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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.