OWS: Climate Justice Day buried in snow

There's an OWS protester under there, somewhere…

The Gore Effect at work, yet again! As the Occupy Wall Street movement embarks on its protest against “global warming”, Central Park receives the largest October snowfall since records began, as NOAA/NWS reports (thanks to WUWT):





As the saying goes: buwahahahahahahahahaha!

BEST: as usual, it's WORSE than we thought

Hardly the BEST...

I love it when warmists start throwing custard pies at each other. In this case, however, it’s far more than that.

You will recall that the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project (BEST) announced earlier this week (providing pre-publication drafts that had not been peer-reviewed to the press) that the earth was indeed round and not flat, in other words that, in a shocking revelation, temperatures have been rising for the last couple of hundred years (see here). That was supposed to silence the deniers once and for all. Except we all knew that anyway – it was nothing but a feeble straw man, which sceptics ridiculed mercilessly.

And now it gets far, far worse, as Judith Curry dumps about twenty tonnes of fetid bat-poo on the BEST project. It’s dynamite:

[T]oday The Mail on Sunday can reveal that a leading member of Prof Muller’s team has accused him of  trying to mislead the public by hiding the fact that BEST’s research shows global warming has stopped.

Prof Judith Curry, who chairs the Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at America’s prestigious Georgia Institute of Technology, said that Prof Muller’s claim that he has proven global warming sceptics wrong was also a ‘huge mistake’, with no  scientific basis.

Prof Curry is a distinguished climate researcher with more than 30 years experience and the second named co-author of the BEST project’s four research papers.

Her comments, in an exclusive interview with The Mail on Sunday, seem certain to ignite a furious academic row. She said this affair had to be compared to the notorious ‘Climategate’ scandal two years ago.

Like the scientists exposed then by leaked emails from East Anglia University’s Climatic Research Unit, her colleagues from the BEST project seem to be trying to ‘hide the decline’ in rates of global warming.

In fact, Prof Curry said, the project’s research data show there has been no increase in world temperatures since the end of the Nineties – a fact confirmed by a new analysis that The Mail on Sunday has obtained.

‘There is no scientific basis for saying that warming hasn’t stopped,’ she said. ‘To say that there is detracts from the credibility of the data, which is very unfortunate.’

However, Prof Muller denied warming was at a standstill.

‘We see no evidence of it [global warming] having slowed down,’ he told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme. There was, he added, ‘no levelling off’.

A graph issued by the BEST project also suggests a continuing steep increase.

But a report to be published today by the Global Warming Policy Foundation includes a graph of world average temperatures over the past ten years, drawn from the BEST project’s data and revealed on its website.

This graph shows that the trend of the last decade is absolutely flat, with no increase at all – though the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have carried on rising relentlessly.

‘This is nowhere near what the  climate models were predicting,’ Prof Curry said. ‘Whatever it is that’s going on here, it doesn’t look like it’s being dominated by CO2.’

Prof Muller also wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal. It was here, under the headline ‘The case against global warming scepticism’, that he proclaimed ‘there were good reasons for doubt until now’.

This, too, went around the world, with The Economist, among many others, stating there was now ‘little room for doubt’.

Such claims left Prof Curry horrified. 

‘Of course this isn’t the end of scepticism,’ she said. ‘To say that is the biggest mistake he [Prof Muller] has made. When I saw he was saying that I just thought, “Oh my God”.’ (Mail on Sunday)

OMG indeed. So pull up a chair, grab the popcorn and enjoy the show.

Read it all at the link.

More at WUWT here (toward whom the hat is gratefully tipped)

More at GWPF here.

Early snow in US: global warming blamed in 3, 2, 1…

Flakes of global warming

From the Weather Isn’t Climate Department. As we all know, every weather phenomenon can be blamed on global warming – it’s an unfalsifiable hypothesis, the gift that keeps on giving! If it’s unseasonably hot: global warming. More rainfall: global warming. Drought: global warming. Less snow: global warming. More snow: global warming.

So it’s only a matter of time before some climate “scientist” breaks cover and says that this early snowfall in the US is “entirely consistent” with climate change projections. Because everything is “entirely consistent” with some climate model somewhere. Ask a climate scientist if any particular weather phenomenon could possibly disprove the theory of AGW and there will be a long, stony silence.

An unseasonable snowstorm has hit the US East Coast, threatening to bring up to 10in (25cm) of early snowfall.

The National Weather Service (NWS) has issued a winter storm warning from Saturday into Sunday and says travel conditions may be hazardous.

Heavy snow has begun falling across parts of Pennsylvania. About 10,000 people there, as well as in Maryland and West Virginia, are without power.

In 1979, southern New England received a record 7.5in of snow in October.

A region of low pressure brewing off the mid-Atlantic coast is expected to produce heavy, wet snow as it moves north-east, the NWS said.

The Massachusetts Berkshires, north-western Connecticut and southern New Hampshire could see the most snow.

Big coastal cities are set to be hit, forecasters say, with New York expecting 4in (10cm) on Saturday, and Boston 3in. 

Winds along the coast could reach 45mph (72km/h), further damaging power lines, the NWS said. (BBC)

Quote of the Day: "over-bloated overconfidence" of consensus

Quote of the Day

Judith Curry, writing at her blog Climate Etc, comments on an article in which warmists attempt to “explain away” the apparent lack of warming over the past decade or so, and concede that more research is required before such lack of warming can be fully explained (my emphasis):

“Well thank you IPCC authors for letting us know what is really behind that “very likely” assessment of attribution 20th century warming.  A lot of overbloated over confidence that cannot survive a few years of cooling.  The light bulbs seem to be just turning on in your heads over the last two years.  Think about all the wasted energy fighting the “deniers” when they could have been listening, trying to understand their arguments, and making progress to increase our understanding of the causes of climate variability and change.”

Hear, hear [said very loudly].

Climate scientist – yes, we avoid debate


Steve Sherwood admits in The Australian today that climate scientists avoid debate, but attempts to justify that by claiming that it’s impossible to get their position across in a the short time normally allowed in debates.

Sherwood also claims the science is settled – an interesting juxtaposition of conflicting arguments. On the one hand, the debate’s over, but on the other, there just isn’t time to explain why!

Sherwood’s analogy with a criminal trial is shaky at best:

[…] it helps to think of the present state of climate science as if it were a high-profile and complicated murder trial that had just ended.

After a month of courtroom arguments and careful deliberation of the testimony and evidence, the jury announces its verdict: the accused is innocent. But not everyone likes the verdict.

Gnashing of teeth and unhappiness ensue. The victim’s family, the police and many others want to believe the perpetrator had been arrested, and want them brought to justice.

Some commentators, who don’t know any of the jurors, begin saying they are soft on crime, were bamboozled by crafty lawyers or suffered from a conflict of interest because the government paid jury fees.

A politician enters the fray, asking why the community should accept the judgment of a “monopoly” of only 12 people on such an important matter. He proposes that the verdict be disregarded and the case judged democratically instead.

He suggests that each solicitor present arguments and evidence on evening television, for 30 seconds. Afterwards, the people will decide, by plebiscite, based on each 30-second presentation whether the accused committed the crime.

It is hard to imagine how this would be regarded as fair. It is clearly a travesty of justice.

But climate scientists are being asked to participate in exactly this kind of arrangement when debating contrarians in public forums.

“The accused is innocent.” Or in the case of carbon dioxide, guilty. That would be the flawed assumption in this argument. The science is settled, is effectively what Sherwood claims. The climate models accurately reflect every single element of the climate system, and we have little more to learn. But as we have discovered from Donna Laframboise’s recent book, the IPCC, that impartial arbiter of all things climate, on whose pronouncements climate policies are decided the word over, is nothing of the sort – it is a politicised and compromised organisation, with a very rigid agenda. Is that what you mean by the accused is innocent? Because the IPCC says so?

It’s the same old story – just trust the scientists and let us get on with it. We know best. Shut up, he explained.

The basic physics of global warming may be simple, but the potential complications revived in perpetuity by contrarians took years for experts to sort out. They cannot be adequately explained in an hour or a day.

A solicitor with integrity, faced with 30 seconds to deliver trial evidence, would refuse to participate in such a scheme.

Climate scientists are refusing to enter public debates for exactly the same reason. (source – behind a paywall now…)

Sorry, but I think the reason is much simpler. Scientists avoid debate because they hate having to answer questions about the politicisation of the scientific process, the corruption of scientific integrity at the IPCC, Climategate and the Big Green bandwagon of funding that keeps most climate scientists in work.

Given Sherwood has used a trial analogy, here’s a slightly different one to think about:

CO2 is on trial for assault on the planet. The prosecution consists of the UN, virtually every national government, academic institutions the world over, all funded by a massive revenue stream running to billions of dollars. They have massive departments, massive budgets, banks of supercomputers, and corporate Amex cards. The judge, who is also from the UN, has also said publicly in the past that CO2 is guilty – before the trial even starts. The night before, the judge is spotted out partying with the prosecution – they’re all good mates and have known each other since the good old days of Bert Bolin.

On the other side sits the defence: a few retired scientists in threadbare suits, with no money and no glory and barely a laptop between them who toil away in the background trying to test the prosecution’s case as best they can with extremely limited resources. When the defence gets a donation from Big Oil, the prosecution (and the judge) are incensed – conflict of interest, they cry! The fact that the prosecution is bankrolled by Big Green, however, seems not to concern the court. Even the judge remains silent.

Links between the prosecution and special interest groups are exposed, revealing that this is nothing more than a political show trial. Twenty odd years ago, a bunch of environmental hard-cases got together in Villach and decided they could make a tidy profit and help them achieve global power by stitching up poor old CO2. The judge and a number of the prosecution team are all in on this, and will make significant profits if CO2 is found guilty, yet no-one bats an eyelid.

The evidence is presented. The prosecution relies on incomplete and flaky computer models that “prove” that CO2 is guilty, despite the fact that they omit a range of key factors that would significantly influence that result. They rely on data that have been “adjusted” to remove any trace of uncertainty about CO2’s guilt. Witnesses are called who misrepresent and utter falsehoods under oath, but oddly that seems OK too. The judge remains silent again. 

When the defence attempts to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses, however, the judge rules that the witnesses don’t have to answer. They can simply refuse to provide the code for their models or their raw data. The defence are astonished! Is this how the trial system works?

Despite these challenges and obstacles, the defence exposes significant weaknesses in the prosecution case. Their own witnesses are empirical observations of the real world. The prosecution objects – empirical observations aren’t as reliable as the outputs of our computer models! The judge agrees. The models take precedence and the empirical data ruled inadmissible.

Furthermore, the defence are drowned out by continual interruptions from the prosecution, who insult them and call them names like “denier” and “flat-earther”. The judge joins in the chorus of insults too – he knows CO2 is guilty, so why should he have to listen to the ramblings of the morally bankrupt defence team?

The prosecution insist that everything presented by the defence must be peer-reviewed (by the prosecution), but ensure that their own case can be built from newspaper clippings and WWF leaflets and other “grey literature”. The judge agrees – sections of the defence evidence is excluded, but the prosecution evidence is admitted in full.

The media report favourably on the prosecution case, with graphic daily stories of CO2’s past misdeeds, frequently illustrated with heart-wrenching pictures of polar bears drowning [or maybe just swimming?]. The defence are portrayed as a bunch of kooks. But the public aren’t fooled. They can smell corruption when they see it. The proportion of the population that believes CO2 is guilty is plummeting like a stone. But no-one cares. It will be a long time before the public will have their say again.

In the end, the judge rules “the case is over”. He doesn’t want to hear any more debate. The defence are on their feet – how can this travesty (© K Trenberth) of justice be allowed? The judge rules in favour of the prosecution, CO2 is guilty as charged.

CO2 is condemned – and as a result, Western economies are turned upside down. The poor long-suffering public now find that since CO2’s conviction, they can no longer afford to heat their homes, or buy food. They also notice that despite CO2’s incarceration, there are still terrible things happening in the world – floods, cyclones, droughts – they all happen with exactly the same frequency and intensity as before. Temperatures go up, and down, and up, and down, and up and down again. Nothing has changed – except that they are broke and all their jobs have moved to China. Maybe it wasn’t CO2 after all, they begin to think, and all this was for nothing.

And then a climate scientist writes glibly in a national newspaper that they don’t debate the science in public any more because the court has already found that CO2 is guilty…

And they all lived unhappily ever after.

Daily Bayonet GW Hoax Weekly Roundup

Skewering the clueless

As always, a great read!

Cardinal criticises religious climate zealots

Can spot a fake religion when he sees one

UPDATE: Josh records Cardinal Pell’s speech (on which this article was based) in cartoon form here.

The irony – a spiritual leader within a faith-based belief system (the Catholic Church) possesses far more capacity for rational thought than thousands of “scientists” and politicians swept up in the quasi-religious tide of climate alarmism.

We can only attempt to identify the causes of climate change through science and these causes need to be clearly established after full debates, validated comprehensively, before expensive remedies are imposed on industries and communities.

I first became interested in the question in the 1990s when studying the anti-human claims of the “deep greens”. Mine is not an appeal to the authority of any religious truth in the face of contrary scientific evidence. Neither is it even remotely tinged by a postmodernist hostility to rationality.

My appeal is to reason and evidence, and in my view the evidence is insufficient to achieve practical certainty on many of these scientific issues.

Recently Robert Manne, following fashionable opinion, wrote that “the science is truly settled” on the fundamental theory of climate change: global warming is happening; it is primarily caused by the emission of greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide; and it is certain to have profound effects in the future .

His appeal is to the “consensual view among qualified scientists”. This is a category error, scientifically and philosophically. In fact, it is also a cop-out, a way of avoiding the basic issues.

The basic issue is not whether the science is settled but whether the evidence and explanations are adequate in that paradigm.

I fear, too, that many politicians have never investigated the primary evidence.

Much is opaque to non-specialists, but persistent inquiry and study can produce useful clarifications, similar to the nine errors identified by the British High Court in Al Gore’s propaganda film, An Inconvenient Truth.

The complacent appeal to scientific consensus is simply one more appeal to authority, quite inappropriate in science or philosophy.

Read it here.

%d bloggers like this: