Josh Nelson has set up Swifthack.com as a clearing house to correct disinformation about those emails stolen from CRU.
Peter Sinclair's Climate Denial Crock of the Week is on the stolen emails.
It certainly seems true that the quote miners almost always misrepresent what "hide the decline" refers to be explicitly or implicitly saying that it refers to temperature.
- Log in to post comments
Tim: I thought that you were going to take on the strongest arguments made by the most serious skeptics? No worries if you would rather spend your time preaching to the choir, but I think doing so is a waste of your talents.
Tim: I thought that you were going to take on the strongest arguments made by the most serious skeptics?
Don't tell me a skeptic passed peer review again??
David Kane writes:
>*if you would rather spend your time*
Looks to me like Tim is pointing to other's work, rather than demonstrating to you where he is spending his time.
BTW I wasn't aware David that you'd yet been able to nominate the stongest argumets?
You might get a public television station in North Dakota to broadcast this video at 4:00 a.m. on a Sunday morning, if you pledge $110.
>*You might get a public television station in North Dakota to broadcast this video at 4:00 a.m. on a Sunday morning, if you pledge $110.*
On the other hand if you give [419 million](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/firedoglake_book_salon_on_jame…) to for profit consolidated braodcast media they will support the campaign that is funded by lobbist contributions.
It is interesting to look at the history of antifluoridationists who tried to manufacture a conspiracy:
The problem is that the statement "hide the decline" is such a nice catch phrase to take in the ignorant. To put the statement in context you need to know something about the science of climate change which most people don't and are not interested in finding out.
Additionally attempts to explain it and place it in context will only confirm to the average punter that the scientists cooked the books and now here is the cover up explanation. Of course this is all helped by the denial machine that actually know better however who are pitching their statements to the climate ignorant and doing it really well.
We have been swiftboated well and truly by the same machine. Where did the emails come from? Why has no-one been found that did it? This leak was far too close to Copenhagen to be a coincidence.
Davey Kane, with his history of stupidity, misses the point that "trick", and "hide the decline", on reference to a WMO brochure, not published science, (not that either claim is actually serious), is what's hitting the press.
Like on CBS.
David's sort of saying, despite it's being in national TV in the US, ignore it.
Poor David Kane doesn't understand that the ClimateGate arguments *are* the strongest arguments made by the most serious skeptics.
That's why they're all jumping on the bandwagon.
Poor David Kane, always on the wrong side of things.
David Kane wants Tim to do all his debunking work for him.
David, why don't you do it yourself?
Next time one of these morons mouths the phrase hide the decline we should ask them to specify which 'decline' was being hidden, and when and where it was first hidden.
Their pathetic attempts to pretend they know what this "decline" refers to should be comic fodder for quite a while.
One of the more amusing sidebars here is that their attempt to discredit CRU is an attack on the center on which they base their trope of cooling since 1998.
Let them explain that if they can.
In the time between your first posting, and to now, when I've been able to respond, several others have already posed the following question. Nevertheless, I'll ask it myself...
What do you believe is the strongest argument made by the most serious sceptic?
Two can play at that game. How much does GE stand to make off of AGW alarmism? How much do they pay their "journalists"?
Because the "hackers" are a hell of a lot smarter than that idiot, Phil Jones.
And a nice coincidence at that.
Hmn. You guys look for temperature data in tree rings, right? And you don't know why the temperature data from recent years doesn't jive with the temperature data from thermometers (e.g., thermometers in paved parking lots, near heat exchangers, in enclosures with incandescent light bulbs), but you really want to use tree ring data as a proxy for temperature data BHT (before heated thermometers). I mean you really want to use tree rings, because they show cooler temperatures in the past, which helps promote AGW alarmism. So, you want to hide the decline. In temperature. Indicated by the tree rings.
Did I get it? LOL.
That's easy. There was clearly a conspiracy. There were probably overt acts in furtherance of that conspiracy. People go to jail for conspiring to commit crimes, even when their plans fail. So success or failure doesn't really come into play.
Pretty damning. I guess that is why he was "stepped down".
look David, this is the essence of this. weeks have passed, and nothing new has shown up in those mails and data.
no smoking gun anywhere. "hide the decline" and some tiny programming problems are all that denialists got.
there simply is no strong "sceptic" argument, based on this episode.
"I mean you really want to use tree rings, because they show cooler temperatures in the past, which helps promote AGW alarmism. So, you want to hide the decline. In temperature. Indicated by the tree rings."
Hide it by publishing multiple papers on it? By publishing figures with the divergence clearly illustrated - as the point of the fricking figure? Hide it like that?
Isn't David Kane's complaint just a denialist version of the Courtier's Reply?
Sure, the denialists are all running dementedly in circles bellowing "TRICK! HIDE THE DECLINE!! GLOBAL SCIENTIFIC CONSPIRIMACY!1!" And sure, the rabid frothing is what's actually being picked up by the media and therefore the general public.
But spending time countering this is a waste of time, because it's possible that someone, somewhere, has written something which is much more elaborately constructed, perhaps even in that faux-reasonable voice so beloved of bad-faith interlocutors. The fact that it's built as much on thin air as the generic denialist blatherings is not to be pointed out, lest we be accused of being uncivil and arrogant.
>Two can play at that game. How much does GE stand to make off of AGW alarmism? How much do they pay their "journalists"?
GE = General Motors = blocking fuel efficiency standards = who killed the electric car = Great American streetcar scandal
Get real Wally. GE are as self interested as Exxon, and up to their necks in trappling of a fair-go democracy. Did you notice they [warned off Oberman](http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/08/01/ge/index.html) after a visit from the suits who didn't want him bagging Fox.
Lee - "Hide it by publishing multiple papers on it? By publishing figures with the divergence clearly illustrated - as the point of the fricking figure? Hide it like that?"
But that is my point. The ignorant denier that posted the comment you responded to would not read the papers. For that matter neither have I. Unless he/she has a tree ring thermometer on the wall for temperature measurements it is IMPOSSIBLE to explain the context with appearing to be part of the conspiracy.
As I said we have been well and truly swiftboated. John Kerry despite actually going to war and being wounded was defeated by a machine that had a drug taking, war dodging layabout as a candidate. If they can get a candidate like that elected then if they want to discredit climate science then they will - and they have. What was the in opening statement at the Copenhagen conference? It was denying Climategate.
With respect to Janet, who is really performing beyond the call of duty, I understand GE to mean the company that used to be known as General Electric. Their major business these days is lending money.
Maybe WW could answer his own question - I must admit it makes no sense at all to me.
>*That's easy. There was clearly a conspiracy. There were probably overt acts in furtherance of that conspiracy. People go to jail for conspiring to commit crimes, even when their plans fail. So success or failure doesn't really come into play.*
That's funny Wally, cos your an exmaple that shows the baseless nature of such claims, preciesly because you and your fellow travlers [never back them](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/new_zealand_climate_science_co…) up with anything but bluster.
You've had weeks now it you're still relying on empty speculation, that says more than anything!
You are one of the phoneys Wally, and you're a transparent example.
Zoot, thanks for the correction. GM are not owned by GE.
GE did however stop Oberman from whacking Fox.
How much interest does GE have in the "Safe Climate" Bill? A little bit, but put that into perspective of mass wave of [those pushing hardest](http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/billsum.php?id=107281).
If [these interest](http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/billsum.php?id=107281) represent the plutocratic interest in play, then The EDF and the American Wind Association are in for a hiding!
As Hansen says, civil disobedience is our best option.
So, are you on the barricades in the fight against the _stupid_ arguments? Are you interesting in fighting disinformation that supports your position at all? If so, you're a better kind of sceptic than all I've seen.
But you aren't, are you? I don't see you doing anything about, say, the constant stream of proud ignorance coming from WW. The level of the debate is low, yes, but it's your side that's keeping it low.
Willy Wallace,lacking humour genes doesn't confer psychic powers; prove that Phil Jones tongue was not in-cheek when he dashed off those emails. Which proxy series showed divergence and which did not? Why was this issue comprehensively written up ,probably when you were still in short pants? Why do you need to have this explained again?
a tree ring thermometer on the wall for temperature measurements
This year's must-have Christmas present, surely?
Or perhaps a cherry tree ring thermometer from Yamal.
It may be insignificant, but a 10 minute NZ tv debate called 'Close Up' is showing a worrying climate change trend. More than three-quarters of viewers voted down the global warming hype.
Under no circumstances must we allow the ABC to do something similar, otherwise the game will be up.
Off topic but always eager to be of assistance and bearing in mind that this concerns Australian data, I give you:
They badly need to turn that site into Web 2.0, with some viral videos to tweet, otherwise it is simply preaching to the converted -- very ineffective strategy. Go look at the 9/11 and moon hoax debunkers. In fact, a direct comparison between the behaviour of 9/11 truthers, moon hoaxers, and Climategaters would be far more persuasive to the non-scientific public.
I'm a little bit confused by Watts' post. One station (Station Zero) goes back into the 19th Century. The early data from that station is adjusted downwards. He then goes off on one about adjusting 'all' the stations before picking out Station Zero (the only data necessary to adjust if you wanted to 'show a warming trend') and implying very strongly in [this graph](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/darwin_zero8.png) that temperatures have in fact been inflated to show a warming trend. Which is [not the case at all](http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/hqsites/site_data.cgi?variable=me…).
So, where is the smoking gun? And has Anthony bothered to check why the data was adjusted, or has he yet again just jumped to the conclusion of fraud without any evidence whatsoever?
This is, I hope, a rhetorical question. Methinks you know the answer...
@dhogaza - I like to think a man can change...
Seriously though, what is staggering about this epic waste of time from Watts is that the answers are staring him right in the face. He quotes GHCN (he can "do no better"):
"there are many causes for the discontinuities, including changes in instruments, shelters, the environment around the shelter, the location of the station, the time of observation, and the method used to calculate mean temperature."
Yet he assumes that none of these cases occur in the particular station he is talking about. In fact, he argues for no revision, because by his own admission, he doesn't know enough about the station:
"Looking at the whole picture, I think Iâd vote to leave it as it is, thatâs always the best option when you donât have other evidence."
Anthony, when someone has not enough evidence to go on, the first course of action ought to be to go find it. Not to pronounce scientific fraud on whichever poor soul is working to compile the records.
Those, dear friends, are the clumsy fingerprints of someone messing with the data Egyptian style â¦ they are indisputable evidence that the âhomogenizedâ data has been changed to fit someoneâs preconceptions about whether the earth is warming.
No, Anthony. They are the fingerprints of a dataset that has been corrected. And if there is a fraud going on in Northern Australia to prove recent warming, it is a [pretty](http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/hqsites/site_data.cgi?variable=me…) [ordinary](http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/hqsites/site_data.cgi?variable=me…) one.
Nope, once again the desperate rush to fill an absence of knowledge with a pre-conceived notion of foul play is what Anthony Watts is engaging in here. I think I'm going to dub this kind of fallacious thinking the [fraud of the gaps](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps). The gap in this case being information that one cannot immediately google.
> The gap in this case being information that one cannot immediately google.
Just to add to this - google is these days completely useless for searching on any topic at all related to climate science, utterly clogged as it is with quasi-religious denier groupthink.
Er, I don't wish to embarrass anyone, well, you know me, toujours la politesse and all that sort of thing, but the post wasn't written by Anthony Watts, the author was Willis Eschenbach, only I know what sticklers for detail you all are over here!
So it was. My bad, didn't check the author.
Ah well, replace Watts' name with Eschenbach and it's still an epic waste of time. And he is still guilty of assuming fraud fills in any gaps in his knowledge.
Which double-digit IQ is writing that crap is a hair-splitting irrelevancy.
@Wallace: That's wrong, in its entirety. Tree rings are just one type of temperature proxy, out of several different types of proxies. AGW theory does not depend on tree rings.
Second, yes, you do want to "hide the decline." If you know that data is skewed after a certain year, it's best to remove that data. In epidemiology and other fields, this is called censoring.
I've "hidden the decline" myself when analyzing data that is known to be very skewed in recent years.
"Second, yes, you do want to "hide the decline." If you know that data is skewed after a certain year, it's best to remove that data. In epidemiology and other fields, this is called censoring.
I've "hidden the decline" myself when analyzing data that is known to be very skewed in recent years."
That's just begging to be treated as climate innuendo. Be honest, you're just baiting now aren't you?
Should I have said I wasn't talking about climate data? :)
I was just pointing out that sometimes it's perfectly valid to do things like "hide the decline," as in not considering tree rings that are too recent to proxy well (for whatever reason that is.)
@Bud: "guilty of assuming fraud fills in any gaps in his knowledge"
This is exactly one of the features of conspiracists and their dogmatic beliefs (See point 6).
Now, now, 'Dhoggie', just remember the devil is always in the detail and really, when you think about it, it was all that carelessness with detail which has left so many climate 'scientists'(?) looking like second-hand car dealers. Er, and I should know because I was once a second-hand car dealer. And since I seem to have veered off in this direction, may I ask you, honestly, would you buy a second-hand car from Phil Jones?
GE is a big maker of wind and hydro turbines, and a player in solar pv. These businesses are not loss leaders waiting for carbon rationing, but they are well-positioned for it.
So what? There's any number of distinctions between the deception that William Wallace is foisting and the reality of Exxon and other massive fossil fuel interests have been doing. First is that there's no evidence of any link whatsoever between GE and climate scientists, the IPCC, environmental advocacy groups, or any other individuals or groups central to climate research or advocacy on behalf of emissions mitigation; the collection of which no doubt occupies the conspiracy of the average deranged denialist mind.
So there's no parallel there at all. Wallace is instead insinuating some bias in news coverage consistent with GE's interests. This would hardly be the same thing as creating misinformation, and PR schemes for disseminating it 'doubt is our product', even if it were true.
Is it? Knowing what I know about corporate owners interference in news coverage, I frankly wouldn't put it past GE to have meddled in their news coverage. I have noticed NBC's drawing attention to the subject in somewhat ARTIFICIAL ways, as when they bizarrely blacked out a half-time show on their Sunday Night Football sports program.
But elevating whatever that evidence is, such as it is (i.e. highly speculative) to the level of what the fossil fuel industry has done on this issue is the height of false equivalence. GE didn't forge letters from the NAACP and other random interest groups to Congress, telling them not to pass cap-and-trade. The fossil fuels industry did that, and it shows that there are no standards involved in determining what level of deception they are willing to sink to advocate to income statement friendly policy.
In fact, NBC's advocacy or lack thereof on this issue isn't even as significant as Fox News' own, apropos of this post and more notably which regularly features a column and commentary from a (documented) bought and paid for hack of the fossil fuels lobby Steve Milloy. So William Wallace is just foisting one more in a litany of fallacies he sees as supporting his delusions. Careful there William- it's just one small step to citing the voices in your head as important evidence.
Douglas watts said:
Good question, Douglas.
I don't know if you followed the "Kaneversation" here on Deltoid about Lancet I&II some time ago, but getting others to do the work for him is Kane's MO.
David Kane to Robert (Chung):
And Robert Chung's response:
Except, of course, that there is no indication that he actually did anything at all improper. He did not in fact keep the papers in question (McKitrick and Michaels, 2004 and Kalnay and Cai, 2003) out of the report--both are cited. The peer-reviewed literature has not been "redefined" (which doesn't actually make sense, anyway). So basically, all we have here is one scientist ranting to a friend in what he thought was a private communication. Are you going to prosecute every guy who gets pissed off at his boss, and tells a buddy, "I'm gonna sock him in the nose?"
David Kane, this is an argument that was taken at face value by the Public Editor of the New York Times among many others who should know better. So it certainly seems worth addressing.
David Duff #28 ... good point!!
This is but a single example of the volumes of corruption and dishonesty uncovered by Watts and his team.
Why are the 'Deltoids' ignoring this revelation of distorted Australian temperature data? The future of science is at stake and all they can do is close thier eyes.
More from Climategate Australia.... Nova went searching for rising temperatures in northern Australia and surprise surprise found ..."a mixed bag, but long records at outstations (without major airports) showed that global warming appears to have more effect on computers at NOAA, than on the northern part of our landmass"
"And since I seem to have veered off in this direction, may I ask you, honestly, would you buy a second-hand car from Phil Jones?"
Indeed I would, if I drove. And now, if you've quite finished with your whimsical intellectual affectations, could I veer us back to the topic at hand? Which is, why does Eschenbach/Watts/whoever claim a smoking gun at Darwin when he has absolutely not the first clue about the details of Station Zero pre-1940? Go on, read the post again (if you've even read it properly once) and try to spot the bit where the penny should drop for anyone reading it sceptically).
Hint. It's here:
Looking at the whole picture, I think Iâd vote to leave it as it is, thatâs always the best option when you donât have other evidence
Eschenbach has absolutely no idea of what evidence, or lack of evidence, there would be for a temperature adjustment. He assumes because he has no evidence, no one can have evidence. There is no indication he has tried to track this evidence down. Instead, he has decided that because the period pre-1940 (which is what he is talking about, though he fails to make this clear) has been adjusted from showing a cooling trend to a warming trend, it must be fraud (and by the way, anyone can jump in here cos I'm no expert, but Eschenbach talks of making adjustments of "over 2 degreesC per century". How do you 'adjust a trend'? Don't you just adjust data?)
Eschenbach is preaching to the choir. Onward to the next smoking gun! Everyone else can keep looking where the [action is](http://en.cop15.dk/?gclid=CPOFr4v6x54CFaBb4wodnjZpsA).
Btw Joseph (#39) I was joking, I had read your autism post. Interesting stuff :).
Australian climate buff Ian George looked at long-term weather stations (in Qld, NSW, Vic), and compared 1914 temperatures against 2008. About 75% of the stations were warmer in 1914. He suggests that the BOM needs "a review of all temp data immediately by an independent authority."
What do you think Tim?
Lovely to see the science unravelling. The altered jump in temperatures around 1940 is 'unsuspicious', there was a war going on and we thought nobody would notice.
Climategate Australia. Problem solved!!! we can get Bud#48 to do the review. Bud suggests .. "How do you 'adjust a trend'? Don't you just adjust data?"
Wherd you go to School Bud? East Anglia??
I think you'll find, El Gordo, that Eschenbach himself said there looked like there was something wrong around 1941.
And Lank, the point is that Eschenbach is claiming an adjustment from a cooling trend to a warming trend. I'm fairly sure that the data was adjusted and the trend changed as a result of that, not the other way round. Eschenbach worded it in such a way because it implies dishonesty, and because he is aware that only the profoundly ignorant do not recognise that data needs adjusting.
Who's calling it Climategate Australia then? Has the press caught on? And more to the point, will you ever actually say anything of note, or will you just keep running away to the next topic whenever anyone bites.
52^^^^^Needs adjusting on occasions.
I'd hate to leave that typo there. Most people would understand it, but I'm sure Lank would find a way to take it out of context.
Lovely to see the science unravelling.
Yawn, another week, another nail in the coffin of AGW, another peer-reviewed paper that will never be written.
Aussie Climategate denialist 'Bud'#52 says..."the point is that Eschenbach is claiming an adjustment from a cooling trend to a warming trend. I'm fairly sure that the data was adjusted and the trend changed as a result of that, not the other way round" ...I'm 'fairly sure' you wrote this with great clarity and with good argument Bud
...and your point "that only the profoundly ignorant do not recognise that data needs adjusting" certainly is 'well made'.
There must be a serious number of profoundly ignorant 'Buds' out there!
Still waiting for anything of note from you, Lank. Just one point, anything at all.
Last chance. I'm buggered if I'm going to take your contentless bait all night. I have better things to do.
By the way, if I'm a Climategate Australia Denialist I'm in good company, judging from a Google News search. Try it yourself!
New shot fired in [Teh Oztraylyun's War On Science](http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/climate-claims-fail-scienc…). Not by one of the usual suspects. Michael Aston, a Monash U geoscientist who clearly lacks professional ethics.
Yep Bud, better not read the links on my posts - they may say something you don't want to know!
You claim to be 'no expert' but state that "only the profoundly ignorant do not recognise that data needs adjusting"?
Why does the data need adjusting?
Lank and el gordo, I'm guessing you're not Australian, or you would know that there were [a few things happening](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_air_attacks_on_Australia,_1942-43) in Darwin in the early 1940s that might possibly have led to thermometers being moved or replaced (if you ARE Australian, please re-enrol in high school history).
James Haughton thinks that Michael Aston (sic) 'clearly lacks professional ethics' for stating the bloody obvious..."the IPCC model for climate sensitivity is not supported by experimental observation on ancient ice ages and recent satellite data".
I'd be interested to know from James Haughton how this demonstrates a lack of professional ethics.
James Haughton - So between February 1942 and November 1943 these temperatures were adjusted to take account of the war effort. What about the serious adjustments in 1930, 1941 and the numerous 'upward nudges' post war? Where are the details of the thermometers being moved or replaced? and why are they all adjusted for higher temperatures?
James - If you can read please enrol is comprehension.
Sit down, you're making yourself [dizzy](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/more_on_the_stolen_emails.php#c…)
>*So between February 1942 and November 1943 these temperatures were adjusted to take account of the war effort.*
Clue to what changed: where did the Japanese bomb? What would have been a primary target?
Every calibrated a new thermometer? A new enclosure, and new site? Ever done all together?
How about you take the radical step of finding out how the BOM calibrated [the station data](http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/hqsites/site_data.cgi?variable=me…).
You know, that crazy step of gathering evidence at least the appropriate before pronouncing the "smoking gun".
Only a nut-job would cry "smoking-gun" week after week on without the basis appropriate evidence. Don't you learn from the errors you've made with each cry?
>*The result was published this year in the peer-reviewed journal Energy and Environment and the paper has not yet been challenged in the scientific literature.*
Beacuse the way to really challenge/progress science is to publish in Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen's [journal](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_and_Environment). Its no longer even good enough fr Roger A. Pielke Jr.
Regarding Eschenbach's latest adventure: It looks to me that the site adjustments are described in a PhD thesis from 2001. I guess for a blog scientist, putting in a little bit of legwork to find out what's going on is entirely unnecessary; it's better to skip to allegations of fraud.
And for a site (WUWT) practically devoted to demanding UHI adjustments, it's odd to see them now toss out any adjustment as being out of hand.
Lank, I've commented well beyond what was warranted on the WUWT link you provided, and you didn't bother countering a single thing I said. I can't be arsed with chasing a link to someone like Andrew Bolt, debunking it here, only for you to just mock every reasonable point in the absense of any obvious desire to think for yourself. Luminous Beauty linked to my post earlier on, where I quote exactly why data needs adjusting. It's not expert knowledge. Even Willis Eschenbach acknowledged it in his piece.
Instead of spouting accusation after accusation here, try following the link Luminous Beauty provides. Plenty of information available there. There's even an email address which you can write to with any further questions, should you have any.
Btw, you asked if I went to school in East Anglia. Funnily enough, it was actually in [Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen's area](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonja_Boehmer-Christiansen). I used to live about ten minutes walk from the University. Never studied there though.
Lank @ 60,
He doesn't lack professional ethics because he misunderstands a paper in Nature. He lacks professional ethics because he publicly accuses fellow scientists of fraud without providing any evidence: "leading British and US climate scientists, who were caught with their fingers on the "delete button" when faced with climate data that failed to agree with their computer models." There's no suggestion of any such activity in the SwiftHack emails (nor, AFAIK, does Phil Jones do computer model predictions, he's a paleoclimate research guy). This is blatant. I would sue if it was me.
@ 61 If you want to know how and why the data was adjusted, why don't you get off your fat arse, do some basic research and [RTFPRL](ftp://ftp.bom.gov.au/anon/home/ncc/www/change/HQannualT/HQannualT_info…)
"If you can read please enrol is comprehension"
You first. I think you need it more.
"Hello I is Lank former finance minister of Nigeria I has secret deposit account of climate adjustment data worth many millions of dollars which will share at you for small commission".
I'd be interested to know from James Haughton how this demonstrates a lack of professional ethics.
Well, for one thing, he makes it seem as if Pearson's research casts doubt on AGW and model simulations, when in fact it explicitly confirms both. For another, he describes Energy and Environment as a legitimate peer-reviewed scientific journal, when it isnât. He also mentions a discrepancy between theory and observation published by Christy and Douglas in Energy and Environment. To their credit, the last time Christy and Douglas discovered a discrepancy between theory and observation they published it in a real journal and exposed themselves to real scientists. Of course, no one could have predicted the outcome â¦
Had a quick look through a small selection of stations regarding Bolt reader Ian George's "hotter in 1914" claim. I can see why he picked the years he did. 1914 was a hot year for Australia, it seems. Can't see why it changes anything else, though.
Ian Plimer comes up with a new argument: "[It seemed hotter when I was a boy](http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,26460534-5006301,00.ht…)".
The IPCC must be quaking in their boots.
"And for a site (WUWT) practically devoted to demanding UHI adjustments, it's odd to see them now toss out any adjustment as being out of hand."
The conspiracy whackos only accept and demand adjustments (many of them unwarranted) in the direction of less warming. All adjustments indicating more warming is a sign of data fabrication by the global warming hoax perpetrators. If the choir doesn't understand why the adjustment is being made, it's a sure smoking gun indicating foul play. The problem for these nutcases is that if they keep crying "wolf", normal folks will never take them seriously if some real concern is presented.
The Swifthack website looks like a good idea. Continuous education without sarcasm and rancor is the fastest way to set the record straight.
The denialists' front-page news story is already dead. The last headlines a few days ago were something like "emails heat up blogosphere," pretty boring stuff, and the newspapers won't pick up the front-page story again, unless there is some new twist.
Current polls on belief in climate change don't mean much. In the U.S., 70% of the people believe in angels.
Meanwhile there will continue to be news stories about genuine findings in climate change, as before.
In fact the denialists have shot themselves in the foot -- because they are going to have to learn the science, now. I think some of them hadn't counted on spending that much time and energy. Much easier just to sling disconnected incriminations!
They can write denialist papers, but they are going to have to show their data and models, and they are going to be slaughtered.
They are going to have to let scientists balance their denialist TV discussion panels, and answer their denialist editorials -- and the public is going to learn that the denialists don't know what they are talking about.
It may take a little time, but that is where this is all headed. In a few years it may be harder to find a climate denialist than it is to find someone who admits to thinking it was a smart idea to invade Iraq.
In a very few years. A real problem for the denialists is that temperatures may head unequivocally upwards again, very soon. I expect that 90% of them will abandon their argument at that point.
I've said it before as a joke, but more and more it seems the only sane explanation - Plimer has to be Poe. Surely.
Andrew Bolt was cliaming that the CRU hack was just whistle-blowing by CRU staff (Tom Wigley). Now Wigley really has blown the whistle - on Bolt,
Oh, BTW, now our friendly "skeptics" who just want to know the truth, are making death threats,
Seem to be a few climate science denialists from Monash Uni. Dennis Jensen in the Liberal party who helped bring down Malcolm Turnbull and someone whose name I can't recall who died not long ago but was a great civil engineer.
James @#70,just pretending to take Plimer's boyhood recollections seriously, when 'e were a lad in the 1950s..air-conditioners were relatively rare.
The real "climategate" is coming fast.
In Copenhagen, a leaked document shows that the rich countries prepared a "final resolution" that will be given to third world countries so they can just sign the dotted line. This projects plans to sidestep international regulation, put the decisions in the hands of the rich countries, forget all about Kyoto, and let the poor countries bear most of the burden of carbon emission reduction.
So the Third World countries are not happy and they say it loudly, with Sudan leading the way. It feels strange to be lectured on morals by a country like Sudan. But it seems well deserved.
From the AdelaideNow link:
If he's referring to Perth, Western Australia, "Tell him he's dreaming".
Andrew Revkin had something to say about this on [Lateline](http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/) tonight.
The leaked paper at Copenhagen was a 'non-paper', and almost certainly strategically released - as were other papers from the 'other side' - in order to assist with the diplomatic haggling.
Nice try to whip up a scandal, but no gold star.
Trouble is papers in the UK, like The Guardian and The Independent, ran with the story very prominently today saying that it was a rich world stitch up.
These guys are pushing an agenda, even though they are unelected, unrepresentative and often wrong. Even you, Bernard, must feel some qualms at this.
This is one of those rare moments where I have to agree with you.
Yes, I do have some qualms, although not quite in the way that the 'released' draft might dictate - I still believe that it's a strategic manoeuvre from which to move to arrive at a 'compromise'. Nevertheless, I do believe that the First World will try to avoid it's responsibility, and as much as I reckon that the rest of the world will attempt to do so too, the problem is that it's the First World that has brought this mess upon us in the first place.
The whole world has a responsibility to address AGW, but the First World holds the most culpability. We need to act the mostly quickly, and to the greatest extent. Doing anything else is only shirking our responsibility, and following our own selfish agendas, and even indication is that this is what most - though not all - Western countries are doing.
A study in process by K C Green and J Scott Armstrong believe global warming scaremongering is mass delusion. Every scary scenario throughout history has failed to materialize.
'When we looked at alarms that were analogous to the alarm over dangerous manmade global warming, we found they were all scary scenarios that turned out to be false alarms, rather than scientific forecasts.'
...even - every...
More knockdown arguments from Plimer in today's [Orstraylyun](http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/plimer-the-toast-of-copenhag…)!
This time he gives us "Al Gore is slime" and "People sometimes drown in their baths, therefore sea level isn't rising". I tell you, I'm thinking of switching sides.
At least this time the reporter seems to have a better idea of the credibility of Plimer and the Merry Plimbeciles.
el gordo #82
That paper is pure, concentrated, Columbian cowpoop. And Transparently political. "Government action was called for in 25 out of the 26 situations". Gawd...
What amazes me is that people like El Gordo are apparently immune to the embarrassment of the silliness they propose: in this case we are expected to throw out the scientific process and ignore the eminent physical scientists of our day in favour of some claptrap cooked up by:
"J. Scott Armstrong
Professor of Marketing
University of Pennsylvania
K C Green
International Graduate School of Business
University of South Australia
[AKA South Australian Insitute of Technology (School for tradesmen) & South Australian College of Advanced Education (University for retards)]
El Gordo - *why*, precisely, would it be a good idea to ignore the science in favour of these jokers' non-science?
Well, I thought the science was settled.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Settled. etc...
On the other hand, the science isn't complete, but we notice that the denialists aren't contributing to the scienc e as they appear incapable of conducting primary research and publishing it for others to read.
Good at stealing emails, though...
From all I've read here and elsewhere, it wasn't a whistle blower and more likely the Russian secret service.
You know what Vlad is like, no job too small.
The peanut gallery doesn't know the difference between science and politics.
Suspend belief, read the Green/Armstrong paper and appreciate the historical significance of the AGW theory.
It has been politics from the get go. Ambitious scientists, lazy journalists and opportunistic politicians have created an abomination.
Yes, those political operatives Fourier, Tyndal and Arrhenius.
>"It has been politics from the get go. Ambitious scientists, lazy journalists and opportunistic politicians have created an abomination."
That's elgordo's tactic for getting away from evidence, pretend the evidence doesn't count, and offer baseless opinion instead.
I've had a read of El Gordo's new favourite denialist document - the one by a pair of marketing/business professors.
For starters, it's entirely couched in subjective, political terms.
It contains a veritable Who's Who of denialist references - including the Heartland Institute!
It seems to confuse the product of the scientific process, and the product of journalists. Probably deliberately.
But the meat of the article is this: a list of 26 scientifically-based "alarms" "analoguous" to Global Warming is analysed and found:
"None of the 26 alarming forecasts that we examined was accurate."
And what were these "analoguous" alarms?
- Andrew Wakefield's fraudulent research linking vaccines with autism. "Analoguous", how, exactly? They don't explain.
- anti-Fluoride kookery. "analoguous"? Yes, but not in the way *they* mean...hahaha...own goal!
- CFCs & the Ozone layer. Analoguous, yes! "Not accurate", how? You'd have to be a very special kind of idiot to have a problem with the Montreal Protocol.
- Acid rain. Again. Analoguous, yes! "Not accurate", how? Forests were dying, sulphide emissions were reduced, problem solved.
- Global Cooling. Analoguous, yes! "Not accurate", how? Solar shading was identified; sulphide, CFC and particulate emissions were reduced, problem solved.
- Mad cow disease. "Analoguous"? Kind of. Poor animal husbandry practices cause a nasty medical condition. "Not accurate"? Improved animal husbandry reduces the risk of BSE. WTF is wrong with this pair of idiots?
How could you read this crap, El Gordo, and not laugh? This paper is a pile of complete crap.
Yes, those political operatives Fourier, Tyndal and Arrhenius
Don't forget Milankovitch cycles. His name and the fact he probably never drove a car are sure signs of an arch greenie-communo-Marxist zealot...
Remember, El Gordo, if you sow the wind, you will reap the Vince Whirlwind.
Nice takedown, Vince.