This is certainty a good idea but I am afraid the attrition rate may be too high. If those professors are good at one thing (they aren't) it's indoctrinating youth and educating them stupid.

Do you have any suggestions on how we can better miscommunicate the science? What do you think? Send me your wild thoughts in the comments below.

Climate Modeling. Garbage In, Garbage Out.

2009-09-21T22:30:00.000-07:00

Pacman or GISS Model E? There is an analogy in there somewhere. Perhaps the ghosts are auditors and Pacman is a so-called "scientist" chasing and feeding off government funding grants. The big dots are IPCC award dinners.

As a Blogger I am uniquely placed to independently audit the role and application of computers in climate science. My expertize goes further though. I put together my home computer network with very little help from so-called IT "professionals" . I am fluent in the HTML programming language and have used the Ebay auctioning World Wide Web Internet Site on a number of occasions. I have also personally defeated the Chessmaster 3000. So I am a self-taught computer expert, sure, but enough of my CV, what about the wisdom I can offer you the reader?

A Brief Introduction to Fundamentals of the Computer (AKA Computer Science)

What is a computer? A computer is a tool. I am a lot like a computer; I can read fonts, perform arithmetic, etc. But computers don't understand politics or emotions. They can't understand when they are being misused by the UN to raise taxes for example. At least not yet, my knowledge of computers and futurology leads me to believe that by 2020 most computers will simply refuse to process false data.

So what does GIGO mean? It means "Garbage in Garbage out". To summarize a very complex and advanced concept, GIGO means if you feed bad numbers into the computer you will get bad numbers coming out. You can only get good output out if you put good input in. And if you put fiddled numbers into a computer what do you get out? Temperature records and so-called "climate models". Warmists rely on this quirk of computers to fabricate their false results.

For this reason computers should be used sparingly in science. By science I am of course referring to Real Science, not the modern "mainstream" corrupt version. Real science is universally recognized to involve real world experiments which anyone can understand. The kind that involve big instruments with straight forward names that do straight forward things. For example a thermometer, a telescope, a drill, an axe. From Newton to Galileo to Ernst Beck, real scientific progress has been made by scientists without resorting to computers to do their thinking for them. The use of computers in science is only justified in a few select cases:

To control scientific instruments (eg control a big telescope, display the output of a thermometer, activate an axe)

Drawing graphs of raw data (eg Excel, but this program can also be misused to "adjust" data)

Blogging (eg Blogspot, Wordpress)

Warmists however will tell you that computers can be used to prove things, that computers have mind of their own and "think" up new ideas and analyze existing ones. This is a strawman and completely wrong. Here are some things computers should not be used for:

Adjusting data.

Performing arithmetic. This is just lazy and introduces the possibility of something in computer science called User Error. The correct method is to write all your working out on paper, or if you must - use a calculator. This also helps with auditing.

Modeling. Computers cannot analyze ideas, it is folly to think the human mind is less capable than a machine in this regard.

Three Reasons Why Climate Cannot be Modeled

Chaos Theory. Chaos Theory says the climate cannot be modeled unless the behavior of butterflies is taken into account (or anything of a similar size). As climate models cannot even take the behavior of entire countries into account, the whole concept of climate modelling is falsified by Chaos Theory.

The Heisenberg uncertainty principle. If we cannot even be certain where one particle is, how can we be certain of the position of clouds?

Another reason that climate cannot be modeled is that the climate is just too complex for man to even comprehend, although admittedly I have come very close on a number of occasions.

The History of Climate Models

The early 1980s
In the early 1980s, cutting edge research on computer programming languages such as COBOL and FORTRAIN convinced researchers that virtual worlds could be simulated in computer code. "Computer modeling", as it later became known, would become the basis of a thriving video game industry providing entertainment (I use that word loosely) for kids. Some of the children weaned on video games would inevitably grow up to become the next generation of socialists and so it was only a matter of time until the technology was against us to raise taxes and damage the economy of the free world. The chosen method of the time was to use environmental issues as a proxy for the Soviet agenda [1]

The late 1980s
First to the plate was a little known environmental activist named James Hansen. A NASA employee at the time, Hansen wrote a video simulation of climate to claim an ice age was imminent. This claim subsequently melted as the real world confounded such simplistic notions by embarking on a natural warming cycle caused entirely by the Sun (not co2). In an effort to cover this up, environmentalists turned instead to apocalyptic claims that the warming was not natural and would wipe out life on Earth. The IPCC was born.

The early 1990s
The early 1990s saw a new computer operating system known as Linux emerge in the Soviet Union. It's goal was nothing short of establishing communism as the basis of software engineering by insisting that software should be free. Linux was launched in early 1991 to socialist acclaim, but thanks to the collapse of the Soviet Union and to a counter-attack by Microsoft's launch of Windows 3.1 in 1992, Linux never became a popular operating system. Once again the communist ideology was shown to fail in a Free Market system.

Linux still exists to this day, largely under the socialist inspired codename "Red hat". This operating system is used primarily today as a software piracy platform used by hackers drawn by it's promise of free source codes and lack of digital rights management. But it's secondary role is as a necessary prop for climate modeling.

It is perhaps possible that Climate Models using a certified Microsoft Windows Vista operating system would be largely immune to the figure-fiddling, number-fudging, adjustment-making of so-called "scientists". I don't know the intricacies of particular operating systems and their digital rights management support, but I do know that in the early 1990s a new wave of socialist "scientist" was fashioned in the dying embers of the Soviet Union. The dawn of the so-called "climate modeler". Working under the glare of socialist environmental organizations and with abundant funding from the British Government [1] these "climate modelers" would claim that computers proved warming was caused by man and more taxes were needed to stop it. Meanwhile the globe was warming. Slight warming since the 70s was being caused entirely by SOI and ENSO (not co2).

The early 2000s
Even though Hansen's earlier 1988 prediction was of global cooling, he nevertheless put in a contingency plan - a Y2K bug which would go off in the year 2000 and result in 1998 to be the warmest year in history. Despite this attempt the ruse was spotted by Blog Scientists and a forced correction was made so that the actual warmest year on record is now 1934. Meanwhile the modest warming since the 70s caused entirely by GCR induced cloud changes (not co2) suddenly ended. Around the same time the politician "Al" "Gore" flew onto the scene in his jumbo jet with his "documentary", An Inconvenient "Truth".

