Climate And Truth: A Tale Of Immorality?

Guest opinion: Dr. Tim Ball

The most recent aberration of climate science is the apparent cherry picking of ocean temperature data by government scientists, Richard Feely and Christopher Sabine. The objective is not to determine what is happening, but why it is happening, and then link it to a human cause. This, cart before the horse approach, was the raison d’etre of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) from the start. In order to emphasize why it is happening, it helps to detail, for politicians, the damaging effects. In this case, it is the deleterious impact of human addition of CO2 to the atmosphere that is not only causing warming, but, they claim, also changing the acidity level of the oceans (ocean acidification). All this challenges the claim that humans are distinctive as the “moral ape” a concept explored over 2000 years ago in Aesop’s fable of, “The Apes and Two Travellers”.

Kudos goes to Marita Noon for bringing this story to our attention. Disturbing, beyond what they did, is that they see nothing wrong with their actions. Worse, they reject the explanation. This behavior in climate science appears to reflect the mentality developed in western society, and is summarized beautifully in the cartoon.


These aberrations are part of a wider trend, ironically identified by Osama Bin Laden when he said the west has lost its moral direction. The fact we don’t want his moral direction either, doesn’t make it any less true.

The problem is multiple in its forms, but simple in its trend and essentially summarized by two modern dictums.

· You only broke the law, or the rules, if you got caught. Even if you get caught, you brazen it out with the help of a lawyer and/or a public relations person.

· If you are not with me, you must be against me. Only listening to or associating with like-minded people reinforces this. A recent WUWT article underlined the degree to which this occurs, when the author opened by saying he did something unusual, he read the “alarmists” web site RealClimate.

As usual, the response by Sabine was more an attempted cover-up. It, and the original article, reveals another example of the climate scientist’s art of cherry picking and believing that the end justifies the means. Roseanne D’Arrigo was the first to put this on the public record as reported by Steve McIntyre.

“D’Arrigo put up a slide about “cherry picking” and then she explained to the panel that that’s what you have to do if you want to make cherry pie.”

D’Arrigo was preceded by the first major exposure of cherry picking in the IPCC climate science by Benjamin Santer in the 1995 Report. Only a few, including Fred Singer, Fredrick Seitz and John Daly, knew what was done. The cover-up was relatively easy, especially when the big guns of the New York Times and the Guardian were fired.

Santer’s changes were spotted early, but Nature, a journal that was freindly to the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) gang, didn’t publish the rebuttals until 5 months later (12 Dec 1996). One identified the cherry picking, the other a natural explanation for the pattern. By then the PR cover up was under way. On July 25, 1996 the American Meteorological Society (AMS) sent a letter of defense to Santer. The letter is evidence of CRU influence and a PR masterpiece. It narrowed the focus to two questions, the science, and society’s reaction. They said the only relevant science was in “peer-reviewed scientific publications – not the media. This challenged who controlled information. The Internet is the final stage of democracy, because it took information out of the hands of a few and into the hands of everybody. The AMS argued for their retention of control of information and thereby the debate.

What is important scientific information and how it is interpreted in the policy debates is an important part of our jobs.” “That is, after all, the very reasons for the mix of science and policy in the IPCC.”

John Daly correctly called this “Scientism”.

Exposure of Santer’s cherry picking by Singer and Seitz, led to the public relations inspired use of the link with tobacco. Singer had published a well-documented analysis of an article on second-hand smoke. It was, as he identified, a terrible piece of scientific research; a fact since confirmed by others, but explained to me by a doctor, who specialized in lung cancer, when the article was first released. This paper was used to say the tobacco lobby paid Singer and then, by inference, that all “deniers” since are akin to those who deny the link between smoking and cancer. In fact, Singer has long and actively opposed smoking. He simply pointed out that bad research, when exposed, would likely give more credibility to the tobacco lobby.

I understand the dilemma that incorrect science creates, because for years I was charged with “comforting polluters”. I was not deterred, because I realized that the greater problem was in deceiving people with falsified science. When the deception is exposed, the polluters are more comforted, because they can say they lied to you. Aesop also identified this “cry wolf” problem. My greater concern over the last several years is the lost momentum and misdirection on environmental issues and declining scientific credibility.

A classic example of the climate science mentality at the CRU was exposed in a leaked email from February 2, 2005.

Mike (Mann), I presume congratulations are in order – so congrats etc !

Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better this time ! And don’t leave stuff lying around on ftp sites – you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? – our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it. We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it – thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that. IPR should be relevant here, but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at UEA who’ll say we must adhere to it !

This is important because people at the CRU were effectively the IPCC, beginning with Tom Wigley, the Director who preceded Jones. They controlled critical chapters. All along, Wigley was the person they went to for direction as this email reveals. Wigley is revealed in the 1990 documentary, “The Greenhouse Conspiracy”, which is remarkably relevant today. The email appears to manifest a person who has lost a moral direction.

The other “go to person” from the start was the late Stephen Schneider. He set the tone and actively influenced the direction of the climate science and the IPCC with his 1989 infamous quote in Discovery magazine.

On the one hand we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but& which means that we must include all the doubts, caveats, ifs and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists, but human beings as well. And like most people, we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we have to get some broad-based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This double ethical bind which we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.

Many people only quote the underlined portion, but the entire passage is revealing, especially the penultimate sentence. Schneider didn’t realize that there is no balance between being effective and being honest. Anything less is a deception. You can leave things out but you must explain why. Schneider is apparently trying to rationalize and thus justify immoral actions. It is a feeble attempt to say, the end justifies the means. When they were in trouble after the CRU email leak, they called on Schneider to help with the Summary for Policymakers (SPM).

The active pursuit of data and use of methods to create the desired scientific, and thereby political outcome was morally and scientifically wrong. This was bolstered by what was left out, the cherry picking. It variously involved,

· Leaving out data, as in Sabine and Feely,

· Selecting start and stop points on graphs, to provide a desired trend, as in Santer,

· Omitting entire sectors of causes of climate change, such as omission of the Milankovitch Effect, or the Cosmic Theory.

· Omission began with the deliberately narrow definition of climate change that restricted the IPCC to only human causes.

· Omitting all the severe limitations of the science and computer models identified in the Working Group I Report, The Physical Science Basis from the SPM.

There are lies of commission and omission, and both fit the political and PR practices of IPCC climate science. Humans learn both types of lies as children. In fact, one of the classifications chosen by anthropologists to distinguish humans from all other animals is the ability to lie. The designation, Homo sapiens, supposedly separated us because we could think conceptually, that is we could take disparate information and link it. Then we discovered other animals making similar conceptual connections, so they decided that we were different because we could lie. This requires a double conceptual understanding. You have to know the truth and then figure out how to circumvent it, hence the current designation of humans as, Homo sapiens sapiens. How is that for a moral distinction to be proud of? Of course, the recent support of IPCC climate science by Pope Francis puts the cat amongst the moral pigeons.

Sins of omission are an important part of advertising and public relations. They justify the sin as emphasizing the positive, but it is really avoiding the negative. It is manifest in various forms in the environmental and global warming war. Identifying only benefits, instead of a balanced and realistic cost/benefit study, was used to promote alternate energy. Proponents of the human production of CO2 (AGW) hypothesis only examined what they claimed were the negative impacts. The IPCC did not look at the benefits of global warming. Equally effective in their deception was avoidance of positive benefits of CO2, not least the sustenance of all life through the production of oxygen. A measure of the inanity that results from the IPCC deceptions is the push, by activists like Al Gore and Bill McKibben, to reduce atmospheric CO2 levels. This, despite the scientific research and empirical evidence, that plants function best between 1000 -1200 parts per million (ppm), so are malnourished at the current levels of 400 ppm. All this is a result of the aberrations created by the IPCC and manifest in Sabine and Feely’s latest example. It is time to establish power of attorney for the plants and vote on their behalf against any immoral measure to reduce CO2 levels.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
January 2, 2015 9:52 am

All excellent points. This will go down as one of the “dark ages” of science.

Reply to  daveandrews723
January 2, 2015 12:52 pm

That is a good description of the current times.

Bryan A
Reply to  philjourdan
January 2, 2015 2:10 pm

As long as 97% of the people you survey agree with your view, You have concensus

Bryan A
Reply to  philjourdan
January 2, 2015 2:12 pm

Even if you have to Disregard, Filter out, Tweak, Spin, or Negate 99.7% of all other respondants to find that 97% that agree with you

Reply to  philjourdan
January 2, 2015 6:27 pm

@Bryan A – You could have let me add the last part. 😉

Reply to  philjourdan
January 3, 2015 2:25 am

And they call this progressive enlightend liberalism.(ideological based science/propaganda)

Jim Francisco
Reply to  daveandrews723
January 2, 2015 2:28 pm

I hope the dark ages is limited to the science.

Reply to  Jim Francisco
January 2, 2015 4:48 pm

Specifically, limited to climate science. Computer science is doing wonderfully.

Reply to  Jim Francisco
January 2, 2015 4:55 pm

Now, now. Science is doing extremely well and we have much, if not most, to be thankful for.
Yes, there are a few mediocre scientists that are milking politics with fanatical desperation but, hopefully (although I don’t expect it to happen), they will be brought to shame and justice eventually. Most likely, as it has happened in the past (e.g., Chomsky and acolytes), they will cash their checks and disappear into golden retirement.
Nonetheless, science as a whole continues to advance in leaps and bounds, providing _all_ of humanity with outstanding improvements to our quality of life. Please take a look at the world just a hundred years ago and compare. It’s phenomenal progress… and even more laudable when one considers that it’s taken place despite many, many, many brutal obstacles thrown at us.

Reply to  Jim Francisco
January 2, 2015 6:13 pm

It is not. Politics is rampant with many people without honor or integrity. The financial world is also in the dark ages. The judicial system is broken as well, and finally, religion is moving back to the dark ages.

Lil Fella from OZ
Reply to  Jim Francisco
January 4, 2015 6:09 pm

It is rampant. Just check the recent addition to the list of mental disorder. (latest edition of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders). That will/should scare you.

Reply to  daveandrews723
January 2, 2015 10:31 pm

I agree. It will go down as one of the “dark ages” of science

Reply to  jim Steele
January 4, 2015 12:14 pm

Not just science, I suspect. In fact AGW is probably part of a much larger trend (or trends).

Uncle Gus
Reply to  daveandrews723
January 3, 2015 1:02 pm

I’m not so sure. Back in the 1930s “Race Science” was highly respectable not just in Nazi Germany, but worldwide, simply because it validated everyone’s prejudices. Earlier, ideas such as vitalism hung on long after they should have disappeared, because they fitted in with a Victorian worldview.
Science is done by people, not machines. In this case, people who have been raised by those who lived through WWII, the first ever nuclear war. Distrust of humanity is bred in their bones, not to mention distrust of the dispassionate, strictly scientific outlook.
Dark Age of politics, possibly. If the only Great Cause anyone can come up with is Back to the Middle Ages…

Doug Proctor
January 2, 2015 9:55 am

Bad science in geology is just bad science. You read it and dismiss it – the conclusions, that is, because generally the observations are solid. The difference with climate science is that ANY science, good or bad, is governmentally and ideologically supported if the conclusions are pro-CAGW, and not supported if it is anti-CAGW.
DiCaprio is listened to only because he is the good-looking cheerleader for the team on a streak to win the Super Bowl. The “science” he speaks from is not from the observation side he doesn’t understand, as he freely admits, but from the conclusion-side he also freely admits he doesn’t understand. He’s just cheering on the home team. Will the home team wear the ring this year? Nobody knows, but we cheer on our favourites anyway.
The public and media don’t recognize this situation. They think that conclusions automatically fall out of observation. If they did, all the world would have needed since year dot were engineers.
(And, BTW, animals lie also: primates pretend the good berry bush has nothing so they can circle back and not share with the others, and roosters pretend there is good eatin’ so the hens come rushing over to be “done” by the rooster when they are busy looking for the non-existent feed. Self-interest is the way to go when there are enough resources that everybody in your genetic tree is going to survive, as it increases the odds of transmission of YOUR particular gene load. Altruism – an aspect that requires truth-telling – works to increase the survival of your FAMILY gene load when resources are not obviously or actually sufficiently available for everyone.)
BTW again, you have a couple of typos, including “temperature” instead of “pH values” for Sabine’s study. Unwise to trust your own editorial accuracy.

Reply to  Doug Proctor
January 2, 2015 1:40 pm

In a thinly veiled effort to avoid OT, I will say that I learned much of my sciences and maths at the University of Oregon. Don’t believe DiCaprio is an alum, so I’ll just have to say it myself Go DUCKS!
My limited experience with those other ducks is that they are probably just way too direct to lie – he/she races to the bread and gobbles all he/she can. Of course, I now have a testable hypothesis, but it is winter and too cold to rig up the study out there. Time for the grant app.

Will Nelson
Reply to  Bubba Cow
January 2, 2015 4:02 pm

Can I sneak down from UW and be a Duck this week? Veeerrry thinly veiled!!

Reply to  Doug Proctor
January 4, 2015 12:18 pm

Speaking of bad science … I’d be careful of all these accounts of cleverness in animals, like being able to intentionally fool their conspecifics, especially below the level of the great apes. A good antidote to this is some of the work of the classical ethologists (like Tinbergen), which often go to show just how limited the cognitive abilities of many vertebrates really are.

January 2, 2015 10:07 am

Please rescan the comic to a higher resolution – I was barely able to read it.

Ed Brown
Reply to  SCheesman
January 2, 2015 11:23 am

Re legibility:
You can open the image in a new window, or simply right click on the image and select [View Image] followed by [CTRL]-Zoom using mouse wheel to expand to legible size. (Win7 with Firefox)
Old eyes teach tricks. I must do this constantly it seems. An easy trick to learn.

Reply to  Ed Brown
January 2, 2015 11:47 am

Yeah, but the resolution is still lousy. Probably 30dpi or less. I need 70dpi to read anything.

Reply to  Ed Brown
January 2, 2015 12:35 pm

Even zoomed in, It’s still too low a resolution to be very clear.

Reply to  Ed Brown
January 3, 2015 7:25 pm

Here it is, full size:

John Endicott
Reply to  SCheesman
January 2, 2015 1:31 pm

You can read the original strip here
It’s a comic called “Non Sequitur”.

January 2, 2015 10:12 am

The last sentence is priceless.

Gentle Tramp
Reply to  Guy
January 2, 2015 10:37 am

True, true! It’s very amazing indeed that the Greens don’t realize the obvious fact that no other substance could make our planet easier greener than somewhat more atmospheric CO2 …

Reply to  Gentle Tramp
January 2, 2015 11:40 am

But they don’t want the planet greener. They want to control everyone and dictate all their actions.

Reply to  Gentle Tramp
January 2, 2015 11:32 pm

Not amazing at all, they are mostly watermellons, green on the outside and red on the inside. What they want is power, the power to make everyone do what they want.

January 2, 2015 10:14 am

The final absurdity of the warmists creed is that any change upwards in the earth’s observable climate is all bad for everyone and everything. Surely even the most fervent disciple can see the idiocy of that position? But no, they do not – I shudder with contempt.

Harry Passfield
Reply to  cnxtim
January 2, 2015 11:53 am

cnxtim: Quite right. I have yet to find anyone in the alarmist camp who can tell me why warming should be such a disaster. And in case they were to claim ‘weird weather’ in their defence, I repeat, they have not explained to me why warming would create ‘weird weather’ (which they have told me [weather] is not climate)..

Reply to  Harry Passfield
January 2, 2015 12:28 pm

When they tell you about ‘weird weather’ ask them for the peer reviewed evidence linking the alleged ‘weird weather’ to man’s greenhouse gases. Ask them not to quote newspaper articles alone. If they insist then show them these 3 articles written by George Monbiot of the left leaning Guardian newspaper of the UK.

Guardian – 15 February, 2005
George Monbiot
It is now mid-February, and already I have sown 11 species of vegetable. I know, though the seed packets tell me otherwise, that they will flourish. Everything in this country – daffodils, primroses, almond trees, bumblebees, nesting birds – is a month ahead of schedule. And it feels wonderful. Winter is no longer the great grey longing of my childhood. The freezes this country suffered in 1982 and 1963 are, unless the Gulf Stream stops, unlikely to recur. Our summers will be long and warm. Across most of the upper northern hemisphere, climate change, so far, has been kind to us.
Guardian – 6 January 2010
Leo Hickman & George Monbiot
Britain’s cold snap does not prove climate science wrong
Climate sceptics are failing to understand the most basic meteorology – that weather is not the same as climate, and single events are not the same as trends
…Now we are being asked to commit ourselves to the wilful stupidity of extrapolating a long-term trend from a single event….
Guardian – 20 December 2010
George Monbiot
That snow outside is what global warming looks like
Unusually cold winters may make you think scientists have got it all wrong. But the data reveal a chilling truth

Reply to  Harry Passfield
January 2, 2015 12:51 pm

Why would warming be a disaster? But that’s obvious! All the Ice will melt! The seas will rise! The whole Earth will be flooded!
Then Kevin Costner Trenberth will grow gills and save us all by leading us to dry land!
Ether that or the Mid-Atlantic conveyor will shut down and result in an Instant Ice-Age. Funny how two completely opposite outcome are both possible, but that’s Climate Science.

Reply to  Harry Passfield
January 2, 2015 4:55 pm

Pretty good recent article by Dr. Roy Spencer on the subject :

Reply to  Harry Passfield
January 4, 2015 12:24 pm

Those quotes are priceless. While it may help the warmists’ cause (and sanity) not to remember, it gives those who do a real edge.

January 2, 2015 10:17 am

Dr. Ball,
Leaving out data, as in Sabine and Feely
As said in response by Sabine: the pH data before 1984 are too unreliable to show any trend. They didn’t leave out these data, they did show the real faint pH trend as measured/calculate in the period since 1984. And they did show (in another picture) the extremely small theoretical trend in the period 1850-1984, which is widely within the cloud of historical pH data before 1984.
Thus even if they had shown the average pH decline of the historical pH data, including the margins of error, that wouldn’t have changed one part of what they have shown…
This is not a case of “hiding the decline” or leaving out inconvenient data, as there are no reliable data before 1984 to show any trend, up or down.

chris moffatt
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
January 2, 2015 11:15 am

As I read the statement of Dr Sabine it seems to me that we do in fact have good records on this topic going back over a century or so. Measuring pH is after all a very simple chemical operation. One is left with an impression that the lack of a trend in those records is what makes them “unreliable” and so discardable.
But not to worry, the real culprits for CAGW have at last been identified and they aren’t humans. They are in fact: arctic ground squirrels, beavers and domestic ungulates. Of course this emphasizes another real problem of climate science – constant shifting of the scientific basis. I’ve given up counting how many cockamamie reasons for unproven GW have been given over the years, though I did note recently that the “explanations” for the halt in warming now number around fifty with little or no evidence to support most of them. Those of course are in addition to warmist denials that there is a halt in warming. It ain’t the kind of science I was told about at university in my Physics, Geology, Cosmology, Climatology classes….

Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
January 2, 2015 11:36 am

If showing the historical pH data “wouldn’t have changed one part of what they have shown,” then why did Sabine stubbornly refuse to provide the data when requested? Why not provide the data with an explanation of why they thought it was unreliable and let people decide for themselves? Isn’t that the proper way to do science? When you hide data, it makes you look like you’re trying to hide something. That’s because you are.

Reply to  Louis
January 2, 2015 3:35 pm

The data were made available about during the time of the correspondence between Wallace and Sabine…

Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
January 2, 2015 11:42 am

Accuracy doesn’t stop climate scientists from using less accurate weather station data instead of the more accurate satellite data. The ignored data covers a much larger time period and geographic range. But of course it doesn’t match the theory, so it can’t be accurate.
Here is what you get when you plot the data, for depth = 0:
Here it is with with obvious outliers removed:
Here is the average, variance, and standard deviation with obvious outliers removed. Note the low variance. Almost always < 0.1 pH.

Joe Crawford
Reply to  ferdberple
January 2, 2015 2:10 pm

Thanks Ferd,
I hope it didn’t take ages (i.e., many man-months of your time) for you to analyze the data to arrive at those ‘complex trend’ plots. I got the impression that, since the data was too unreliable to show any trend that it would take way too much time for anyone to find any useful information within. (/sark off)

Reply to  ferdberple
January 4, 2015 12:41 am

What Ferdberple doesn’t see is that if you have a lot of fixed stations like thermometer huts and a lot of data taken over time, you can make an average and a global trend. The troubles start when they change the equipment, the hour(s) of reading, when they move the stations or when the number of stations change. The latter was the case when the USSR collapsed: hundreds of remote stations (Siberia) were closed and coincidentally (?) global temperatures dropped.
In the case of pH measurements, these shift from year to year to different oceans and different tracks and are heavily weighted to the oceans under Japan. When the pH measurements show a huge drop (0.15 unit) 1990-1995, there was a huge drop of total pH measurements but an increase of measurements in the Baltic, which is a brackish sea with a pH below the ocean average.
Thus there is all reason to assume that the drop in pH 1990-1995 was caused by a drop in stations and a shift in sample weight towards lower pH and that the calculated drop is just an artifact of the sampling…

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
January 2, 2015 12:18 pm

Ferdinand, “there are no reliable data before 1984 to show any trend, up or down.”
Or, there is no significant trend up or down. If it is measured to 0.1 pH units or so, and there are millions of them (which can be binned in decadal averages), the central limit theorem should reveal a SIGNIFICANT trend. One sample of Titan’s ocean identified it as liquid methane. We are happy with that for the rest of its ocean. A question, If I guess the average of all the readings to be ~pH 8.0, how far off would I be? Has anyone done this?

Reply to  Gary Pearse
January 2, 2015 12:46 pm

see brute force above:
ferdberple January 2, 2015 at 11:42 am
and gridded approach:
Berényi Péter December 31, 2014 at 8:58 am

Reply to  Gary Pearse
January 4, 2015 1:18 am

From Berényi Péter:
If only grid boxes with at least 20 years of data are considered (204 items), ocean pH trend is -0.002±0.031/decade, therefore the null result is reasonably robust.
I have given a try to grid box / month combinations with at least 30 years of data (81 items). The result is +0.003±0.026/decade, therefore the null result is incontrovertible.

The “null” result with a wide margin of error only shows that any trend smaller than ±0.026/decade is not detectable by glass electrode pH measurements.
What Sabine has done is reporting the high quality data form Hawaii (Bates reported other stations and the Japanese for fixed tracks): 0.013±0.007/decade, which is within the error margin of all pH measurements: the pH change caused by increased CO2 in the atmosphere is very small.
That means that the glass electrode pH measurements can’t measure the faint change in pH over the past decades, let it be the even much smaller change per decade over the period 1850-1984. That was the reason that Dr. Sabine didn’t use the historic pH data of before 1984.

Reply to  Gary Pearse
January 4, 2015 1:34 am

Many will have noticed that Ferdinand Engelbeen and I have strong disagreements so I take this opportunity to show some agreement between us by supporting something he has said.
Ferdinand says

That means that the glass electrode pH measurements can’t measure the faint change in pH over the past decades, let it be the even much smaller change per decade over the period 1850-1984.

Over several years I have repeatedly argued – including on WUWT – that the data cannot provide the required indication, and it pleases me that Ferdinand now also says the same. I am delighted to support his statement that I quote here.

Reply to  Gary Pearse
January 4, 2015 11:11 am

Do we also agree that the pH of the open oceans since 1984 IS decreasing, thanks to more accurate measurements than glass electrodes and calculated values at fixed places?

January 2, 2015 10:25 am

Maybe you can put Descartes before de horse? As Descartes stated, “I will write on this topic as if no one had written on these matters before”.

January 2, 2015 10:31 am

As a friend of mine once observed concerning a politician: “He’s been so far Left for so long he can’t even hear the Right, and wherever he is it looks like the Middle to him.”

January 2, 2015 10:32 am

The UNFCCC was set up to look for the evidence of man’s responsibility for harmful climate change. It was never set up to study what is actually happening with the climate. Climate change was defined as manmade.

2. “Climate change” means a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.

As virtually all funding in climatology has been to fulfil the needs of the UNFCCC, Climatology did not develop into a science – rather it became a Team of pseudoscience political activists.

(g) Promote and cooperate in scientific, technological, technical, socio-economic and other research,
systematic observation and development of data archives related to the climate system and intended
to further the understanding and to reduce or eliminate the remaining uncertainties regarding the causes, effects, magnitude and timing of climate change and the economic and social consequences of
various response strategies;
(h) Promote and cooperate in the full, open and prompt exchange of relevant scientific, technological,
technical, socio-economic and legal information related to the climate system and climate change, and to the economic and social consequences of various response strategies

The misbehaviour that is documented in the article is to be expected.
Climatology is not a science.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  MCourtney
January 2, 2015 12:26 pm

What most don’t seem to know is the task was set by a communist high school graduate from the Canadian Prairies – Maurice Strong who has been quoted as saying something to the effect that we have an obligation to bring about the collapse of western civilization. He basically created the “framework”.

January 2, 2015 10:39 am
The below is a quote from the above link …….click on it , its a good read
“Despite this kind of snafu, a relentless storm is reshaping the way science is conveyed and received today. Fraud and error are harder to hide, because of the democratising influence of technology and the world wide web. Plagiarism-detecting software, which can scan a paper and give a report within minutes, is widely available. Replication or manipulation of images is easier to sleuth out, because most papers are now widely available in digital versions viewable from any computer. The rise of online post-publication peer review is also reshaping the scientific endeavour before our very eyes.”

January 2, 2015 10:50 am

Thanks, Exxon. We always know where you stand …

Reply to  steve from virginia
January 2, 2015 3:46 pm

Labels when argument fails?

Reply to  steve from virginia
January 2, 2015 6:07 pm

Must be a UVA grad.

Reply to  steve from virginia
January 2, 2015 7:02 pm

What comment are you referring to Steve? Thanks.

January 2, 2015 10:53 am

Good comment Dr Ball, however I too thought it was ph measurements that these particular catastrophe predictors were dismissing as “unsupportive”.
However you are spot on as to the methodology of policy based evidence manufacturing.
Whats next?
Another drive by whine and wail from Betts & Whats ‘er name, insisting that someone tipped them off that Tim Ball “says” they are complicit, as Team IPCC ™ activists?

January 2, 2015 10:53 am

Really? Really? Osama bin Laden as arbiter of morality in the West? Wouldn’t the Pope have sufficed?
The extreme rhetoric distracts from the main points I think.

Reply to  LearDog
January 2, 2015 11:38 am

I too was struck by that, but it made me stop and wonder why. Not sure I know but found myself thinking that there are Confidence Intervals in decision making with probabilities, but not in belief systems. And when we wander over that border with science, religion, politics we can put the science at risk. I try to be dispassionate when I “debate” about IPCC, CAGW . . . as I know that as soon as I show my anger, I’ve lost.
Still I am new to this mess and so I have again learned a bit more of how we have gotten here. It makes me sad.

Reply to  Bubba Cow
January 2, 2015 3:44 pm

These labels are subtle but pernicious. Why invoke Osama at ALL? How does that add to your argument? What does one hope to gain by making that citation? Or does it reflect the mindset of the author?

Joe Crawford
Reply to  Bubba Cow
January 3, 2015 7:13 am

Bubba Cow said:

…there are Confidence Intervals in decision making with probabilities, but not in belief systems. And when we wander over that border with science, religion, politics we can put the science at risk.

Thanks Bubba. That should hang on a wall at NASA, CRU, and many other places I can think of.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  LearDog
January 2, 2015 11:04 pm

If it’s not over the top, and littered with extraneous commas, then it’s not a Tim Ball post.

Mark F
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
January 2, 2015 11:37 pm

I take it that Tim hit home, then, did he?

David A
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
January 3, 2015 3:59 am

I think the point was fairly simple A scientist is objective to the evidence, regardless of the source, and the scientific method regarding CAGW is broken, and immoral.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
January 3, 2015 6:41 pm

“I take it that Tim hit home, then, did he?”
Not to me. I think he should stick to science instead of being a polemicist. And he should let someone proofread for him before posting.

Reply to  LearDog
January 4, 2015 10:28 am

I don’t like that one either. I personally think “the other side” has given up on “winning” in the blog world. Instead they’ve moved onto greener pastures in social media where graphs and technical discussions don’t fit or can be drowned out by hordes or screaming ad-homs (so long as they are 140 characters or less). “Tim Ball says Osama Bin Laden right about The West” would make a great Mann/Schmidt or other tweet and probably will before the day is out.
Basically what I’m saying is every blog post has to be carefully looked at in order to make sure there aren’t easy statements to cut out and post to a twitter feed. This one is an easy ringer.

January 2, 2015 11:10 am

Dr. Ball, please check the first sentence of your post. Ocean ph was their focus.

Will Hudson
January 2, 2015 11:15 am

What Schneider should have said (and effectively did say): “Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being deceptive and being honest.” It is not a great credit to the human race that many of us did not recognize this deception at the time of his statement.
Science is the ethic of being totally honest, or it is nothing. It appears to be descending into “nothing”, unless we keep fighting this political and media science that surrounds us.

Reply to  Will Hudson
January 2, 2015 11:45 am

well, I read somewhere that in WWII the allies decided to tell the truth in their war reports whereas the beastly Hun would lie their heads off but that in itself could be propaganda.

Reply to  zemlik
January 3, 2015 3:54 pm
Reply to  Will Hudson
January 2, 2015 12:57 pm

In the 1978 Stephen Schneider was worried about an impending / looming / possible ice age.
In the 1990s and 2000s Stephen Schneider was worried about global warming.
Was Schneider “being effective and being honest” about an impending ice age? Was he “being effective and being honest” about the warming potential of man’s greenhouse gases?
The late John Daly described Schneider as the “Greenhouse Superstar” and for good reason. Schneider passed away without knowing the big turn down in climate sensitivity. The return of freezing NH winters. The even longer temperature standstill. Antarctica steroidal sea ice and so on. Global sea ice anomaly at ‘normal’. If only Schneider was alive today. He would learn about ‘climate change’ and maybe warn us of another impending ice age. Honesty is better than being effective.

Roger Knights
Reply to  Will Hudson
January 2, 2015 2:18 pm

IOW, he stuck to the straight and narrow path between right and wrong.

January 2, 2015 11:28 am

re: Only Listening to People you Agree with… This is only human nature. To use an absurd example, I do not believe that ancient gods were really extraterrestrial beings in disguise. The whole ‘ancient astronauts’ line of ‘reasoning’ is insulting to human intelligence, ignores or misinterprets wide swaths of archeological research, and inhibits the quest for the true history of human development and civilization. So why oh why would I invest any amount of time in researching the ‘evidence’ for ancient astronauts, spend any amount of time reading about it, or watching programs about it? I have literally nothing to gain from such a waste of time. Now, I realize the case against much of climate ‘science’ isn’t as clear cut as my example, but the fact remains that I’ve not seen much evidence to date to back up the claims of imminent catastrophe, burnt crops, drowned cities, and the like, and I’m not very likely going to experience any such evidence in the future – they’ve had 20 plus years to make their case and have failed completely. What would I have to gain from reading further about it, beyond checking the ever more dire latest claims? (Did you know that 2014 was the hottest year on record? Funny one, that – now they’re including ocean temperatures in the mix to prop their claims up).

January 2, 2015 11:31 am

Linking unrelated items as the same is becoming a common tactic in more than just this issue. You could also be on the other side of the climate/tobacco debate. Somebody was saying tobacco caused cancer, and if you watch some WW II movies, cigarettes were called coffin nails. People knew, they smoked them anyway. They didn’t need a scientific report to let them know that. Lawsuits and such did. And somebody is also saying CAGW is wrong. How is that denial? 9 out of 10 doctors prefer…. ?? climate change? I’m sorry, 97 %. I guess I don’t agree with the Doctors again. Who’s publishing the big media papers on CAGW? It certainly isn’t me. Tim might get quoted in the IBD or WSJ, but beyond that who even knows what those papers are. I’ve had telemarketers didn’t know what either paper was about. Never heard of them.
The real hidden issue here is that supposedly IF we cut co2 emission to ZERO, ( it would be devastating to many economies in the world), and if anything output has continued to rise, temps would continue to rise. Among many of the solutions was nuclear. Ok, who’s going to pay for Vermont Yankee when they close that down? There is no solution for the nuclear waste. Did they figure that into the cost of the electric bill? Who’s going to watch that waste for the next 400,000 years? (and that’s the half life, it’s still dangerous stuff) And that is the problem. It is so long that geologic forces changes the shape of Yucca Mtn. It’s also 40 times longer than when we first started writing. The greens are so concerned about the planet, who is going to say (not being a flat earthier) evolution can’t de evolve. Dinosaurs look brilliant in hindsight.

Steve C
Reply to  rishrac
January 2, 2015 1:50 pm

“There is no solution for the nuclear waste?” There is, y’know. Molten fluoride reactors, appropriately designed, can happily “eat” the nasty stuff left over by the politicians’ bomb-material-producing reactors, leaving a small quantity of waste with only a few centuries halflife max. As a useful side-effect, they can also provide loads of affordable, reliable energy while they’re doing it, for long enough to allow us to develop new energy technologies.
Really, all that’s needed is the political will to facilitate the development of these reactors. Unfortunately, the politicians seem to prefer “menacing the populace with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary” (with thanks to H.L. Mencken).

Reply to  rishrac
January 2, 2015 2:51 pm

The technical issues involving waste disposal from US commercial generation plants have been solved long ago. Cold cask storage has been in use for 15 + years. The storage casks double as shipping containers and are almost indestructable. The Yucca Mt site was shot down because of politics, not geology or engineering. But that doesn’t matter. You can store the casks out in the desert. Sound them by a chain link fence and have a couple of security guards drive around the facility in a pick up. Several tribes have offered to do this. It really is that simple.

Reply to  timg56
January 2, 2015 4:31 pm

Read BusinessWeek on this issue. You are just spewing nonsense.

Reply to  timg56
January 2, 2015 6:43 pm

All these nukateers spew that kind of crap: noooo-oh problems they always say.

Ed Brown
January 2, 2015 11:32 am

Thanks, Dr. Ball. Your essays are an enormous reservoir of well reasoned arguments. I’m archiving them. I do it for the children. Their elders may be beyond hope. Climastrology seems an apt term.

January 2, 2015 11:44 am

The reason I despise the catastrophic climate change/disruption fairy story, despite leaning to the left politically, is because I watched many good researchers marginalized during the nineties. It is a time I call “The Purge”.
The most incorruptible of those people got out of academia and into tech. The result is that today the hard sciences are being dumbed down to follow popular storylines, but we have some really cool gadgets.

Reply to  Brian
January 3, 2015 3:58 pm

Purging is an ur-leftist concept.

Reply to  DirkH
January 3, 2015 4:20 pm

Stalin was radically Socialist and it is the radicals, both left and right, that are enemies of a free society.

January 2, 2015 11:54 am

Will Hudson said:
“Science is the ethic of being totally honest, or it is nothing.”
Can ‘science’ be an ‘ethic’? Perhaps he means that scientists must be ethical.
Leaving that aside, it is an interesting juxtaposition: science and ethics. Is one possible without the other? If not, where do the ethics come from? And I presume that we are talking about an ethics that are binding on us all rather than the “ethics” which is simply a matter of ‘my personal preferences’.

Reply to  Alba
January 2, 2015 7:10 pm

Or a matter of what the definition of “is” is.
Golf is like science, one has to be ethical to score the game properly, just as in science the data has to be collected and analyzed properly. One can suck at golf, but you have to score it correctly. To suck at science you give up on ethics.
Create a theory, collect the data, analyze and see if the theory holds. Don’t torture the data to fit the theory. That’s the ethics of science.
You can have your truths, but there is only one ethical behavior.

January 2, 2015 11:55 am

I know people that rationalize Al Gore et al by saying we have to proclaim the extreme to end up in the middle. This kind of stupidity is rampant. The justification is so easliy done in our relativistic culture. I don’t need to proclaim the truth, just my truth and you are intolerant if you say I’m wrong.

Reply to  logos_wrench
January 2, 2015 1:43 pm

Excellent points logos_wrench, which are best understood, allow me to respectfully suggest, if they are put into a proper context. And for that, we need to understand, IMHO, the basic psychological profile of your typical, eco-flake parasite.
You see, when our archetypal “green” was a bratty, little-snot tyke, he was always taggin’ along with and pestering the “big boys”, since the kids of his own age wouldn’t play with him because they judged him to be a weirdo, spastic-dork creep-out (kids can be so cruel!!!). And, naturally, the “big-boys” didn’t want anything to do with our little larval-stage hive-bozo either, and so would try and ditch the little pest at every opportunity.
At which point, our future, “greenwashed trough-seeker would, in a blubbering bit of cynically calculated theatrics, rush to his smothering, overly-protective hive-mom to complain that, “The big-boys are being mean to me! BOO! HOO!! HOO!!! HOOO!!!” At which point, a fired-up “mummy” (think HotWhopper) would descend on the big-boys and give ’em “heck” by threatening to tell their parents that they’ve been “messin'” with her darling, little, Junior-Boy snookums (the little tattle-tale, in the mean time?–all smiles and takin’ sneak-peeks at the spectacle from behind mummy’s pants-suit pants). And that sort of thing produced in our lefty-in-waiting geek-ball a rare, delicious sense of empowerment.
And so our socially-incompetent proto-“warmist” advanced in years and moved on to some one or another of the hive’s ubiquitous, Lysenkoist-dump, group-think, PC-gotcha! Universities, where the hive’s resident, youth-master press-gang, always on the look-out for impressionable, can’t-get-a-date, zit-afflicted dumb-kids, latched onto our “good comrade” tyro and brainwashed him.
And what emerged from all this hive-grooming was a cookie-cutter hive-tool with a scrambled, Pavlovian-reflex brain, programmed to conflate Gaia with mummy-dearest in all her fondly-remembered, big-boy-bashing glory, and convinced that if he just slavishly adopts every hive attitude, convention, and orthodoxy, then Gaia will be there for him, just like mummy used to be, to fight his battles for him, to give him suck, to kiss his “boo-boos”, and to console him with the reminder that it’s a good thing he can’t get a date because none of those awful females, who might get between him and Gaia/mummy, are good enough for him.
I mean, like, it’s a whole way of life for these guys.

Reply to  mike
January 4, 2015 7:51 am

mike – phee-eeew.
I’m no lover of the watermelons, nor their control-freak fraud, but I never realised that it was that bloomin’ bad!

Reply to  mike
January 5, 2015 12:48 pm

You may have it right!

January 2, 2015 11:58 am

This, despite the scientific research and empirical evidence, that plants function best between 1000 -1200 parts per million (ppm), so are malnourished at the current levels of 400 ppm.
Just thinking out loud.
Regards the ice ages, when CO2 concentrations plunged down to 180ppm — would a mass die-off of plant-life be a catalyst for a new warming phase? I am sure plant-life was suffering from the cold and pitifully low CO2 concentrations, during the ice ages, but would a mass die-off of flora and fauna have any effect on world temperature?

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  ralfellis
January 2, 2015 12:40 pm

During the last glacial advance when ice cores show the 180 ppm you mention there seems not to have been a “mass die-off of plant-life.” The concept of “refugia” has been studied, in this case glacial refugia. I do not know if there is a study about the CO2 concentration of air in such areas during the time of maximum ice advance. Plants and animals did survive so maybe the amount in ice cores is not the best evidence for what was available elsewhere. Also, I don’t believe 180 is the proper number for plant death. I’ve seen a “150” statement but it is likely lower and varies by plant type. See C3 versus C4 plants.

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  ralfellis
January 2, 2015 12:42 pm

Milankovitch cycles are the principal driver of glacial-interglacial cycles by controlling high latitude NH insolation. But many other factors are part of the feedback-response system of our planet that drives important cycles within the larger glacial and interglacial cycles. Solar magnetic-geomagnetic cycles, geochemical weathering of uplifted young rock and sequestration of carbonate, tectonic-driven outgassing of crustal methane thence converted to atmospheric CO2, exposure of high latitude tundra to decay during interglacials, permafrost locking away tundra carbon during glacial cycles.
So be careful of assuming cause versus effect on CO2 when considering a die-off of floral-fauna during a glacial cooldown or the exit from a glacial period. The arrow of causality is frequently confusing, especially in tightly coupled feedback systems. What ultimately brought the end to the last Glacial after its 100 Kyr run was a return of a more balanced NH insolation under the Milankovitch cycle (a lower obliquity and lower orbital eccentricity). pCO2 then followed as the oceans warmed (Henry’s Law outgassing). The Canadian, Siberian, and high latitude European permafrost expanse, removed of glacial ice, were exposed to sunlight, oxygen and began thawing-decaying, vast Siberian, North American, and Siberian forest expanses grew to counter the rising CO2. While the rising seas inundated vast expanses of coastal vegetation, placing this decaying plant resource into back into the carbon cycle.
The carbon cycle on Earth is vastly complicated with so many sources and sinks operating on multiple log-order time scales. We are only in infancy trying to understand it.

Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
January 2, 2015 1:39 pm

a return of a more balanced NH insolation under the Milankovitch cycle.
Yes, everyone repeats this mantra – but when I look at the Milankovitch cycle, I see no correlation with the ice ages. What, exactly, is the correlation between these cycles? I think we need a Eschenbach to explain things.

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
January 3, 2015 7:46 pm

ralfellis ,
Luboš Motl links to Gerard Roe’s 2006 paper:
I’ve no idea if this will be helpful.

Reply to  ralfellis
January 2, 2015 1:05 pm

look at the graph. the facts are obvious. when CO2 is high, the climate slowly cools, until when CO2 levels are low enough, then temperatures rocket up into interglacial conditions.
high CO2 is associated with slow cooling. when CO2 gets low enough, the climate warms rapidly.

Steve Keohane
Reply to  ferdberple
January 2, 2015 1:08 pm

That’s always seemed to be the big picture from the ice cores. Every time CO2 gets high, earth gets cold.

January 2, 2015 12:08 pm

The Guardian is a big gun?
More like a popgun or damp squib to me.

Reply to  Oldseadog
January 3, 2015 4:02 pm

The MI5 might take that personal.

January 2, 2015 12:22 pm

Tim Ball writes:

If you are not with me, you must be against me. Only listening to or associating with like-minded people reinforces this. A recent WUWT article underlined the degree to which this occurs, when the author opened by saying he did something unusual, he read the “alarmists” web site RealClimate.

Just a clarification, Tim. I wrote in the post here (cross posted here at WUWT):

I have a confession to make. I am one of the very few remaining people around the globe who continue to regularly visit the blog RealClimate. It’s a curiosity thing mostly, kind of like watching the Titanic sink in slow motion.

And I documented with my Figure 5 from that post why I believed my continuing to read RealClimate was unusual. Based on Google Trends, interest in RealClimate has dropped to zilch, nada, zip.
comment image
My opening comment was that everyone (not just skeptics) have lost interest in RealClimate.

Brandon Gates
Reply to  Bob Tisdale
January 3, 2015 5:49 pm

Bob, Wow, way to miss the point. You should never be ashamed for reading anything which doesn’t conform to your own point of view. To twice justify having done so speaks volumes about how you see both yourself and your readers. Unbelievable.

Reply to  Brandon Gates
January 3, 2015 7:43 pm

He was just making the record clear.
You know, nothing prevents you from writing your own article. Bob does a great job, despite the slings and arrows of know-nothings.

Mike M.
January 2, 2015 12:36 pm

This is ridiculous.
“the apparent cherry picking of ocean temperature data by government scientists, Richard Feely and Christopher Sabine” by “temperature” do you mean pH.
The data were not in any way cherry picked. The graph was labelled “Hawaii”; no claim that it was global. What was shown was the high quality time series data specifically obtained with the rigorous controls needed to identify long term trends. For the entire time series. That consisted of CO2 data for Mauna Loa (the entire time series) and pH and p_CO2 data for Station Aloha (the entire time series). No cherry picking. They did not show the CO2 data for Antarctica or elsewhere because the graph was for Hawaii. They did not show pH data for elsewhere either. They also did not add a bunch of crappy CO2 data to the graph just because it exists (I am sure one could find some crappy CO2 data somewhere). Nor did they add crappy pH data just because it exists.
For years I went along with the IPCC position because the criticism was almost entirely nonsense. Eventually I realized that within that ocean of nonsense there were some islands of reasonable criticism. This whole pHraud business just adds to the flood of nonsense and makes it harder for the real criticism to break through.
I hereby make myself a promise: When I see an article by Tim Ball, I will ignore it. Which, based on prior experience, I should have done when I saw that this was by Tim Ball.

Reg Nelson
Reply to  Mike M.
January 2, 2015 1:59 pm

Did you read the Quest article?
“Over the last several decades scientists have been measuring the levels of CO2 and pH throughout the ocean. Data from these types of measurements show that as the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere increases, levels of CO2 in the ocean also increase, increasing the levels of hydrogen ions and thus decreasing the pH of the ocean. ”
The word “Data” is a link to the graph. How is saying ” . . . measuring the levels of CO2 and pH throughout the ocean.” and then supporting this by using a graph that only includes one station not cherry picking?

Alberta Slim
Reply to  Mike M.
January 2, 2015 2:33 pm

Sorry Mike but as far as I am concerned you are FOS.
Dr. Ball has all that is required of a top scientist.

Brandon Gates
Reply to  Alberta Slim
January 3, 2015 5:36 pm

Alberta Slim, you are Doing It Wrong. Dissent is the hallmark of skepticism. It’s not enough to tell someone that they’re full of crap. Some substantive “whys” and “hows” are generally desired.
The appeal to authority at the end as a sendoff was a nice touch. Keep that up in this venue and you might find yours is the next posterior bearing contrarian teeth marks.

Reply to  Alberta Slim
January 3, 2015 7:47 pm

Gates says:
Some substantive “whys” and “hows” are generally desired.
Read your post above that one. Nothing substantive there, just carping.

Reply to  Mike M.
January 2, 2015 4:04 pm

Yep – it’s not “cherry picking” to select a single site that supports your contention and exclude all other contrary data 😉

Mike M.
Reply to  xyzzy11
January 2, 2015 5:35 pm

So show me the high quality data that is contrary to the Hawaii data set.

David A
Reply to  xyzzy11
January 3, 2015 4:11 am

Mike, do you think it is possible to find somewhere in the world where the average T has cooled?
Do you think it is possible to find somewhere in the world where the average SL has fallen. (over 50 percent of the tide gauges show flat or declining Sea levels.)
If contrary data exists, you show it, and then explain why you did not use it, or do not base your conclusions on it. (This is so basic and simple, to argue against it s simply foolish.)

Mike M.
Reply to  xyzzy11
January 3, 2015 5:09 pm

I am not the one making the accusation of cherry picking. To select high quality data over questionable data is not cherry picking. To ignore data of similar quality that tells a contrary story would be cherry picking. If you want to make that charge, provide the evidence.

Reply to  xyzzy11
January 3, 2015 7:58 pm

Have you read the Climategate I, II, and III emails? They are packed with overt examples of cherry-picking. It gets even worse: they repeatedly fabricated data! [At least, they call it ‘data’.]
Have you read the “Harry_Read_Me” files? Just one example:
Here, the expected 1990 – 2003 period is missing so the correlations aren’t so hot!
Yet the WMO codes and station names /locations are identical (or close).
What the hell is supposed to happen here?
Oh, yeah – there is no ‘supposed’, I can make it up. So I have.

That is about as strong ‘evidence’ of cherry-picking and fabrication as you could ever find. In any other scientific field, people like that would have been censured — at the very least.
But these guys? They get more grant money, and vacations/holidays at posh locations, all expenses paid. Paid by an unwilling public, I might add.
They are corrupt to the core. Is there really any doubt?

Brandon Gates
Reply to  xyzzy11
January 4, 2015 4:50 pm

Context is everything:
In attempting to pair two stations, possible data incompatibilities have been found.
MASTER: 239330 6096 6906 40 HANTY MANSIJSK EX USSR 1936 1984 -999 -999
UPDATE: 2393300 6101 6902 46 HANTY-MANSIJSK RUSSIAN FEDER 2003 2007 -999 0
CORRELATION STATISTICS (enter 'C' for more information):
] -0.42 is minimum correlation coeff.
] 0.39 is maximum correlation coeff.
] -0.02 is mean correlation coeff.
Enter 'Y' to allow, 'N' to deny, or an information code letter: C
Master Data: Correlation with Update first year aligned to this year -v
1936 1400 800 1700 900 1200 800 700 800 1800-9999-9999-9999 0.33
1937 1400 800 500 1700 1500 800 1200 1000 1700 1300 700 1200 0.32
1938 1000 1700 1200 1100 1100 800 800 1300 1400 1900 1800 1300 0.04
1939 1100 1700 1600 1800 1500 800 1500 1900 1700 1800 1300 1300 0.09
1940 1300 700 900 900 1800 1200 900 1300 1200 2200 1900 1800 0.08
1941 1400 1100 1800 1000 1400 1900 1400 700 1300 1200 1900 2000 0.02
1942 1700 900 1600 900 1200 1500 1300 1500 1200 1900 1500 1500 -0.06
1943 1400 1300 1300 800 1400 1600 1300 1500 1900 2000 700 1900 -0.17
1944 1900 1500 2000 1100 1200 1300 1500 1700 1800 1200 1500 1900 -0.32
1945 1300 1000 1400 2100 2000 1100 1700 700 1600 1800 2300 1700 -0.42
1946 2300 1900 1500 1100 1100 2000 1800 1000 1200 2100 2000 1800 -0.35
1947 1900 1400 1600 1000 2100 1900 2100 1000 1200 2000 2100 1500 -0.35
1948 1700 1500 1800 800 1300 1800 1700 1300 1800 2200 2000 2100 -0.15
1949 2300 2100 1000 700 1600 1400 1200 800 2100 2000 1100 1400 -0.07
1950 2100 2300 1000 1100 1500 1600 1600 2300 1900 1200 1100 1500 0.00
1951 1600 1000 1500 800 1500 1400 1200 600 1800 1800 1400 2400 -0.07
1952 1600 400 1100 1300 1100 1400 800 2000 1500 2300 1300 1600 -0.04
1953 2000 1200 1500 500 1300 1500 1100 1200 2300 2200 1600 2100 -0.02
1954 1700 1800 700 700 1000 1300 1200 1600 2000 1800 1800 600 0.01
1955 2400 1400 1000 1100 1700 1200 1000 1300 1500 1300 2300 1600 -0.08
1956 1300 800 1000 1100 1000 1000 1400 1800 1900 1900 2600 2000 -0.29
1957 1900 1200 1700 1000 1100 1100 1100 700 800 2300 1900 2200 -0.18
1958 1300 1600 1500 400 1500 1100 1300 1400 1900 2400 2000 1600 -0.28
1959 1700 1600 700 1300 1700 1100 1100 1600 2000 2100 1900 1600 -0.04
1960 1800 1600-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999 0.24
1961-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999 1600 1600 1700 1900 1600 0.33
1962 1700 800 1200 600 400 1100 900 2000 1100 1900 1700 1500 0.25
1963 1200 1300 1700 700 1100 1600 900 1000 1100 1400 1800 2000 -0.04
1964 1900 500 1300 1300 1200 1200 1100 1100 1700 1500 2000 1800 0.13
1965 1200 1400 700 900 1200 1100 1300 1400 1800 2500 1000 1700 0.23
1966 1800 1600 2100 1300 1500 2100 900 1800 1500 2400 1900 800 0.11
1967 1600 1200 1100 600 800 1100 1100 700 1300 1200 1300 1900 0.39
1968 1600 1400 1600 1200 900 1300 1400 1000 1700 1300 1400 1200 0.24
1969 900 1000 1100 1500 1700 1700 1000 1800 1200 1400 1900 1300 0.04
1970 1500 1200 1600 1400 700 1600 700 1600 1000 1500 1900 1600 -0.02
1971 1700 400 1100 1700 1300 1700 700 2000 900 2100 2000 1900 -0.11
1972 1200 1500 1400 800 1700 1300 1700 2000 2100 1700 2500 1900 -0.08
1973 1200 1100 1100 700 800 1300 2100 1000 2400 1900 1800 2300 -0.11
1974 700 1200 1800 1800 1400 1200 1000 1300 1100 1600 1900 700 -0.14
1975 2200 1800 1400 1300 1500 1500 1400 1500 1400 2300 1900 2100 -0.15
1976 2000 1500 600 700 1100 1600 1300 1100 1500 1800 1600 1200 -0.11
1977 1900 1700 1800 1400 1000 1100 1000 1300 1500 1800 1700 2100 -0.15
1978 1600 1000 800 1400 1400 800 1600 1600 2300 2200 2200 1800 0.03
1979 1600 1600 1600 900 900 1900 1200 1700 1200 2100 1600 2000 0.00
1980 1600 1200 500 800 1500 1100 800 1700 1200 600 2200 2200 -0.05
1981 2000 1000 1700 1300 1500 1100 800 400 1500 800 1500 1900 0.06
1982 2400 1800 1100 1200 1200 1100 1000 1700 1200 2100 1800 2000 0.03
1983 2500 2100 1800 1300 1400 1200 1200 1300 1300 1900 2300 1900 0.10
1984 1200 700 500 1300 900 800 1100 1000 1700 1600 1600 1300
Update Data:
2003 1500 900 600 400 900 1200 500 700 1100 600 700 1500
2004 700 600 700 400 600 1100 500 900 900 1400 1500 600
2005 700 400 800 1400 300 900 800 800 900 500 1200 600
2006 800 700 900 1000 800 500 1000 500 1300 1100 700 1600
2007 1100 1100 900 700 1300 1500-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999
Here, the expected 1990-2003 period is MISSING - so the correlations aren't so hot! Yet
the WMO codes and station names /locations are identical (or close). What the hell is
supposed to happen here? Oh yeah - there is no 'supposed', I can make it up. So I have :-)
If an update station matches a 'master' station by WMO code, but the data is unpalatably
inconsistent, the operator is given three choices:
You have failed a match despite the WMO codes matching.
This must be resolved!! Please choose one:
1. Match them after all.
2. Leave the existing station alone, and discard the update.
3. Give existing station a false code, and make the update the new WMO station.
Enter 1,2 or 3:
You can't imagine what this has cost me - to actually allow the operator to assign false
WMO codes!! But what else is there in such situations? Especially when dealing with a 'Master'
database of dubious provenance (which, er, they all are and always will be).

The smiley is one clue. Dealing with woefully crappy data and metadata is another clue which is especially near and dear to me. I’ve quite often been tempted to write worse things in my own code comments but good client relations require me to not insult their IT department in such ways.
Reading further down, it becomes clear that “Harry” does indeed do the Right Thing: alert the user to a METADATA discrepancy detected by a poor correlation, which requires human intervention so as to best preserve the integrity of the updating process.

January 2, 2015 12:42 pm

Thanks, Dr. Ball.
“It is time to establish power of attorney for the plants and vote on their behalf against any immoral measure to reduce CO2 levels.”.
Yes, it is time we carbon-based creatures took care of ourselves against this tide of anti-human sentiment that has perverted climate science.
They push for bigger, more intrusive government and shared poverty, they say the opposite.

January 2, 2015 12:50 pm

Well they can’t focus on reality as they would lose in any reasonable debate. So they practice school yard bullying instead so they can keep stealing our tax money. Because of the major loss in monetary outcome, there can be no serious mutual discussion but only verbal warfare, that warfare being the evidence against deception and denigration. Anytime a “professional” practices these tactics he has reduced himself to the level of street fighter and it should be obvious that he has logically lost all credibility because he is no longer capable of defending his position. Unfortunately the MSM has lost so much scientific intellect that it is unable to tell the difference.
Hopefully enough of the public will eventually notice these shenanigans to finally make a difference by demanding honesty.

January 2, 2015 1:00 pm

can anyone give me a reference to the empirical evidene that plants do best under 1000 ppm or so of CO2 please?

Reply to  sensferguson
January 2, 2015 10:44 pm

–How much CO2?
It is well known that a CO2 level in the garden’s air between 700 and 900 ppm improves crop development and yield. Most plants grown for their beautiful flowers or foliage optimally develop at about 800 ppm. Roses are distinctive as they require about 1200 ppm in carbon dioxide concentration for best results. For many fruits and vegetables, the ideal CO2 level in the garden should be at least between 1000 and 1200 ppm.–

David A
Reply to  sensferguson
January 3, 2015 4:15 am

CO2 science documents hundreds of peer reviewed studies doing tens of thousands of experiments demonstrating the benefits of CO2.
The benefits of CO2 are KNOWN, the purported harms are FAILING to manifest.

David S
January 2, 2015 1:00 pm

I think the most effective lie perpetrated by alarmists is to imply that CO2 and C are one and the same. Ie who wants their environment contaminated by a black solid rather than a clear gas who’s main function is as plant food. It is tantamount to calling water , hydrogen. Quench your thirst with a nice glass of hydrogen.If it was just the media you could dismiss it as editorial propaganda but it is the scientists who deliberately use the term in discussion. It’s like they think its a little unimportant distinction as if it’s an appropriate abbreviation because humans are too lazy to say the full name.It is a deliberate falsity that has become so ingrained in the warmist vernacular that they don’t even recognise they are lying. It is as if they have come to believe their own lies.
This lie says more about the debate than anything else. It’s like if we can convince the world that Carbon and Carbon-dioxide are the same thing they will believe anything. Unfortunately when adopting this terminology their marketing agents the media and the governments have swallowed this crucial fundamental lie hook, line and sinker. This lie more than any other conjours up the relevant images that trigger in the minds of the ignorants the pictures that trigger peoples fears about the dark world that awaits those who do nothing on climate change. Ironically the whole debate would be switched on its head if people saw visions of the future showing verdant forests and teaming life and a wonderful healthy environment. I can assure you the debate would be over politically and scientifically. These fallacious future visions deliberately spread by the alarmists are part of the imagery that skeptics need to overcome in convincing the public so the jo average citizen can really see what the future will be like.

Reply to  David S
January 2, 2015 1:43 pm

David S, My peeve as well. C is not CO2 and CO2 is not C.
I respond to the “Carbon Footprint” baloney with: Never mind your carbon footprint, think about your carbon foot.

Reply to  David S
January 2, 2015 1:47 pm

This lie says more about the debate than anything else. It’s like if we can convince the world that Carbon and Carbon-dioxide are the same thing they will believe anything.

You make a great point. Conflating carbon, carbon-dioxide, and carbon-monoxide has been a pet peeve of mine for a long time.

Steve C
Reply to  David S
January 2, 2015 2:08 pm

Four relevant quotes. Take your pick:
“Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”
– George Orwell
“The limits of my language are the limits of my world.”
– Ludwig Wittgenstein
“Whoever controls the language, the images, controls the race.”
– Allen Ginsberg
“Beyond communication, language has two functions: to promote thought, and to prevent it.”
– Garret Hardin
All seem relevant; as for Orwell’s “… an appearance of solidity to pure wind”, it looks like he wrote the Greenies’ rulebook.

Reply to  David S
January 2, 2015 2:57 pm

Agree David.
The term carbon pollution is something only the scientific illiterate or someone running a scam would use.

Reply to  timg56
January 2, 2015 8:55 pm

It’s worce than that. I was in a discussion with someone some years back about CO2 and CH4 and how they absorb and reradiate LWIR at specific frequencies. We discussed CO2 first, then CH4. He then said to me something along the lines of…”Ah CH4, or methane. Methane has 4 carbons.” I kid you not!

January 2, 2015 1:01 pm

There’s no future for mankind if we start to slip when it comes to science and scientific honesty. Ironically I would have been more open to acting on the climate change thing if the uncertaintites and differing opinions would have been treated with respect. Now I rather feel it is my duty as a citizen in a democratic society to resist and try to get others to understand the problems with the climate change scare.

January 2, 2015 1:19 pm

The era of Grubering is upon us all.

Dean Bruckner
Reply to  Resourceguy
January 2, 2015 8:40 pm

Actually, the era of Ginsberg is upon us…sexual immorality in particular multiplies self-deception, which sucks truth of many other kinds down with it, along with moral courage, which is the root of all other courage. Do you think the French and Italians got the way they are by fidelity?

January 2, 2015 2:00 pm

So, how do we stop these idiots at IPCC from making the world spend $36 trillion replacing its entire electric power infrastructure?

Reply to  Ron Scubadiver
January 3, 2015 12:02 am

–So, how do we stop these idiots at IPCC from making the world spend $36 trillion replacing its entire electric power infrastructure?–
Don’t elect politicians who say to will increase the cost of energy [any kind of energy]. Instead Vote for politicians who say they will lower your electrical bill.
If paying 10 cents for each Kw hour you use- re-elect the politician, unless another politician promises even lower electrical costs.
The only way the world will spend 36 trillion is from increase residential electrical power bills.
The politicians will give all kinds excuses [lies] of why you have to pay higher bills.
So politicians like to blame the non elected electrical companies, but these electrical companies need the politician support to charge you higher price. So you control it by who you vote for at the local level.

Reply to  gbaikie
January 4, 2015 11:34 am

In the US it is simple, vote for Republicans.

Clive Perry
January 2, 2015 2:02 pm

The perpetrators of this con trick should go to jail

January 2, 2015 2:29 pm

“It is time to establish power of attorney for the plants and vote on their behalf against any immoral measure to reduce CO2 levels.”
IOW, Do trees have standing?

Reply to  rogerknights
January 3, 2015 8:04 pm

Good question. According to the gov’t, money has standing. Or at least, it can do right or wrong. If it does wrong, it can be imprisoned [confiscated by the gov’t.]
I kid you not. It’s called ‘asset forfeiture’.

Reply to  rogerknights
January 5, 2015 1:47 pm

It has been several years, but I believe there was a case where an environmental group tried to sue someone (timber company or federal dept?) on behalf of the trees. The court ruled they had no standing.

Sceptical lefty
January 2, 2015 3:04 pm

The diminished integrity of science (and scientists) is a fundamental problem to which there are several simple solutions, none of which is likely to work. The ‘greats’ of science — people like Newton, Faraday, Rutherford, Roentgen, Planck, etc. — did not have to battle hard against the entrenched prejudices and interests of a scientific Establishment. They were pioneers who made discoveries that have since become foundations for the existing Establishment.
In the ‘hard’ empirical sciences the early discoveries have been repeatedly tested and found to be solid. In the more theory-dominated sciences, once the Establishment decides that a particular theory is correct, its status as a foundation means that a threat to the theory becomes a threat to the Establishment. Defence of the theory is a matter of (scientific) survival and ANY means may be employed to preserve the authority and prestige of the people at the top. Say what you will about Galileo and the Catholic Church, the Church’s actions were typical Establishment responses to a perceived threat.
What is interesting, and wryly amusing, about the Climate Debate is the apparent hijacking of the science by rogue lefties while the virtuous right-wingers fight a difficult battle for truth. The fact is that serious money is always on the Right. If Greenpeace and WWF (or whatever it is now) happen to now be wealthy it is because they have been taken over by Right-wing interests that can see an advantage. By way of illustration, does anyone seriously contend, on reflection, that Stalin was a Left-winger? He came from the Left, but dictatorship is a Right-winger’s wet dream.
The impecunious Lefties are depressingly susceptible to the lure of money, the sudden availability of which severely dulls their critical faculties. The Great Climate Debate is actually a contest between two Right-wing factions, one of which has managed to suck in the Left (thus gaining moral legitimacy??!!) by inventing a common interest in saving the planet.
As numerous commentators have pointed out, the science is thoroughly politicised. This is because the ultimate goal is not Truth, but Power. In any case, when one has power one can define the truth to suit oneself. Problem solved!

Reply to  Sceptical lefty
January 2, 2015 3:46 pm

In the US, Right-wing are conservative, small government advocates. The farthest right being anarchists.
Left-wing is liberal/progressive. big government advocates. farthest left being totalitarianism.
Your interpretation serves yourself, perhaps, but it isn’t correct

Reply to  Sceptical lefty
January 2, 2015 4:22 pm

SL, I disagree. There is no Left/Right. The political spectrum is from Anarchy (no govt control) to Totalitarianism (total govt control) Rather than being a “right wingers wet dream” a Dictatorship is a “Totalitarians wet dream”.
Totalitarians aspire to power and they care little for causes. They will use a military approach, religion or political ploys that appeal to left leaning people “We must act collectively for the good of all”. As soon as the interests of the individual become subservient to the interests of the State, you are heading down the Totalitarian path.
And just because you don’t think Stalin was left wing, doesn’t make you right. The underlying principle of communism/extreme socialism is that the individual is subservient to the needs of the State and must always result in a Totalitarian regime of one form or another. This is due to the fact that only an overarcing and intrusive govt can ensure that “everybody gets an equal share”. 😉
Stalin: Communist
Hitler: National Socialist
Chairman Mao: Communist
Pol Pot: Communist
Probably the 4 biggest mass murderers of all time, do you not see the connection in their political ideology?

Sceptical lefty
Reply to  JohnB
January 3, 2015 1:29 am

O.K., I’ll bite.
“Totalitarians aspire to power and they care little for causes.” — couldn’t agree more!
“As soon as the interests of the individual become subservient to the interests of the State, you are heading down the Totalitarian path.” — correct, but you need to control how far you go.
In any society the individual’s interests are ultimately subservient to those of the State. If the reverse was the case you would have anarchy. This should not give the State carte blanche to trample the rights of individuals at whim, but it does mean that under certain circumstances one can be conscripted into the armed forces. It also means that property can be compulsorily acquired by the State to serve some purpose determined to be for a public benefit. It further means that individuals whose behaviour is deemed to violate the presumed rights of other individuals, or the State, can be penalised for their actions and restrained from pursuing them. Are all taxes bad?
“Stalin: Communist” — rose (after Lenin died) on the back of a spontaneous revolution brought on by a ruinous war enthusiastically embarked upon by a Right-wing regime.
“Hitler: National Socialist” — enthusiastically supported by leading Right-wing Germans, at least partly because because the Nazis were prepared to go toe-to-toe with the Communists.
“Chairman Mao: Communist — China was riven by feuding warlords and being pillaged by Imperial Japan, a Right-wing power. Mao must have seemed an improvement, although I have no doubt that a few decent Chinese (and a lot of dead ones) must subsequently have had regrets.
“Pol Pot: Communist” — a homicidal nut-job, but I wonder how he acquired power.
I suppose that the citizens of their respective countries respect the beneficial influence of the U.S.A.-dominated West in supporting the regimes of Franco, Salazar, the Duvaliers, the Shah of Iran and (under the Monroe Doctrine) a host of Central and South American dictatorships.
Maybe it would be best to concentrate on the science and drop the pointless politicising to which I have, unfortunately, contributed.

Reply to  Sceptical lefty
January 3, 2015 1:43 pm

Maybe it would be best to concentrate on the science


Reply to  Sceptical lefty
January 2, 2015 5:14 pm

So one is a right winger if they don’t live naked in the woods ?

David A
Reply to  garymount
January 3, 2015 4:30 am

lefty says..”In any society the individual’s interests are ultimately subservient to those of the State. If the reverse was the case you would have anarchy.”
NONSENSE, and dangerous to boot. Your definitions of left and right are likewise nonsense. Politically there is only more central power, or less central power. And not just power, but “POWER” that means control over OTHERS. And that kind of power my friend is a “necessary evil”, to be severely restricted if one wishes to follow the American experiment.
Individual liberty is not meant to be power over others, but freedom to do whatever the hell you want, as long as you are not demonstrating power over others, IE, harming them through theft, assaults, attacks on their rights and property.
Your view that this power can be controlled is not logical, as history demonstrates that all nations tend to move ever more towards greater central power. The US constitution was designed to prevent this, but what are words if they are ignored.
So, in the US at least, “Left” means more central government power OVER others, and “Right” means more individual liberty that can never be subject to ANY group power, e it corporate, religious, or political governmental.
Until you grasp this, you will never understand the US, or at least the “Dreams from our Father’s”

Reply to  Sceptical lefty
January 2, 2015 7:46 pm

Black/White … Up/Down … Right/Wrong … Left/Right … Rich/Poor … on and on ….
You are limited, or you limit yourself, in that you see only two dimensions.
There is a great big spectrum of variation out there. It is truly amazing that you can even feed yourself.

Reply to  Sceptical lefty
January 3, 2015 4:10 pm

Sceptical lefty
January 2, 2015 at 3:04 pm
“By way of illustration, does anyone seriously contend, on reflection, that Stalin was a Left-winger? He came from the Left, but dictatorship is a Right-winger’s wet dream.”
You’re quite wrong.

Reply to  Sceptical lefty
January 3, 2015 5:16 pm

The fact is that serious money is always on the Right.
If you mean “lots and lots” of money, are there any greater amounts than those ‘collected’ (some might use another, more violent term) by governments? The people who’ll be suffering financially to “fix” the CAGW “problem” are the western countries’ taxpayers at the lower end of the economic spectrum, i.e., retirees, those on fixed incomes.

don penman
January 2, 2015 3:17 pm

When all the oceans turn to acid there will be no more shelled creatures living in the seas such as mussels and oysters they have run models to determine how mussels will cope with increasing acidification and it does not look good for those who have made millions out of the agw scam no more oysters to eat for them while the rest of us live in fuel poverty caused by the policies they have forced on us.

Reply to  don penman
January 2, 2015 4:27 pm

The oceans have a bloody long way to go to get to swimming pool acid levels let alone actually becoming acidic.
And you do understand that all those mussels and shellfish evolved in an atmosphere of several thousand ppm of CO2?

JB Goode
January 2, 2015 5:00 pm

@Sceptical lefty
January 2, 2015 at 3:04 pm
‘If Greenpeace and WWF (or whatever it is now) happen to now be wealthy it is because they have been taken over by Right-wing interests that can see an advantage’
You’re not a sceptical lefty,you’re a plain vanilla lefty replete with ‘severely dull critical faculties’

January 2, 2015 5:07 pm

· If you are not with me, you must be against me. Only listening to or associating with like-minded people reinforces this. A recent WUWT article underlined the degree to which this occurs, when the author opened by saying he did something unusual, he read the “alarmists” web site RealClimate.

I set out to learn about climate science 5 years ago and I quickly discovered RealClimate was not a site that was offering to help me learn. WUWT established in my mind a solid high reputation very quickly in my early stages of climate science discovery. I haven’t visited RealClimate for several years now.

January 2, 2015 6:47 pm

Major contrast here between this article and those by Willis on the same data. Willis’s articles make an attempt to analyse the problem, and conclude, inter alia, that there was no fraud, that pH is probably falling but that the data is too sparse and too uncertain to be sure, and that even if pH is falling it is not by enough to worry about. This article cannot even get its opening sentence correct – Sabine was discussion pH, not temperature – and then dives off into conspiracy theory.

January 2, 2015 6:50 pm

If we don’t change, our species will not survive… Frankly, we may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrial civilization to collapse.
Maurice Strong, September 1, 1997 edition of National Review magazine

Reply to  Don
January 3, 2015 7:06 am

And your point? Maurice Strong is a socialist one world government type and has been for decades.

January 2, 2015 7:17 pm

“· You only broke the law, or the rules, if you got caught.”
If you get caught, you will potentially lose reputation, wealth, position, power, or privileges. And that is indeed an essential outward constraint that does work on people who have no conscience otherwise.
They have no inward concern for good or evil behavior and the many consequences for the people affected by it.
If the outward constraints are removed, and the reprehensible behavior becomes first legal, then acceptable through media, then what? What is it that you get, exactly? All pleasurable romps and personal power and no consequences. The Boomers press on in their experiment. Let us see what the gospel of “every imaginable pleasure with no consequences” obtains. Just watch.

Reply to  Zeke
January 2, 2015 8:04 pm

The problem is that the general understanding of what “reprehensible behavior” is, is slowly changing to encompass less and less stuff. And more and more people subscribe to “its O.K. if I don’t get caught and/or it is for the greater good”.
Or maybe it has always been like this. I have only been around for half a century and have only been paying attention for a small percentage of that.
Are there a higher percentage of dirtbags and charletans out there now as compared to 100 years ago, or is it that we just let ’em get away with it now because we are in a more “civilized society”, or it is something else?

Reply to  DonM
January 2, 2015 11:55 pm

If you define “charlatans” as hippy environmentalists who are using an Anthropocene Age scientific paradigm as an excuse to rip out the energy, plumbing, agriculture, dairy and beef ranching, personal transportation, and mass manufacturing in the English speaking nations, and are are simultaneously conducting massive sex-and-drug cultural campaigns, yes. There are more charlatans than ever.

Reply to  DonM
January 3, 2015 5:26 pm

It certainly seems to be easier now to feign/fake competence, what with the electrified fooling machine we all use.
The greatest challenge facing mankind is the challenge of distinguishing reality from fantasy, truth from propaganda. Perceiving the truth has always been a challenge to mankind, but in the information age (or as I think of it, the disinformation age) it takes on a special urgency and importance.
Michael Crichton

Reply to  Zeke
January 3, 2015 7:19 am

Make that if you look at one…
I sure miss editing.

Reply to  Zeke
January 3, 2015 8:52 am

It is far beyond that now.
Now they expect others to pay for it in their insurance policies by force of the government and the IRS. Do you honestly think people will pay for that? No, they have to cancel their insurance coverage and become criminals!
So we come full circle to eugenics/population control through government through the Cannabis Generation. And not a single word of regret or self-reflection do we ever get from them.

January 2, 2015 8:14 pm

“If they like the Pleistocene so much, why don’t they wear skins and live in caves?”
— Jack Vance

Dean Bruckner
January 2, 2015 8:16 pm

Yes, lying is immoral, but immorality breeds more lying. When I teach ethics, I tell my students that if they are not doing the thing they know to be right when the issue is black and white, they are deceiving themselves if they think they will be able to discern the ethical thing amid shades of gray. They damage their ability to discern, and the only way out is to go back the way they came. The ancients called this repentance.

January 2, 2015 11:12 pm

sarc on/
I do have to point out though, seeing as everything is being redefined of late, to suit whatever political view is the flavour of the day, why would they not just redefine things such as truth, morals, ethics, right and wrong? I mean after all, you wouldn’t want to be labelled say, “a Christian”, now would you, with such medieval thoughts on truth, morals, ethics, right and wrong? I mean those things came from your magic, invisible, fairy tale, mythical friend in the sky didn’t it?
Besides, in this day and age of doing whatever feels good, isn’t it being just a tad judgemental to expect such things as honesty, ethical behaviour, high standards of morality from your betters?
sarc off/

don penman
January 2, 2015 11:18 pm

So according to the dull critical faculties of the far right Agw it is all the fault of socialism it was never created so that people could become very wealthy out of the lie,you also cannot recognise sarcasm.What about all the fascist regimes that were kept going by right wing USA in your sphere of influence in order to stop the spread of communism.How about the fact that to the far right Agw is only wrong because it interferes with there freedom it is not important if it is wrong scientifically.I am not being sarcastic now just to help those on the far right.

JB Goode
Reply to  don penman
January 3, 2015 2:49 am

@ don penman
January 2, 2015 at 11:18 pm
‘What about all the fascist regimes that were kept going by right wing USA in your sphere of influence in order to stop the spread of communism’
Hang on,who blessed us with communism in the first place?That episode of the your super refined ‘critical faculties’ left 90 odd million people dead and half of you still think it’s a good idea!

don penman
Reply to  JB Goode
January 3, 2015 4:40 am

I did not create communism any more than I created facism both are responsible for killing people .

Reply to  JB Goode
January 3, 2015 8:15 pm

don penman,
There isn’t a lick of difference between communism and fascism.
They are both ideological monstrosities, and neither of them gives a fig for individual freedom.

January 3, 2015 1:05 am

Arctic air will move east US now.

January 3, 2015 2:36 am

Not a pH issue, but how long before the following becomes an issue – I didn’t want to wait for an appropriate thread!
In mid – December, I thought that for fun I’d have a go at predicting the temperature for that month.
I posted the following:
“No computer models, no fancy statistics, just a plain inspection of the record’s figures and a bit of simple arithmetic.
From January to November inclusive, the Central England Temperature record (CET) monthly averages in degrees Centigrade for 2014 are 5.7, 6.2, 7.6, 10.2, 12.2, 15.1, 17.7, 14.9, 15.1, 12.5 and 8.6.
The hottest average for a year was 2006, showing 10.82⁰C.
So, assuming that we hit this hottest figure again, let’s have a look at what December may bring.
My calculation comes to 4.04⁰C, but I’m going to round off this figure (four hundredths of a degree means nothing) – so, I suggest that December’s CET temperature will be 4⁰C at the most, but in all likelihood less than that, since I doubt we’re going to see the record average of 2006 again this year.
Four degrees Centigrade for December? Not at all an unusual figure, and that’s going right back to the 1600s.
The coldest December ever was -0.8⁰C in 1890, and the warmest was 8.1⁰C in 1934, a value also seen in 1974.”
My own back yard temperature readings (admittedly a rough and ready approach!) suggested I’d be right.
Here in the UK, it hasn’t seemed (to me at least) to have been a hot year by any means.
However,the result is out.
I’ve just had a look at the CET, and I was wrong.
The December reading is 5.2⁰C,and this makes the annual average temperature shown on the CET 10.93⁰C, which is THE HOTTEST EVER.
Your comments please!

Reply to  Carbon500
January 3, 2015 3:10 am

Celsius is the correct word to use, not centigrade. I consider Centigrade to be correct for anomalies however.
I am not familiar with the data collecting of CET, but if it is like other datasets from other countries, there is a long delay before all of the records have finally come in, so perhaps the Dec data is still to early to call.
Records are still expected statistically to take place, be broken even if there is no warming.
I seem to recall that the hot year or summer of the USA in 2012 still had most individual states be 2⁰C cooler than the previous hottest year/summer and it was only because Texas was cool in the previous year of the record that made 2012 break the record.
Is UHI the cause of warmth throughout the record ?

Reply to  garymount
January 3, 2015 7:42 am

garymount: I’m probably showing my age (retired), but according to my early 1970s physical science textbook the terms Celsius and Centigrade can be used interchangeably – so it appears things have changed!
Thanks for your comments – the CET is full of temperatures that were once records, so your observation re. records being broken even if there has been no warming is clearly right on the proverbial nail.
I would certainly like to know more about the data collection methodology for interest.
The problem is that the warmists will no doubt be wringing their hands even harder in view of the latest figures, and the press will be having a field day as well. All reason will be thrown out of the window as usual.

don penman
January 3, 2015 4:26 am

It does not surprise me that 2014 average temperatures in the UK ware so high because we started with a mild winter and had a long hot summer.I had to buy sun tan lotion because my arms were getting burnt again and again as I was driving during the summer.The long hot summer did not result in a new maximum high temperature which should have happened if the temperature was actually trending upwards due to increased co2,we had ideal conditions for this to happen.

January 3, 2015 7:19 am

There’s also the point to be made that average temperatures lose information about what actually goes on weather-wise.
If for example you have a look at the CET years 1659, 1754, 1902, 1956, and 2010, all have an average temperature for the year of 8.83 degrees C.
Robin Stirling in ‘The Weather of Britain’ (published 1997) tells us on p148 that after a mild January in 1956, ‘ the first day of February saw a severe blast of air of Siberian origin sweep across Britain, giving day maxima well below freezing in many parts of the south, as low as -6C at Ipswich. Even in the Scillies there were two days of continuous frost and gales’ and also ‘February 1956 will be remembered by arable farmers for the severe damage to winter wheat, since, except along the east coast, there was very little snow to protect the ground from hard frost.’
In 1963, the annual average was slightly lower at 8.47C, yet Stirling comments that ‘in 1963, there was probably the coldest January since 1814 over England’ and ‘the Thames was frozen over above Kingston power station, although not at Tower Bridge because of the warmth from industrial cooling water which pours into the river.’
The ‘take home’ message seems to be that minor temperature differences don’t define climate, and that we should beware of record temperatures – and also our memories, because I was at school in 1963, 14 years of age – but I don’t recall the cold January of that year at all!

January 3, 2015 7:53 am

Climate Felons.

January 3, 2015 8:21 am

Too, ye of the liberal, progressive, commie bent,,,, these frauds are taking your stuff too.
Just do an inventory ,a Profit and Loss statement, and then a net worth graph from 1960 to now.
Facts do count up,,,, well down in this case.
Zero net worth is where they want you.

January 3, 2015 8:37 am

Hear, hear.

January 3, 2015 8:58 am

This is very sharp insight in to the public discourse. It represents a fundamental failure of our children’s education. Few teachers understand scientific thought and think they are teaching science when they are just teaching how to use the techincal tools which science developed. Few students understand the relationship of “hypothsis”, “how to test the hypothesis”, “understanding the results of the test” and that when the results failed to prove the hyptheses, you have learned something important. Most students, and many teachers “believe” something to start with, then only want to use arguements which they believe proves what they believe to be true. Many have just missed the point, but the are also teachers determined to indoctrinate.

Reply to  clanton1934
January 3, 2015 11:55 am

clanton says, “It represents a fundamental failure of our children’s education.”
What is very interesting to me is that in many science books for grade school curricula, and even in college text books, the scientific method is fairly accurately discussed. Any one who has a question can begin to use the scientific method to control variables in experiments and form a hypothesis.
This contributes to the trust that is placed in the words “science” and “scientists.”
However, the reality is quite different in practice. Only practitioners choose paradigms, and then subsequently control the questions that will be asked, the tools that will be used, and the interpretation of the data. NASA displays this attitude all of the time, and so do climate workers.

Reply to  Zeke
January 3, 2015 4:15 pm

I am disturbed that in the common discourse of everyday life, it seems that most people have a starting opinion and like trial lawyers only use whatever supports this opinion. If I meet someone who does otherwise, they are usually a scientist or a physician. Even more maddening is that the physicians that where have in Congress must have let “the Art of medicine” to have crowded out their science.

January 3, 2015 11:34 am

Tim Ball writes:
“What is important scientific information and how it is interpreted in the policy debates is an important part of our jobs.”
& “The active pursuit of data and use of methods to create the desired scientific, and thereby political outcome was morally and scientifically wrong. This was bolstered by what was left out…”
This is so well said. The truth about science and scientists (and also the truth about historians) is that they love theories. They love them and are devoted to them. This is why Francis Bacon quaintly but it turns out accurately called theories “idols of the mind.” He proposed a new method of inquiry that laid aside Greek philosophers and relied instead on empirical observations guided by experiment.
The answer is not necessarily to expect individual scientists to show any regard for truth or disproof of his theory. Karl Popper explained that that is not realistic. The only way out of the abject devotion to theory and institutions by scientists and historians is rational criticism by completely differing scientists and historians.

Reply to  Zeke
January 3, 2015 12:09 pm

(And rational criticism from anyone who can express himself reasonably well, Popper added.)

January 3, 2015 1:18 pm

Typo – freindly
should be friendly
Great read!

Med Bennett
January 3, 2015 1:25 pm

first sentence should say ocean pH data rather than temperature data.

Reply to  Med Bennett
January 3, 2015 6:18 pm

Sou at Hotwhopper has already put out an article that claims this mix-up of Temp and pH is one of the many “Lies” of WUWT. (Sigh)
This kind of Typo really does need to be corrected as soon as it’s pointed out. Preferably with an update note so they can’t come back with some conspiracy theory that we’re ‘covering up’ our ‘lies’.

Reply to  schitzree
January 3, 2015 11:21 pm

It’s an obvious inadvertent error, and the story is on many websites; it’s all good. She’s very hostile and intentionally offensive, but does she have 3-digit IQ credibility?

January 3, 2015 1:31 pm

Many areas of science particularly in the Earth and Environmental fraternities are open to subversion. They deal with very complex systems where simple models don’t work. As a result one can easily manufacture or contrive models that work best for the researchers and backers.

Ed bray
January 3, 2015 2:27 pm

Existence exists , and that statement implies two colloraries, that something exists and that you exist having conscious and able to perceive that which exists but the law of identity stands between you and knowledge you must correctly identify, what you have perceived.

January 4, 2015 5:01 am

The active pursuit of data and use of methods to create the desired scientific, and thereby political outcome was morally and scientifically wrong. This was bolstered by what was left out, the cherry picking. It variously involved,
· Leaving out data, as in Sabine and Feely,
· Selecting start and stop points on graphs, to provide a desired trend, as in Santer,
· Omitting entire sectors of causes of climate change, such as omission of the Milankovitch Effect, or the Cosmic Theory.
· Omission began with the deliberately narrow definition of climate change that restricted the IPCC to only human causes.
· Omitting all the severe limitations of the science and computer models identified in the Working Group I Report, The Physical Science Basis from the SPM.

In law, the concept is known as “suppressio veri, suggestio falsi.”
From Black’s Law Dictionary online:

Suppression or concealment of the truth. “It is a rule of equity, as well as of law, that a suppressio veri is equivalent to a suggestio falsi; and where either the suppression of the truth or the suggestion of what is false can be proved, in a fact material to the contract, the party injured may have relief against the contract.” Fleming v. Slocum. 18 Johns. (N. Y.) 405, 9 Am. Dec. 224. Suppressio veri, expressio falsi. Suppression of the truth is [equivalent to] the expression of what is false. Addington v. Allen, 11 Wend. (N. Y.) 374, 417. Suppressio veri, suggestio falsi. Suppression of the truth is [equivalent to] the suggestion of what is false. Paul v. Hadley, 23 Barb. (N. Y.) 521, 525.

January 4, 2015 12:26 pm

Ferdinand E., you wrote: January 2, 2015 at 3:35 pm
“The data were made available about during the time of the correspondence between Wallace and Sabine…”
In my communications with the PMEL authors Sabine and Feely, they never directed me to NOAA’s WOD. Nor was I directed there by the NOAA FOIA response that I later received. I only learned of the WOD after those communications. For that matter, I didn’t learn of the Congressional testimony role of their work, until after the PMEL communication was ended as well.

Reply to  Mike Wallace
January 5, 2015 1:22 pm

Mike, I haven’t seen your correspondence with Sabine, so I can’t know what is said from both sides. But I understand that Sabine should have lead you to the data and show that these were not accurate enough to show the real pH trend…

January 4, 2015 10:05 pm

It is worth reflecting on an article by physicist, Dr Gordon Fulks, titled “Physicists View of ‘the Precautionary Principle'” (20 April 2012) in which he stated the following:
“In all of these arguments of a political nature, what is overwhelmingly lost is the real science and hence the real truth as best we know it. Science has NOTHING to do with how many supporters you can count amongst those you deem worthy in the scientific profession.
In 1905 Albert Einstein stood against the entire classical physics world with his new ideas on relativity. A few years later, a high school biology teacher from Seattle (Harlen Bretz) stood against the entire geological profession with his explanations of Pacific Northwest geology. And just a few years ago, Barry Marshall and Robin Warren stood against the entire medical profession to explain the real cause of peptic ulcers.
It is as Galileo said many centuries ago: “The authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.”
Hence the fundamental issue for me is the survival of science as an objective profession. Continuous spin from highly political non-scientists does not help. And complicity among many scientists who want the government grants to continue is very destructive.”
I couldn’t put it any better!

January 5, 2015 6:59 am

Yeah sure. I’m sure there’s a similar website where a group also feels smug because they know the “secret” about who “really” assassinated JFK. For the supposed brilliance that Tim Ball has espoused he can’t awaken the masses and especially the media to the great conspiracy that’s going on. It’s because the Evil Big Media have brainwashed the masses as opposed to the fact Mr Ball has gone down the easy road of pseudoscience.

%d bloggers like this: