Bob Carter with a down under view of climate science

The science of deceit

Guest post by Dr. Bob Carter, originally posted at Quadrant online

Orwell_universal_deceit

T-shirt available from zazzle - click for info

Science is about simplicity

A well-accepted aphorism about science, in the context of difference of opinion between two points of view, is “Madam, you are entitled to your own interpretation, but not to your own facts”.

The world stoker of the fires of global warming alarmism, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), cleverly suborns this dictum in two ways.

First, the IPCC accepts advice from influential groups of scientists who treat the data that underpins their published climate interpretations (collected, of course, using public research funds) as their own private property, and refuse to release it to other scientists.

Thus, confronted in 1996 with a request that he provide a U.S. peer-review referee with a copy of the data that underpinned a research paper that he had submitted, U.K. Hadley Climate Research Centre scientist Tom Wigley responded:

First, it is entirely unnecessary to have original “raw” data in order to review a scientific document. I know of no case at all in which such data were required by or provided to a referee ….. Second, while the data in question [model output from the U.K. Hadley Centre’s climate model] were generated using taxpayer money, this was U.K. taxpayer money. U.S. scientists therefore have no a priori right to such data. Furthermore, these data belong to individual scientists who produced them, not to the IPCC, and it is up to those scientists to decide who they give their data to.

In the face of such attitudes, which treat the established mores of scientific trust and method with contempt, it is scarcely surprising that it took Canadian statistics expert Steve McIntyre many years to get the primary data released that was used by another Hadley Centre scientist, Keith Briffa, in his published tree-ring reconstructions of past temperature from the Urals region, northern hemisphere. When he finally forced the release of the relevant data, McIntyre quickly proceeded to slay a second climate hockey-stick dragon which – like the first such beast fashioned by U.S. scientist Michael Mann, and widely promulgated by the IPCC – turned out to be based on faulty statistical methodology (see summary by Ross McKitrick here).

A variant on this, along “the dog ate my homework” path, also involves the Hadley Centre – which is the primary science provider of global temperature statistics to the IPCC. Faced with requests from outside scientists for the provision of the raw temperature data so that scientific audit checks could be undertaken, Hadley’s Phil Jones recently asserted that parts of the raw data used to reconstruct their global temperature curve for the period before about 1980 cannot be provided to outsiders because it has been lost or destroyed. In other words, it is now impossible to conduct an independent audit of the Hadley temperature curve for 1860-2008, on which the IPCC has based an important part of its alarmist global warming advice.

So much for data perversions. The second type of common distortion of normal scientific practice by the IPCC and its supporters concerns not data but hypotheses – which IPCC likes to define in its own way to suit its own ends. This attitude often manifests itself in the fashion expressed in a recent letter sent to me, viz:

Proponents of AGW claim that their theory is supported by peer reviewed literature whilst the case against it is not. This is a very effective argument and, although Solomon’s book The Deniers goes some way to counter it, I am not aware of an equally effective refutation. If there is one I would be most grateful if you could point me to it.

In an Australian variation of this, Greg Combet, assistant to climate Minister Penny Wong, earlier this year asserted with blatant inaccuracy that “we use only peer reviewed science and our opposition doesn’t”. Other IPCC sycophants phrase it slightly differently, such as: “if you climate sceptics had a scientific point of view it would have been published in reputable, peer-reviewed journals“.

Statements such as these all reflect a fundamental lack of understanding about the way that science works. They also exemplify the way in which climate alarmists always seek to frame the debate in ways that delivers them control, especially by clever choice of language (clean energy; climate change instead of global warming; carbon dioxide is a pollutant instead of a beneficial trace gas, etc.), or, in this case, by framing a hypothesis for testing that suits their political ends rather than Science’s ends.Klaus_Carter_article

If you accept at face value questions and comments like the ones enumerated above, you fall into a carefully laid climate alarmist trap. For the question “why are there no papers in peer-reviewed journals that disprove the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming” is predicated, as is all related IPCC writing, on faulty science logic; specifically, it erects a wrong null hypothesis.

Scientists erect hypotheses to test based upon the fundamental science assumption of parsimony, or simplicity, sometimes grandly referred to as Occam’s Razor. That is to say, in seeking to explain matters of observation or experiment, a primary underlying principle is that the simplest explanation be sought; extraneous or complicating factors of interpretation, such as “extraterrestrials did it”, are only invoked when substantive evidence exists for such a complication.

Concerning the climate change that we observe around us today – which, importantly, is occurring at similar rates and magnitudes to that known to have occurred throughout the historical and geological past – the simplest (and therefore null) hypothesis, is that “the climate change observed today is natural unless and until evidence accrues otherwise”.

In regard to which, first, no such evidence has emerged. And, second, like any null hypothesis, that about modern climate change is there to be tested, as it has been. There are literally tens of thousands of peer-reviewed papers in major scientific journals that contain observations, data, experiments and theoretical reasoning that are consistent with the null hypothesis, which has therefore yet to be falsified (but, of course, one day might be).

The onus is therefore on Penny Wong and her scientists to provide some “evidence otherwise”. To give a clue how hard that task is, note that since 1988 (when the IPCC was created) western nations have spent more than $100 billion, and employed thousands of scientists, in attempts to measure the human signal in the global temperature record. The search has failed. Though no scientist doubts that humans influence climate at local level – causing both warmings (urban heat island effect) and coolings (land-use changes) – no definitive evidence has yet been discovered that a human influence is measurable, let alone dangerous, at global level. Rather, the human signal is lost in the noise of natural climate variation.

That the correct null hypothesis is the simplest hypothesis is, of course, no reason why other more complex hypotheses cannot be erected for testing. For instance, should you wish to test (as the IPCC should) the idea that “human carbon dioxide emissions are causing dangerous global warming”, then there are several ways that that can be done.

The result, long ago, has been the falsification of the dangerous human-caused warming hypothesis. Failed tests include: that global cooling has occurred since 1998 despite an increase in carbon dioxide of 5%; the lack of detailed correlation between the carbon dioxide and temperature records over the last 100 years; consideration of cause and effect timing of past carbon dioxide and temperature levels in ice core records; the absence of the model-predicted temperature hotspot high in the tropical troposphere; the low sensitivity of climate to carbon dioxide forcing as judged against empirical tests; and the demonstrable failure of computer GCMs to predict future climate.

These matters, and that the dangerous warming hypothesis fails numerous empirical tests, have been described in many places. Such writings, whether in refereed journals or not, are simply disparaged or ignored by those who wish to pursue the alarmist IPCC line.

It bears repeating that the onus is on Minister Wong, or her advisory IPCC scientists, to provide any evidence that the null hypothesis regarding modern climate change is false. Because she cannot do so, the clever trick is used of inverting the null hypothesis to demand that climate rationalist scientists demonstrate that human-cased global warming is not occurring.

Perhaps none of this would matter particularly were we dealing only with a squabble amongst scientists. But when ministers in our governments write, as did the Queensland Minister for Climate Change recently, that “The Queensland Government, along with the Australian Government and governments around the world, supports the findings of the IPCC”, it becomes a critical matter of necessity to understand that, in addition to being political in the first place, IPCC advice is also based upon faulty, indeed manipulative, science practice.

As independent scientific advisors to Senator Fielding have shown, the IPCC-derived science advice that the Australian Government is using as the basis for its carbon dioxide tax legislation is utterly flawed. This finding has yet to be rebutted.

Senators who vote for the second version of the misbegotten and misnamed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme bill will be supporting strongly harmful legislation that is based upon faulty science. Thereby, they will be abandoning their duty of care for the welfare of the Australian people.

DISCLOSURE: Bob Carter is one of the four independent climate scientists who, at Senator Fielding’s request, undertook a due diligence audit of the global warming advice being provided to Climate Minister Penny Wong by her Department. The three other scientists were David Evans, Stewart Franks and Bill Kininmonth.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
terrymn

Excellent article. Nobody can cook the books forever – this will come out in the main stream sooner or later.

The “hiding” of raw data is patently wrong and should be patently offensive to any good faith scientist.
Yes, I understand the desire to receive credit for the work product, but once the paper has been published, or put into the public domain, other scientists must, and I repeat must, be alllowed to see all data used in the paper in question.
That is protocol is even questioned by certain scientists and various groups leads to questions about their motives.
Any conclusion based on “secret” data is rightly perceived to be suspect…

Bill Drissel

Is the word, “suborn”, a typo here? Perhaps another word is meant.

geoffchambers

You say:
“Hadley’s Phil Jones recently asserted that parts of the raw data used to reconstruct their global temperature curve for the period before about 1980 cannot be provided to outsiders because it has been lost or destroyed”.
The raw data in this case can only be thermometer readings. Have they really been lost or destroyed, or is it just the method of “reconstruction” which has gone missing? In the latter case, Jones and his associates have simply shown themselves to be incompetent bunglers. In the former case, they should be immediately sacked, and then prosecuted in the civil courts.

Bulldust

Nothing wrong with suborn …. I assume the interpretation here is as in “to corrupt.”
Hi Bob, good to see you here (I sent the email the other day to yourself and Sen Fielding re. broken Briffa rings). I think you’ll find you are largely preaching to the choir here, but I welcome the summary assessment of the perverted science to date.
I have felt put off for some time about the manner in which the IPCC and their supporters continually state their hypotheses as if proven, calling on “deniers” to prove it ain’t so. You stated it somewhat more elouently than I of course… Clearly, this is not how science works… man made forcings to the climate remain innocent until such time the AGW mob can convincingly reject a null hpothesis to the contrary.
This is not how they chose to fight, however, continually moving from topic to topic to keep the real scientists busy while they frame the policy for the public. Clever politically, but it has nothing to do with science. But getting this message to the public who swallow advertising promoting shampoos that have “light-reflecting technology” is another matter altogether.
Perhaps if we all start using that shampoo we can raise the albedo of the planet and reduce rampant warming?


Bill Drissel (17:25:51) :
Is the word, “suborn”, a typo here? Perhaps another word is meant.

Given the
accessable definitions produced by a Google search,
I think ‘suborn’ is meant, and fits quite squarely so …
From what video I have seen of Bob Carter, he does not mince or misuse words.
.
.

AlexB

A very nice summary of the issue, thank you Dr Carter. Public misconception of the scientific method and the peer-review process is causing a lot of issues. Where are the peer-reviewed papers that say aliens aren’t causing global warming?
There is one problem with your argument though. While logical and well put it is reasonably complex. Trying to introduce a complex argument into a political debate is like trying to build a house of cards in front of a 2 year old.
While I admire what you are doing I do not envy you.

David Walton

With ethical scientists like Dr. Bob Carter speaking out, the scientific method and the reputation of science as a whole may survive the extreme damage and disservice done to it by IPCC, Hadley, and GISS activists, charlatans, and frauds.
This enormous black mark will never be erased, nor should it. The best science can hope for is that it serves to instruct future generations of how contempt for the scientific method spreads like a virulent and destructive pathogen.

oMan

I second GeoffChambers’ comment (17:33:15). If they had spent the taxpayer’s money on, say, a building; and had failed to insure the building against loss; and the building had burnt; why should they not face charges in civil and, probably, criminal law? In the case of datasets built or bought with public money, the case would seem to be just as strong; if not stronger, because anybody who has spent any time with computers knows that they will ruin or lose data if at all possible, thus backups upon backups are the minimum standard of prudence. What sort of dog ate the homework? And why was it allowed near the kitchen table?

Ron de Haan

Bob Carter knows exactly what he is talking about and his findings are consistent with those presented by Lord Moncton.
This has been a bad week for the UN IPCC because a whole lot of people have woken up to the scam after Moncton made the UN plans for a World Government public at a his St. Paul’s Minnesota presentation.
The Youtube video of his speech drew over a million hits within a week and the Switchboards operators from the Senate and Congress were swamped with phone calls from worried Americans.
Moncton’s offensive is not finished.
Friday he will be interviewed at Fox together with Bolton.
Moncton’s revelation comes at the right moment.
The early record breaking cold weather in Central Europe and the USA, the continuous stream of fine articles (like this one) at the skeptic blogs and the publication of the polls this week, showing a free fall in the number of AGW believers, this all is bad news for Copenhagen.
It happens despite the gigantic wave of AGW propaganda that is poured out over the heads of the people.
After two cold winters and an ever rising alarmism in the AGW propaganda, people were smelling a rat for a long time.
Moncton has shown them the rotting corps of the rat that is causing the smell.
People don’t like what’s revealed to them.
Now millions ar searching the web, visiting blogs, reading the treaties and the comments.
The opportunistic AGW lobby, preparing their devious plans in isolation, now have come into the spotlight of the masses. People are beginning to understand that their freedom is at stake.
The genie is out of the bottle.

Henry chance

Tom Wigley responded:
First, it is entirely unnecessary to have original “raw” data in order to review a scientific document.
Then it is a fairy tale. Fairy tales do not provide real names and raw data.

Shurley Knot

Your link to a “slain dragon” points to an editorial at the Financial Post. I’m sure this is an honest mistake.
In the face of such attitudes, which treat the established mores of scientific trust and method with contempt
Y’all are projecting furiously again!

Ron de Haan

Bob Carter knows exactly what he is talking about and his findings are consistent with those presented by Lord Moncton.
This has been a bad week for the UN IPCC because a whole lot of people have woken up to the scam after Moncton made the UN plans for a World Government public at a his St. Paul’s Minnesota presentation.
The Youtube video of his speech drew over a million hits within a week and the Switchboards operators from the Senate and Congress were swamped with phone calls from worried Americans.
Moncton’s offensive is not finished.
Friday he will be interviewed at Fox together with Bolton.
Moncton’s revelation comes at the right moment.
The early record breaking cold weather in Central Europe and the USA, the continuous stream of fine articles (like this one) at the skeptic blogs and the publication of the polls this week, showing a free fall in the number of AGW believers, this all is bad news for Copenhagen.
It happens despite the gigantic wave of AGW propaganda that is poured out over the heads of the people.
After two cold winters and an ever rising alarmism in the AGW propaganda, people were smelling a rat for a long time.
Moncton has shown them the rotting corps of the rat that is causing the smell.
People don’t like what’s revealed to them.
Now millions are searching the web, visiting blogs, reading the treaties and the comments.
The opportunistic AGW lobby, preparing their devious plans in isolation, now have come into the spotlight of the masses. People are beginning to understand that their freedom is at stake.
The genie is out of the bottle.

Deanster

I have a question. OK .. so Jone’s lost the data. However, did Jones lose the method as well?? If not .. isn’t it possible applying the method in reverse to generate a pretty good approximation of the raw data??
Seems to me it wouldn’t be that much of a stretch.

b_C @ YOW

In the interest of providing ready ammunition for the non-scientists among us, to counter AGW hysteria in whatever context it may present itself, perhaps it would serve readers well if WUWT could begin to compile, display and update, a concise – official, even – list of exposed flaws, deceits, errors, omissions, recalcitrances, cherry-pickings, intellectual dishonesties, disingenuous argumetation and/or other dastardly deeds to date of the “science” that has become grist for the IPPC mill.

Oliver Ramsay

I think “suborn”, in this case, is semantically accurate, but syntactically dubious.
The object of the verb “suborn” could be the wrong-doer or the wrong-doing, but not the action or principle that should have prevailed, had the subornment not taken place.

Robert Wood

The Aussies are fighting on the front line. The Rudd government has no policy BUT “Global Warming”; they are otherwise politically vacuous, having been elected on the basis that the previous government had been in power for too long.
Aussies are sensible people, some may say too sensible; but they are not stupid; they know when they are being fed BS.
Now, as to Canada, the current federal government has made nods, winks and gestures toward the IPCC position of imflamed cataclism, but are moving slowly on promises. They are dealing with the international hysteria and awaiting it to expire. Rudd is leading the hysteria and getting more desperate as it fails to ignite the destruction of Western civilization.

Malcolm Hill

Wouldnt it be great if a copy was sent to the ABC’s Journalists in Australia, and they read and understood it.
People like Kerry O’brien,Tony Jones and even Robin Williams the so called science reporter for the ABC, would be doing the tax payer a real service, by at least bothering to do some home work before they display their own biases and at times, outright rudeness.

SkepticMom

Great article. I couldn’t help but think of a criminal trial as analogy. It’s as if AGW skeptics are on trial, presumed guilty, and must prove their innocence beyond a reasonable doubt.

Perhaps the simplest explanation ought to be accepted. The thermometers move to warmer places. Oddly, while for the world as a whole, the thermometers on average start out north and cold and move to the south; in Australia, they start out SOUTH and cold, and move to the north:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/10/23/gistemp-aussy-fair-go-and-far-gone/
Now one could speculate as to what might motivate Aussy thermometers to move north when most others are moving south… but that would be wrong 😉
And I’m sure it has nothing to do with the folks who manage the GHCN data set…

Paul Linsay

Off the top of my head, a list of some scientists whose work was never peer reviewed before publication. Add your own.
Galileo, Newton, Leibniz, Hooke, Cavendish, Volta, Ampere, Ohm, Oersted, Faraday, Henry, Hamilton, Maxwell, Lorentz, Minkowsky, Poincare, Einstein.

Deanster (19:07:08) :
I have a question. OK .. so Jone’s lost the data. However, did Jones lose the method as well?? If not .. isn’t it possible applying the method in reverse to generate a pretty good approximation of the raw data??
Seems to me it wouldn’t be that much of a stretch.

Average 100 numbers together with a weighting factor (each gets an added 0.1 of the next one). Now loose the 100 numbers. Please turn “42” back into the original 100 numbers. I’ll wait…

Patrick Davis

Great write up, but you won’t find it anywhere in Australian MSM.
““Madam, you are entitled to your own interpretation, but not to your own facts”.”
Reminds me of the scene from the Monty Python film “The Meaning of Life”, in birthing room scene, with the machine that goes ping. The woman in labur asks is she can help. To which the Doctor (John Cleese) responds by saying she was not qualified. LMAO…
Anyway, there is a song played on radio, don’t ask me th eband name or title, but some of the opening lyrics are quite profound I feel. Here is the fragment, and I think it is mostly correct;
“Greenbelts wrapped around our minds. Red tape to keep the truth confined”

John F. Hultquist

Dr. Carter: I’ve read a few of your earlier (and somewhat similar) materials. This, I think, is the best yet.
Thanks!
John
~~~~~~~~~~~~
oMan (18:32:04) : “failed to insure the building”
You need a new analogy – Most public buildings are not insured as there are so many of them; so the idea seems to be to simply repair or replace as need be. Or so I am told.
b_C @ YOW (19:11:47) : “if WUWT could begin to compile…”
I suspect many will say this is being done by WUWT and in some ways it is. However in the sense of your request the appropriate place would seem to be the Department of Justice (or non-US equivalent) with legions of lawyers and a gushing spigot of money and the means to make their findings “official.” Namely, they could file charges and go to court. I don’t think you can expect “official” and “court” from Anthony’s and others’ efforts with their posts here at WUWT.
From the posted text: “A well-accepted aphorism about science, in the context of difference of opinion between two points of view, is “Madam, you are entitled to your own interpretation, but not to your own facts”.
This thought is often attributed to US Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan:
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own fact” – quoted in Robert Sobel’s review of Past Imperfect: History According to the Movies, edited by Mark C. Carnes;
this from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Patrick_Moynihan#Quotes

HankHenry

The peculiar use of words that jumps out at me is Tom Wrigley’s “a priori right.” I think maybe Tom fell asleep in his epistemology class and woke up in the middle of an ethics/law lecture.

P Wilson

Paul Linsay (19:49:12)
Off the top of my head, Galileo was in fact peer reviewed, and was sent to the inquisition.

philincalifornia

geoffchambers (17:33:15) :
You say:
“Hadley’s Phil Jones recently asserted that parts of the raw data used to reconstruct their global temperature curve for the period before about 1980 cannot be provided to outsiders because it has been lost or destroyed”.
The raw data in this case can only be thermometer readings. Have they really been lost or destroyed, or is it just the method of “reconstruction” which has gone missing? In the latter case, Jones and his associates have simply shown themselves to be incompetent bunglers. In the former case, they should be immediately sacked, and then prosecuted in the civil courts.
———————-
How many $200 1 terabyte hard drives, besides one, would be required to archive this data that was on megabyte-sized hard drives previously.
Errrrmmmm …… Your Honour

John Phillips

When scientific theories are developed concerning things that have no immediate impact on humans, the science peer review process or no review process at all is acceptable. Examples are the theories on the origins of the universe and sub-atomic building blocks. Thats the way it should be to allow free thinking and to ensure good ideas are not buried. But when it gets to the point that there will be a human impact, many times, a more formal, structured oversight process is imposed. The research and development of pharmecuticals and nuclear generated power comes to mind. The US has the Food and Drug Administration and the Nuclear Regulatory Administration.
Since we all don’t have time to get Phds in a climate science related field, but they want us to believe we need to stop burning fossile fuels, a truly independent oversight agency is needed for the climate change science so that we can all buy into it or not.
After the Three Mile Island and Chernoble accidents, the oversight of nuclear power generation and nuclear weapons was strengthened considerably in the U S. The scientists and engineers believed that oversight was needed for plant operators who pushed buttons and operated valves, but not for us. The scientists maintained that the science peer review process provided the oversight. Still, the much more formal and structured oversight process was imposed on scientists and engineers as well as the plant operators. After a few years under the strengthened oversight processs, it was clear the science peer review process was inadequate to provide the level of nuclear safety assurance demanded by the public and hence the politicians. Peer reviews tended to be by non-independent colleagues. Part of the structured oversight was the definition of what qualified a reviewer as independent. Also, independent review in various disciplines were specified for specific scientific studies that influenced the design of safety related systems and components, or were used to determine the effects of design basis accidents.
Not sure how such an independent agency could be set up for an international organization such as the IPCC. I think the US should have its own agency to advise Congress on any legislation to mitigate possible global warming. The agency should be independent similar to the Defense Nuclear Facility Safety Board which reports directly to Congress on defense nuclear safety issues.
I’m normally against additional bureacracy, but but in this case I think its necessary. Can you imagine drugs being pushed that have not gone through statistically valid clinical trials to show efficacy? There are a lot of good skeptical scientists out there working hard to keep the IPCC honest but the best they can do will be ad hoc at best. Comprehensive oversight has to be mandated and institutionalize.
I suppose its just a pipe dream of mine. Formal oversight of the IPCC (science peer review is not it) will not likely happen.

Shawn F.

Thank you Dr. Carter.
What can we do about the chicanery of the alarmist propaganda machine?
Two thoughts occured to me. Firstly, should we not do our best to remove “reputable” from the reputation of the journals that have published these fraudulent documents? The perceived reputation is what the politicaitons are using to finance the logic deficit of their position. What they have been publishing is garbage and so they are not reputable journals. Using the tactics that the polititions have been using on us – we should laugh at their appeal to Authority from these sources.
Secondly, and along the same lines, aren’t there enough credible scientists with enough reputation to be able to qualify the science that is furthered on this site as “peer-reviewed”?

David Corcoran

Thanks Dr. Carter.
Consider the careers of John Holdren, Paul Ehrlich or James Hansen. They’ve made plenty of provably wrong predictions. Never seems to bother them. Never seems to hurt their career. Then it hit me:
Major scientific theories change generationally, not through experimentation and proof. Look at Freudian theory. Most of it was pure bunk (When was the last time you wanted to kill your dad and sleep with your mom?), but it held sway for SIXTY YEARS. Was there ever any truly scientific experiment proving Oedipal theory? Yet it took two generations for someone to point to the naked emperor.
We’ve got a long way to go until alarmist AGW is completely discredited. Lifespan has more to do with discrediting failed scientific theories than anything else, no amount of falsifying evidence is sufficient to change a made-up mind.

Paul Linsay (19:49:12) :
>i>Off the top of my head, a list of some scientists whose work was never peer reviewed before publication. […] Einstein.
Einstein stopped submitting work to the Physical Review after receiving a negative critique from the journal in response to a paper he had written with Rosen on gravitational waves in 1936. It seems that Einstein’s gravitational-wave paper with Rosen may have been his only genuine encounter with anonymous peer review. Einstein, who reacted angrily to the referee report, would have been well advised to pay more attention to its criticisms, which proved to be valid.

p.g.sharrow "PG"

First a refusal to release data and methoid and then, when forced, claim they were lost or destroyed.
Almost like admitting that it was all made up, A PEER REVIEWED LIE !

P Wilson (20:07:21) : Off the top of my head, Galileo was in fact peer reviewed, and was sent to the inquisition.
Those were not his peer …

a jones

Oh gosh are we up to terabytes already? I mean I will admit megabytes are a bit passe and gigabytes the current thing.
But just how much storage do you need?
But then then I remember when the first 16 bit TTL RAM went into production, Motorola if memory serves. Very exciting that.
Kindest Regards

Iren

……Robert Wood (19:29:03) :
The Aussies are fighting on the front line. The Rudd government has no policy BUT “Global Warming”; they are otherwise politically vacuous, having been elected on the basis that the previous government had been in power for too long. …….
————————-
You’ve got that right. Its not enough to be swept along with the tide, we’ve got to paddle towards the waterfall! Rudd is a lost cause. Its Turnbull (the leader of the opposition) I’m most disgusted with for playing footsy with this monstrosity for political purposes. He’s a former investment banker with Goldman Sachs and I sometimes wonder where his real loyalties lie.

Bulldust

Oh sweet baby Jeebus… it is worse than we thought! Doing a little browsing because of a reference to Andrew Glikson at ANU in Australia I came across a Master’s course they are offering reding in stupid:
http://www.anu.edu.au/climatechange/master-of-climate-change
To quote:
“This program offers students unique breadth and diversity in addressing the multiple dimensions of the climate change problem through access to world-leading experts in climate change science and policy.”
One can barely begin to imagine…

P Wilson

E.M.Smith (21:13:38) :
“They” argued that the sun revolved around the earth, which was the best of all possible scientific consensus at the time, whilst Galileo maintained that the earth revolved aroun the sun – *They* though the earth could only be the centre of the universe since it flattered man’s vanity to think so. Scientific notions derived from religious precepts at that time. Galileo differed in his approach – in fact he did on many things. Nowadays, I doubt those who differ would be sent in chains under threat of death. The peer reviewing process merely puts one beyond the pale

Sandy

“Oh gosh are we up to terabytes already? I mean I will admit megabytes are a bit passe and gigabytes the current thing.”
How sad that our ability to generate and store data so far outstrips our ability to evaluate and understand it.

Richard

the simplest (and therefore null) hypothesis, is that “the climate change observed today is natural unless and until evidence accrues otherwise”. ..
The onus is therefore on Penny Wong and her scientists to provide some “evidence otherwise”.

This is the crucial point so very well stated.
However, the onus is not merely on Penny Wong, much more broadly it is on the IPCC, on Professor Peter Gluckman, NZ Chief Science Advisor, whose expertise on babies environment is supposed to somehow give him the authority to declare that AGW is a fact, Obama’s (paint everything white) science advisor etc.

anna v

David Corcoran (20:52:36)

We’ve got a long way to go until alarmist AGW is completely discredited. Lifespan has more to do with discrediting failed scientific theories than anything else, no amount of falsifying evidence is sufficient to change a made-up mind.

Well, maybe the hubris is so large that the ice gods will take over. In a freezing case I think most made up minds, particularly of politicians, will change.
I have a more advanced reason for the recent warming of the earth. It is extraterrestrials . Extraterrestrials using the fifth dimension are beaming dark energy on earth ( remember 95% of mass and energy is dark) to slowly heat and thus terraform earth into a more habitable for them climate. They are small daisies acting in group formations and love CO2 to be at least 800ppm.
Skeptics have to prove that this hypothesis is false.

Bulldust

PS> Bob Carter, it is clear that you are “not qualified” to comment on Climate (big C because it is that important) as you are not a climate scientist. This is the vibe I pick up from the unilateral postings on Real Climate blogs, where you are no doubt a villain on the top 100 list. It is somewhat off topic, but I shall copy and paste my latest post to them hereunder. My previous efforts regarding Briffa tree ring analysis both met the same inglorious fate, as I am sure this latest one will:
“If the science is so robust and settled, and all the climate scientists are in consensus (apart from a few “freaks” on the sidelines), why is it that when I post a question regarding your settled science that it is invariably moderated into the bit bucket? Surely a science as robust as yours is open to a bit of peer scrutiny?
Also, please define what it means to be a “climate scientist.” Given that there were certainly no climate science degrees on offer in the handbooks when I went to college for the second time (which was less than two decades ago), where did all these climate scientists spring up from? Perhaps there is a certification course one has to attend? I can only conclude that the vast majority of “climate scientists” are in fact people who studied other fields, albeit to some degree associated with climate science.
I shalln’t hold my, breeath, because knowing the fate of two prior postings, I think I have a pretty good idea of where these bits and bytes will end up…”
Posted under:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/climate-cover-up-a-brief-review/

Gene Nemetz

Shurley Knot (18:45:39) :
Shurley
The earth is cooling. Go out and enjoy the snow.

Richard

AlexB (18:15:42) : A very nice summary of the issue, thank you Dr Carter. Public misconception of the scientific method and the peer-review process is causing a lot of issues. ..
There is one problem with your argument though. While logical and well put it is reasonably complex. Trying to introduce a complex argument into a political debate is like trying to build a house of cards in front of a 2 year old…

I agree with you. Although I find the post very clear and beautifully well written, it would be challenging for a 12-13 year old to understand. Since the intellectual capacity of our politicians, and the wide general public, is about that level, the challenge is to simplify his article / arguments even further for it to be understandable to an average school child.

hotrod

Paul Linsay (19:49:12) :
Off the top of my head, a list of some scientists whose work was never peer reviewed before publication. Add your own.
Galileo, Newton, Leibniz, Hooke, Cavendish, Volta, Ampere, Ohm, Oersted, Faraday, Henry, Hamilton, Maxwell, Lorentz, Minkowsky, Poincare, Einstein.

Perhaps a more useful list would be a list of scientists and researchers who were vilified by their peers, or could not get published, only to turn out to be correct years later.
Of course that would not be necessary if the general public had a clue about history and science. Louis Pasteur comes to mind, the medical community rideculed him and thought his theory of airborne germs was absurd.
Nicola Tesla’s advocacy for AC electrical current use in the power grid was ridiculed by Thomas Edison — AC current system we use today is the same as advocated by Tesla.
Alfred Wegener’s theory of continental drift was originally ridiculed by the worlds most influential geologists.
“When a true genius appears in this world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him.” – Jonathan Swift
http://amasci.com/weird/vindac.html
Larry

paullm

The situation is simple. A researcher’s propriety is honored as long as the researcher wishes to remain uncelebrated. A researcher’s work is generally the property of the benefactor, or shared. When the work is applied to a larger matter either the work must be validated, discarded, or replaced anew – with transparency ( a very controversial word, lately ) and made available to all concerned parties who are materially impacted and/or invested, for verifiability by all such.
In other words, either give up the people’s data/work and be recognized, or be ignored and/or dishonored.
Too much to ask?

Martin Mason

This is OT but can anybody please help me with radiation theory? A cold body wil emit radiation but what is the effect of this on a warmer body? the 2nd law implies that it can’t tansfer heat to the warmer body and you’d expect an ice cube in front of a fire to melt and have zero effect on the fire. A CO2 molucule emits long range radiation downward but how does this heat up a warmer surface?

ShrNfr

@hotrod Theconcept of bacteria as a prime source of ulcers was also ridiculed for a large number of years. Some things deserve to be ridiculed AGW comes to mind.

Richard

hotrod (22:53:07) : ..Perhaps a more useful list would be a list of scientists and researchers who were vilified by their peers, or could not get published, only to turn out to be correct years later…
True if you are considering “climate sceptics”. But if you are judging the proponents of the AGW hypothesis, then perhaps you should think of a “theory” widely accepted as true, but later proven to be utterly false.
From the parsimony principle that Dr Carter uses, an apt example would be the geocentric view of the Universe, widely accepted except for a few “sceptics” for over a thousand years.
This had several parallels to the AGW hypothesis. It exaggerated the importance of man over nature, assumed that man was above and not part of nature and it had to resort to increasingly complex explanations, (epicycles), to explain discrepancies between the theory and observations (the movement of the planets). Much like AGW, hockey sticks and GCM’s.

ShrNfr

@Martin The cold body will emit radiation, but so will the warmer body. The net effect of a colder body and a warmer body in a closed system where all radiation is reflected back into the system is that the warmer body cools and the cooler body warms. In a more open system the cooler body will cool more slowly than the warmer body since more radiation from the warmer body hits it than it gives off. The bulk of the radiation will radiate out into free space and both bodies will cool providing the free space is at a lower temperature than either of the two bodies.

ShrNfr

Please strike my last comment, it does not answer the fellow’s question.