August 2013 Open thread

More thread.


  1. #1 el gordo
    August 28, 2013

    ‘Anthropogenic emissions are needed for a model to reproduce the STR intensification (as well as a long list of regional changes which resemble the observations: regional temperature rise, MSLP build up, the rainfall decline: autumn in SWEA)’


    This makes me feel uneasy, what is this Autumn he speaks of?

  2. #2 Berendaneke
    August 28, 2013

    Doltoid greenpiss activists, read part of the story of your lost souls, as you intellectual underperformers


    Scientists sometimes like to portray what they do as divorced from the everyday jealousies, rivalries and tribalism of human relationships. What makes science special is that data and results that can be replicated are what matters and the scientific truth will out in the end.

    But a close reading of the emails hacked from the University of East Anglia in November exposes the real process of everyday science in lurid detail.

    Many of the emails reveal strenuous efforts by the mainstream climate scientists to do what outside observers would regard as censoring their critics. And the correspondence raises awkward questions about the effectiveness of peer review – the supposed gold standard of scientific merit – and the operation of the UN’s top climate body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

    The scientists involved disagree. They say they were engaged not in suppressing dissent but in upholding scientific standards by keeping bad science out of peer-reviewed journals. Either way, when passing judgment on papers that directly attack their own work, they were mired in conflicts of interest that would not be allowed in most professions.

    The cornerstone of maintaining the quality of scientific papers is the peer review system. Under this, papers submitted to scientific journals are reviewed anonymously by experts in the field. Conducting reviews is seen as part of the job for academics, who are generally not paid for the work.

    The papers are normally sent back to the authors for improvement and only published when the reviewers give their approval. But the system relies on trust, especially if editors send papers to ­reviewers whose own work is being criticised in the paper. It also relies on anonymity, so reviewers can give candid opinions.

    Cracks in the system have been obvious for years. Yesterday it emerged that 14 leading researchers in a different field – stem cell research – have written an open letter to journal editors to highlight their dissatisfaction with the process. They allege that a small scientific clique is using peer review to block papers from other researchers.

    Many will see a similar pattern in the emails from UEA’s Climatic Research Unit, which brutally expose what happens behind the scenes of peer review and how a chance meeting at a barbecue years earlier had led to one journal editor being suspected of being in the “greenhouse sceptics camp”.

    The head of the CRU, Professor Phil Jones, as a top expert in his field, was regularly asked to review papers and he sometimes wrote critical reviews that may have had the effect of blackballing papers criticising his work.

    Here is how it worked in one case.

    A key component in the story of 20th-century warming is data from sparse weather stations in Siberia. This huge area appears to have seen exceptional warming of up to 2C in the past century. But in such a remote region, actual data is sparse. So how reliable is that data, and do scientists interpret it correctly?

    In March 2004, Jones wrote to ­Professor Michael Mann, a leading climate scientist at Pennsylvania State University, saying that he had “recently rejected two papers [one for the Journal of ­Geophysical Research and one for Geophysical Research Letters] from people saying CRU has it wrong over Siberia. Went to town in both reviews, hopefully successfully. If either appears I will be very surprised”.

    He did not specify which papers he had reviewed, nor what his grounds for rejecting them were. But the Guardian has established that one was probably from Lars Kamel a Swedish astrophysicist ­formerly of the University of Uppsala. It is the only paper published on the topic in the journal that year.

    Kamel analysed the temperature records from weather stations in part of southern Siberia, around Lake Baikal. He claimed to find much less warming than Jones, despite analysing much the same data.

    Kamel told the Guardian: “Siberia is a test case, because it is supposed to be the land area with most warming in the 20th century.” The finding sounded important, but his paper was rejected by Geophysical Research Letters (GRL) that year.

    Kamel was leaving academic science and never tried to publish it elsewhere. But the draft seen by the Guardian asserts that the difference between his findings on Siberia temperatures and that of Jones is “probably because the CRU compilation contains too little correction for urban warming.” He does not, however, justify that conclusion with any data or analysis.Kamel says he no longer has a copy of the anonymous referee judgments on the paper, so we don’t know why it was rejected. The paper could be criticised for being slight and for not revealing details about its methods of analysis. A reviewer such as Jones would certainly have been aware of Kamel’s views about mainstream climate research, which he had called “pseudo-science”. He would also have known that its publication in a journal like GRL would have attracted the attention of professional climate sceptics. Nonetheless, the paper raised important questions about the quality of CRU’s Siberian data, and was a rare example of someone trying to replicate Jones’s analysis. On those grounds alone, some would have recommended its publication.

    Kamel’s paper admits the discrepancy “does not necessarily mean the CRU surface record for the entire globe is in error”. But it argues that the result suggests it “should be checked in more regions and even globally”. Jones was not able to comment on the incident.

    Critics of Jones such as the prominent sceptical Stephen McIntyre, who runs the Climate Audit blog have long accused him of preventing critical research from having an airing. McIntyre wrote on his web site in December: “CRU’s policies of obstructing critical articles in the peer-reviewed literature and withholding data from critics have unfortunately placed issues into play that might otherwise have been settled long ago.” He also says obstructing publication undermine claims that all is well in scientific peer review.

    Dr Myles Allen, a climate modeller at the University of Oxford and Professor Hans von Storch, a climate scientist at the Institute for Coastal Research, in Geesthacht, Germany signed a joint column in Nature when the email hacking story broke, in which they said that “no grounds have arisen to doubt the validity of the thermometer-based temperature record since it began in about 1850.” But that argument is harder to make if such evidence, flawed though it might be, is actively being kept out of the journals.

    In another email exchange CRU scientist Dr Keith Briffa initiates what looks like an attempt to have a paper rejected. In June 2003, as an editor of an unnamed journal, Briffa emailed fellow tree-ring researcher Edward Cook, a researcher at Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in New York, saying: “Confidentially I now need a hard and if required extensive case for rejecting [an unnamed paper] – to ­support Dave Stahle’s and really as soon as you can. Please.”

    Stahle is a tree-ring professor from the University of Arkansas. This request appears to subvert the convention that reviewers should be both independent and anonymous.

    Cook replied later that day: “OK, today. Promise. Now, something to ask from you.” The favour was to provide some data to help Cook review a paper that attacked his own tree-ring work. “If published as is, this paper could really do some damage,” he said. “It won’t be easy to dismiss out of hand as the math appears to be correct theoretically, but it suffers from the classic problem of pointing out theoretical deficiencies, without showing that their improved [inverse regression] method is actually better in a practical sense.”

    Briffa was unable to comment. Cook told the Guardian: “These emails are from a long time ago and the details are not ­terribly fresh in my mind.”

    Jones did not restrict his harsh criticism of papers he saw as flawed to pre-publication reviews. He and Mann also had a reputation for harsh criticism of journals that published papers they disagreed with.

    In March 2003, Mann discussed encouraging colleagues to “no longer submit [papers] to, or cite papers in” Climate Research. He was angry about that journal’s publication of a series of sceptical papers “that couldn’t get published in a reputable journal”, according to Mann. His anger at the journal had evidently been building for some time, but was focused in 2003 on a paper published in January that year and written by the Harvard astrophysicists Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas. The pair claimed that Mann’s famous hockey stick graph of global temperatures over the past 1,000 years was wrong. After analysing 240 studies of past temperatures from tree rings and other sources, they said “the 20th century is neither the warmest century over the last 1,000 years, nor is it the most extreme”. It could have been warmer a thousand years before, they suggested.

    Harvard press-released the paper under the headline “20th century climate not so hot”, which would have pleased lobbyists against the climate change consensus from the American Petroleum Institute and George C Marshall Institute, both of which had helped pay for the research. Mann told me at the time the paper was “absurd, almost laughable”. He said Soon and Baliunas made no attempt in the paper to show whether the warmth they found at different places and times round the world in past eras was contemporaneous in the way current global warming is. If they were just one-off scattered warm events they did not demonstrate any kind of warm era at all. Soon did not respond to Guardian requests to discuss the paper.

    The emails show Mann debating with others what he should do. In March 2003, he told Jones: “I believed our only choice was to ignore this paper. They’ve already achieved what they wanted – the claim of a peer-reviewed paper. There is nothing we can do about that now, but the last thing we want to do is bring attention to this paper”

    But Jones told Mann: “I think the sceptics will use this paper to their own ends and it will set [the field of paleoclimate research] back a number of years if it goes unchallenged.” He was right. The Soon and Baliunas paper was later read into the Senate record and taken up by the Bush administration, which attempted to get it cited in a report from the Environmental Protection Agency against the wishes of the report’s authors.

    Persuaded that the paper could not be ignored, Mann assembled a group of colleagues to review it. The group included regular CRU emailers Jones, Dr Keith Briffa, Dr Tom Wigley and Dr Kevin Trenberth. They sent their findings to the journal’s editorial board, arguing that Soon’s study was little more than anecdote. It had cherry-picked data showing warm periods in different places over several centuries and had provided no evidence that they demonstrated any overall warming of the kind seen in the 20th century.

    The emails reveal that when the journal failed to disown the paper, the scientists figured a “coup” had taken place, and that one editor in particular, a New Zealander called Chris de Freitas, was fast-tracking sceptical papers on to its pages. Mann saw an irony in what had happened. “This was the danger of always criticising the sceptics for not publishing in the peer-reviewed literature. Obviously, they found a solution to that – take over a journal.” But Mann had a solution. “I think we have to stop considering Climate Research as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues … to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board.”

    Was this improper pressure? Bloggers responding to the leaking of these emails believe so. Mann denies wanting to “stifle legitimate sceptical views”. He maintains that he merely wanted to uphold scientific standards. “Please understand the context of this,” he told the Guardian after the scandal broke. “This was in response to a very specific, particularly egregious incident in which one editor of the journal was ­letting in a paper that clearly did not meet the standards of quality for the journal.”

    Naturally de Freitas defends his actions during the incident. “I was never ever found to have done anything wrong, even in the rumpus over the Soon and Baliunas paper. All accusations against me were fully investigated and my performance as editor of this journal was shown to be flawless.”

    But many on the 10-man editorial board agreed with Mann. There was a revolt. Their chief editor von Storch wrote an editorial saying the Soon paper shouldn’t have appeared because of “severe methodological flaws”. After their publisher Otto Kinne refused to publish the editorial, von Storch and four other board members resigned in protest. Subsequently Kinne himself admitted that publication had been an error and promised to strengthen the peer review process. Mann had won his argument.

    Sceptical climatologist and Cato Institute fellow Pat Michaels alleged in the Wall Street Journal in December last year that the resignations by von Storch and his colleagues were a counter-coup initiated by Mann and Jones. This is vehemently denied by von Storch. While one of the editors who resigned was a colleague of Jones at CRU, von Storch had a track record of independence. If anything, he was regarded as a moderate sceptic. Certainly, he had annoyed both mainstream climate scientists and sceptics.

    Also writing in the Wall Street Journal in December, he said: “I am in the pocket of neither Exxon nor Greenpeace, and for this I come under fire from both sides – the sceptics and alarmists – who have fiercely opposing views but are otherwise siblings in their methods and contempt … I left the post [as chief editor of Climate Research] with no outside pressure, because of insufficient quality control on a bad paper – a sceptic’s paper, at that.”

    The bad blood over this paper lingered. A year later, in July 2004, Jones wrote an email to Mann about two papers recently published in Climate Research – the Soon and Baliunas paper and another he ­identified as by “MM”. This was almost certainly a paper from the Canadian economist Ross McKitrick and Michaels that returned to an old sceptics’ theme. It claimed to find urbanisation dominating global warming trends on land. Jones called it “garbage”.

    More damagingly, he added in an email to Mann with the subject line “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL”: “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer review literature is!”

    This has, rightly, become one of the most famous of the emails. And for once, it means what it seems to mean. Jones and Trenberth, of the National Centre for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, had recently become joint lead authors for a key chapter in the next IPCC assessment report, called AR4.

    They had considerable power over what went into those chapters, and to have ruled them out in such a manner would have been a clear abuse of the IPCC process.

    Today, neither man attempts to deny that Jones’s promise to keep the papers out was a serious error of judgment. Trenberth told the Guardian: “I had no role in this whatsoever. I did not make and was not complicit in that statement of Phil’s. I am a veteran of three other IPCC assessments. I am well aware that we do not keep any papers out, and none were kept out. We assessed everything [though] we cannot possibly refer to all literature … Both of the papers referred to were in fact cited and discussed in the IPCC.”

    In an additional statement agreed with Jones, he said: “AR4 was the first time Jones was on the writing team of an IPCC assessment. The comment was naive and sent before he understood the process.”

    Some will not be content with that. Jones had been a contributing author to IPCC assessment reports for more than a decade and should have been aware of the rules.

    Climate Research is a fairly minor journal. Not so Geophysical Research ­Letters, published by the august American ­Geophysical Union (AGU). But when it began publishing what Mann, Wigley, Jones and others regarded as poor quality sceptical papers, they again responded angrily. GRL provided a home for one of a series of papers by McIntyre and McKitrick challenging the statistical methods used in the hockey stick analysis. When Mann’s complaints to the journal were rebuffed, he wrote to colleagues in January 2005: “Apparently the contrarians now have an ‘in’ with GRL.”

    Mann had checked out the editor responsible for overseeing the papers, a Yale chemical engineer called James Saiers, and noted his “prior connection” with the same department at the University of Virginia, where sceptic Pat Michaels worked.

    He added, “we now know” how various other sceptically tinged papers had got into GRL.

    Wigley appeared to agree. “This is truly awful,” he said, suggesting to Mann: “If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted.”

    A year after the row erupted, in 2006, Saiers gave up the GRL post.Sceptics have claimed that this was due to pressure from Wigley, Mann and others. Saiers says his three-year term was up. “My departure had nothing to do with attempts by Wigley or anyone else to have me sacked,” he told the Guardian. “Nor was I censured, as I have seen suggested on a blog posting written by McKitrick.”

    As for Mann’s allegation, Saiers does not remember ever talking to Michaels “though I did attend a barbecue at his home back in the early 1990s. Wigley and Mann were too keen to conclude that I was in league with the climate-change sceptics. This kerfuffle could have been avoided if the parties involved would have done more to control their imaginations”.

    fuck off greenpissers on Deltoid and pray to god that he forgive you your sins.

  3. #3 Bernard J.
    August 28, 2013

    FreddyKaiBoris troll has gone all fundy again.

    He had his arse whipped over at Coby’s regarding evolution and Creationism – seems that he’s ready for more of the same here…

  4. #4 Berendaneke
    August 28, 2013

    @barnturd greenpisser

    My name is Berendaneke and your comment disqualified

    FreddyKaiBoris troll has gone all fundy again.
    He had his arse whipped over at Coby’s regarding evolution and Creationism – seems that he’s ready for more of the same here…

    fuck off from here, ideology greenpisser

  5. #5 el gordo
    August 28, 2013

    Berin, for the sake of humanity, give it a rest so that the sceptics can talk about the weather.

  6. #6 el gordo
    August 28, 2013

    In south west eastern Australia its a normal season and well watered even with an intensified STR.

  7. #7 Karen
    August 28, 2013

    Hi el 🙂

    A few years ago we were told it was never gunna rain agaaaaain, then we got a few floods and we were told that we were to expect more of that because more heat meant more evaporation so we were now going to drown, lol

    Sooooo what will be the new crapola that they are going to spew forth for the excuse that aGW is now the cause for normal rainfall 🙂

  8. #8 Karen
    August 28, 2013

    I know, tiz the Greenhouse Defect, 🙂

  9. #9 FrankD
    August 28, 2013

    Barbecue sausage fuck*, Bernard! The FreddieKaiBoris troll was a completely random abusive nonsensical dickhead. Striking out everything and shouting “piss off” is pretty grounded compared to those weirdoes. He’s obviously not FreddieKaiBoris.**

    *Sorry, it just slipped out. 🙂
    **Humour him, Bern, I think he might be someone else. Ooops, did I say that out loud?

  10. #10 Karen
    August 28, 2013

    barnturd is actually thinking that Berendaneke is KarenMackBerendanekeSunSpot 🙂

  11. #11 chek
    August 28, 2013

    I know, tiz the Greenhouse Defect

    I don’t believe you’re suitably qualified to think, SpamKan.
    Leave stuff like that to the professionals.

  12. #12 Karen
    August 28, 2013

    shrek, the farmers are now calling it the

    Greenhouse Defect, lol

  13. #14 Karen
    August 28, 2013

    Farmers are professionals in the field shrek, lol

  14. #15 Lotharsson
    August 28, 2013

    Several people with considerably more statistical knowledge have already pointed out that her Italian flag is complete nonsense.

    Heck, I figured that out myself when she first tried it on and my statistical skills are pretty basic, so that’s yet another “tell” for Luke.

  15. #16 Bernard J.
    August 28, 2013

    barnturd is actually thinking that Berendaneke is KarenMackBerendanekeSunSpot

    No, KarenMackSunSpot, I am able to separate the sock puppeteers.

    For a start you choke on admitting to your Sunspot and Mack versions, whilst Berendaneke keeps admitting to Freddy, Kai and Boris even when comments pertaining to them are not specifically addressed to “Berendaneke”.

    A few years ago we were told it was never gunna rain agaaaaain…


  16. #17 Lionel A
    August 28, 2013

    …you missed grandiously again your CAGW propaganda mission is deterring greenpisser acolyte

    freddy, your buzz phrase generator is broken.

    I count 13 corner farts on page 35 alone


    the ‘odour de Lukes’ is getting stronger, solitary beckons.

  17. #18 el gordo
    August 28, 2013

    Good evening, Karen.

    What we have in south east Australia at the moment is a ‘good season’ for the rural industry. If the AGW signal is there I’ll find it, even though the noise has temporarily overwhelmed it.

  18. #19 el gordo
    August 28, 2013

    ‘A few years ago we were told it was never gunna rain agaaaaain…


    It appears to be a red herring, but the Australian Brainwashing Corporation never misses an opportunity to push alarmist propaganda. That particular organisation is a total disgrace.

    60 Minutes 2005

    CHARLES WOOLEY: While many farmers believe that drought is just part of a natural cycle, scientist Dr Tim Flannery sees much broader and more sinister forces at work. We live in a new world where global warming and climate change now have Australia on the edge of permanent drought.

    PROFESSOR TIM FLANNERY: We are in by far the worst position of any country that I’ve had a look at in terms of climate change.

    CHARLES WOOLEY: The worst of any country?

    PROFESSOR TIM FLANNERY: Yes. When you look right across the continent, what has happened is that the winter rainfall zone that has been the heart and soul of the bread basket of Australia is declining. The amount of rainfall through winter is declining. On the east coast of Australia we have a parallel effect where we are getting these El Ninos back to back. We’re getting one drought after the other and eastern Australia is suffering from that. So put together, you have the continent from Perth through to Brisbane suffering severe water deficits.

    CHARLES WOOLEY: If Tim Flannery is right, the new weather regime has southern Australia drying out permanently.

  19. #20 el gordo
    August 28, 2013

    More from Climate Commissioner Tom Foolery in 2007:

    He predicted “a 20 per cent decrease in rainfall in some areas” and made the soil too hot, “so even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and river systems … “.

    It was on his instigation that most state built desal plants at great expense, then the floods came and now they have been mothballed. The cost to the taxpayer is in the billions.

  20. #21 el gordo
    August 28, 2013

    ‘IT MAY be time to stop describing south-eastern Australia as gripped by drought and instead accept the extreme dry as permanent, one of the nation’s most senior weather experts warned yesterday.

    “Perhaps we should call it our new climate,” said the Bureau of Meteorology’s head of climate analysis, David Jones.

    SMH 2008

  21. #22 Lotharsson
    August 28, 2013

    More from Climate Commissioner Tom Foolery…It was on his instigation that most state built desal plants at great expense…

    The fool here is you.

    Building the desalination plants was prudent risk management, given that some major population centres were something like 18 months away from severe drinking water shortages and at the time the prospects of major rains were uncertain.

    Risk management means doing things based on the situation at the time, and that inevitably means doing things that you wouldn’t have done if you’d known the future outcomes in detail. But you don’t and can’t know.

    Me, I could have saved thousands and thousands on my house insurance these last 10 years, as I haven’t had a single loss event! And still more on car insurance! And health insurance! What a fool I was to buy all that insurance when I haven’t needed it!

  22. #23 el gordo
    August 28, 2013

    ‘Building the desalination plants was prudent risk management…’

    Bullshit, it was a scam and here’s David Karoly in 2003.

    ‘The Murray-Darling Basin… covers towns north to Toowoomba, west to Broken Hill and south to Victoria and South Australia… Drought severity in the Murray Darling is increasing with global warming… This is the first drought in Australia where the impact of human-induced global warming can be clearly observed.’

  23. #24 el gordo
    August 28, 2013

    ‘Already, (Rudd government adviser Ross Garnaut’s) daunting data of a 10 per cent chance of no flow at all in the Murray-Darling river system in future years is being overtaken by data indicating that drought is the new norm across Australia’s greatest food bowl.’

    Greens leader Bob Brown 2008

  24. #25 Lotharsson
    August 28, 2013

    And in #20 you link a Flannery quote about regional Australia with desalination plants built in large cities, thereby verballing the guy.

    Was that the sort of thing you did as a “journalist”?

  25. #26 Lotharsson
    August 28, 2013

    Bullshit, it was a scam…

    …says the guy who is successfully bullshitted by a large number of sources. I’d laugh, but I have to spring for another irony meter.

  26. #27 Karen
    August 28, 2013

    el, the see o two nutters get all defensive about being suckers for the scare story, lol

  27. #28 Lotharsson
    August 28, 2013

    …says Karen, who recently provided a graph claiming “no warming for 17 years” that had a selection of trend lines for carefully cherry-picked periods, not one of them as long as 17 years.

    Not the most discerning tool in the shed, is Karen.

  28. #29 Karen
    August 28, 2013

    You guyz should be paying for the desal plant Lothie, not me, you and your dopey buddies are the sookie boyz with poop in your undies that wanted the insurance.

  29. #30 BBD
    August 28, 2013

    Not the most discerning tool in the shed, is Karen.

    But most certainly a tool!

    Like the rest of the troupe!

    It’s just fascinating that in addition to making stupid claims then refusing to reference them, The Lukes also refuses to critique Gordy’s stupid blether.

    Not once has The Lukes corrected the flow of effluent pouring from the Gordy.

    There are only two conclusions – either The Lukes is very much as clueless as he appears to be, or he is lying by omission.

    Stupid or dishonest! That choice, again…


  30. #31 BBD
    August 28, 2013

    The other weirdness that I can’t really overlook any further is the way The Lukes and “Karen” MackSunspot are, well, cross-dressing.

    It’s a mite alarming, actually!

  31. #32 Karen
    August 28, 2013

    Then we have the stoooopid pommies in here, they troooly believed Mr Viner and what did they get ?


    suckerzzzzzzzzz, lol

  32. #33 BBD
    August 28, 2013

    Oh God not that old bollocks again!

    Who cares anyway? It’ll be *hot* by the end of the century, Mack!

    Hot, hot, hot!

    I’m betting on the laws of physics so I know I’m going to win!

    What’s with the female impersonations, Mack?

    Does it excite you?!


  33. #34 BBD
    August 28, 2013

    And Sunny, speaking of “stooooopid” – have you figured out the difference between the Greenland Ice Sheet and the Eemian yet??



  34. #35 Berendaneke
    August 28, 2013

    Repetition 3 of Lesson 1 for teh stupid greenpiss Dumbtoids (as no learning effect could be detected until now):

    Climatology Lesson 1 for CAGW Deltoid greenpiss nutters:

    Science shows you CAGW Deltoid greenpiss nutters that the hypothesized effect of anthropogenic CO2 on air temperatures 2m above the surface cannot be precisely measured.

  35. #36 Karen
    August 28, 2013

    Mack was a nice guy from New Zealand, they had the NIWA temperature data debacle over there and they got caught out big time. 🙂

  36. #37 Lotharsson
    August 28, 2013

    … they had the NIWA temperature data debacle over there and they got caught out big time…

    They sure did. The judge was scathing in response to the lawsuit claiming the temperature data was rigged.

    Oh, wait…you actually thought…

  37. #38 BBD
    August 28, 2013

    Freddy demonstrates Climate Clown strategy #1:

    Data denial!

  38. #39 chek
    August 28, 2013

    Oh, wait…you actually thought…

    Nah, SpamKan doesn’t ‘do’ thinking. The entirely tabloidised brain does Pavlovian responses in one direction only, regardless of the actual content of the stimulus.

  39. #40 BBD
    August 28, 2013

    All that sock-puppetry is strange too.

    We’ve had Brad/Clammy, The Lukes (pretending you are someone else using the same screen name is SP, in my book!), KarenMackSunspot, FreddyKaiBorisBerendaneke and doubtless many more besides. And that’s just here.

    Throw in the cross-dressing, the narcissism, the pathological mendacity and the appalling topic knowledge and you have something truly horrible!

  40. #41 BBD
    August 28, 2013

    And let’s not forget the moobs!

  41. #42 chek
    August 28, 2013

    There’s probably only 2 or 3 hundred cranks and their socks keeping denialism alive on the intertubes.

  42. #43 Marco
    August 28, 2013

    Special notice for Karen:

    Straight from the actual decision:
    “The plaintiff does not succeed on any of its challenges to the three decisions of NIWA in issue. The application for judicial review is dismissed and judgment entered for the defendant.”

    Another Karen-fail.

  43. #44 chameleon
    August 28, 2013

    I have been commenting BBD. They languish in moderation. Go and look. I have been tempted to feel a tad sorry for the deltoids. Luke, who apparently likes to play with avatars, began at this open thread trying to help you. You have all deserved the hiding he has subsequently delivered. You were all too lost in your backslapping world to notice.
    But the moderator/s musn’t like me pointing this out. My comments stay in moderation for well over 24 hours.

  44. #45 Lionel A
    August 28, 2013

    Where have the Lukes gone? Here is one of thirteen items which the Lukes should study whilst stopping their your appeals to JoNova’s authority, Who’s your expert? The difference between peer review and rhetoric.

  45. #46 BBD
    August 28, 2013

    The Lukes is most probably asleep. IIRC he’s in Ql Australia which is (also IIRC) 8 hours ahead of BST (currently 17:00).

    Being five impossible people before breakfast requires quality down-time!


  46. #47 Stu
    August 28, 2013

    Sleeping on his back, too I bet.

    And by the way, can we PLEASE ban Freddy? Why are we still dealing with that clinically insane douche?

  47. #48 Rednose
    August 28, 2013

    Interesting post at JCs on opinion and comments by Fyfe, Gillett and Zwiers published in Nature Climate Change on
    “Overestimated Global Warming over the past 20 years”

    The inconsistency between observed and simulated global warming is even more striking for temperature trends computed over the past fifteen years (1998–2012). For this period, the observed trend of 0.05 ± 0.08 °C per decade is more than four times smaller than the average simulated trend of 0.21 ± 0.03 °C per decade.

    Now didnt Von Storch or somebody come out with a similar analysis quite recently??

    Thats right Shrek, they are talking about the “Hiatus” again
    though not much talk about OHC and the ocean ate my global warming for their explanation for this hiatus.

  48. #49 chek
    August 28, 2013

    Thats right Shrek, they are talking about the “Hiatus” again though not much talk about OHC and the ocean ate my global warming for their explanation for this hiatus.

    That’s right Redarse, the dog ate the paper that was gonna be published so it was blogged instead. The arsehole element will never know the difference.

  49. #50 Rednose
    August 28, 2013

    Meanwhile more good news, over at Jo Novas the Cook paper takes another shallacking from Richard Tol

    But Richard Tol finds many points to question. The data is not what was reported, it fails validity tests, does not represent the literature it surveys, saying: “the main finding of the paper is incorrect, invalid and unrepresentative”. Cook’s paper essentially relies on only 12 reviewers, who were not tested for rater bias or rater fatigue (despite answering up to 4,000 questions). There is no survey protocol. There were changes to the test that are not documented. Fifty seven percent of the data remains unreleased.

    Looks like the 97% consensus is from

    “John Cook (in a survey of himself and 11 mates down at the pub) found…”

    Its no good for the academic standing of Queensland Comprehensive being associated with such crap coursework, sorry thats the University of Queensland associated with such crap published papers.

  50. #51 Rednose
    August 28, 2013
  51. #52 Stu
    August 28, 2013

    Oh no! Rednose found a shitty paper about consensus! Global warming is a myth!


  52. #53 Stu
    August 28, 2013

    Some nuggets from the Nature paper:

    [S]uch an inconsistency is only expected to occur by chance once in 500 years, if 20-year periods are considered statistically independent.


  53. #54 BBD
    August 28, 2013

    Oh FFS Rednoise

    From Fyfe et al.@

    Recent observed global warming is significantly less than that simulated by climate models. This difference might be explained by some combination of errors in external forcing, model response and internal climate variability.

    Get that?

    – “Errors in external forcing” means underestimated negative aerosol forcing

    – “Model response” – well, they will over-estimate warming if a major negative forcing is too low 🙂

    – “Internal climate variability” – also known as ocean heat uptake which has demonstrably *increased* in the last decade

    In other words, zero comfort for deniers who are actually capable of understanding the paper.

    * * *

    Tol’s rubbish about Cook got embarrassing weeks ago. He has nothing – he’s just creating a false controversy because that’s what all these GWPF denier types do when they haven’t got anything substantive!

    God you are naive! Grow up!

  54. #55 Rednose
    August 28, 2013


    So there appears to be a consensus that Cook’s consensus paper is shitty.
    The pause in global warming seems to be a puzzle as there seems to be only a 4% chance of the temperature record for the last 20 years being in agreement with the average simulated trend.

  55. #56 Rednose
    August 28, 2013

    This difference might be explained..

    Or it might not.
    Not very confident is it?

  56. #57 Rednose
    August 28, 2013

    So Tol is now a GWPF denier type

    Interesting this need to put everybody into little boxes.

  57. #58 Stu
    August 28, 2013

    So there appears to be a consensus that Cook’s consensus paper is shitty.

    Not at all. Jesus Christ, you’re not very bright, are you?

  58. #59 Stu
    August 28, 2013

    This difference might be explained.. Or it might not. Not very confident is it?

    Nirvana fallacy. Thank you for playing, goodbye.

  59. #60 Stu
    August 28, 2013

    By the way, Rednose, you’re in favor of a carbon tax then?

  60. #61 BBD
    August 28, 2013

    So Tol is now a GWPF denier type

    You didn’t know, did you?

    Second from bottom.


    What about #53?

    Did an improved understanding of the context help?

    I always like to help dispel confusion!

  61. #62 BBD
    August 28, 2013

    Interesting this need to put everybody into little boxes.

    You lot do that by yourselves! Denial is as denial does!


  62. #63 Lionel A
    August 28, 2013

    Interesting this need to put everybody into little boxes.


    No Rednoise, you have it arse backwards, it is people like Tol (and Curry) who put themselves in those boxes by the antics they perform.

    Here, let Google be your friend, a good starter is to search on is “Rabett Run” AND “Richard Tol” where you will find similar to this:

    Richard Tol’s second draft


    Memorial Day Puzzler

    and on and on and on.

    You are very late to this particular party, what other old news are you going to rake up next?

  63. #64 Berendaneke
    August 28, 2013

    Ho Chi Min greenpiss activist aka BBD

    All that sock-puppetry is strange too.

    We’ve had Brad/Clammy, The Lukes (pretending you are someone else using the same screen name is SP, in my book!), KarenMackSunspot, FreddyKaiBorisBerendaneke and doubtless many more besides. And that’s just here.

    Throw in the cross-dressing, the narcissism, the pathological mendacity and the appalling topic knowledge and you have something truly horrible!

    Stop telling lies, you infamous greenpiss ideologist

  64. #65 Lionel A
    August 28, 2013

    You lot do that by yourselves! Denial is as denial does!


    We crossed with that sentiment. But then this point is so obvious unless ideology is in charge.

  65. #66 Stu
    August 28, 2013

    Shh, BBD…

    According to Tol “the impact of climate change is relatively small” He was also among the US Senate Republican Party’s “list of scientists disputing man-made global warming claims”, which stated that Tol “dismissed the idea that mankind must act now to prevent catastrophic global warming”.
    Tol characterises his position as arguing that the economic costs of climate policy should be kept in proportion to its benefits.

    Bjørn Lomborg chose Tol to participate in his “Copenhagen Consensus” project in 2008. Lomborg awarded Tol a position on his Copenhagen Consensus panel again in 2009. According to Tol, “Lomborg successfully punches holes in climate hysteria” and “plays a useful role in the debate on climate policy”

    There’s more, but the box seems to fit.

  66. #67 Stu
    August 28, 2013

    Freddy, are you trying to tell us you need to go to the bathroom a lot?

  67. #68 Lionel A
    August 28, 2013

    Another freddy phart in the corner.

    ‘Odour de freddy’ atop of ‘Odour de Likes’, anybody got a strong fan and some AirWick?

  68. #69 Lionel A
    August 28, 2013

    Snap too Stu, another meeting of minds. These cretins just cannot help themselves.

  69. #70 Lionel A
    August 28, 2013

    More for Rednoise to ponder ‘Tol erasion’ which I jumped over first glance , there being so many to chose from.

  70. #71 Rednose
    August 28, 2013

    got embarrassing weeks ago

    Yes embarrassing for the Unniversity of Queensland, embarrassing for the IOP and its editor and embarrassing for Cook.

    What has he got to hide? Why not publish the information required?

  71. #72 Rednose
    August 28, 2013

    but the box seems to fit.

    Seems you have to be well qualified with bags of experience to be invited in, and it seems to be getting bigger by the moment.

  72. #73 Rednose
    August 28, 2013

    From Fyfe et al

    Other factors that contribute to the discrepancy could include a missing decrease in stratospheric water vapour, errors in aerosol forcing in the CMIP5 models, a bias in the prescribed solar irradiance trend, the possibility that the transient climate sensitivity of the CMIP5 models could be on average too high or a possible unusual episode of internal climate variability not considered above.

    Got most bases covered then, including the ones you constantly dismiss

  73. #74 Berendaneke
    August 28, 2013

    Repetition 4 of Lesson 1 for teh stupid greenpiss Dumbtoids (as no learning effect could be detected until now):

    Climatology Lesson 1 for CAGW Deltoid greenpiss nutters:
    Science shows you CAGW Deltoid greenpiss nutters that the hypothesized effect of anthropogenic CO2 on air temperatures 2m above the surface cannot be precisely measured.

    Is anybody of the Doltoid greenpissers able to confirm that he has understood the lesson for climate beginner laymen like you??

  74. #75 BBD
    August 28, 2013

    No, you just need to be a contrarian. How exactly is Tol – an economist – qualified to critique the physical science anyway?

    You didn’t know Tol was on the GWPF “academic advisory council” or (whatever grandiose tosh it is).

    You are such a muppet, Rednoise!


  75. #76 BBD
    August 28, 2013

    Freddy, you are possibly the stupidest commenter on this blog.

    I have shown you – repeatedly – that you can compare satellite tropospheric data (TLT) with surface temperature reconstruction and they are in extremely close agreement for interannual variability and decadal trend.

    The satellite data validate the surface temperature reconstructions.

    Nothing you repeat, however often, can get around this.

    You have no argument.

    Now for pity’s sake, try something else.

  76. #77 Rednose
    August 28, 2013

    These are just links to blogs you keep posting Lionel, one ran by someone who could not even think of an original name for his blog and another ran by someone who thinks he is a rabbit.

  77. #78 BBD
    August 28, 2013

    Yes, refuse to read. Refuse to learn.

    Deny! Deny! Deny!

  78. #79 BBD
    August 28, 2013


    Before going off on another rant, go back and read what I wrote.

    For example, page 35 #8:

    Surface vs. satellite. Two different methodologies. Different instruments.

    Same result.

    GISTEMP, HadCRUT4, UAH TLT 1979 – present; linear fits

    Look at the data. Go on. Click the link and look.


    But on exactly this point, the killer here is:

    Surface vs. satellite. Two different methodologies. Different measurement instruments.

    Same result.

    If you were even remotely conversant with the way science works, this would tell you something important.

    * * *

    Funny how *all* contrarians resort to repeating debunked bollocks in the end.

    I wonder why?

  79. #80 Stu
    August 28, 2013

    Yes, Rednose. Change the topic! Quick! Soon everyone will forget #53, 57, 58, 59, 60, 62, 65. Nobody will remember you’re a complete fool!

    Anyway, honest question. Do you think one crappy paper invalidates all of AGW, yes or no?

  80. #82 Rednose
    August 28, 2013


    How exactly is Tol – an economist – qualified to critique the physical science anyway?

    Cannot answer that BBD, though he has an impressive CV

    Perhaps he was advised by Professors
    Robert Carter Palaeontologist
    Vincent Courtillot Geophysics
    Freeman Dyson Physics
    William Hopper Physics
    Richard Lindzen Meteorology
    Dr David Whitehouse Astrophysics

    Plenty of Physics background there, and as you keep repeating BBD, you canna change the laws of Physics.
    There is even a palaeotologist in that line up. Isnt that your area of expertise BBD?

    How are the estimates for climate sensitivity stacking up with this latest paper by Fyfe et al.

  81. #83 Turboblocke
    August 28, 2013

    Luke page 35 #79

    Once again you’re just throwing out links in a “Look squirrel” manner without any attempt to provide context or insight.

    So what do you make of this conclusion from your second link: That multidecadal behaviour is reminiscent of the global warming of the planet.

  82. #84 BBD
    August 28, 2013

    Apart from the multiply-debunked Lindzen, there are no climate scientists!

    Carter has been multiply-debunked as well!

    Happer (sp!) is peddling ideology, not physics – check out his affiliations! The chair of the George C. Marshall Institute no less. That even tops being in bed with the GWPF!

    Dyson simply gets it all wrong. Physicists are notorious for coming unstuck when they venture outside their field!

    This lot has no more chance of changing the laws of physics than you or I, Rednoise!

  83. #85 BBD
    August 28, 2013

    A little box is where you put your bollocks, no?


  84. #86 Turboblocke
    August 28, 2013
  85. #87 Stu
    August 28, 2013

    Tol (the economist) is also associated with this lovely bunch:

  86. #88 Rednose
    August 28, 2013

    Anyway, honest question. Do you think one crappy paper invalidates all of AGW, yes or no?

    This one crappy paper is quoted by politicians to promote their political agenda. It makes no contribution to the scientific debate other than embarrassment that such sloppy methods passed peer review and gained publication in a supposedly respectable journal.

  87. #89 Stu
    August 28, 2013

    Rednose, do you think one crappy paper invalidates all of AGW, yes or no?

  88. #90 BBD
    August 28, 2013

    How are the estimates for climate sensitivity stacking up with this latest paper by Fyfe et al.

    Still stubbornly refusing to go below the lower bound of ~2C imposed by paleoclimate behaviour! Given the inherent uncertainty over aerosol forcing and transient variability in the rate of ocean heat uptake, all attempts to estimate S (TCR or ECS) from observational data are speculative. You should therefore be careful about placing any great reliance on them!

    Proper scientific caution, Rednoise!

  89. #91 Stu
    August 28, 2013

    What part of “yes or no” are you having problems with?

  90. #92 BBD
    August 28, 2013

    This one crappy paper is quoted by politicians to promote their political agenda.

    No, Cook et al. is being attacked by ideologues pushing their political agenda! And it’s interesting to see that these attacks are not gaining traction outside the denialosphere.

    Remember, Tol’s response to Cook was rejected by the journal! Coz it woz crap!

  91. #93 Rednose
    August 28, 2013


    Fraid it would have to be a slightly bigger box in my case BBD

    Anyway cant stop to debate with you the Master any longer.
    Got an urgent appointment down the pub

  92. #94 Stu
    August 28, 2013

    Wait, what? So you’re saying if only politicians knew how bad this one paper is, they’d change their mind?

    What the hell does that have to do with the science of AGW?

  93. #95 Rednose
    August 28, 2013

    What part of “yes or no” are you having problems with?

    As the Irishman said when giving travel directions:
    Well I wouldn’t start from here”

    And your carbon tax is like VAT, it would hit the poor more than the well off.

  94. #96 BBD
    August 28, 2013

    Enjoy the beer, but don’t let it go to your head!

  95. #97 Turboblocke
    August 28, 2013

    #32 Is this quote from Viner what you meant? Heavy snow will return occasionally, says Dr Viner, but when it does we will be unprepared. “We’re really going to get caught out. Snow will probably cause chaos in 20 years time,” he said.

  96. #98 Stu
    August 28, 2013

    So why are you approvingly quoting an economist that continuously advocates for a carbon tax, Rednose?

  97. #99 BBD
    August 28, 2013

    #32 Turboblocke

    Thanks for finding the Viner quote. I’m afraid I couldn’t be bothered yesterday, which was lazy. My apologies.

  98. #100 Stu
    August 28, 2013

    Bonus spot-the-hypocrite fun: compare Rednose’s #49 & #76.

New comments have been temporarily disabled. Please check back soon.