The Sorry State Of Climate Modeling Today

Climate modeling today is in flux. The IPCC climate model has been falsified dozens of times. Let me unleash some words: Water, air, earth, wind, clouds, waves, ice, tides, sand, snow, grass, north, south, east, west, biological reproduction, earthquakes. It is not clear which, if any of these words are included in the so-called "climate models" and yet all of them are part of our Earth and therefore part of our climate. If I don't know what models contain how can we trust them to correctly predict future climate?

My Demands

I hereby demand the IPCC rewrite it's climate model in a modern programming language such as Visual Basic or Java Script for auditing purposes.

I hereby demand all data files held on IPCC computers are released immediately to wordpress and blogspot so they can be directly accessed by Blog Scientists.

If my demands are not met I may be forced to obtain this data through Freedom of Information requests and YouTube Takedowns.

[1] http://frankbi.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/conspiracy-20080524.gif

Cycles

2009-09-15T13:36:00.000-07:00

This is the first entry of a glossary I will be compiling in response to the so-called "RealClimate" "Comprehensive climate glossary"

RealClimate is an alarmist website headed by an interesting picture of a giant orange sun warming the Earth. But look closely and you will see giant chimneys the size of small planets looming over the Earth's atmosphere. No such planet sized chimneys actually exist as far as we know (NASA confirms this), so such an image paints a false reality.

I advise anyone with a nervous disposition to avoid reading the RealClimate "climate glossary". I myself have a stout heart but nevertheless I almost choked on my breakfast when I read the first entry on Aerosols and stumbled across the alarming word "anthropogenic" which had been recklessly placed in the midst of an otherwise harmless sentence. To think that children might innocently stumble across such material.

Realclimate describe an Aerosol as "A collection of airborne solid or liquid particles, with a typical size between 0.01 and 10 µm and residing in the atmosphere for at least several hours. Aerosols may be of either natural or anthropogenic origin."

But just how do they know these airborne solids stay in the atmosphere for "at least several hours"? If you spray a can of deodorant in a fair sized locker room and come back just 30 minutes later the smell will have gone. This is a real world experiment and one which I have performed.

With such flaws in mind I decided to write a corrected climate glossary with up to date Blog Science definitions. The first entry is..

Cycles

sometimes referred to as Natural Cycles

A Cycle is a kind of quasi-mystical non-explanation for climate events unfolding around us which we can invoke to explain away any climate change as natural.

If glaciers are melting, sea ice is declining, temperature is going up and sea level is increasing, well that's just part of a Natural Cycle out of the last ice age and of course we expected that to happen. If the opposite happens and it starts getting colder, glaciers and sea ice start growing, sea ice starts increasing and sea level is dropping, well that's also expected because a Natural Cycle moves in mysterious ways.

Cycles can also be used to predict the future. If the climate is warming it's almost certainly going to cool soon and if it's cooling there is almost certainly going to be a devastating ice age down the line and we should prepare for it by reducing taxes.

Cycles keep us on our toes and put a few dozen nails in the coffin of manmade global warming at the same time. Some cycles have names, for example PDO, AMO, the unstoppable 1500-year cycle [1] (which recently stopped), the carbon cycle, the accelerating Heartland Climate Conference cycle, and so on. Other cycles remain unknown. It's these invisible unknown cycles that we can blame for climate change when all else fails.

I remember when we marveled at our ignorance of nature and didn't pretend to try to understand it all. Those were the good old days when men would respect Cycles in nature. So-called "scientists" in their lavish towering laboratories made of fine ivory could learn a thing or two about climate from fishermen and farmers who live by Natural Cycles. These are Real People living in the Real World with Real Jobs and Real Concerns about taxes.

Anyway I am rambling now. So concludes the glossary entry for cycles.

[1] http://www.gopusa.com/theloft/wp-print.php?p=1767

Respect Policy

2009-09-12T04:39:00.000-07:00

My last paper recieved a few comments, one querying the Respect Policy of this blog:

"I assume that Inferno's policy is similar to that of Professor Watts..

Internet phantoms who have cryptic handles and no name get no respect here. If you think your opinion or idea is important, elevate your status by being open and honest. People that use their real name get more respect than phantoms with handles. I encourage open discussion. "

Well I am not familar with this Professor Watts and in fact my respect policy is even stronger than the above. This goes for warmists only, skeptics already have by respect.

It's important to remember that in Blog Science your name is as important, if not more important, than your arguments. If there's a problem with your identity there's automatically going to be a way for me to dismiss your argument.

Problems with your identity might include:

Working for or being in someway associated with "acedemia" in which case you are just trying to defend your funding stream.
Having a so-called "degree" (same as above)
Having a name that sound a bit liberal (French names, etc), ie you are hoping for a return to communism.

This is why I need to know your identity in order to be sure you aren't hiding any such skeletons. Additionally use of "cryptic handles" may imply association with the Climatati or other such nefarious underground organizations.

So I demand warmists not only use their full and real name on this blog if they want respect, but also that they provide the full names of their immediate family. Don't worry I won't use this information for anything other than digging up dirt on them and their families in order to discredit their arguments.

As a plus side by using your real full name your posts will become permanently recorded into the google search engine, meaning past, present and future aquaintances will all be able to google your name and see everything you do online in your free time without you knowing. Who on earth could have a problem with that?

Skeptics are handled a little differently. You don't need to use your real name, but if you do and have any associations with acedemia this increases your respect.

Arctic Sea Ice: Staggering Growth

2009-09-11T15:20:00.000-07:00

August 2009 Arctic Sea Ice data is just in and it's another nail in the coffin of AGW. Ice is just refusing to melt and continues the pattern of severe growth of recent years. Are we headed into another Ice Age?

Please send this to your senators and congressmen so they will have true information to base decisions on. Perhaps just as they are about to pass some Death Taxes they will see this graph and realize "hang on a second! we're being lied to!"

Update:

In the comments section someone asks "I'm not a scientist. could you explain why the chart is tilted at an angle? Also, does the blue line show that median(?) ice extent has declined by 2 million sq km since 1978?"

I have just done what the alarmists do and defined a base-line (the grey horizontal line). Alarmists always choose flat base-lines, but they never reference a paper from a statistics journal to justify this choice ("climate science" is sloppy like this).

I decided to use a sloped base-line instead, in which case the graph must be tilted at an angle to align it correctly. The blue line is heading upwards relative to the baseline so this data cannot possibly be interpretted as a "decline" in sea ice.

Remember to apply your blog science skills and question everything. Question, for example, the conventional "wisdom" that says y-axes must go vertically and x-axes horizonally.Why should time go horizontally and extent go vertically? Remember that actual ice extent is a measure of the horizontal spread of sea ice, so in many respects by making the Y-axis more horizontal I have displayed the data in a more correct manner than so-called "phd scientists" do.

Where's the warming?

2009-09-10T12:22:00.000-07:00

Where is the warming? I have truth aligned the above graph in complex ways that you might not understand.

Let me explain

The warmists use something called an "anomaly" on the Y-axis, an arbitary choice, but one which I decided to follow. However the alarmists only plot a Y-axis range of about 2 degrees C wheras I plotted the full 20 degrees of temperature range on the Y-axis. This is more typical of the daily temperature cycle and so more realistic.

I used the hadcrut surface record rather than rely on one of the suspiciously "adjusted" and biased satellite records. I also avoided drawing the plot in red as that assigns unnecessary weight and significance to it.

Looks very flat doesn't it? Where's the warming. Is there any? I can't tell. We might never know. Doubt.

How Alarmists Fake Graphs

So how do alarmists exaggerate upward trends at the end of graphs? Well they scale down the Y-axis to a ridiculous level. Let me show you the same trick they apply elsewhere. Below I have plotted global population as an alarmist might plot it:

Notice the apparent hockey-stick shape? The alarming upward curve at the end? This is the population "explosion" graph that alarmists go on and on about.

But here is the same data which I have truthed aligned using blog science principles:

Where's the alarming population rise now?

Remember that lower population is far worse than higher population. Higher population has always been associated with prosperity whereas lower population is associated with black plague and maunder minimums and the Thames freezing over.

Relevant Links:

http://www.junkscience.com/Hurricanes/absHadCRUT3an.png

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/01/50-years-of-co2-time-for-a-vision-test/

Image 9: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/04/some-global-warming-qa-to-consider-in-light-of-the-epa-ruling/

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/MaunaLoaCO2.png

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/NCDCabs1880.png

Recent Climate History

2009-08-30T12:07:00.000-07:00

Figure 1: What Really Happened. Note the Roman Warm Period and Age Of The Dinosaur are not shown, neither is the great Submarine Warming Period and the recent 21st Century Ice Age.

Foreword

The alarmists are always banging on about risks to the climate. But they never risk their own identities, prefering instead to hide behind a cowardly system of net-anonymity. I use my actual name in everything I do online, I even publish how much I can bench press (300lb). I have hunted game in real life. I could if I had the chance kill a polar bear with a good rifle or my hands if it came down to it.

And that's an important qualification in climate science. Any climate scientist who hasn't shot their own Polar Bear quite frankly doesn't understand the first thing about the out-the-lab realities of nature. Because I do understand the realities of nature it means I can avoid pointless labish "analysis". I can just cut to the chase by focusing on obvious real world self-truths passed down through time honored rumor fueled speculation.

In what follows I will explain how recent global climate history drives nails into the coffin of manmade global warming at every turn. But first lets get one thing straight, I don't "do" dates when talking about history. For one thing the calendar is uncertain with missing days here and missing days there and competing theories (gregorian, julian etc) and so it would be biased to pick any one. Dates are unnecessary anyway it turns out. I can instead to reference history by temperature periods. So when I say "Medieval Warm Period" or "Little Ice Age" these define themselves and it's logically absurd to ask me to nail them down to a specific period of dates or to demand history to be chronologically consistant.

The Roman Warm Period

Britain is too cold today for an army to invade it wearing skirts. But the Romans did exactly that. Furthermore the Romans could only invade places that could produce wine. Therefore it must have been a lot warmer globally in Roman Times. QE2.

Medieval Warm Period

If it was warm in Roman times it was about to get a lot warmer. Without any help from man the Earth warmed up of it's own accord thereby disproving manmade global warming before Al Gore was even born.

It was a very pleasant time for everyone on the planet. The weather was great and el vino did flow. People enjoyed a level of prosperity not seen again until co2 emissions were invented. It was so warm that the Northwest Passage opened, which allowed the Chinese to sail right into Europe [1]. After a series of fierce, but pleasant, battles between the Vikings and Chinese in the warm oceans, the Vikings were victorious and claimed a newly thawed island as their own. The Vikings named this new island "Greenland" after the luciously co2-fed tropical forests that covered it.

Meanwhile in England beautiful hippos were swimming up and down the Thames and people were dancing and singing through vast vineyards covering the country. A large volume of wine was produced by England in this time causing a few arguments with France, although thanks to the warmth both countries often overlooked their differences. It was in fact so warm in England that the attire of strong hetrosexual men (such as myself) was completely different [2]

Little Ice Age

After years of prosperity caused by a very warm world, the climate decided to disprove manmade global warming again by cooling down on it's own. The world became grim and frostbitten.

The temperatures in fact dropped down so far that it was even colder than the cold year of 2008 [3]. Yes I know that is hard to believe, but all that global warming you were shovelling out your driveway last year was still not as cold as the Little Ice Age (but we are getting worryingly close and noone is doing anything about it).

When the ice hit, it hit hard. European culture, which had thrived in the warmth of the Medieveal Warm Period has never truely recovered. Noone ever used castles again. The Hippo population in London was eradicated and people had to resort to selling meagre goods on the frozen Thames. Millions died in such frost fairs. The cold brought plague, famine and war. Napolean attempted to invade europe and Hitler was born at some point. It got so bad that in one year there was literally no summer as the sheer cold caused Earth to swoop through quarter of it's orbit in a single night.

As for the Vikings, well they had thrived on Greenland during the Medieval Warm Period, but now it became cooler and mountains of ice started advancing into their towns and cities. The Vikings hastily renamed Greenland to Iceland and abandoned it as a lost cause.

Lessons Of History

Someone once said something about remember the past or you will repeat it, I forget who but the point stands. What can we learn about the global climate history I have presented?

Well to state the obvious first, history proves manmade global warming is a fraud. Man has never affected the climate in the short period of history I covered and therefore logically never could.

We also know that temperature has changed dramatically in the past due to completely natural reasons. Couple this with the fact that the climate is a self-regulating machine that resists man's attempts to change it and we see that manmade global warming is disproven.

As for risk what about the possibility that without the checks and balances of human "pollution" the dinosaurs might return? Have the alarmists even given that a moment of thought. We don't know how the dinosaurs died out and this opens up the possibility that it was due to a reduction in co2. Back in dinosaur times the Earth had much more co2. Plants were absolutely massive, carrots the size of small automobiles. Could the Waxman-Marxley bill cause a reduction of co2 that would produce carnivorous lizard-beasts the size of houses? As far as I know no so-called "scientist" has ever asked this question let alone answered it.

References ( you don't have to bother with these, you should take my word for it. I have been peer reviewed remember)

[1] http://www.1421.tv/
[2] http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0107977/
[3] http://www.iceagenow.com/Record_Lows_2008.htm

Someone I know: Tennis Racket Engineer, Genius, Active Climate Skeptic

2009-08-17T11:45:00.000-07:00

Let me share with you an experience I had over the weekend at a local bar. It was getting late by the time I finally managed to turn the conversation towards blog science and the fraud of global warming. Most evenings the few remaining drinkers will just sit there in silence as I discuss climate science at length, no doubt admiring my knowledge and importance. But this week was different, a life-educated looking man suddenly interupted me with extraordinary insightfulness.

"Listen", he told me, "I am not a climatologist but I have approched this from a different angle"

Facinated I reached for my scotch.

"I am an engineer. Tennis rackets are my trade. I design, test and certify tennis rackets"

Finishing off my glass I gestured that he may continue.

"I might know nothing about climate but I can analyze data and come to conclusions about climate anyway. I am an expert at how people miss-use graphs. Let me show you."

He reached for his IPhone before continuing. "The following is not a 'climatologists' study; more from the view of a tennis racket engineer who has spent a lifetime in data analysis/interpretation"

Here is the graph he showed me:

Image 1a, The graph I was shown in the bar which compares Hydrocarbon use, solar activity and temperature compared. "Hydrocarbon Use" being a technical term for prosperity.

Notice how temperature moves up and then down and up again while solar activity goes up and then down and up again. Ie the same thing. In engineering this is called correlation (pronounced cor-rel-ation). Technically speaking the above graph proves global warming is caused by the sun and NOT by co2.

I inquired where he had located such a powerful graph.

"Found it on the internet", he replied.

Well what this demonstrates is that you don't need to be a climatologist or know anything about climate to be an expert on climate. Why is it that so many engineers are skeptical of global warming? Well take tennis racket engineering, if you were to engineer a tennis racket incorrectly someone might recieve a bad wrist strain. On the otherhand if you peddle together a climate model incorrectly there are no bad side effects, but you will have dozens of grants falling through your letter box. Therefore obviously manmade global warming must be a myth.

Update: I received a snarky comment (deleted), probably from a warmist, complaining that the graph shows arctic and not global temperature. Yes yes I am aware of this. No it wasn't a mistake, notice I never actually said the graph showed "global temperature" so I haven't made a mistake. Remember I have been given peer reviewed status by Prof. Malvolio who is an expert in metaphysics so I am hardly likely to make such mistakes.

As for the claim that if global temperature is graphed instead of arctic temperature it no longer correlates with solar activity, remember the engineer explained it wasn't "a climatologist's study", he doesn't know anything about climate, he doesn't need to. What he did was look at graphs he found on the internet and come to conclusions on climate nontheless. He is an expert at data analysis and how graphs can be miss-used. Learn to read.

It Could Happen: A Warning To Warmists

2009-08-08T20:25:00.000-07:00

Picture this if you can. It's Friday afternoon at the IPCC climate lab. Dozens of government funded climate scientists are hunched around a big computer frantically feeding in dodgy punch cards. They've had it easy the rest of the year, not even wearing their lab coats most of the time, but this week is different. The IPCC report is due out on Monday and they must get those warming projections as high as possible before release.

They haven't been outside for months and by order of the administrator no windows are allowed so that noone can see outside. Some of them have left their sports cars in the open because their models said it would never snow again. It's snowing outside.

Suddenly the phone goes. One of supervisors picks up the phone. There is a muffled voice of urgency at the other end. "Auditors?!" the supervisor exclaims in alarm, "From the Internet?", "Here? ... Now?!". For a few seconds everyone in the room freezes. Then as quick as silence fell they begin scrambling around the room binning this and shredding that.

A Warmists Worse Nightmare

Warmists of course think the above turn of events will never happen. They know the labs are defended by government red tape. Internet auditors like me would never be allowed to analyze one of these labs or look at the code.

However now we are using the red tape against them. Through clever use of Freedom of Information requests and YouTube takedowns we are slowing them down. If a file is moved, did they tell us? Did they have authorization to move it? How was it moved? Who moved it? When was it moved? Why did they move it? Are the timestamps for the move accurate? Was the move logged? Who audited the logs? Who authorized the audits of the logs? Are the log authorizations audited? Just who is paying for all of this??

If we just hack away with these questions hopefully they will become so busy meeting our demands that they will miss the deadline for the next IPCC report. What we are looking for is strange file movements and procedures not met. This is what blog science is all about and we are doing it today.

Further Supplimentary Demands

For Warmists I have 4 straight forward demands you must make for transparency and QA standards. If you do not comply I will report on your non-compliance and will also consider suing the IPCC.

I hearby demand the IPCC rewrite it's climate model in a modern programming language such as Visual Basic or Java Script for auditing purposes. FORTRAIN is outdated and inadequate.
I hearby demand windows are installed in all exterior walls of IPCC computer labs to ensure climate scientists can properly observe the cold global temperatures and failing crops everyone else is seeing.
I hearby demand all data files held on IPCC computers are released immediately to wordpress and blogspot.
I hearby demand temperature records are unadjusted immediately.
Please satisify all further demands posted by readers in the comments.

Remember if you don't meet these demands I may very well sue the IPCC.

Our Dying Sun

2009-05-13T11:55:00.000-07:00

Our Sun is in it's death throes. We are right now on the brink of disaster.

Is that news to you? If you only get your science from the mainstream media and "science" institutes then I bet it is news to you. The alarmist media of course completely ignores real science favoring the lie and alarmism of manmade global warming. For everyone who has been getting their science from the blogosphere the dying sun is not news at all. Blog scientists throughout the internet have been informing people for years about the imminent solar collapse.

Here's a recap summary: Solar output has been slowly winding down for the last few years. Everyone thought it would start winding up again in 2007 (except blog scientists who called it correctly), but it defied so-called "expert" predictions and continued ever downwards. The current situation is that the Sun's output is still falling dramatically. We face the worrying prospect that this decline will not stop and perhaps might speed up. The signs are indeed growing more clear that we have already entered a long and terrifyingly deep maunder-like minimum. The last time that happened we had an actual ice age. The only question now is how low can solar output go and how many millions might die.

Tens of millions? In fact if cooling does continue we might very well see a massive shortfall in food supplies and hundreds of millions could die. Plague and disease would once again spread through populations with cold-weakened immune systems. Many species could be wiped out entirely.

Even the media are waking up to the facts:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/weather/article6024898.ece http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/features/online/2668/deep-calm-why-sun-so-quiet

What is the IPCC and Al Gore doing about the risk of imminent catastrophic cooling?

Nothing. That's right, the political body charged with monitoring the climate (however corrupt) and Al Gore are doing absolutely nothing about the worrying solar signs we are seeing. Obviously Al Gore will do just fine in an ice age as he hypocritically owns a fleet of large jets and cargo planes which he can use to fly safely above any ice age zone. In fact he doesn't even need to do that if reports about his house are true - a mansion so big and pumped with so much coal based electricity (hypocrite!) that it will be warm even in an ice age. During the ice age he will surely sit in there comfortably as orphans starve outside through ice frosted windows.

Indeed because they know they are immune from the effects of an ice age, the IPCC and Al Gore continue to push the fraud that life-giving co2 is heating the Earth up catastrophically. Even though the Earth has been cooling since 1979*. Warmists continue to pump alarmism through the mainstream media and make ridiculously over exagerated statements about the future of the climate to scare the public. They exagerate stories of future temperature changes of a few tenths of a degree (not even real degrees) into some kind of massive death furnace.

Remember - if it's fearmongering it ain't science. True scientists remain level headed in the face of experimental data and facts. They don't get all emotional and start crying about the end of the world. Alarmists - those who exagerate and fabricate terrifying scenarios - do so for one reason: to sell you a "solution" to the "problem", the solution being something that profits them. You often have to wade through all their alarmist diatribe to discover their ulterior motive which they let slip at the end when they try and sell you their pet "solution".

But this is all beside the point - what can we do about the upcoming solar collapse? Obviously we can't prevent it. No the first step to dealing with cooling is obviously to stop any tax increases. Any increases in tax at this point will make it almost impossible to actually survive the impending ice age. So lobby your representatives now to prevent any tax increases and to lower existing rates. That is if you care about your children's future. Do you?

Note: Due to the nature of the threat I felt obliged to 'rush to print' this dire warning about taxation. The planned post based on my upcoming paper 'A Brief History Of Climate Modelling' will follow shortly. As a teaser here is a useful schematic I stumbled across on google images. it documents a long history of green subterfuge and conspiracy. My research has found this document to be largely accurate and to the point.

*As determined by a complex comparison of sea ice extent in January 1979 and January 2009. see http://www.dailytech.com/Sea+Ice+Ends+Year+at+Same+Level+as+1979/article13834.htm for scientific proof

The Gaping Hole in Greenhouse Theory

2009-05-09T08:38:00.000-07:00

I have a study in progress concerning the so-called "Greenhouse Effect" and another concerning the use of so-called "Computer Models", but as neither are yet complete this is a post filler.

Recently published Blog Science on the subject of Greenhouse Effect includes the following work by Erl Happ and his groundbreaking discovery of a 'Gaping Hole' in Greenhouse Theory
http://climatechange1.wordpress.com/2009/04/24/the-gaping-hole-in-greenhouse-theory/

In his own words:
"How is it that we have been sucked into this vortex of misinformation by so called ‘experts’. We are assured that there is a scientific consensus on this matter. If this is indeed the case, the reputation of science must suffer. To label a person as an ‘expert’ will invite derision. The notion that we should trust in the opinion of ’scientists’ will be taken as a joke."

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Update: Erl Happ responds to my comment on his blog, confirming what I suspected:

Hi Inferno,Thanks for the commendation.

The proponents of greenhouse theory can not point to evidence that the temperature of the atmosphere has increased in the way that they suggest it should. End of the day, evidence is not important to them. No amount of good science will move them. No alternative explanation is of interest. We are looking at a crusade driven by a feeling of malaise and disconnection and a longing for the life of a primitive, in close communion with nature. If they have their way, that is the way we are headed. These guys are wreckers. They are vandals.

So next time someone asks you for evidence that warmists are 'longing for the life of a primitive', just point out that not one so-called 'leading scientist' even bothered to address Erl Happ's blog post. I can only guess that James Hansen, his deputy Al Gore and all their IPCC minions have gone to ground after reading it. I bet it won't even be mentioned in the next IPCC report.

No amount of good science will move them. Good science is another term for Blog Science.

April Numbers Just In: Visits To My Blog

2009-05-05T11:22:00.001-07:00

Unlike Global Temperature My Reader Count Continues To Soar

Just thought you should know my reader count looks like a hockey stick. Ie accelerating upwards. This is part of what Blog Science is all about - looking at relevant and important numbers. Such as my blog visit statistics. You may not be aware of these numbers so I will ensure you see them by providing regular monthly updates against you. Feel free to discuss the numbers in detail.

If you need the raw blog visit data for Auditing I can provide you with formatted data, metadata, R scripts for reading them and change logs. I also have the data in mp3 format. For your peace of mind all this data is backed up on two version control systems, my hotmail inbox, two hard drives and 3 USB pens which have been hidden at strategic locations within a 2 mile radius of my home. Now ask yourselves, why don't the so-called "scientists" put as much effort into data integrity as I do?

On a less serious note here's a funny video that had me in stitches.

At the weekends, in between poring over my blog visit statistics, I also like to spend a few hours trawling the internet for examples of warmist misfortune such as the above. You know, photos of warmist protests in the snow, or articles about warmists going on arctic expeditions and running into potentially fatal difficulties. Funny stuff like that which proves my point.

Shoutout to new Climate "Denier" Blog

If you haven't already read Blog Scientist Jennifer Marohasy's blog take a look. It seems to be modelled on DenialDepot, although in my opinion a little less coherent. Although don't take that as an insult, sometimes you do need a bit of waffle to flesh out a blog post. It was a nice touch to include her name in the blog title though, wish I had thought of that.

Ever wondered what Greenpeace is? Did you think it was a band? A political party? Learn the truth from Jennifer that Greenpeace is in fact "a large global corporation broadly committed to ‘saving the environment’"

On everyone's mind lately is the question 'just what are computers?' No what are they really? Learn from JenniferMarohasy.com that "Computers are a tool allowing many calculations to be done extremely rapidly"

Also learn about the work of a geniusman called Ferenc Miskolczi who single handedly disproved manmade global warming in some way or other. In the words of Jennifer "here I do not want to entangle myself in theory, explanations and interpretations of how these relations come about. I just want to stay with the simple facts". Exactly. I could get into the theory. Easily. But I don't want to right now. Lets just stay with the simple fact that Miskolczi proved the warmists are all wrong. Only a few people around the world truely understand what Miskolczi is even talking about. It's that brilliant.

Anyway good luck to Jennifer and her new blog. I wish her nearly as much success as I have already had (check out my visit statistics if you need a refresh of that)

NASA, Not Man, Behind Arctic Sea Ice decline

2009-05-01T13:37:00.000-07:00

A submarine in open ice-free water in 1960. I caption this picture 'The implications are obvious'

If there was no ice in 1960, how can claims of arctic ice decline since 1980 possibly be true? None of this is making any sense. Here is a so-called graph from the National Snow and Ice Data-center:

Arctic Sea Ice summer minimas since 1979 (according to the NSIDC). Note they leave off the Submarine Warming Period (SWP)

Why do they start in 1979? Well putting my blog science skills to good use, I navigated a browser client through their website and found a secret folder link named disclaimer1 - hmm a suspicious name. Nicely hidden but I uncovered it anyway (if you are a journalist for The Australian or another leading media publication, please give me due credit for uncovering this on my own)

The folder contains very interesting information. I have added some bold highlighting at random points:

"Image derivation is from the Sea Ice data product, which relies on NASA-developed methods using passive-microwave data from the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP) F13 Special Sensor Microwave/Imager (SSM/I). The basis for the Sea Ice Index is the data set, "Near Real-Time DMSP SSM/I Daily Polar Gridded Sea Ice Concentrations", and the NASA-produced "Sea Ice Concentrations from Nimbus-7 SMMR and DMSP SSM/I Passive Microwave Data". The Sea Ice Index was developed with financial support from NOAA NESDIS and in cooperation with NOAA NGDC. Please note that our daily sea ice images, derived from microwave measurements, may show spurious pixels in areas where sea ice may not be present. These artifacts are generally caused by coastline effects, or less commonly by severe weather. Scientists use masks to minimize the number of "noise" pixels, based on long-term extent patterns. Noise is largely eliminated in the process of generating monthly averages, our standard measurement for analyzing interannual trends."*

So NASA are behind this afterall. And worse we find out that satellites are being used to measure ice. Denial Depot has reported numerous problems with the satellite record before. NASA and the NOAA have yet to respond to these problems or even acknowledge my importance.

But worse we find out these satellites are using microwaves to measure ice! As an experiment I took a glass of ice and put it in a microwave oven. This of course proves nothing, but it does raise some questions. I figured that 30 seconds in the microwave oven would be at least equivalent to 30 years of satellite microwaving. Well my microwave didn't tell me how thick the ice was (of course immune from Team Science I never thought it would), but I did observe the microwaves melting ice.

So is in fact arctic ice decline being caused by sustained subjection of arctic ice by microwave radiation emitted from NASA satellites? Is NASA literally cooking the books (ie ice)? Is it a coincidence that satellite "measurements" of sea ice and temperature both began in 1979, the year in which Jimmy Carter resumed diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China?

Proposal

I am only concerned that the reputation of science will be harmed for decades. That and taxes.

I propose to salvage science we must abandon the lunacy of the satellites. Measuring from so far in space is prone to manipulation. A blog scientist cannot go check on the satellites themselves can they? We have no idea what codes and adjustments they have loaded aboard those bloated machines. We should go back to the tried and tested method of deploying fleets of surfacing submarines to measure arctic ice thickness.

Clarification: Despite what the NSIDC claim, real scientists would never use masks.

Update: In the comments Lars Karlsson points out that
"There is already extensive research proving beyond any doubt that microwaves from satellites cause global warming!"
I haven't read that site enough to bank my reputation on it's concusions, but it does show that the debate over the use of satellites and their role in "warming" certainly isn't over.

Does The Oregon Petition Set The Bar Too High?

2009-04-26T15:24:00.001-07:00

The Oregon Petition, also known as The Global Warming Petition Project, is a petition of scientists to prevent the prevention of climate change. But are the rules for signing too strict?

From the Petition Website we learn that various people can sign:

A Civil Engineer can sign because they are "trained primarily in the many engineering specialties required to maintain modern civilization and the prosperity required for all human actions, including environmental programs."
A Doctor can sign because they are "scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of human beings on the Earth."
A Web Designer can sign "Since the human-caused global warming hypothesis rests entirely upon mathematical computer projections and not upon experimental observations, these sciences [including computer science] are especially important in evaluating this hypothesis."

And yet the Petition Project has only 31000 signers after years of operation. In short the rules are too strict for signing. I realized this when I tried to contribute my own name onto the list:

Reconstruction of the Petition form I sent in. As of April 30th, I am still not on the list...

Well to cut a long story short, I am not on the list. Perhaps because I didn't fill out the part that says 'My acedemic degree is'. In fact you'll notice I crossed it out because "acedemic" degrees are essentially just enforcement of Team Science.

The main flaw with the Petition Project is that it assumes 'acedemic degree' means 'scientist'

By doing so it sets the bar too high. Am I any less qualified on climate than a vetinary surgeon? What does a doctor know about ice caps? Water freezing and ice melting is at least something I am somewhat familiar with in pipe systems.

A Case In Point

While distributing Petition forms to friends and neighbours I discovered that my next door neighbour, who is a web designer, has a BSc in Computer Science and so is eligable to sign it. Bet you wondered why I singled out web designers earlier, now you know.

But my neighbour knows nothing about climate (he drives a Prius...) and as a result he won't sign anyway. So in this situation all the Petition Project rules have accomplished is warmists don't sign and skeptics can't sign. Is that the intended consequence? Is the Petition Project deliberately filtering out skeptics like me from being able to sign it? Could perhaps the Oregon Petition be a plot by warmists to make it look like there are far less skeptical scientists than there actually are? I am simply asking questions.

Perhaps you'll have more success than me at signing. But it appears you will need at least a BSc or equivalent qualification. Don't worry if you haven't studied climate or haven't published anything to so-called "journals", thankfully at least that is not a requirement.

How Not To Measure Temperature Part 2

2009-04-26T12:50:00.000-07:00

"As the NOAA-N Prime spacecraft was being repositioned from vertical to horizontal on the "turn over cart" at approximately 7:15 PDT today, it slipped off the fixture, causing severe damage. (See attached photo). The 18' long spacecraft was about 3' off the ground when it fell." More images at link

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=10299

NOAA N-PRIME Mishap Investigation-Final Report

"On Saturday, September 6, 2003 during an operation at Lockheed Martin Space Systems
Company (LMSSC) Sunnyvale that required repositioning the Television Infrared Observational Satellites (TIROS) National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) N-Prime satellite from a vertical to a horizontal position, the satellite slipped from the Turn-Over Cart (TOC) and fell to the floor (see Figure 3-1). The satellite sustained heavy damage (see Figure 3-2), although no injuries to personnel occurred. The exact extent of the hardware damage is still being assessed."

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/65776main_noaa_np_mishap.pdf

Are the self-proclaimed IPCC aware that such a sensitive instrument suffered heavy hardware damage prior to launch? How does this affect said instrument's ability to measure temperature to tenths of a degree accuracy? Could this hardware damage in fact be causing a false warming trend? How is Al Gore related to all of this?

So many unanswered questions tell us that there is plenty of doubt and unsettled science here, which is what we seek as blog scientists.

Come To Your Own Conclusions

Some people may be disapointed that I didn't end the post with a strong conclusion, but never fear. In blog science the conclusion or 'take home message' is usually found in the comment section left by readers who were able to read between the lines and spell out the conclusion I was leading to but didn't want to directly state.

To be more specific, I cannot always state the conclusion directly because to reach and convince a wider audience I must maintain a high sembalance of professionalism. I must refrain from making specific claims which could be held against me if found in error. If a blog scientist is to convince journalists to spread their message they must avoid making easily identifiable errors or be seen to be 'name calling'. This is why in the above post I have simply posted a fact from the news followed by a series of open, but I hope, very leading questions. Feel free to draw my conclusions for me, that is what the comment section is primarily for after all.

Note: I had to permanently delete some comments from the last article because certain commenters were using the word 'conspiracy' directly. One poster (who will go unnamed, but who was perhaps a warmist troll) simply posted 'Its all a big conspiracy!" 30 times. A fair warning: Anyone who uses the word 'conspiracy' directly will have their post removed. That sort of language is not compatible with the reputation of this Blog. Lets be more grown up and subtle please. The phrase 'team science' is an acceptable alternative.

How Not To Measure Temperature Part 1

2009-04-18T12:46:00.000-07:00

A temperature measuring satellite in orbit. There are many unaddressed questions concerning the ability and placement of such satellites to accurately measure temperature.

For the last 30 years the temperature of the atmosphere has been measured by Microwave Sounding Units (MSUs) on orbiting satellites. This record purports to show warming since 1979, but as we shall find out much of this warming is suspicious due to adjustments made on the raw data and possible measurement biases.

The Satellite Temperature Record

Source: UAH monthly temperature record (dec 1978-may 2008). Graph truncated at May 2008 for analytical reasons which are beyond the scope of this post.

As well grounded climate skeptic bloggers we immediately become suspicious of this record because it shows a warming trend. We know that the surface record shows only Urban Heat Island bias and AC Unit Warming bias in this period. Yet neither of these effects will be picked up by satellites, so why do the satellites still show warming? Something is wrong.

The #1 tool of the avid skeptic is imagination. So lets put our imagination to use and gather together some seeds of doubt. With luck some of these seeds will survive to grow into full blown talking points.

Data is adjusted before release

Adjusting data is not scientific. In engineering if an instrument has failings then you shouldn't just patch over that using a series of so-called "adjustments", you should address the root problems and make a better instrument. Could it be that the warming in the satellite records is just an artifact of adjustments? Could be! Great we have discovered an in-road to a major source of doubt.

Questions that are unanswered: What are these so-called adjustments? How are they made? Why are they made? Why haven't I seen these adjustments? Why doesn't the IPCC mention them? Why haven't I read about them in the media? Is it possible that the satellite data has just become a complicated mess that makes no real sense?

How do ground radio and microwave transmissions affect the readings?

Could the increase in ground radio and microwave transmissions in the post-war boom make the atmosphere look like it's warmer even if it is not? Nothing is mentioned of this on any of the satellite sites suggesting that a potentially significant cause of the recent warming is being ignored, dismissed out of hand or the "experts" simply haven't thought of it.

As a side note, it's an interesting thought that if the satellite scientists were to admit that satellites cannot measure temperature accurately they would lose their funding. Note I am not making any accusations here. Feel free to speculate on this in the comments though.

How do nearby satellites and orbitting debris affect the satellite measurements?

In recent years the satellite traffic in orbit has become increasingly busy. Only this February two satellites collided over Siberia: http://origin.foxnews.com/wires/2009Feb11/0,4670,SatelliteCollision,00.html

Satellites reflect solar energy and emit radio transmissions. Also there will be other effects that science does not yet understand because science understands little. All of this could have the effect of biasing sensitive satellite instruments such as the MSUs. It stands to reason that the number of satellites have increased since the 1970s and so this potential warming effect has increased. Again there is no mention of this on any of the satellite temperature sites or in the mainstream media.

Empirical evidence of Satellite warming bias - Satellites measured too much warming during the 1998 El Nino

Source: UAH satellite temperature vs GISS surface temperature, adjusted to the same baseline.

There is real warming (briefly) during a pacific El Nino event. But the satellite records show about 0.4C more warming than the surface records. This suggests they are exagerating any temperature rise, including the long term trend.

Now once we have discovered a problem like this, the correct course of action is to adjust the satellite temperature record to correctly take this into account. If we do this (dropping the trend down by 0.4C) then virtually all of the warming of the past 30 years in the satellite records is wiped out. We are obviously getting closer to the truth here.

Conclusion

Here I have cast a lot of doubt on the satellite record simply by using my imagination. It is quite plausible that the actual temperature of the atmosphere has not increased since 1979. In fact taking all possible factors into account the real temperature of the atmosphere may have fallen drastically since 1979.

This is by no means a completed task. I will come back to this topic in later posts (this is just Part 1) and show how we can cast more doubt. In particular I believe photos of satellites, both on the ground before launch and in orbit, can be pored over and fuel further speculation.

CO2 levels may have been over 2000ppm in 1200AD

2009-04-18T05:41:00.001-07:00

Another inconvenient truth for warmists. New research suggests that the co2 level of the atmosphere was a lot higher during the Medieval Warm Period than today.

First lets look at a paper that shaped the modern view of past co2 levels.

180 Years of atmospheric CO2 Gas Analysis by Chemical Methods, published in the prestigous Journal "Energy and Environment" by Dr Ernst-Georg Beck.

http://www.biokurs.de/treibhaus/180CO2_supp.htm

The paper is also covered in the media:
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/6855

Below I have reproduced some of the data from this study for the purpose of scientific analysis. This data shows that co2 levels were much higher than today in 1940 and 1827:

There is no question over the accuracy of the earlier measurements.

CO2 levels are caused by temperature changes

This is to be expected because ice core measurements show that co2 levels rise happens 800 years after temperature levels rise. So temperature rise causes co2 rise, not the otherway round. http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming/ice-core-graph/

This is because the oceans release more co2 when they get warmer, and less when they get cooler. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/21/recent-ocean-heat-and-mlo-co2-trends/

Lets look at the individual periods to demonstrate this:

The 19th century decline in CO2

The drop in co2 in the early 19th century to the start of the 20th century was most likely caused by cooling from the little ice age.

The rise and peak of co2 around 1940

This correlates with the warmest year on record being in 1934: http://www.dailytech.com/Blogger+finds+Y2K+bug+in+NASA+Climate+Data/article8383.htm

Rise in co2 since 1960

While the earlier measurements are beyond questioning, the measurements since 1960 are deeply uncertain. This modern measurement period began warmists started measuring co2 at Mauna Loa in Hawaii. This Mauna Loa sensor reports the gradual co2 rise you see in the graph.

There is just one problem with that:

Mauna Loa is on a Volcano!

That's right, they could have picked anywhere in the world but warmists chose to put the co2 sensor on top of one of the biggest volcanoes in the world! No wonder it shows a rise in co2!

The Medieval Warm Period

Now lets look at a period not covered by the graph, but a period we know was a lot warmer than today. The medieval warm period occured some time in the past around medieval times. Ie 1200AD.

The scientific consensus is that in 1200AD the climate was excruciatingly hot. Plagues and disease swamped the world and people were dying of heat exhaustion. The situation got so bad that the Vikings moved to a large snow covered island north of Iceland to escape the heat. The ice on this island subsequently melted and so the Vikings called it Greenland. Greenland soon became the wine and farming capital of the world.

Didn't last though. Eventually the climate shifted back again and the Vikings were wiped out by ice.

Putting It All Together

Given we know warming causes co2 levels to rise and we know it was very much warmer during the medieval warm period than today, it would be no suprise to find that co2 levels were far higher during the medieval warm period. We can estimate how much higher they were by projecting the co2 fall from the 19th to early 20th century back in time:

The answer is that based on the best science available, co2 levels may have been over 2000ppm in 1200AD! Is it coincidence that 1200AD was 800 years ago? Recall the fact mentioned earlier: "ice core measurements show that co2 levels rise happens 800 years after temperature levels rise". Everything is fitting into place and this last piece seems to complete the puzzle.

Conclusion

It has been shown that co2 levels could have been over 5 times higher just 800 years ago. If this is the case a doubling of co2 is proven to not cause any significant warming and any ideas for more taxes should be immediately abandoned.

Analysis: Warming From Sun Is MASSIVELY Greater Than CO2

2009-04-15T13:00:00.001-07:00

Hat tip to Neil Stevens for this calculation he sent me:

Mass of the Sun: 2000000000000000000000000000000 kilograms*

Mass of CO2 atom: 0.00000000000000000000000002 kilograms

This makes the Sun 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Times more massive than a co2 atom.

Or to put it another way, a co2 atom is just:

0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%

compared to the Sun.

The Sun is over 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000!

Now you see how ridiculous the claims of warmists are. They tell us co2 will kill us all by heating us when it is so insignificant compared with the sun.

For further reading on the dominiation of the sun take a look at this recent point article:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/15/the-oceans-as-a-calorimeter/

*Note the figures were given to me in kilograms. A kilogram is 2.2 pounds.

The Side Bar: A quick lesson on Exponentials

The side bar is a feature I will use regularly to teach my readers "dos" and "donts" of science that I have picked up over the years. Today I will talk about a relevant "don't" that is potentially muddying the mind of the warmists.

We could have also described the above numbers using a concept called exponentials. An exponential looks like this:

2 × 1030 kilograms

The 30 following the 10 is called the exponential. It indicates how many zeros follow the number. In this case it says there should be 30 zeros after 20 (2 x 10).

When the exponential is negative this means number of zeros after the decimal point before the first number. Eg:

2 × 10-26 kilograms = 0.000000000000000000000000002

Exponentials are often used as shorthand by people who don't want to bother writing all the zeros out. That's fine if you are just keeping score in a very long game of football! But if you are an engineer designing a saftey system, or a scientist conducting an experiment, you should really take the care to accurately write out whole numbers.

Writing out the zeros gives you a better appreciation of the size of numbers and you might spot potential errors. Perhaps an overuse of exponentials is why a minority of climate "scientists" don't comprehend how ludicrious co2 warming really is. If they just compare 5 digits with 5 digits for Sun vs CO2 they might not contemplate how massive the sun is compared to an atom of co2.

Any guesses for how numbers are represented in climate computer models? No prizes for that answer...

If Global Warming is true, why are there still snowstorms?

2009-04-14T12:36:00.000-07:00

Dear readers,

As I am sure you are already aware, certain locations have recently seen snow. Here's a photo of some snow to set the scene. This is similar to what some people have encountered:

The sheep who follow the manmade global warming fraud will not realize the obvious problem this photo presents. But us skeptics sure do. The obvious question,

If Global Warming is true, why are there still snowstorms?

Not a peep from so-called climate "scientists" about this by the way. How odd you might say...

Well not to us seasoned Skeptics. If Blog Science teaches you one thing (which you won't find in any "course" or "textbook" by the way) it's to use your common sense above everything else. In science quite often you can guess the answer to most of questions just by applying common sense based on real world knowledge.

Lets try it now. Why are the so-called experts silent about all the snow that is everywhere?

Well it's most likely because they are all shut indoors all day with their climate models. That's right, they are so busy playing Climate Tron that they haven't the foggiest idea what is going on outside anymore. They don't see the REAL world that REAL people like you and me see (I cut a tree down this afternoon with an axe..it was cold then too)

So next time some liberal at work or at the grocery store yells that we will all die from Global Warming. Ask them:

If Global Warming is true, why are there still snowstorms?

And wait for the crickets. Perhaps show them some photos of snow too to put the point home.

Filed under: Global Cooling, Holes in Global Warming