Climategate Anniversary Humor

Well, one year ago this week, a tipping point occurred. The apple cart was upset. Richard A. left this humorous satirical comment which seemed appropriate for today, so I’ve elevated it to a full post.

The Digital Big CRUBox of climate control knobs

Press Relase – CRU East Anglia –

Everything is consistent with Global Warming

The CRU at East Anglia has released a new study which proves conclusively that Global Warming caused Climate Change, which in turn caused Climate Disruption, which in turn is the cause of everything else. Based on previous research by the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster linking global warming with the decrease in the number of pirates over the last few hundred years, and new research showing that the current flat trend in global temperatures correlates with a recent resurgence of piracy, especially in the waters off of Somalia, Phil Jones et al, have submitted a new research paper to the Journal of Unbelievably New Claptrap (JUNC) that proves everything is caused by Global Warming.

“It was really very simple in the end,” said Jones. “Once we went over the Pastafarian research, which was very robust, we realized anything and everything with even the barest correlation to global temperatures could in fact be linked via other correlations to any and every other trend in the universe.” Indeed, the new paper which is currently under review at JUNC has linked Global Warming with trends in the stock market, the orbit of Mars and Jupiter, whale migrations, and turtle droppings. The algorithm used to draw these conclusions has been called “ground breaking” and “robust” by many of Jones’ colleagues.

Said Professor Michael Mann of The Earth System Science Center at Penn State, a coauthor of the paper: “How they have come up with these links is amazing, the cross disciplinary work has been very heartening.” Responding to criticisms from statisticians and engineers that such work is suspect, Mann replied, “Nonsense, they’re obviously being paid millions by ExxonMobile. The work I have done with the zoological community alone in order to get the requisite number of monkeys into one room to come up with the equations is proof enough of the robustness of the work.”

Gavin Schmidt of NASA agreed. “The critics of this paper are obviously being paid off by Big Oil, we know this because they drive cars and have to buy gas occasionally.” Schmidt, a contributor to the space based portion of the paper that found correlations with global warming and the movements of a blueberry muffin launched into orbit last year, declined further comment. When asked about their refusal of requests to release the algorithm in question in order to review the paper, Jones declined saying, “How or why anyone would want to check this kind of work is beyond me, the conclusions are so staggeringly awesome that they don’t need to be reviewed.” The editors and peer reviewers at JUNC agreed.

Said editor Alvin Hicks: “We don’t need to check this kind of work too carefully, and since I’d like to keep my job and would lose it if I dared question anything these guys put out, I’m confident in declaring it sound and worthy of publication.” Al Gore also hailed the paper as a milestone, writing in a press release, “All questions and skepticism should be ended at this point, the proof is in.” Gore declined to comment, aids saying he was too busy selling carbon offsets to himself.

The paper came at a fortuitous time for alarmists, who have been taking a bit of a beating lately due to the Climategate emails and the tendency of the IPCC to cite Leisure magazine and other sources in their reports on the current state of the science of global climate disruption. Jones concluded his remarks with this reporter, “I think we’ve finally got the name right so no one can question cause and effect via that route, now we have the science to back the name up and it’s really beyond criticism or question now that Global Warming is the cause of everything.” When asked about the convenience of having a theory that can’t under any circumstances ever be falsified, Jones shrugged. “Why would I want to falsify it? It’s bringing in tons of dough. The only people who would want to falsify it are Big Oil and their stooges.”

A passerby had been listening to Jones and I speak as Jones fished in the fountain, and asked, “Isn’t it a little paranoid and contradictory to posit this grand conspiracy by Big Oil and then claim their grand plan is to covertly fund a few blogs run by retired statisticians and weathermen?” Jones quickly jumped on the man and proceeded to try and strangle him with a spaghetti strand, and was subsequently arrested for assault with a deadly noodle.

On follow-up in the court Jones blamed Global Warming for his behavior, and was let off with a suspended sentence. Claims that Michael Mann, Kevin Trenberth, and others put pressure on the local government to impeach the judge and that Greenpeace activists harassed the judge by rummaging through his trash and egging his house unless the trial came to ‘the right decision’ were dismissed out of hand.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
November 17, 2010 7:47 am

is that meant to be funny?
REPLY: Only for people that have a sense of humor – A

November 17, 2010 7:53 am

I knew it, fruit flies and apple maggot moths were caused by global warming! And look at all the fruits and maggots who are cashing in on it!

November 17, 2010 7:54 am

algorithm algorerythym
very funny!

November 17, 2010 7:57 am

It’s true–if it weren’t for the sun and the energy the earth derives from it, along with the greenhouse gasses and the fortunate fact that ice floats, we’d have global icebox. And none of us would be here. So I thank the good Lord for what some would think is just a fortuitous set of circumstances, along with living at a time when I can jump on my computer and leave messages like this (perhaps Thanksgiving-esque), drive my car down the road in comfort, communicate daily with my kids who are splattered from Texas to Japan, and find sufficient leisure time to pursue half a dozen hobbies.
Viva la Global Warming!

Bill H
November 17, 2010 8:01 am

My sides hurt….
i cant stop laughing….
Kudo’s Anthony!

November 17, 2010 8:07 am

Excellent summary of the whole climategate affair at
Well worth a visit

November 17, 2010 8:14 am

Mann saved money on expensive monkey rental by using grad students instead.

November 17, 2010 8:15 am

This interview has not been picked up by the BBC News yet; I guess they are too distracted by the Royal Wedding …?

November 17, 2010 8:19 am

My favorite line…“How or why anyone would want to check this kind of work is beyond me, the conclusions are so staggeringly awesome that they don’t need to be reviewed.”

November 17, 2010 8:30 am

Louise — I’m sorry, but link entirely misrepresent “Climategate” as badly as the skeptical fringe. The reality is that Climategate shows an echo-chamber of hubris and activision. The “trick” shows that 1) the Team knew that trees were not reliable thermometers in all circumstances and 2) were crafting a “narrative” for political/marketing reasons.
More damning is HARRY_README.txt which shows too clearly technical feet of clay of substandard software and data management. As for “independence” of the temperature datasets canard, the echo chamber again applies. The same data is munged the same way (for example applying Dr. Jones removal of UHI technique, from the same adjusted sources. Dot product ~= 0.

November 17, 2010 8:33 am

It Bites 🙂 Nice post!

November 17, 2010 8:33 am

Merry Climategate Day everyone!
Remember, the goal of Climategate day is to KEEP the lump of coal in your stocking, without having it taken away by the eeeeevil Gavin! He’s sneaky, he’ll come down your chimney to take it! We’re not quite sure why, but there’s something about a train.
On this date in 2009, the world was turned upside down. At first we thought it was a hoax, we wondered if they were going to deny everything, but to our surprise they confirmed it was their email and cried “hackers” in an indignant tone.
On this date in 2009, the world of Science took a first step on its long, tortuous way back to reality and respectability.
Have yourself a Merry little Climategate Day!
Recommended Climategate Day activities:
1. This would be a good day to begin putting up Christmas lights. Lots of them. A whole megawatt worth. We need to keep those generating stations generating!
2. Visit family. Preferably the ones who live on the other side of the planet. Nothing says Climategate like long distance air travel and days of driving around aimlessly in a rental car!
3. Picket a power generating station. Oops, that was for the other side, ignore it.
3. Decorate a power generating station. Drop by and tell them they’re doing a great job.
4. Buy a new vehicle. V8, baby! Big engines, big vehicles. Just for the fun factor, use that vehicle to drive climate protesters to their next protest.
5. Lie to Congress. Nothing else quite captures the spirit of the season like telling Congress we’re experiencing record heat and catastrophic global effects, especially if there’s currently a cold snap.
6. Make plans to attend the next climate conference. The hypocrisy is stunning… a respite from increasingly cold temperatures in a beautiful warm resort… how could that possibly be bad?
7. APPLY FOR A GRANT! Make sure to use the current buzzwords: climate disruption.

