climate tripe
stoat | July 12, 2010I really thought Monckton couldn't surprise any more but I was wrong. Fans of drivel: run, don't walk, to read his latest masterpiece Response to John Abraham, helpfully hosted by "no dog" Watts.
Alas, I really can't be bothered to snark it much - perhaps the Wabbit can raise the energy - and indeed I barely managed to skim a few pages before being overcome by both the colour scheme and the tedium. I got far enough to notice that he is still trying to defend his misrepresentation of IPCC '90 fig 7.1.c, which is dull of him (though when I talk about it, it is interesting). Still, it is…
stoat | June 27, 2010This post is about the ridiculous "hide the decline" video. I watched it when it first came out. It wasn't funny, it was dull. Apparently it has now been pulled from YouTube, but who cares?
But... because the thing is anti-science, the std.anti-science septics on wiki feel inclined to have an article on it. Sigh. There enough real subjects to create articles about without wasting time on vapour. I really ought to point you to the current version, and the current edit war: should this edit be included - viz, is the fact that some guy with a blog thinks the video is funny worth noting? I don't…
stoat | April 21, 2010We interrupt your schedule of cats and rowing for a brief snark at the denialists: courtesy of mt, who clearly ventures where angels fear to tread, we have Newsletter: NZCLIMATE TRUTH NO 244 by Vincent Gray: THE FLAT EARTH... The attached graph is in all of the Reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change, and it is fundamental to all their activities. It assumes that the earth can be considered to be flat, that the sun shines all day and all night with equal intensity, and that the temperature of the earth's surface is constant. This is abysmal stupidity and ignorance at its…
stoat | March 26, 2010Eli has a wonderful post on the McLean mess. So wonderful I can't resist ripping bits of it off :-).
McLean et al. quote:
"But as it is written, the current paper [Foster et al. draft critique] almost stoops to the level of "blog diatribe". The current paper does not read like a peer-reviewed journal article. The tone is sometimes dramatic and sometimes accusatory. It is inconsistent with the language one normally encounters in the objectively-based, peer-reviewed literature."
But oddly enough they don't continue the quotation...
The real mystery here, of course, is how the McLean et al.…
stoat | March 5, 2010The ever-vigilant BigCityLib has spotted some revisionism by the Institute of Physics: they have silently updated their "clarification": the link http://www.iop.org/News/news_40679.html now points to a statement dated 5th March, instead of the original, which was 2nd march. What a bunch of slimy little toads: they pretend to believe in openness, they won't tell us who wrote their statements, then they silently airbrush out embarassing words afterwards.
Refers: Irony can be pretty ironic sometimes and The IOP fiasco.
This post doesn't analyse the changes; as far as I can see they have…
stoat | March 4, 2010A headline stolen blatantly from HH. But it seems rather applicable to the Institute of Physics. The Grauniad are still pushing them (go big G!) but the IOP are stonewalling: they won't say who wrote their pap; but it seems one Peter Gill was involved.
In an apparent attempt to take the Irony Prize back from the gunmen of Caracas, the institute supplied a statement from an anonymous member of its science board, which said: "The institute should feel relaxed about the process by which it generated what is, anyway, a statement of the obvious." It added: "The points [the submission] makes are…
stoat | March 2, 2010The "Institute of Physics" sounds jolly reassuring; but like all such things you never quite know what they are going to say. Just recently they have been saying some very silly things indeed in their contribution to the UK parliaments feeding-frenzy over the CRU emails. So the IOP apparently thinks that worrying implications arise for the integrity of scientific research in this field and it goes downhill from there. It reads like a gift to the septics and it could easily have been written down to the septics dictation; indeed, it very probably was.
So the most likely scenario is that a…
stoat | February 1, 2010Obvious enough you would have though, but some still fall for it. UN climate change panel based claims on student dissertation and magazine article is the latest excitement.
Breathlessly, they reveal:
It can be revealed that the IPCC report made use of 16 non-peer reviewed WWF reports. One claim, which stated that coral reefs near mangrove forests contained up to 25 times more fish numbers than those without mangroves nearby, quoted a feature article on the WWF website. In fact the data contained within the WWF article originated from a paper published in 2004 in the respected journal Nature…
stoat | November 24, 2009Anyone who cares has found them by now so I won't trouble you with all the details. James "Gonad Watcher" Annan is fulfilling, with commendable neutrality, the role of arbitrator to which I appointed him, and I don't think there is much more I need to say. That won't stop me from saying it, of course. Other people who have said sensible things include Denial Depot, Newtongate, CM and of course RC (apologies if you're not on the list; oh all right Eli too since he says he needs the traffic). Indeed pretty well everyone with any sense seems to have got the right answer by now.
So I'll deal with…
stoat | August 7, 2009"Thanks" to M (if that is the word) for the pointer to Trapping Carbon Dioxide Or Switching To Nuclear Power Not Enough To Solve Global Warming Problem, Experts Say. This is Nordell pushing his stuff again (did I blog the nonsense here? I forget). It is the first I've heard of the delightful International Journal of Global Warming (IJGW) which is clearly failing in its mission to publish "high-quality original papers". Is there any more to say?
stoat | July 5, 2009A little while ago I was ratty at Romm for being ratty at Peilke. All very exciting, but I was challenged to Please identify a single scientifically inaccurate statement in the paragraph that Pielke excerpted from the report. This isn't difficult; Pielke has already done it. Romm also asked me to please identify the scientifically inaccurate statements in my blog post that you trashed. This turns out to be harder: though all the ranting, I can't actualy see any strictly scientific statements in there at all. Can anyone else?
stoat | June 23, 2009"A friend" points me towards Why does the New York Times hate science? by Joe Romm. Sigh. Experience teaches me that RP Jr can wipe the floor with Romm without even trying, largely because Romm falls flat on his face without any help from anyone else.
As far as I can tell (because it took me some time to fight through the ranting) Romm is complaining about RP's post This post is about how the report summarizes the issue of disasters and climate change, including several references to my work, which is misrepresented where "the report" is the new CCSP report, which I haven't read. RP is…
stoat | February 15, 2009Wiki has an article on the subject, created by over enthusiastic folk. I tried to kill the witch on the grounds that it had no good definition; alas that didn't fly. My best effort at a defn that fitted reality was this but it didn't last. The wiki article will die a long slow painful death, but the term lives on elsewhere.
One of those places being Why we need a zero carbon world by zerocarboncaravan.net. All very nice people, no doubt, but over enthusiasts all. Why do we need a ZCW? Easy: We need a zero carbon world to drastically improve our chances of avoiding a runaway greenhouse effect…
stoat | February 15, 2009Someone refererred be to As Effects of Warming Grow, U.N. Report is Quickly Dated . It's yet another piece of the std.nonsense that one swallow does a summer make, and anyone who feels like quoting the odd warming factoid can throw away the IPCC, whilst of course sneering at the people who say it hasn't been getting warmer recently, 'cos obviously *that* is just weather.
So, what do we have? Since the late 1970s, satellite observations have shown a steadily growing retreat of Arctic sea ice in summer. Earlier [obviously it is too much trouble to say exactly which studies are meant; but this…
stoat | February 5, 2009Stoat, always first with the news. Too busy with real work and the pub, sorry. Yes, its the RP teacup.
Life is too short to wade through the full skewed mess. Read John Fleck for the summary and Coby Beck for pages more detail. Or better still, don't.
Part 2 appears to be a total pile of toss - I can only think its done to make part 1 appear reasonable by contrast.
stoat | September 19, 2008I've been down the pub so no chance for any sensible or sober posts. Roll on wikipedia.
So we come to [[William Nierenberg]] and its revision history. Alas, this is an example of wikipedia at its worst: a process-obsessed zealot more interested in policy than reality (thats the other side, not me, before you start wondering).
I say "re-rv twaddle. Reagan simply didn't commission a report. Do you have a clue about this?" [1]. Alas the Dark Side's answer is the cr*ppy Times article[2] that Oreskes should be ashamed of, and "rv - Do you have a clue about Wikipedia policy? [WP:VERIFY]. If you…
stoat | September 11, 2008Oh dear. Yet another victim of the std.nonsense global cooling error. "Thanks" to ABM for pointing this out. If you can bear watching piles of twaddle, get in quick before the BBC watch-again feature expires.
But if you're unfamiliar with the issue, don't watch sh*t* on the Beeb, read wiki or RC.
I've mailed him to see if its his fault or the Beebs. We'll see.