No, we aren’t talking about the journalists made to stand outside in the cold for 7 hours without a bathroom break. Though that could be considered U.N. caused torture.
Something’s Rotten in Denmark … and East Anglia, Asheville, and New York City
By Joe D’Aleo CCM, AMS fellow
The familiar phrase was spoken by Marcellus in Shakespeare’s Hamlet — first performed around 1600, at the start of the Little Ice Age. “Something is rotten in the state of Denmark” is the exact quote. It recognizes that fish rots from the head down, and it means that all is not well at the top of the political hierarchy. Shakespeare proved to be Nostradamus. Four centuries later — at the start of what could be a new Little Ice Age — the rotting fish is Copenhagen.
The smell in the air may be from the leftover caviar at the banquet tables, or perhaps from the exhaust of 140 private jets and 1200 limousines commissioned by the attendees when they discovered there was to be no global warming evident in Copenhagen. (In fact, the cold will deepen and give way to snow before they leave, an extension of the Gore Effect.)
But the metaphorical stench comes from the well-financed bad science and bad policy, promulgated by the UN, and the complicity of the so-called world leaders, thinking of themselves as modern-day King Canutes (the Viking king of Denmark, England, and Norway — who ironically ruled during the Medieval Warm Period this very group has tried to deny). His flatterers thought his powers “so great, he could command the tides of the sea to go back.”
Unlike the warmists and the compliant media, Canute knew otherwise, and indeed the tide kept rising. Nature will do what nature always did — change.
It’s the data, stupid
If we torture the data long enough, it will confess. (Ronald Coase, Nobel Prize for Economic Sciences, 1991)
The Climategate whistleblower proved what those of us dealing with data for decades know to be the case — namely, data was being manipulated. The IPCC and their supported scientists have worked to remove the pesky Medieval Warm Period, the Little Ice Age, and the period emailer Tom Wigley referred to as the “warm 1940s blip,” and to pump up the recent warm cycle.
Attention has focused on the emails dealing with Michael Mann’s hockey stick and other proxy attempts, most notably those of Keith Briffa. Briffa was conflicted in this whole process, noting he “[tried] hard to balance the needs of the IPCC with science, which were not always the same,” and that he knew “ … there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards ‘apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data.’”
As Steve McIntyre has blogged:
Much recent attention has been paid to the email about the “trick” and the effort to “hide the decline.” Climate scientists have complained that this email has been taken “out of context.” In this case, I’m not sure that it’s in their interests that this email be placed in context because the context leads right back to … the role of IPCC itself in “hiding the decline” in the Briffa reconstruction.
In the area of data, I am more concerned about the coordinated effort to manipulate instrumental data (that was appended onto the proxy data truncated in 1960 when the trees showed a decline — the so called “divergence problem”) to produce an exaggerated warming that would point to man’s influence. I will be the first to admit that man does have some climate effect — but the effect is localized. Up to half the warming since 1900 is due to land use changes and urbanization, confirmed most recently by Georgia Tech’s Brian Stone (2009), Anthony Watts (2009), Roger Pielke Sr., and many others. The rest of the warming is also man-made — but the men are at the CRU, at NOAA’s NCDC, and NASA’s GISS, the grant-fed universities and computer labs.
Read the rest of the story at here
This was not an easy thing for Briffa, who was not unduly sceptical. In fact, his scientific understanding is way superior to his colleagues Jones and Mann – it is the latter two who prevailed after quite some contretemps between Briffa and Mann.
It can’t have been easy on poor Briffa who considered science more important than the demands of the hockey stick, such that he thought the MWP was probably as warm as today.
THE BBC STRIKE AGAIN! BLUE PETER A CHILDRENS PROGRAMME HAS JUST SHOWN A 10 MIN SEGMENT SHOWING JUST HOW CHILDREN ARE BEING BRAIN-WASHED MANY VIDEOS OF WORRIED KIDS IMPLORING THE ADULTS OF THE WORLD TO SAVE THE PLANET AT COPENHAGEN AND SAYING THAT OBVIOUSLY AN AGREEMENT MUST BE REACHED OR WE ARE ALL DOOMED…AND AN INTERVIEW WITH GORDON BROWN TO GIVE IT MORE GRAVITAS MY SON WAS TOLD AT SCHOOL THAT HE HAD TO QUOTE THE ‘CORRECT’ AGW ANSWER OR FAIL HIS EXAM..THIS IS TOTALITARIAN!!
Slippery figures.
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/london-sacrifices-virgins-after-centimetre-of-snow-200912162316/
“SOCIAL order crumbled and mass executions of sacrificial virgins were ordered as over a centimetre of snow fell in some parts of London today.
Putney virgins must dieAs temperatures plummeted mayor Boris Johnson abandoned snowbound boroughs and told them to fend for themselves and eat each other if necessary.
Johnson said: “We can’t save the people of Putney now, we can only pray that the gods spare them. All we can do is hope the blood of 100 virgins appeases the snow sprites and makes the roads usable once more…”
During the Great Climategate Debate recently at MIT, Ronald G. Prinn said that while the CRU email shennanigans have left the handle of the hockey stick broken, the blade, he argued, remains intact. He based this on, basically, an appeal to consensus. His point was that there are many independent studies all showing the same thing.
Prinn speaks and behaves as the most reasonable and objective of the warmists, but I wondered then how solid his grounds are for making such a statement. This article seems to suggest that Prinn may well be mistaken. Without access to the raw data unfortunately, all we can do is speculate.
(A link to the video can be found at the top of this Junkscience page.
http://junkscience.com/dec09.html)
Yes, I have long noticed that while the US and global trends are broadly similar, the US record has a big bump in the 30s while the global record shows a much smaller bump.
So it came as a hammer blow to read about “smoothing out” the 1940 bump in the global record. I will be VERY interested in seeing how US and global trends match up using raw data only (and including the now-excluded stations to the extent possible).
hehe – live from Copenhagen:
Denmark’s climate minister, Connie Hedegaard, has just resigned as head of the conference and turned the fiasco over to Danish Prime Minister Rasmussen. Amusingly Hedegaard is now claiming that she always meant to resign at this point. Oh, yes, resigning on the eve of your greatest accomplshment, I can see how that was always part of your plans.
“Great news – Copenhagen is a disaster!”
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/12/16/live-at-copenhagen-great-news-copenhagen-is-a-disaster/
and “Chaos at Climate Conference”
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30664.html
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/columns/updraft/
Tim Ball has another pop at Gore – he really is very annoyed.
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/18005
Mann made global warming is done by adjusting collected data.
If we study religions, men have claimed to influence weather by prayer, dances and other means for centuries. Men have also been blamed for adverse weather events. History says there “is nothing new under the sun”
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/columns/updraft/
This may or may not have worked last time…thought you might be interested.
According to the most recent news, the Copenhagen talks are deadlocked, riot police are beating people in the streets, and the US, China, the EU, and the G77 countries (the Global South) are all pulling in different directions. Read more here.
This is about what you’d expect from a labyrinthine bureaucratic circus with no truth at its core. While the delegates might end up signing something just to avoid the appearance of failure, it will be a weak and toothless agreement that will soon be forgotten. The diehard Warmers will not fail to notice: they will feel betrayed, stabbed in the back, let down once again by The Won. For the template of what’s to come, witness the Kos’ recent revolt from the Obama administration over the dropping of the public option.
I think the battle is being won by the skeptics, but let us remember that Middle Earth did not become a paradise the very second the Ring was cut from Sauron’s finger. The evil spawned by this menace continues to wander hither and yon over the earth, doing foul deeds; and the shadow will take shape in new forms.
Let us keep up the fight, for we’ve seen how desperate the Warmers can be. From Al Gore’s fact-free presentation to Tony Blair’s “The science does not matter,” we know that some of these folks will blather on until they’ve fired the last ramrod and hurled the last dead animal. The tipping point has been reached, but the great purge has yet to begin.
So now we have a campaign to claim coal is dirty and evil. So China while bringing another coal generated electric plant on line every 7-10 days, has told people they can’t burn coal for heat. Burn corn stalks. Burning corn stalks is a stupid and inferior farming practice. But communists aren’t rational.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6807678/Copenhagen-climate-summit-Can-China-get-by-without-coal.html
“Qinlao village has been given the unenviable task of making it through the winter, when temperatures can descend to -40C, without burning any coal. Instead, the villagers have been told they should burn the corn stalks left over from their harvest to keep warm.”
75% of heating and cooking in India and China comes from burning coal, wood, trash, charcoal or even dung. Often times the burning is unventilated.
****************
Vincent (09:35:22) :
During the Great Climategate Debate recently at MIT, Ronald G. Prinn said that while the CRU email shennanigans have left the handle of the hockey stick broken, the blade, he argued, remains intact. He based this on, basically, an appeal to consensus. His point was that there are many independent studies all showing the same thing.
Prinn speaks and behaves as the most reasonable and objective of the warmists, but I wondered then how solid his grounds are for making such a statement. This article seems to suggest that Prinn may well be mistaken. Without access to the raw data unfortunately, all we can do is speculate.
*************************
I watched that video. Unless he has access to all the TRULY RAW data, he can’t make any scientific statement concerning the instrumental temperature record. Without the raw data, there is no way to say if the currently claimed, “adjusted” temperature record is even reasonable. My feeling is that the instrumental readings of the last 100 years or so are worthless as an indicator of global warming.
Plato Says (09:33:10)
How are you going to find 100 virgins in Putney?
So Anthony, since the above essay shows no authorship; are we to assume this is your penmanship. I am often confused about who wrote what here sometimes. It’s nice to be able to put a name to good lines.
In keeping with the theme above, of exposing the “discrepancies”, perhaps it is appropriate to mention here the latest Jan 2010 issue of Scientific American with its News Scan Essay, under the Energy & Environment heading;
“Climate Numerology”
It’s a contorted effort to derive a suitable number for the ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere at which the present and coming human population can endure sustainably on this planet.
Well the essay includes citations from the usual suspects.
There’s Stephen Schneider of Stanford University. Next up to bat is one Gavin Schmidt of the NASA GISS, followed by a Wallace Broecker of Columbia University, along with NASA’s James Hansen, and Myles Allen from Oxford University.
Climate scientist Jon Foley of the University of Minnesota helped define safe climate limits for ten planets; which is mighty generous of him since we only know of eight real planets near us; but I suppose if you consider the asteroid belt to be a blown up planet (maybe climate got out of Foley’s limits), along with non-planet Pluto you would have ten.
But the National Academy of sciences has a panel that is going to decide what is a good level for “stabilization” targets.
Finally a Klaus Lockner at Columbia, is looking for somebody dumb enough to give him some money to build a machine to suck CO2 out of the atmosphere.
Now there’s a precious idea for you; mine the damn stuff; at nearly 400 ppm assay, it should be a profit making venture as you could sell the carbon credits.
Nobody knows whether any man made CO2 sucking machine would be more efficient that just letting 73% of the world covered by water, extract the CO2 for you, along with a good part of the remainder covered by forests and other growing plants.
One thing I learned form this essay, was that we owe Stephen Schneider for that wonderful term “Climate Sensitivity”, and here I thought it was Arhennius who invented that idea.
Inherent in the idea of “Climate Sensitivity” is that global temperature is simply a logarithmic function of CO2 abundance in the atmosphere; hence the idea of a constant temperature rise per octave of CO2.
There’s a problem with that idea though.
The CO2 warming mechanism, is that the earth surface emits long wave IR thermal radiation, approximately proportional to the 4th power of the temperature (Kelvins), and then CO2 molecules capture a portion of that emitted (roughly black body) spectrum, and transfer it to the atmospheric gases through collisions in the form of heating (air temperature rise). If you double the CO2, you increase the amount of that LWIR that is absorbed, and thereby increase the air temperature more.
Well there’s a serious problem with this model. The extreme range of observed surface temperatures (or lower atmosphere) observed all over the planet goes from as low as 183K (-90 C, -130F) up to at least 333 K (+60C, +140F), for a ratio of 1.82:1, which gives a 4th power ratio of 11:1, so presumably the “forcing” (I hate that term) due to CO2 in Watts/ square metre, covers an 11:1 range depending on whereabouts on earth you measure it. Pretty drastic variance for what is supposed to be a fundamental climate science physical constant. Now of course that 11 : 1 ratio of forcing translates back to only a 1.82:1 range of “Climate Sensitivity”; but it is still not a global constant.
So that means that to obtain some sort of globaly meaningful “climate sensitivity”, you would have to measure it in different places at different temperatures, with a proper sampling regimen or else even the average could not be measured properly.
The problem gets worse when you try to invoke that other band aid of climate sensitivity; the H2O “feedback” enhancement of CO2 warming. Hey what about the CO2 feedback of CO2 induced warming. More CO2 equals more ocean warming outgasses more CO2 and the whole thing runs away to infinity. Well probably not; but doesn’t CO2 have its own feedback; so why should it horn in on water’s greenhouse job. Water GHG heating can cause all the water feedback you need without invoking CO2.
But I said that this was a problem. Well you see, that the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere varies considerably depending on where you are and the temperature; and down there in the cold of Antarctica, you have some of the lowest water vapor concentrations on earth, and the rate of evaporation or sublimation is extremely low; so much for water feedback of the puny CO2 warming in that place. The hottest deserts of course, are also places of very low water content; so don’t count on much water feedback of CO2 climate sensitivity there either. The tropical oceanic regions though have plenty of moisture to enhance any CO2 warming, and screw up your measurment of local climate sensitivity; and in those places you also have that embarrassing phenomenon called clouds; which really fouls up the whole climate sensitivity notion.
Well I’m not sure, that I would want to be personally responsible for such a silly idea as “climate sensitivity”; but evidently Stephen Schneider gave it to us in the 1970s.
Well there are some other totally silly ideas in articles in this SA issue, including a front cover story on looking for life in the multiverse.
Now I take a very pragmatic view of the Universe. To me, anything of any sort, that we can detect by any means, no matter how bizarre that entity might be, is a part of THE universe. Anything that we cannot detect by any means no matter what, is certainly not a part of THE universe, and further more has no place in science. Science relates to the observable; not to the imaginable; which is the realm of science fiction; and the multiverse or parallel universes, is just that; fiction. It’s not even very good science fiction. These authors propose that in some other parallel universe , the laws of physics will be different, indeed any imaginable set of laws of physics must exist somewhere; somewhere unobservable I might add.
And only in some of these places is life possible.
For example if the proton were 0.2% heavier in one of these multiverse nodes, then hydrogen would decay into neutrons, and there would be no atoms, and hence no life.
Hey I thought that somewhere in this multiverse there must be any imaginable set of physical laws; so why not a law that says you can have life without protons or atoms.
The demise of hydrogen scenario that these authors describe, is a consequence of applying OUR physics to THEIR situation. I can’t imagine any good science fiction writer proposing anything so daft. They would, if they wanted atoms, make the proton stable regardless of its mass, simply by having local physics laws that permitted that.
The restrictions on this multiverse are simply naive in the extreme. If such extremophobes can exist somewhere yet be undetectable and unobservable; who cares if their own system would not be compatible with our laws of physics.
People actually get paid by Universities to write this stuff; I’m sure there isn’t any business out there in industry, doing a lot of lab work on the multiverse, in the hope of not finding some other unobservable life forms.
But fear not; Anna Eshoo (gesundheit!), one of the South Bay’s finest Democrats can find nothing better to do in Congress, than have the TV ads turned down to the same level as the programming. We are so lucky to be blessed with such leaders.
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/12/vast-nexus-of-influence.html
Try searching for Pachauri on the link & then see if you can control your temper.
The data manipulation is just the tip of the Climategate iceberg. The hockey stick was used to ‘calibrate’ the IPCC models that then predict even more global warming. Garbage in, gospel out. The whole concept of radiative forcing used in these models is invalid. The Earth’s climate is not in equilbrium, so radiative forcing perturbation theory does not even predict a real surface temperature. The fundamental assumption that there is a CO2 induced warming signature in the meteorogical record is incorrect. Put some real physical meaning into those radiative forcing constants. How does a 1.7 W.m-2 increase in downward atmospheric LWIR flux over 200 years cause any kind of climate change? The flux interacts with the ground, along with 0 to 1000 W.m-2 of solar flux and at least 0 to 50 W.m-2 of changes in cloud cover. The meterological thermometer is in an enclosure at eye level. It is incapable of detecting a flux change of 1.7 Wm-2 in a 0 to 1050 W.m-2 signal on the ground below. The long term changes in the meteorological temperature record are from variations ocean surface temperatures. That’s where our weather comes from!
By the way, it is also impossible for that 1.7 W.m-2 of IR flux to warm the ocean. The penetration depth for LWIR radiation into water is less than 100 micron. Thats the width of a human hair. Only the sun can heat the ocean. Just count those sunspots. An index of 100 is + 1 W.m-2. Look at the satellite radiometer data (try VIRGO). That’s all it takes. The ocean just accumulates the solar flux below the surface, and then sends it to the poles. If a 1 W.m-2 flux heats a 100 m column of water with an area of 1 m^2 for 1 year the temperature rise is 0.075 C. 0.4 W.m-2 over 10,000 years is enough to end an ice age.
Shut down down those IPCC climate astrology models and remove the radiative forcing components. The question then is how much of the rest of the climate simulation code has been ‘adjusted’? And what jail sentences should be handed out for fraud? Remember Bernie Madoff. This is just a giant environmental Ponzi scheme. Make room for Al Gore and Hansen et al. and Jones et al. and Mann et al. and Solomon et al. etc. etc. 150 years each, minimum.
“…’Tis the thing behind the mask I chiefly hate; the malignant thing that has plagued mankind since time (and socialism) began; the thing that maws and mutilates our race, not killing us outright but letting us live on, with half a heart and half a lung. “ – Moby Dick –
It’s what’s behind the mask, Matt, that you may be warning about. The reason for all the lying, cheating, data-altering, etc. The reason that – like Blair stated – “The science doesn’t matter”.
AGW never was the thing being battled. Free-market capitalism and Western lifestyles is what’s being fought – and what they wish to destroy.
Someone’s been into my data porridge too, said the little bear. They forged observation forms and substituted them. I can tell, said the little bear, because the real ones are old and dirty, but the fake ones are shiny white in Adobe Reader, and they aren’t signed.
Yes said the older bear, they don’t match my newspaper.
Take thier lumps of coal away from them, said mama bear, and beat them with a willow switch.
The U.N.’s IPCC team applies smoothing techniques to remove
the Medieval Warming Period.
Another U.N success story: Green jobs in Myanmar (Burma).
“During the Great Climategate Debate recently at MIT, Ronald G. Prinn said that while the CRU email shennanigans have left the handle of the hockey stick broken, the blade, he argued, remains intact. He based this on, basically, an appeal to consensus. His point was that there are many independent studies all showing the same thing.”
First, someone should point out to him that a hockey stick without a handle is a boomerrang. 🙂
Second, the handle of the hockeystick is absolutely necessary to the AGW hysteria. Without it, the most you can say is that it is warmer now than a few years ago. To which the appropriate response is “So what?”
The only way they can get into your wallet and tell you how to live your life is to claim that “Its warmer now than it has ever, ever been!!!!” and “If we dont ACT NOW, we are going to reach a tipping point!!! WE WILL ALL DIE!!!!”
They need the handle. That is why the handle has been defended so ardently, and as we know, scurrilously.
A little OT – So far the economic side of global cooling has been little discussed. In warm sunny weather people go out more and food costs less. Vice versa when its cold and cloudy. Global cooling has begun and will accellerate in the next decade. Does this cooling have a role in the current economic downturn? Did warming during the 80s and 90s contribute to the boom times? If the effect is significant, what does it bode for the chances of countries like UK and USA in front of their Chinese bank managers asking for extended overdratfs?
Tiles (10:34:06) :
How are you going to find 100 virgins in Putney?
Bah.. beaten to it again.
[REPLY – Hmm. Would you settle for Virgos? ~ Evan]
Joe,
“Canute” was spelt “Cnut” in Viking.
You are right, they are all a bunch of Cnut’s
George E. Smith (10:36:28) :
(…) Finally a Klaus Lockner at Columbia, is looking for somebody dumb enough to give him some money to build a machine to suck CO2 out of the atmosphere.
Perhaps we could sell him plants or something as a design template. Big overgrown plants or perhaps billions of “nano” plants working in tandem to some common goal. It could just work, think of the patent fee’s.
Climate scientist Jon Foley of the University of Minnesota helped define safe climate limits for ten planets (…) Water (…)
Speaking of Venus (which nobody did), has anybody ever calculated the theoretical surface temperature of Earth if it had the same orbit as Venus? I’m assuming here that our 1.4 billion km^3 of liquid water is now the atmosphere and busily having it’s evil “greenhouse” way with us.
I think my preference would be to somewhat lower ones standards rather than be sacrificed.
Being sacrificed is generally seen as a poor career move anyway.
“You are right, they are all a bunch of Cnut’s”
Not at all.
Cnut’s commanding of the waves was an exercise in public humility, staged to convince people who thought he was divine that he wasnt.
This is precisely the opposite action and motive behind the acts of the high priests of ‘global warming’.
I am still waiting for the model which will reliably and accurately portray future cloud cover density and reflective properties.
Or even past cloud cover density.
Or the propensity of the atmosphere to form contrails. That would be a winner, as it would be so easy to falsify.
I am also waiting for the study which shows which proxies accurately correspond to the alleged temperature records from 1840-1990.
The Iowahawk reconstruction certainly does a poor job of a good regression correlation between proxies and actual(?) temperatures in that time period.
Also let me remind the readers here that CO2 absorbs radiated energy in only specific energy bands, and not across the entire radiative spectrum.
Henry chance (09:53:31) :
In our business, Michael, you have just the smallest window to make your escape…
lol – UK John, brilliant play on word… !
JJ, brilliant way to lend credibility to it!
Now I have to get my monitor at work cleaned… too much coffee spray 🙂
In order to maintain standards at WUWT – I am forced to resort to the 5th amendment (if we had one in the UK). Anyone who has been to Putney and also has the best interests of WUWT at heart should do likewise. As the UN brochure points out, great progress and Putney are indeed synonymous.
JJ,
… not such a complete Cnut then, was he!
I didn’t realise that Australia was now part of Tuvalu, but one would almost think so from Ian Fry’s speech at COP15:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/tuvalu-no-longer-small-fry-on-world-stage/story-e6frg6so-1225811159361
This chap lives in Australia, not Tuvalu, and here is his ANU link:
http://www.anu.edu.au/climatechange/content/author/Fry
Professional advocate for hire I guess.
PS> You have to laughed when COP15 has the Aussie climate change minister jeered and Hugo Chavez cheered:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/politics/penny-wong-jeered-hugo-chavez-cheered/story-e6frgczf-1225811179614
I am not taking bets but I would say the odds of any sort of significant, binding agreement by Friday are next to nothing.
Yahoo continues to do its bit to vilify all sceptics as complicit with attacks on Galileo: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091216/ap_on_re_us/climate_experts_under_fire.
Johnson said: All we can do is hope the blood of 100 virgins appeases the snow sprites and makes the roads usable once more…”
>>>>> Pssst. I can arrange it so you don’t have to take part in the virgin sacrifice next week…..
BBC newsnight tonight has two climate alarmist scientists and 30 sceptical members of the public. The challenge is for the scientists to convert the sceptics into believers. IF the BBC was impartial, then they would have a sceptical and an warmists on and present both sides and then give the jury their say.
This is blatant propaganda.
This is not Iran, this is Copenhagen…
No matter what you think about CO2, this is not right.
I suggested to Andrew Bolt that Rudd should prove his green credentials after being labelled a sceptic, by declining to come home by VIP jet. He could swim instead, or even walk on the water.
Having made their pilgrimage to the Viking homelands, I hope all the Cnuts stay there.
Re Tony Blair’s “The science does not matter”.
Jan 2008 : Tony Blair will earn around £2 million a year in his part-time role as adviser to the Wall Street bank JP Morgan without ever having to go into the office, The Daily Telegraph has learnt.
JP Morgan would make lots of money trading carbon credits!
2 million US jobs may be lost with cap and trade, but that is hardly relevant!
All good pigs know where the best troughs are.
Ken Hall (15:27:59) :
“BBC newsnight tonight has two climate alarmist scientists and 30 sceptical members of the public. The challenge is for the scientists to convert the sceptics into believers. IF the BBC was impartial, then they would have a sceptical and an warmists on and present both sides and then give the jury their say.
This is blatant propaganda.”
Maybe, but I’d love to hear the follow up on this. Previous debates with alamrists/warmists in front of a majority warmist audience have ended up with the skeptics winning over the audience. That’s one major reason they stopped the debating… they always lost.
Josh,
That finding in your link is based on the CRU data. I left a comment, but like all lefty sites, it is moderated to prevent contrary opinion from getting on, but what about the concept, if the CRU data is suspect, any findings based on it are suspect? Does this stuff just fly right over your head?
Huh? Over my head? I’m on *your* team…was posting for interest, as there is previous history between Updraft in this blog. Carry on.
*and this blog, sorry.
(I was hoping that Huttner would address some of this stuff directly, but alas…)
Yeah, Huttner was at it again today. On air he was even worse when he pulled out the “9 of the hottest years ever were in the last decade.” Your comment should post. If it doesn’t, please post back here so I can relay that to MPR the next membership drive…
It should be noted that Hamlet was certainly performed long before 1600. References to a play of that name, while sometimes supposed, on the basis of what same kind of irrational assumptions that now lead the crusade against global warming, to be a different and lost play by the same name, go back at least to 1589.
Most likely a primitive version of Hamlet, surviving in the copy known as Hamlet Q1, published in 1603, goes back to the early 1580s. A long delay between date of writing and date of first publication is common in plays of the period. Over half of Shakespeare’s plays were not published until 1623, two decades after they were (mostly) written.
Cheers,
Psi
more information:
http://www.shakespearefellowship.org
http://www.shake-speares-bible.com
http://www.briefchronicles.com
Paul Huttner seems like a nice guy, I like listening to him on the radio and I like reading his blog, but he does seem like he’s deliberately ignoring things that are being well-covered over here, at Icecap, etc. I post on Updraft occasionally, and he must think I’m trolling, but I’m really not…I guess I feel, naively, that maybe he just isn’t hip to the new stuff? *shrugs*
In case it isn’t perfectly clear for everybody, the excellent essay above is by Joseph D’Aleo BS, MS (Meteorology, University of Wisconsin), Doctoral Studies (NYU), Executive Director – ICECAP [http://icecap.us] (International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project), Fellow of the AMS, College Professor Climatology/Meteorology, First Director of Meteorology The Weather Channel, Hudson, New Hampshire, U.S.A.
From Climate Science: Roger A. Pielke Sr.:
It [D’Aleo’s essay] very effectively summarizes a number of major issues with the quality of the land portion of the long-term surface temperature trend record that was used in the 2007 IPCC report, and is being assumed as robust at the current Copenhagen meeting.
I recommend this article for anyone who wants to see how really bad this temperature data is with respect to its application to the quantitative assessment of long-term surface temperature trends.
Joe D’Aleo is a climate realist champion, and his essays are required reading.
GiGo- Garbage In Garbage Out- has been replaced by SiGo- Science In Garbage Out.
When a profession (aka Guild in Mideval terms) fails to police itself it decays and discentegrates. When people begin to associate the integrity of an entire range of related professions (ie Science) with any one of its parts (ie Climatology) there’s little chance of escape or reversal. Anyone associated with the guilds of “Science” at the beginning of the 21st Century has been smeared by the decay within the guild of Climatology. This is a job for the “Pros” within the Guilds, not a bunch of idiot politicians, or the media. Hurry! Things are really getting rotten.
Josh (09:48:35) : said
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/columns/updraft/
“NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center (CPC) 90 Day Outlook shows a higher possibility of warmer than average temperatures over the northern U.S.
That’s their story and they’re sticking to it….”
We have snow in central NC once ever five years or so. So far we already had one snowfall this winter and we get another three inches tomorrow…. I want my global Warming…WHAAaaaaa
Henry chance (10:06:22) :said
….So now we have a campaign to claim coal is dirty and evil. So China while bringing another coal generated electric plant on line every 7-10 days, has told people they can’t burn coal for heat. Burn corn stalks. Burning corn stalks is a stupid and inferior farming practice. But communists aren’t rational….”
You have that right. Better to feed those corn stalks to cows or pigs or goats to produce food. During the drought here in NC, farmers put their corn up as round bales and fed the whole plant to their cattle since they did not have enough hay.
Sounds like the bureaucrats want to cull more of the human herd again since we no longer have Stalin or Hitler to do it.
phlogiston (11:31:46) : said
A little OT – So far the economic side of global cooling has been little discussed. In warm sunny weather people go out more and food costs less. Vice versa when its cold and cloudy. Global cooling has begun and will accellerate in the next decade. Does this cooling have a role in the current economic downturn? Did warming during the 80s and 90s contribute to the boom times? If the effect is significant, what does it bode for the chances of countries like UK and USA in front of their Chinese bank managers asking for extended overdratfs?
Farmers have been wondering if the recent developments we have been seeing in the last decade are designed to force us off our land so the big corporations (and China) can move in.
Perhaps that is why there are so many “Food Folly” bills in congress this year. They include things like $1,000,000 a day fines if you screw up the paper work and regulations similar to those required to manufacture drugs. The FDA, WTO and ISO just recycled cGMP (Good Manufacturing Practices) and applied it to farming. Security fences, sign in sheets, written procedures, recording of lot numbers…. and one bill had wording that included your home garden!
England and the EU has already gotten stuck with these regs and one British farmer reported he now spends 60% of his time doing paperwork. That doubles the cost of producing food but unless you sell direct you have to take the sale price a Mega-corporation tells you they will pay. The squeeze and regs have forced many farmers out of business worldwide and we will be seeing it here in the USA. Couple that with the mortgage crisis and the USA government will end up owning most of the US farmland. Then the bureaucrats can exchange it for our Chinese debt. Friends in OK reported the Japanese were going from ranch to ranch buying up land a decade ago so it does happen.
Ken Hall (15:27:59) : said
“BBC newsnight tonight has two climate alarmist scientists and 30 sceptical members of the public. The challenge is for the scientists to convert the sceptics into believers. IF the BBC was impartial, then they would have a sceptical and an warmists on and present both sides and then give the jury their say.
This is blatant propaganda….”
Let’s hope those “30 sceptical members of the public” are avid readers of WUWT and have photographic memories… I would love to see sceptic “lay people” trounce those scientists.
Gail –
Scroll down a bit; I was trying to link to a post about 2009 being one of the warmest years ever. I should have linked to it directly, sorry!
The Twin Cities are running at least 4 degrees below average this December.
Huttner mentioned talking to Trenberth tonight on the drive home. Unfortunately, while I expect he will continue to pay lip service to science and open dialogue, I think it’s safe to say that no amount of evidence short of a glacier arriving at his residence in Minnetonka/Chanhassen/(Chaska?) (not entirely sure which) will convince him of the doubts about AGW.