November 17, 2010 8:36 am

Louise says:
November 17, 2010 at 8:07 am – shouldn’t that be ‘climateblinkered’ ? Guess I won’t be clicking any links to that site again! LOL

November 17, 2010 8:36 am

Louise says:
November 17, 2010 at 8:07 am

Excellent summary of the whole climategate affair at
Well worth a visit

That is perhaps the most laughable article on climategate I’ve ever read, Louise–full of excuses and distortions (but perhaps the reason you’ve included it under this spoof by Anthony?). You may think of it as an “Excellent summary”, but I find it to be yellow journalism (defined as biased opinion masquerading as objective fact).

November 17, 2010 8:37 am

Laughed `till i nearly…. Oh dear!!
rupert.bear says:
November 17, 2010 at 7:47 am
is that meant to be funny
Apparently Winnie the Pooh isn`t the only bear of very little brain.
All hail the satirically challenged!!

Golf Charley
November 17, 2010 8:38 am

In the UK, the increase in atmospheric CO2 towards the end of the 20th century has also shown a good correlation with:
teenage pregnancies
illegal drug consumption
legal drug consumption (alcohol)
sales of televisions
house construction
fizzy drink consumpton
Chinese and Indian food take away restaurants
Roll on, Roll off ship container traffic
varities of ice cream flavours
hip replacement operations
It is therefore, as logical to assume, that the increase in CO2 is the cause

Tim Nesbitt
November 17, 2010 8:39 am

Way toooooo funny!

RT Fenester
November 17, 2010 8:51 am

Louise says:
November 17, 2010 at 8:07 am
Excellent summary of the whole climategate affair at
Well worth a visit

That was a funny piece. The “excellent summary” is even funnier. Bravo, Louise.

November 17, 2010 8:52 am

Slightly (but not entirely) OT. This could be funny, if it would not be so damn serious…
The latest news from “cold is warm” department of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK):

Global Warming could cool down temperatures in winter
11/16/2010 – The overall warming of the earth’s northern half could result in cold winters. The shrinking of sea-ice in the eastern Arctic causes some regional heating of the lower levels of air – which may lead to strong anomalies in atmospheric airstreams, triggering an overall cooling of the northern continents, a study recently published in the Journal of Geophysical Research shows. “These anomalies could triple the probability of cold winter extremes in Europe and northern Asia,” says Vladimir Petoukhov, lead author of the study and climate scientist at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. “Recent severe winters like last year’s or the one of 2005-06 do not conflict with the global warming picture, but rather supplement it.”

Dave Wendt
November 17, 2010 9:01 am

I’m not sure if this is really funny or really scary, but it is a sign that the fight is far from over.

November 17, 2010 9:09 am

Louise: Tamino thought it was a great article. Therefore by definition it must be cr@p.

November 17, 2010 9:11 am

The real story of climategate was revealed here starting a year ago and it was with intense fascination that we followed it in real time. For that, Mr Watts, I for one am extremely grateful. Dave.

November 17, 2010 9:12 am

Louise says:
November 17, 2010 at 8:07 am
Excellent summary of the whole climategate affair at …….
Well worth a visit
Louise, really?
“Researchers discussed how to statistically isolate and “hide the decline” in problematic tree ring data that was no longer measuring what it was supposed to,…”
I don’t care how you twist it, but a “trick” to “hide the decline” is exactly what it says it is. An intentional act of deception. You could actually take the time to read the e-mails yourself. Or continue in your ostrich like mannerisms.
At this point, now that the world has seen and can see what was in the e-mails and other files, defenders of these scientists only hold themselves up for ridicule and continue to move down the path towards irrelevancy. Denial indeed.

Golf Charley
November 17, 2010 9:14 am

Ref Louise’s recommended read
What a load of garbage! No wonder Tamino liked it so much
The article was writen by Kate, who has a BSc and aspires to become a climatologist. With such a grasp of truth and science, I am sure she will become a very good climatologist. I am not sure that becoming a climatologist will prove to be a smart career move though.

November 17, 2010 9:15 am

Is anyone watching this? It started at 11:00 AM EST

November 17, 2010 9:19 am

. . . . and the parody continues . . .
The same folks that produced the ‘No Pressure’ video said, “We have confirmed with G. Schmidt that he has found a highly significant inverse correlation between the number of people who believe what he writes and the number of times Hansen is arrested.” Neither Mr. Schmidt nor Mr. Hansen was available to hyperventilate about this statement at this time, sources close to hysteria said.
. . . . and the parody (temporarily) ends . . . : )
PS – thanks Anthony, this is fun

November 17, 2010 9:24 am

“The Real Story of Climategate” is great – let it hijack this thread, there’s room to share. This caught my eye:

Consequently, a mathematical “trick” (clever calculation) to efficiently analyse data was reframed as a conspiracy to “trick” (deceive) the public into believing the world was warming. Researchers discussed how to statistically isolate and “hide the decline” in problematic tree ring data that was no longer measuring what it was supposed to, but this quote was immediately twisted to claim that the decline was in global temperatures: the world is cooling and scientists are hiding it from us!

If those problematic trees are off on the wrong track now, perhaps they’ve been on the wrong track before. Perhaps tree ring records are pretty lousy proxies….
Oh well, Happy Anniversary!

Martin C
November 17, 2010 9:26 am

Well, that’s what I get for reading this while having a cup of coffee – now I have to do a major cleaning to the keyboard and computer after laughing so hard . . . 😉
. . a very good article . .

Paul Coppin
November 17, 2010 9:35 am

rupert.bear says:
November 17, 2010 at 7:47 am
is that meant to be funny?
Robustly so!

November 17, 2010 9:38 am

Nothing travels faster than the speed of light with the possible exception of Catastrophic Global Warming, which obeys its own special laws.

November 17, 2010 9:46 am

Re: David Wendt-
Has the good “professor” ever heard the term, “Fighting words”, or “incite to riot”?
Once upon a time, people could be charged, CRIMINALLY for such.

Peter Miller
November 17, 2010 9:58 am

Very difficult to decide if this is a spoof or not.

November 17, 2010 10:26 am

Anthony Watts says:
November 17, 2010 at 8:55 am
“The title “The Real Story of Climategate” of course wrong, and is mostly second and third hand speculation presented with spin. As a person who lived the actual history, I can say that the writer is clueless as to “The Real Story” but only offers an opinion shaded by leanings,….”
Its amazing to me, that these people would try to “enlighten” the readers here. WE WERE ALL RIGHT HERE WHEN IT HAPPENED!! And now they’re going to tell us what happened?
Sorry Louise et al. You’re going to have to go to some other site or wait for people like Anthony(and myself and hundreds others) to die off before you start this bit of history revision. We all watched it unfold. We all read the implicating e-mails. We all read the code(and comments). Spin and twist what you will, its all out in the open.

November 17, 2010 10:37 am

Anthony Watts says:
November 17, 2010 at 8:55 am

I read the link Louise provided. Commenter “Tamino” likes it, heh. He’ll probably repost over on that Open Mind affair.
The title “The Real Story of Climategate” of course [is] wrong, and is mostly second and third hand speculation presented with spin. As a person who lived the actual history, I can say that the writer is clueless as to “The Real Story” but only offers an opinion shaded by leanings, which explains why Tamino likes it.

I left a four-point rebuttal comment there about 5 hours ago and it hasn’t appeared yet. Surprise, surprise! So much for open dialogue. (I really didn’t expect it to, of course, so I limited it to just 4 points.)

It may have accidentally been deleted with SPAM if it contained certain words or phrases that trigger the wordpress spam filter, or if it contained 3 links or more. Right now we are getting anywhere from 200-500 spam messages a day, so it’s quite a chore to filter through it all. Feel free to resubmit. – Anthony

November 17, 2010 11:01 am

To avert any misconception, Anthony, my 4-point rebuttal was posted at “The Real Story of Climategate”, not here at WUWT. You run the best blog around–which is opposite of what I can say about “The Real Story of Climategate”. Kudos.

I know, but they run a wordpress blog too, and if you resubmit it there, along with a short separate note that the previous comment disappeared, then you can be sure they are censoring comments they don’t like. – Anthony

November 17, 2010 11:18 am

hunter says: “Mann saved money on expensive monkey rental by using grad students instead.”
They tried using lawyers, also, but there are some things even monkeys and lawyers won’t do . . .

November 17, 2010 11:26 am

I will never understand why ordinary decent folk firstly infallible believe that people, that they have come to believe that everyone else believes, are completely sane and rational people just because they are in the press. That seem to be the common denominator, equally powerful as if it were their bestest of friends.
Since when have ever hawkers of doom and gloom scenarios, that profit from hawking the doom and gloom scenarios been, objectively or in hindsight, believable? But of course poor sodding professors and scientist never do anything for profit right? Wrong, everything is for profit–for grant money, ever more grant money, larger sums of grant money, for article sale, interview pay, book sales, board member ship, or just even being the king of the hill on top of ones own heap scientific field. But sure I’m sure there are scientist doing anal science just because they’re all just very “nice” people who loves mucking about in people’s ass’ checking out the prostate for free, and dare I say, fun even–but even that is then for profit due to the personal gain.

November 17, 2010 11:28 am

RockyRoad says:
November 17, 2010 at 10:37 am
I left a comment there about an hour ago, and I didn’t go into very much detail, and still nothing. Well, I’ve increased the traffic there enough.
Anthony, I think Rocky was talking about posting at climatesight. lol, Louise provided a wonderful contrast of sites. She posts here without difficulty. Skeptics can’t post there.
Special thanks to Louise for once again showing the world the fear alarmists have of open debate and their closed minded approach to discovery. You go girl!

CRS, Dr.P.H.
November 17, 2010 11:30 am

Happy Climategate Anniversary everyone!!
Shortly after this story broke, I presented it to one of my classes as an example of how “puffing up” research results in public health can backlash if promised benefits/savings don’t appear. Needless to say, I was scoffed at by students & faculty.
Oh well, guess I was right. The collapse of CAGW has all sorts of catastrophists in the public health field scrambling to find relevance to their missions. If planned disasters don’t appear, what will happen to funding, publications etc.? Oh, no, malaria won’t return to Wisconsin etc.etc.
I’m lovin’ it, believe me! Thanks, Anthony, it’s been a great year! Now, if only those remaining Climategate emails will suddenly appear (before Cancun, maybe)?

November 17, 2010 11:33 am

Global warming causes humor – and dandruff. (It is worse than we thought.)

November 17, 2010 11:48 am

Waiting for “Climate Gate” V.2.1 !, This time hopefully will include XXX massaging emails.

November 17, 2010 12:03 pm

In an earlier post, I lamented the lack of a Gilbert & Sullivan piece on scary professors down under. Then as luck would have it, I was visited by a somewhat tipsy and unmusical muse and that led to this:
APOLOGIES: Gilbert and Sullivan
TITLE: I Am the Very Model of a Modern Climate Gateral
[Pirates of the IPPC]
I am the very model of a modern Climate Gateral
I’ve information digital, multimedia, and so quotable
I know the hacks of TV-land, and speak quite like an oracle
On ‘News at Ten’ to ‘News at One’, in order immaterial.
I’m very well acquainted, too, with matters computational
I can set parameters, both simple and fantastical
About principal components I’m teeming with a lot o’news
With many cheerful facts about the Yamal trees we like to use
I’m very good at scariness and all degrees of fearfulness
I know how to give a child nightmares quite horribilis
In short, in matters terrible, fearsome, and excitable
I am the very model of a modern Climate Gateral
I know our media’s trickery, in Nature and the NYT
I dish out those releases and they headline anything from me
I quote in elegiacs all the flaws of Homo Sapiens
With polemics I can dazzle almost any leftie audience
I can tell Trenberths and Santers from the Manns and even Houghtons
I know the Schmidts and Hansens from the Albert Gores and Joneses
Then I can hum a fugue of which I’ve heard the music’s din anew
And whistle all the airs from that wretched M4GW
I can write a laundry list in Hulmian obtusiform
While forgetting every detail of those emails in exCRUciform
In short, in matters terrible, fearsome, and excitable
I am the very model of a modern Climate Gateral
In fact, when I know what is meant by “lapse rate” and “stratiform”
When I can tell at sight a timeplot from a tephigram
When such affairs as hunches and guesses I’m more wary at
And when I know precisely what is meant by “wet in an adiabat”
When I have learnt some better ways of methods so statistical
When I know more ANOVA than a novice in a nunnery
In short, when I’ve a smattering of elemental calculus
You’ll say a better Climate-Gateral has never walked among us
For my scientific knowledge, though I’m plucky and adventury,
Has only been brought down to the beginning of last century
But still, in matters terrible, fearsome, and excitable
I am the very model of a modern Climate Gateral

Gerald Machnee
November 17, 2010 12:07 pm

RE:Louise says:
***November 17, 2010 at 8:07 am
Excellent summary of the whole climategate affair at
Well worth a visit***
She is a University student and essentially an AGW supporter, so you will only see one sided comments. Obviously she will not understand the deep insights into the Climategate investigations that WUWT or CA have done. Then you have Tamino doing the back-slapping.
As to Rocky Road attempting to post – do not waste your time. The censoring is much like Unreal Climate. Comments not agreeing with AGW, etc are deleted(not posted) or declared inflammatory.

November 17, 2010 12:11 pm

Jeremy says:
November 17, 2010 at 9:38 am
absolutely! The AGW law(s) – I thought these were well known?
1) The instantaneously observed temperature of a body remains constant unless either the body or the observer is disturbed by a warp in the fabrication of time and space.
2) The recorded temperature of a body also remains constant for the instant it is recorded or until the recording is disturbed by a warp in the fabrication of time and space.
3) Any observed change in temperature (either positive or negative) in a body is directly proportional to a positive increase in the amount of carbon dioxide within the immediate proximity to the observed body.

November 17, 2010 12:21 pm

“John Shade says:
November 17, 2010 at 12:03 pm
In an earlier post, I lamented the lack of a Gilbert & Sullivan piece on scary professors down under. Then as luck would have it, I was visited by a somewhat tipsy and unmusical muse and that led to this:”
Right, now sing it then paste it here 🙂

November 17, 2010 12:27 pm

John Shade says:
November 17, 2010 at 12:03 pm
. . . [edit] . . . I was visited by a somewhat tipsy and unmusical muse and that led to this:
APOLOGIES: Gilbert and Sullivan
TITLE: I Am the Very Model of a Modern Climate Gateral

– – – – – –
John Shade,
That was quite good. Hey, calling for producers for a London production.

November 17, 2010 12:35 pm

I have just posted a comment there which is under moderation. Lets see if that disappears as well.

Rhoda R
November 17, 2010 12:36 pm

Well done, John Shade!

November 17, 2010 12:40 pm

John Shade says:
November 17, 2010 at 12:03 pm
In an earlier post, I lamented the lack of a Gilbert & Sullivan piece on scary professors down under. Then as luck would have it, I was visited by a somewhat tipsy and unmusical muse and that led to this:
APOLOGIES: Gilbert and Sullivan
TITLE: I Am the Very Model of a Modern Climate Gateral
An absolute classic!!

Sam Hall
November 17, 2010 12:44 pm

Janice says: They tried using lawyers, also, but there are some things even monkeys and lawyers won’t do . . .
Well now, if there is enough money, lawyers will do a lot of disgusting things.

November 17, 2010 1:10 pm

Is this JUNC behind a pay wall?

November 17, 2010 1:11 pm

Louise says:
November 17, 2010 at 8:07 am
“Excellent summary of the whole climategate affair at […]”
Louise, is your family name Gray? In that case, i already heard of you.

November 17, 2010 1:28 pm

All hail the satirically challenged!!
Golf Charley says:
November 17, 2010 at 8:38 am
In the UK, the increase in atmospheric CO2 towards the end of the 20th century has also shown a good correlation with:
Charley, my son was born in 1976 the year we noticed that the temperature was rising and so was CO2. My son grew to a height of 6ft 6in and all the while the temperature rose. He quit growing several years ago just as the temperatures leveled off. I plotted a graph of temperature vs my son’s height and found a .999 r2 match.
I’ve know the cause of AGW for several years but did not want to implicate my son, but as he has stopped growing now and as he ages will start to shrink I think we are past the worst of AGW.

john ratcliffe
November 17, 2010 1:52 pm

Oh dear! I found some pretty solid evidence of Global Warming/Climate Change/Disruption, or whatever. I find it hard to argue against this particular case………
Such an interesting year we’ve all had here.
By the way, Anthony, Congrats on 60M recently, missed the actual event, was in hospital.
regards, and Happy Aniversary to all
john r

November 17, 2010 2:00 pm

rupert.bear says:
November 17, 2010 at 7:47 am
‘is that meant to be funny’
My childhood memories of Rupert Bear are that he lived in a place called Nutwood where evil trees (conifers) would encroach on the happy little world of Rupe and his chums and cause disruption.

November 17, 2010 2:06 pm

Al Gore was at a Green Symposium in Copenhagen last week, when a reporter asked him “Do you have any comment on the closing of the Chicago Climate Exchange?”
Mr. Gore didn’t bat an eye and replied “Listen, none of that is important right now, you know, because I just came from a conference where they presented clear evidence that there are up to 50,000 frozen cro-magnons up there in the glaciers. Now, as you all know, a few wandering cave men probably wouldn’t be that big of a deal. However — If they choose a leader, a ‘Captain Caveman’ so to speak, well, then we’ve got a REAL crisis on our hands!!!”

P Wilson
November 17, 2010 2:10 pm

mkelly says:
November 17, 2010 at 1:28 pm
I can only compliment your correlation with my own. I plotted a graph of my increase of age since 1979 until 2000. The average yearly temperature increased exactly in correlation with increasing years on my part. The interesting causal affinity is that so did everyone else during this period.
The obvious implication is that we are all responsible for global warming.
I’m hoping that global cooling begins soon. I’m starting to feel the years….

November 17, 2010 2:18 pm

Those of you who are smitten by ‘Louise’s’ comic antics and her enthusiasm for the article by ‘kate’, may wish to follow her further adventures on Delingpole’s Telegraph blog, where she ‘trolls’ as ‘bje’ and is known affectionately (?) as ‘budgie’. Kate’s story about a brave ‘climate scientist’ who finds an expired mouse on his doorstep and refuses to travel without bodyguards, is heartrending.

November 17, 2010 2:18 pm

just a quick question for Anthony or the mods
if little Louise posts a link to site, and several (or more) of us ‘hit’ it – does it gain that site revenue? – I am not a blogophile nor an internet worshipper so don’t understand these things – but I would be annoyed that deliberate flaming of a thread to gain more ‘hits’ could actually be putting financial support into such trolls (or their masters) kittys!

November 17, 2010 2:19 pm

G&S were well-known for pricking the pomposity bubble of the self-styled intelligentsia and “officer-class” of the late nineteenth century. They would have greatly enjoyed a chance to “do a number” (pardon the pun) on the AGW pushers. John Shade’s efforts are very praiseworthy., and, ss a long-time G&S fan, I must congratulate him.

November 17, 2010 2:31 pm

Following on with Rupert Bear and climate humour, linked below is ‘Rupert Bear And The Missing Snow’, an offering which has many parallels with Climategate and bungling scientists. His encounter with the Weather Clerk’s Assistant at around 7.10 is highly à propos of today’s anniversary. My only quibble is that Rupert appeared in a cartoon strip and book annuals in my (1950s) day and he and his pals were English.

November 17, 2010 2:40 pm

Hilarious. Thanks. 🙂

November 17, 2010 2:55 pm

P Wilson says:
November 17, 2010 at 2:10 pm
mkelly says:
November 17, 2010 at 1:28 pm
I feel now would be the time to publish our own AGW observations.
Whilst undertaking renovations of my farmhouse, it was discovered that the emergent odour of bovine excrement deposited within the yard had been increasing during summer temperatures each year since around 1989 – It was hypothesised that this was potentially related to planetary temperatures. Granted, this was an empirical measurement, but we kept a careful record of our ‘Jeez, that Stinks!’ (or JtS number) vocal outbursts every day, and find, on retrospective inspection – that this peaked during the summer of 1998, with some 8 JtS numbers per day for a period of 37 days!. Further analysis reveals the peak JtS number to have a periodicity (or cycle) of approximately 360 days! We find this periodicity difficult to explain based on current scientific knowledge. No additional bovine excrement has been deposited since approximately 2005, when a program of active BS removal was initiated, and all deposition of bovine excrement ceased in 2008 when the access of bovines was resricted due to a completely new fence being installed.
However, we further note that peak JtS numbers have steadily been decreasing over the last few years, with summer 2010 showing a peak value of only 6 for a period of 9 days.
We are absolutely convinced this has to do with Global warming. Moreover, we are looking into the effects of the actual CO2 emissions of said bovine excrement as possibly having been slowed, which clearly has a reducing the local greenhouse effect within the actual yard area. Hence, there may be a link to reduced bovine excrement causing locally reduced summer temperatures over recent years.
We have recently discovered the need to homogenise our data however, and have written a program to adjust our JtS numbers since establishing that all excrement was fully removed in winter 2008. We fully expect our homogenised BS data to reflect the current concensus that BS is responsible for all the climate problems of the world. Our research grant application has yet to be approved, but we will keep you posted!
can’t stop – my flock of lemmings are heading off towards Dover….

November 17, 2010 2:59 pm

BTW – apologies for any inconsistencies or data errors in my last post – it was written rather ‘on the hoof’……..

Gerald Machnee
November 17, 2010 3:05 pm

**toad says:
November 17, 2010 at 2:18 pm
** Kate’s story about a brave ‘climate scientist’ who finds an expired mouse on his doorstep and refuses to travel without bodyguards, is heartrending.**
Yep, She deleted posts about the UK video blowing up the dissenting kids in school.
tonyb – the comments will be in moderation for a bit as she is in class during the day.
Gavin can do it while at work.

November 17, 2010 3:12 pm

“is that meant to be funny?”
REPLY: Only for people that have a sense of humor – A

Lol. Nice one Anthony.
Advice to Rupert.Bear:
Instead of jumping on WUWT posts to get first comment in, get a life instead.

Golf Charley
November 17, 2010 3:21 pm

When your son has children, could global warming start again?
It is a terrifying prospect. Please ensure you give your son good advice about birds and bees etc

November 17, 2010 3:45 pm

Like several others here, I posted a comment to Louise’s “The Real Story of Climategate” link. [I’m pretty sure it will be censored out, even though I did try to help Kate’s comment count] :

“Stolen” emails! heh
Give me any evidence that they were ‘stolen.’ Any evidence, that is, other than your ESP. Credible citations only, please — I’m a skeptic [the only honest kind of scientist, as Prof Richard Feynman pointed out].
Next, give me any testable, empirical evidence, based on verifiable raw data, showing the measured percentage of AGW in those few tenths of a degree warming over the past century.
Finally, you should thank the big climate dog on the internet, Mr Anthony Watts, for mentioning your blog. Be nice to him; you’ve already got 7 hits! And at least 14% of them are due to Anthony’s “Best Science” site. Only 60 million more hits to go, plus close to a half million comments, and you’ll be nipping at his heels:
The Ville said:
“Things aren’t going to get easier.”
Understatement of the year!!☺

tonyb, your comment is there… at least it appears to be yours. The parentheses make me wonder.
Kate doesn’t understand that a big reason for the success of WUWT is due to its no censorship/light moderation policy. Echo chambers are only popular with their head-nodding inhabitants.

November 17, 2010 4:06 pm

Smokey says:
November 17, 2010 at 3:45 pm
“Like several others here, I posted a comment to Louise’s “The Real Story of Climategate” link……”
Well, mine never made it, and it was pretty low keyed. I did manage to get a good laugh though. As you noted “The Ville’s” statement, I clicked on his link,
It’s Mann crying about being investigated. But this is what got me chuckling, Mann stated, “If climate change is an elaborate hoax, then the ice sheets must be in on it; the sea level must be in on it; and the polar bears are likely in on it, although they are big losers,”
I’m not sure what particular ice sheets he’s referring to, but the see level isn’t rising anymore or less than earlier and the polar bears are doing just fine as has been chronicled just about everywhere in the world including this fine site.
Is being an obliviot requisite to being a climatologist and CAGW supporter?

November 17, 2010 4:10 pm

Mods, the black hole ate my comment again!!!

Capn Jack Walker
November 17, 2010 4:32 pm

Yar she be a summary of the jocular hilarity we in the piracy Biz, calls flying under false colors .
Anyway tweren’t a hack, it was a completely legal short cut to Information freedom.
Cos even them foul science murdering bastards ain’t claiming innocencia. Just seeking asylum starting to look like coventry.
Look around me mateys, that little area on the front of online msm called environmental damage has disappeared, A science fiction genre is disappearing.
We speak of Clemens in awe, but Verne not much.

David Spurgeon
November 17, 2010 4:39 pm

Wonderful post – pity about the grammar!

Capn Jack Walker
November 17, 2010 4:44 pm

The response was nothing but damage control, because if they say hack then their own legal conduct becomes testable and hence actionable. They can’t say stolen because it was public information.
Emailgate began when they refused to share information in an age of information.

Billy Liar
November 17, 2010 5:06 pm

More about ‘Kate’ from a comment by ‘pat’ on the bishophill blog. She seems to have swallowed her AGW indoctrination whole.
as for the climatescientist blog, run by a Canadian teenager:
climatescientist: Credibility in a bewildered world
I’ve been hard at work at a presentation I’ll be making at PowerShift Canada, a youth climate change conference in Ottawa from October 23-26. A big thank you to Steve Easterbrook, a regular reader here, who has contacts at PowerShift and basically got me this gig…
My name is Kate, and I run the website, which deals with climate change in the context of sociology, credibility, and logic. I’ll finally be able to leave high school at the end of this year, and then I hope to go and study climatology…
This is the way I structure my credibility spectrum. At the very bottom is the individual – some guy named Joe, or you, or me. People who don’t have any scientific training.
Above that I have the professional, such as Al Gore. These are people that do have scientific training, but didn’t use it to become a scientist – they decided to be a high school teacher, or a politician, or a journalist instead. Depending on how long ago they got their training, and how specialized it was, they may or may not be a reliable source.
Above that I have the publishing scientist, such as Dr Andrew Weaver, who has scientific training in the specific area we’re considering – in this case, climate change. They used it to become a scientist, and they’re publishing their work.
Then I have peer-reviewed articles, in places like Science magazine…
At the very top are scientific organizations, such as NASA. These organizations base all of their statements off of multiple peer-reviewed articles, which have stood up to criticism after their publication. Places like NASA also have huge reputations, so they don’t want to say anything that’ll make them look stupid afterwards….
Climate change isn’t a personal opinion. It’s purely based on physics and math…

November 17, 2010 5:12 pm

My comment has been removed with the request that I give citations. I shall do that tomorrow.

November 17, 2010 5:59 pm

Thanks, that explains the comment about citations. Obviously Kate doesn’t know the volume of citations and information you have available. I look forward to seeing what her excuse will be tomorrow.

Pamela Gray
November 17, 2010 6:45 pm

This paper expounding on anthropogenic global warming as the cause of everything is cutting into my gate receipts at the opening to my goddess cave. Damn it.

Robert of Texas
November 17, 2010 6:47 pm

Finally, the Theory of Everything. I knew String Theory (all of them) was a dead end, I should have been a climatologist.

Jeff Alberts
November 17, 2010 7:15 pm

James Sexton says:
November 17, 2010 at 11:28 am
Anthony, I think Rocky was talking about posting at climatesight. lol, Louise provided a wonderful contrast of sites. She posts here without difficulty. Skeptics can’t post there.

Actually her post should have been deleted as off topic. But the mods here seem to just let OT stuff through constantly.

Theo Goodwin
November 17, 2010 7:31 pm

Actually, this essay proves that Global Warming is God.
But the best part is the slapstick:
“Jones quickly jumped on the man and proceeded to try and strangle him with a spaghetti strand, and was subsequently arrested for assault with a deadly noodle.”

November 17, 2010 8:50 pm

RockyRoad says:
. . . That is perhaps the most laughable article on climategate I’ve ever read, Louise–full of excuses and distortions (but perhaps the reason you’ve included it under this spoof by Anthony?). . .

Read the first paragraph again. The excellent spoof was not written by Anthony, but by Richard A.
/Mr Lynn

Malaga View
November 17, 2010 11:58 pm

I understand that Phil and Mike are currently redrafting their graphs… these are their first steps towards rehabilitating the Medieval Warm Period…. however don’t be confused when you see this warming period beginning around 1,000 BC…. what they mean is: 1,000 years Before Climategate.

November 18, 2010 1:58 am

This is the follow up to Climatesight I referred to yesterday. It has been posted, lets see if it remains. Should I expect a visit from Tamino?
“I posted a comment yesterday which you removed, asking me to provide citations. Fair enough, here they are. The post read as follows and was sparked by a comment from De Ville to which I replied as follows;
“This is from the Michael Mann piece you linked to.
“If climate change is an elaborate hoax, then the ice sheets must be in on it; the sea level must be in on it; and the polar bears are likely in on it, although they are big losers.”
Me; 1) “What exactly do you believe sea level to be doing? Are you aware that (generally) it is lower today than during the MWP or Roman Optimum?”
Citations of Roman period;
1a) Jerry Mitrovica in the video referenced here by Jim Eager has homed in on the single Lambeck study of Roman Fish tanks which covers a period of generally lower waters prior to the rise in levels through the latter part of the Roman optimum. Lambeck also said this;
“Here, we present results for sea-level change in the central Mediterranean basin for the Roman Period using new archaeological evidence. These data provide a precise measure of local sea level of -1.35±0.07 m at 2000 years ago. Part of this change is the result of ongoing glacio-hydro isostatic adjustment of the crust subsequent to the last deglaciation. When corrected for this, using geologically constrained model predictions, the change in eustatic sea level since the Roman Period is -0.13±0.09 m.”
As can be seen isostatic adjustment makes a considerable difference to actual sea levels experienced at the time, so it is worth looking at the many other studies of the region and period which gives some additional data.
Citation 1b) This study (inexplicably misquoted by Science Daily a few months ago) covers numerous studies in the same area.
“The Caesarea results indicate that about 2000 years BP sea levels was at its present elevation, while during the Byzantine period it was at or above its present level by (about 30cm- plus or minus 15cm) During the Crusader period “(around 1300AD)”sea level may have been lower than today by about 40c, plus or minus 15cm.”
Citation 1c) Dr Sivan who compiled the study gives the proper context;
“Over the past century, we have witnessed the sea level in Israel fluctuating with almost 19 centimetres between the highest and lowest levels. Over the past 50 years Israel’s mean sea level rise is 5.5 centimetres, but there have also been periods when it rose by 10 centimetres over 10 years. That said, even acute ups and downs over short periods do not testify to long-term trends. An observation of the sea levels over hundreds and thousands of years shows that what seems a phenomenon today is as a matter of fact “nothing new under the sun,”
I have a further 20 studies of this period from a variety of authors in my own article ‘Historic variations in sea levels- Part 1 The Holocene to the Romans.’
Citations of Medieval Warm Period;
1d) there are many studies of sea level in this period and much physical evidence such as sea castles stranded as levels dropped following their construction.
A useful graph is shown here covering the period 200AD to 1999 (sea levels have very arguably risen some 15mm since that time-see later citation)
It is part of a more general article on sea levels here;
“Figure 1. Global sea level from 200 A.D. to 2000, as reconstructed from proxy records of sea level by Moberg et al. 2005. The thick black line is reconstructed sea level using tide gauges (Jevrejeva, 2006). The lightest gray shading shows the 5 – 95% uncertainty in the estimates, and the medium gray shading denotes the one standard deviation error estimate. The highest global sea level of the past 110,000 years likely occurred during the Medieval Warm Period of 1100 – 1200 A.D., when warm conditions similar to today’s climate caused the sea level to rise 5 – 8″ (12 – 21 cm) higher than present. Image credit: Grinsted, A., J.C. Moore, and S. Jevrejeva, 2009, “Reconstructing sea level from paleo and projected temperatures 200 to 2100 AD”, Climate Dynamics, DOI 10.1007/s00382-008-0507-2, 06 January 2009
1e) We also have such luminaries as Prof Brian Fagan author of numerous books and Professor of Archaeology at the University of California. After conducting numerous studies he wrote in his book ‘The Little Ice Age’
“Ten thousand years ago the southern North sea was a marshy plain where elk and deer wandered…England was part of the continent until as recently as 6000 BC when rising sea levels caused by post ice age warming filled the North sea. By 3000 BC the ocean was at near modern levels. Sea levels fluctuated continually through late prehistoric and Roman times but rose significantly after 1000 AD. Over the next two centuries the North sea rose as much as 40-50 cms above today’s height in the low countries then slowly retreated again as temperature fell gradually in the north” (arctic)
2) Me; “Are you aware that the worldwide modern sea level record was cobbled together from only 23 tidal stations, only eight of which are older than 100 years.”
Citations: 2a)
Jerry Mitrovica
At around 9 mins 40 he shows the gauges, at around 35 mins he shows the location of the historic gauges I referred to which is exactly as I said. They can be more easily seen here
Citation 2b)
The reconstruction by IPCC using 23 tide gauges from 1900 -only 2 from the SH- and which include only seven that haven’t permanently moved -but ALL of those subject to considerable development around them necessitating temporary removal or cessation-is a poor piece of work. The latest existed only from 1933. A couple predate 1900. Missing information is interpolated. To then stick inaccurate satellite altimetry on top and try to pass it off as a highly accurate measure of the recent past is nonsensical.
The criteria and location of these gauges is shown here
As an aside, Tide gauges (like thermometers) were never intended to be highly accurate and varied enormously until very recent years with no standardisation. Here is one example;
Accurate to a fraction of an inch? I don’t think so, yet our entire sea level record is built on such as these
The controversy about the modern version of the sea level record is referred to by Jerry Mitrovica at around 45.54
Citation 2c)
I would refer you to Chapter 5 of AR4 which mentions this controversy (see 2b) as a brief note
Figure 5.13 on page 410 is the basis of many graphs used by Government and their agencies to promote scary sea level rises which are then eagerly picked up by the more sensationalist media and Al Gore.
There is a ‘missing’ section-reproduced below- of this report which is not generally seen as it is tucked away after many pages of references; It is 5A
It’s all worth reading-satellite inaccuracy is briefly mentioned but to keep on topic the tiny number of tidal gauges is shown as the very last graphs at 5A2
3) Me; “Are you aware that sea level has remained virtually static for the last four years or so and it would have to quadruple its previous rate of increase to reach the 1 metre rise suggested for the end of the century?”
Citation 3a) These are the official records (scroll down a little to see the graph)
It clearly shows sea levels are the same now as they were 4 or 5 years ago
Citation 3b) According to S. J. Holgate, a recognised world authority in geophysical research at the UK-based Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory in Liverpool, in his paper published in 2007, the following results represent the most comprehensive measurements of decadal sea-level change rates during the 20th century.
Between 1904 and 1953 global sea levels rose by 2.03 mm per year, whereas from 1954 to 2003 they rose by only 1.45 mm per year, giving an annual mean rate of 1.74 mm per year over the 100 years to 2003, or seven inches per century. Importantly, there was no increase in the rate of change over the whole century.
So, based on these peer reviewed and generally accepted numbers, 20th century sea levels rose at a 25% slower rate in the second half of the century than the first which, on any reasonable interpretation, contradicts the notion that global temperature increases during the last 50 years contributed to any sea level rise!”
This is graphically illustrated here.
Citation 3c)
Average rate of rise:
1904-1953: 2.03 ± 0.35 mm/year 1954-2003: 1.45 ± 0.34 mm/year
(virtually static since)
I trust that in the interests of balance you will not remove this post.”

Brian H
November 18, 2010 3:41 am

I’ve decided that Mikey and Philbert have created the need for a new phrase, denoting the opposite of “benefit of the doubt”. I think that “burden of the doubt” will do. So whenever there is a question of their bona fides or competence, the burden of the doubt will henceforth be applied to them, meaning the null hypothesis is that they’re screwing up, probably deliberately, unless proven otherwise.

November 18, 2010 3:51 am

If you touch my JUNC, I’ll have you arrested.

November 18, 2010 4:21 am

Jeff Alberts 7:15
Louise may have been naive in underestimating the knowledge of some WUWT readers, but since the piece was entitled “Climategate Anniversary Humor” I can’t see why her reference to “The Real Story of Climategate” is off-topic. She’s given us a good laugh, after all. Best wishes, Dave.

November 18, 2010 6:29 am

So far Kate has left my post and attached an annotation to it. I have replied to this.

November 18, 2010 9:05 am

Robert of Texas says:

Finally, the Theory of Everything. I knew String Theory (all of them) was a dead end, I should have been a climatologist.

Wow! OMG… AGW is the TOE!
It’s so obvious now! Einstein was barking up the wrong tree… all along it was anthropogenic CO2. Dude…. someone’s got to get a Nobel for this!

November 18, 2010 9:09 am

Kate censored out my comment yesterday, so I’m giving her another chance to post a different point of view. I posted this comment on her blog this morning:

After reading the voluminous and thoroughly convincing evidence provided by tonyb regarding sea levels – evidence which goes back two millennia and is validated by the University of Colorado and the peer reviewed Holgate studies which show conclusively that the recent rise in sea level has been exceeded in the past – Kate simply denies it all, saying: “the measurements could be overestimating the rise, but they could just as easily be underestimating it.”
That preposterous response deliberately ignores the reams of unrefuted evidence provided by tonyb. It is typical of believers in AGW to reject any peer reviewed evidence that falsifies their unscientific belief system. The consequence of that rejection of science is what Orwell called “doublethink”, and what is currently known as “cognitive dissonance”: the holding of two or more contradictory ideas at the same time, while rationalizing away facts that falsify their beliefs. Thus, the real deniers are those who reject science outright, in favor of their unfounded and repeatedly debunked beliefs: the sea level rise is slowing, therefore the time frame must be wrong:
But the general public, which is not so invested in the alarming belief in an evil “carbon,” is beginning to see that the self-serving promotion of the AGW scare is simply a means of generating grant income, raising taxes, and transferring political power to an unelected elite. That is why the tide of public sentiment is clearly turning against the AGW scaremongers.
Climategate was simply the catalyst that caused the public to begin questioning the ulterior motives of scientific charlatans like Jones, Mann, Santer, Briffa, Wang and others who clearly conspired to rig the system, from threatening professional journals, to corrupting FOIA officials, to tax evasion. It is all in their emails. Worse was the astonishing admission by the anonymous “Harry_Read_Me” programmer, who admitted that he simply fabricated data as he went along.
The hallmark of climate alarmist blogs is their almost universal censoring of comments that contradict the AGW Party line. But in the internet age, such censorship is impotent.
A major reason that has gone from zero to over 60 million page views in only 3 years is because WUWT has chosen to encourage debate by both sides, instead of trying to spoon-feed climate dogma to readers by censoring comments, as Kate does [note her censoring of James Allison’s comments, and replacing them with her own; whatever Mr Allison wrote, Kate will not allow readers to see it].
Censorship of opposing views has the very real effect of limiting readership to a small group of true believers who sing in chorus. But the average person wants to read both sides of the issue, and make up their own minds. The verdict is clear: public belief in the “carbon” scare is visibly waning, and alarmist blogs become small echo chambers inhabited by anti-science true believers.
So while Kate casually dismisses the wealth of information provided by tonyb with a cherry-picked time frame, those who have read tonyb’s citations see that the putative connection between “carbon” and sea level is simply a fabrication, and that the change in sea level is cyclical:

Somehow I suspect that Kate believes too strongly in censoring skeptical viewpoints to allow this one to be seen either.

November 18, 2010 11:43 am

Well Smokey I don’t think you’ll win any prizes for diplomacy. 🙂

James Goneaux
November 18, 2010 1:02 pm

Its funny because is true:
“Chained by his neck to two female protesters, University of Waterloo doctoral student Dan Kellar…a PhD student in geography who teaches courses in climate change and environmental assessment”.
Just sayin’, if anyone is wondering why certain students think the way they do…

Brian H
November 18, 2010 2:36 pm

Kate employs the standard ploy of AGW gatekeepers: demanding citations and evidence going back to the year Dot from those who challenge the AGW speculation, but never requiring similar or any documentation from those who praise and support her line.

November 18, 2010 4:55 pm

Hi tonyb,
I do seem to have a grudge against people who are in favor of picking our pockets, running our lives, and transferring our honestly earned national wealth to corrupt third-rate countries, all based on the discredited “carbon” scare. Sorry if my response seems a little abrupt.
If there were any possibility of having a reasonable discussion based on science rather than scare tactics, I would respond entirely differently. But as you can see from the casual, off-hand dismissal of all the effort you put into your post, Kate’s mind is closed tight. None of what you painstakingly researched and wrote will have the slightest effect on her belief system.
Turning the other cheek to the incessant insults, disparagement and name-calling directed at skeptics by alarmist blogs is like bipartisanship: the other side gets all the benefit. [And you’ll just get slapped on the other cheek in the process.] Notice that Anthony regularly bends over backward holding out olive branches to the alarmist crowd. Take a peek sometime at what the Climate Progress-type blogs say about him in return. They make my comments look like they were written by Mother Theresa.☺

November 18, 2010 6:16 pm

Don’t you just love it when the 18-year old Kate preaches her indoctrinated CAGW to you? She wouldn’t know the scientific method if it bit her on the ankle. Of course, that’s not entirely her fault; she is just regurgitating the globaloney she’s been spoon-fed by a corrupt educational system.
For the edification of her readers, I provided the following charts:

Here we have the Pacific ocean sea level:
And the Atlantic:
And global:
And the trend:
The UoC shows the same declining rate of SL rise:
And the satellite data shows the same declining rate of rise:
And the declining SL anomaly:
The sea level rise goes in cycles – with zero connection to CO2:
And despite the hand-wringing over Tuvalu, nothing unusual is occurring:
An NOAA animation showing the natural sea level cycles:
ALL of the wild-eyed predictions claiming an acceleration in sea level rise have been thoroughly debunked by different authorities.
Increasing rates of SL rise is claimed to be a direct, predictable and unavoidable consequence of AGW. Well, it just is not happening.
Back to the drawing board, folks. That hypothesis has been repeatedly falsified.

I doubt that she’ll allow them to see it though – they might start thinking for themselves. The charts are taken from empirical evidence, rather than the models and grant-chasing papers she posts. In climate alarmist land, falsified models trump real world data.

November 19, 2010 1:55 am

Tony and Smokey,
Here’s what I posted. I wonder if Kate will let it through.
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
November 19, 2010 @ 4:28 am
The Holgate paper referred to a few times above says in its abstract:
“The rate of sea level change was found to be larger in the early part of last century (2.03 ± 0.35 mm/yr 1904–1953), in comparison with the latter part (1.45 ± 0.34 mm/yr 1954–2003). ”
In the discussion section it says:
“However, a greater rate of rise in the early part of the record is consistent with previous analyses of tide gauge records which suggested a general deceleration in sea level rise during the 20th century [Woodworth, 1990; Douglas, 1992; Jevrejeva et al., 2006].”
For the benefit of those who don’t have full access to the paper, I can confirm that the image Tonyb links to is correct.
The more recent Woodworth et al paper says:
“Most sea-level data originate from Europe and North America, and both the sets display evidence for a positive acceleration, or ‘inflexion’, around 1920–1930 and a negative one around 1960. These inflexions are the main contributors to reported accelerations since the late 19th century, and to decelerations during the mid- to late 20th century. “

November 19, 2010 2:29 am

Well none of your cites has got through.
Paul M, thank you for your support.
I posted this just now. It must be stressed that I take Kate as I see her. She says she is 18. She is obviously bright and to date has not been unfair to me. It would be usdeful if she could perhaps look around at alternative well authenticated information before takingh a firm stance and practice rather less censorship, or apply her requests for citation to all who support her. I agree with her about the need for courtesy in blogging.
My post
“So many comments!
You do know who that ‘wunder blog guy’ is don’t you? He is not ‘some guy on a blog’ He is the very eminent Dr Jeff Masters who has collaborated with Joe Romm and is most definitely on YOUR side! I cited the first link as it is a graph in isolation that is nice and clear (but unlabelled) then I immediately cited his second where the ref to Moberg and Grinsted is clearly made in the attribution. If he has ‘left something off’ perhaps Joe and Jeff can jointly sort it out
The University of Colorado’s iconic headline graph is compiled with the seasonal signal included and inverse barometer not applied.
This is the graph accessed by govt and their agencies around the world and used in Noaa presentations. In your using a graph with inverse barometer applied and seasonal signal removed you are comparing apples and oranges. Can I suggest that if you don’t like the way that the University of Colorado present their headline information that you lobby them and not me.
In my view a 500 year period is necessary to quantify sea level changes so I went back 2000 years with my information and am glad you agree with me that using data from the current century does not constitute a trend. In applying these criteria I hope you will be consistent and point this out to anyone trying to claim accelerating sea levels in the current century?
What the IPCC demonstrates with their record is that sea levels have been gently rising over the last century but fail to put it into context that oscillations are not unusual in the historic context. Sea levels have been rising and falling over the last 2000 years (as cited) and they are lower today than in the MWP and Roman optimum (as cited)
In relying on satellite records since 1994 we are further losing the context of these long term changes. The University of Colorado measure satellite sea level since 1994 and it is the record most commonly referred to these days, but such data is rather meaningless unless compared with tide gauges (as suggested by the IPCC as cited later) as they show rather different things.
Why the disparity? Let’s go back to the IPCC.
The change’ from tide gauges to satellites can be seen here;
Chapter 5 on p409 figure 1, and again in 5.13 on page 410
If you didn’t find that very clear it is more evident here
The best way of seeing the disparity between tide gauges and satellites is to go here where the two methods are separated out.
(This site does have a habit of defaulting to its home page, if it does that go to ‘sea level viewer’ then ‘view interactive data’)
When we look at tide gauges we see them changing by around 1.70 mm per year.
Satellites show a change of 3.28mm per year virtually 100% greater.
Now I am not a great fan of the aggregated tide gauge record seeing as it relies on so few gauges (as cited) most with short histories (as cited) or have moved (as cited) or have been interpolated (as cited) To globally aggregate such low grade information only compounds the errors However, anyone working on flood defence work would use a tide gauge as it provides a more accurate record of the place where the sea actually hits the land, where people live, as opposed to satellites which measure open sea.
Satellites themselves have considerable bands of error which may explain the disparity. I will again refer to the IPCC report Chapter 5
On Page 431 of Chapter 5 they talk of satellite errors.
“The total measurement accuracy for the TOPEX/Poseidon altimetry based
Sea surface height is about 80 mm (95% error) for a single measurement based on one-second along-track averages (Chelton et al., 2001)”
.Now of course multiple passes reduce this;
““The 95% error associated with a 10-day mean sea level estimate is approximately 8 mm”.
No doubt Jason 1 and Jason 2 may improve matters further but to gain any sort of meaningful accuracy the IPCC recommend that correlating tide gauges and satellites is the best way of correcting inherent errors.(see page 431)
In separating out the Satellite data from the aggregated tide gauges (which are by no means perfect but ‘good enough’ for local circumstances) the ‘robust’ means of determining actual rise-by comparison- is lost. (Complications arise with land movements up or down which causes much of the apparent sea level change from the land perspective).
Readers can find out for themselves the relative inaccuracy of satellites and that their margin of error is as great as the measurement they are taking by googling. The point needs to be made that looking at satellites in isolation is problematic and that tidal gauges (as cited) also have their own degrees of in exactitude.
When these problematic records are then not put into their historic context the belief that these are unprecedented times as regards sea level rise starts to take hold.

November 19, 2010 7:25 am

Louise says:
November 17, 2010 at 8:07 am
Excellent summary of the whole climategate affair at
Well worth a visit

As the moderator of the above referenced site seems to delete arguments they are unable to refute I’ll re-post them here….
Just wow.
“a small group of people sorted through the emails”? Not you though, eh? You have your fingers firmly in your ears and you are absolutely determined not to hear anything that might upset your world-view.
Which is why you seem to have constructed this whole amazing narrative for yourself in which heroic climate scientists are fighting the good fight against the, presumably “big oil” funded, forces of darkness.
It’s a narrative in which everything – from subverting the peer review process to ensuring investigations contain only a “token sceptic” to deleting source data – has just been taken out of context.
And it is a narrative that, conveniently, means that you don’t have to question any of your – obviously deeply held – paradigms, re-examine any of the received wisdom of your lecturers or feel any compulsion to actually read the emails.
Given the straw-man arguments you ascribe to sceptics it’s also clear that you are living entirely in the global warming echo chamber and have never been exposed to an actual sceptical argument.
You are young, you are saving the world and nothing as mundane as the urban heat island effect or our inability to balance the energy budget is going to stand in the way of your being the fearless heroine of your narrative.
But let’s assume that the media sound bites about the emails are, as you say, taken out of context (though I’d aver that the context actually makes them far worse).
What cannot be taken out of context is the computer code the whistle-blower released at the same time. This is the math behind your religion. It isn’t open to interpretation in the same way as the emails. It isn’t about emotions or feelings – it is entirely empirical.
Let’s take this function as an example:
; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
Real science doesn’t need a “fudge factor”. Real science doesn’t need functions that will produce a hockey stick graph from random data. And real science doesn’t need a consensus becuase when you can actually prove something you don’t need one.
You obviously have a well organised self-delusion set up, and that’s fine. To an extent we all live in the world we construct in our own head, and so please feel free to choose for yourself as environmentally concious a life as you prefer.
But please don’t presume to make those choices on anyone elses behalf, and please don’t expect the rest of us to sell our children into economic servitute to placate your imaginary demons.

November 19, 2010 9:09 am

Simon Barnett
No your post hasnt appeared either. We can only hope some of them will come over here and see the censorship that is being applied. It is disappointing as she is too young to have a closed mind.
Has anyone actually gone over there to comment on her paper? It was well written although I doubt many of us would agree with her findings.
Anyway I just posted two more comments. Kate hasn’t removed any of mine to date but I place them here for public record.
Post 1
Hello The Ville
I made a simple comment to which I was asked to provide citatiions which I have. I didn’t realise that I was apparently being intereviewed for a position as a lead author on the nexr IPCC assessment or else I would have spent six months composing the replies.
Incidentally my post immediately above this was intended for general consumption after the first few remarks to Hank and Tamino. The formatting makes it appear as though the bulk of it was addressed to the latter. If the audience here are the general public as Kate hopes, it may be they didn’t know how Chapter 5 came into being or that the tide gauge record effectively finished in the year 2000.
I do feel we are getting away from the main point of this thread which was to comment on Kates post. She has done a lot of hard work and I feel guilty that I have somewhat hijacked this space and few people have subsequently had a chance to comment on her work.
No doubt you are all eager to read the 5 papers she cited as vindicating Prof Jones and CRU and will then make some comments and suggestions to her? I will read through them myself now-it will be useful to have them all in one place
Post 2
Perhaps you didn’t see my post at 5.20 as it has rolled over on to the previous page?
I don’t need a few days to check my ‘cites’ as this must be the first time in the history of AGW that its proponents complain when someone references information from the IPCC (many times), Nasa, Noaa, Wkipedia, Dr Jeff Masters, University of Colorado, Proudman, Jerry Mitrovica, Grinsted, Moberg and Professor Brian Fagan.

November 19, 2010 11:59 am

“she is too young to have a closed mind. ”
Unfortunately that’s the result of the indoctrination. Even at the risk of invoking Godwin’s Law it is immensley difficult not to draw the inevitable comparison with the Hitler youth.
And it is going on all around us, every day, in a million tiny ways.
Last week my six year old was offered a sticker by her school if she would just “cut her CO2 emmisions” by getting Daddy to walk her to school. She had absolutely no idea what a carbon emission was, but she was certain she wanted that sticker and definitely didn’t want to be ostracised by her peers for being the only one who didn’t join in with this little charade.
Pushing a highly partisan viewpoint such as climate change in a school is illegal under the Education act, as I ended up explaining to a bemused looking school secretary.
Fortunately even my 6 year old is bright enough to identify the satellite photo with the most ice coverage when satellite photos of the Arctic in 2007 and 2010 were placed side by side for her inspection.
At which point she dried her eyes, fixed me with her most knowing stare and spake the immortal words: “Not all adverts are true, are they Daddy?”.
No, sweetheart, they are not.

November 19, 2010 12:47 pm

have been reading the comments of tonyb, smokey and simon. Very good chaps – but I honestly do not understand why you bother? I realise it is good for us all to try and educate the warmist types – but as the saying goes – you can take a horse to water but cannot make him drink – and so it goes with such blogs, which in many instances seem to be some kind of egotistical platform for those who cannot ‘make it’ elsewhere in life (or am I being to harsh?)
But really guys, – its just my own view – but giving such sites any attendance or attention is pointless – let the self prevaricating and procrastinating sites carry on – hopefully, in several years, the site archives will be used to show how shallow these folk are!

November 19, 2010 12:54 pm

Simon Barnett says:
November 19, 2010 at 11:59 am
very well said Simon – though personally I might have taken the school to task!
The majority of kids are bright enough to make logical deductions whenever they are presented with real facts as options instead of a biased view.
My 15 yr old saw through all the MSM promoted BS in a project last year and presented a good showing – without even knowing that I was an active sceptic! Needless to say, I was well proud! LOL

November 19, 2010 3:01 pm

Well its getting quite bizarre over at climate sight not helped by the moderation which means a whole string of posts seem to get released at one time and scatter themselves out of sequence making it diffult to follow who said what when.
I see the cite from Paul M has finally appeared. The fact you referenced Holgate was castigated by Hank.
I am disappointed to say that Kate is now heavily censoring my posts which spoils the narrative and context whilst removing chunks of relevant information.
These are my latest posts, some of which were needed due to this censoring as can be seen.
“Tamino said
“Apparently you tried to claim that data should not be analyzed with the seasonal signal removed, but Kate called your BS, insisting on a cite. You’re wrong again. Data should not be analyzed *without* the seasonal cycle removed. I’m a professional, I specialize in the statistical analysis of time series — I know.”
I said nothing of the sort.
I also agreed with you that four years is FAR too short a time to analyse.
You then said;
“You made claims about the satellite data which were wrong”
I didn’t make the claims, the comments came verbatim from Chapter 5 of AR4 as did the comments about inaccuracy. I don’t blame you particularly for making these completely unwarranted comments-Kate took it upon herself to heavily censor my post and you aren’t a mind reader.
Perhaps she would like to reinstate it so you can see the whole post and in its correct context?
Your posts are suddenly appearing all over the place.This refers to your 11.32
As the sequence of posts has become so disjointed it is difficult to follow why you think I was looking for that cite from Douglas. I wasn’t.
Quite what you think it says and why I will need to rethink my own material has left me bemused. Have you read it? It confirms many of the things I have said here. In particular it confirms the rate of change measured by tide gauges as cited in my 5.20 post which is on the first page-the material came from Nasa. I remarked that satellite and tide gauges show different things and cited the sea level rise shown by both.
So no, I dont need to redo any of the things, thank you.
Mind you, didn’t you find it ironic that after railing against the use of papers by Holgate you then cite the Douglas paper which references several of them? Does that disqualify the Douglas paper?
Now I think we’ve spent quite enough time on what has become a circular argument so I’ll leave the stage for people to comment on Kates paper.

Gerald Machnee
November 19, 2010 5:19 pm

The citations request is a regular cop out at climatesight when she has no evidence. Then there is outright censoring as in Unreal Climate.
Of course Hank is a regular there so he has also joined in to help Kate.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights