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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.
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.
can anyone give me a reference to the empirical evidene that plants do best under 1000 ppm or so of CO2 please?
–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.–
http://www.novabiomatique.com/hydroponics-systems/plant-555-gardening-with-co2-explained.cfm
CO2 science documents hundreds of peer reviewed studies doing tens of thousands of experiments demonstrating the benefits of CO2.
http://www.co2science.org/index.php
The benefits of CO2 are KNOWN, the purported harms are FAILING to manifest.
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.
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.
You make a great point. Conflating carbon, carbon-dioxide, and carbon-monoxide has been a pet peeve of mine for a long time.
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.
Agree David.
The term carbon pollution is something only the scientific illiterate or someone running a scam would use.
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!
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.
The era of Grubering is upon us all.
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?
So, how do we stop these idiots at IPCC from making the world spend $36 trillion replacing its entire electric power infrastructure?
–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.
In the US it is simple, vote for Republicans.
The perpetrators of this con trick should go to jail
“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?
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’.
Roger,
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.
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!
SL:
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
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?
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.
Yes.
So one is a right winger if they don’t live naked in the woods ?
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”
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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?
@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’
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.
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.
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
And your point? Maurice Strong is a socialist one world government type and has been for decades.
“· 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.
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?
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.
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
Make that if you look at one…
I sure miss editing.
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.
“If they like the Pleistocene so much, why don’t they wear skins and live in caves?”
— Jack Vance
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.
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/
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.
@ur momisugly 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!
I did not create communism any more than I created facism both are responsible for killing people .
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.
Arctic air will move east US now.
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!
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 ?
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.
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.
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!
Climate Felons.