Categories
Antiterrorism English Humor Immigration Politics Terrorism UK

Scotland Yard Reveals: Pope “Not a Catholic”

The Metropolitan Police confirmed Mr Green was arrested by members of its counter-terrorism command, thought to be Special Branch officers, at his home in Kent and searches were conducted at his homes in London and Kent and at two offices in Kent and London. It said the investigation was not terrorism related but did fall within the counter-terror unit’s remit and thatit was made without the knowledge or approval of ministers.”

If you don’t hear from Yours Truly for a while, please send cake with obligatory hand-file to Belmarsh Prison, Thamesmead, London (UK)

Categories
Catastrofismo Economia Italiano Politica

Sonni Tranquilli sulla Catastrofe Finanziaria In Corso

E come si fa? Si fa, si fa. Perche’ in realta’ ci sono due (se non piu’) modi di intendere cosa sia una catastrofe. C’e’ la “catastrofe” secondo la definizione piu’ comune (chiamiamola “di tipo a”), un avvenimento o una serie di avvenimenti che portano a sfacelo e distruzione. Ma c’e anche la “catastrofe” nel senso di Thom e della teoria delle catastrofi (di tipo “b”), e cioe’ un “mutamento discontinuo” che porti un sistema a una condizione completamente nuova.

In campo finanziario, una catastrofe “di tipo a” vedrebbe lunghe file al monte dei pegni e alle distribuzioni di pasti caldi e gratuiti, con la nascita di baraccopoli nei parchi pubblici: una ripetizione del ’29, insomma, anzi di quasi tutti gli anni ’30 del XX secolo negli USA. E’ questa la catastrofe che ritengo assai improbabile: se non altro perche’ nel 1929 non c’era alcuna esperienza…del 1929; mentre noi abbiamo avuto circa 80 anni per pensarci su’, e magari se sbaglieremo sara’ per qualcos’altro e non una ripetizione idiota degli stessi errori dell’epoca.

La catastrofe finanziaria in corso e’ invece sicuramente “di tipo b”. Se e quando ne usciremo fuori, la situazione sara’ completamente diversa rispetto a quella in vigore fino all’Agosto 2008: niente piu’ bizzarrie diffuse fra le banche di investimento, molte meno opportunita’ di registrazioni “fuori bilancio”, un diverso ruole per le Banche Centrali, meno cene, colazioni e festini per coloro che regolano i mercati finanziari assieme a coloro che dovrebbero essere regolati. Ma il mio e’ solo un timido elenco: chi si fidera’ mai piu’ di chi ha rischiato di giocare le camicie di milioni di persone pur di guadagnare quel mezzo punto percentuale in piu’, e poi ha dovuto presentarsi capello alla mano per chiedere l’elemosina al Governo?

Inutile perdere il sonno, su quest’ultimo tipo di catastrofe. L’unica cosa da pregare e’ che la “correzione di rotta” non porti troppi danni essa stessa. Ma tanto, siamo tutti sulla stessa barca. Se uno diventa povero, il problema e’ suo. Se cento milioni diventano poveri, il problema e’ del Governo…

Categories
AGW catastrophism Climate Change Global Warming IPCC Omniclimate Policy Science Skepticism

Climate Change Activism's Wreck of a Train

Observationally, they have nothing to show to support their claims of upcoming climate disasters. Scientifically, they got it mixed up and regularly distort what Science is and is not showing. In practice, they are using persuasion tools developed to save pandas and the Hudson river, and those are the wrong ones because Anthropogenic Global Warming is not a species in peril now or a river polluted at the present, but a risk for the end of the century.

No wonder then, Climate Change activists have been fighting a mostly political battle for at least two decades. And the main objective appears time and again to force their solutions upon us, and to stifle all forms of dissent.

In desperation, what else have they got?

Categories
Italia Italiano Partito Democratico Politica

Il PD Apre Sezione di Londra – Senza di Me, Ovviamente…

Perche’ “ovviamente”? Perche’ la prima cosa che faranno sara’ il tesseramento, poi procederanno alle elezioni vinte secondo le solite maggioranze bulgare, poi ci sara’ un direttivo di segreteria che si riunira’ in segreto per decidere per gli altri, poi un gruppo di probiviri si incarichera’ di eliminare dalle liste chi dissente troppo, etc etc.

Sara’ impossibile discutere niente di serio, e gli ordini da Roma cancelleranno ogni iniziativa locale, mentre i leaders si preparano a una bella carriera da apparatchik.

Sbadigli a non finire, insomma. E intanto, il mondo progredira’, senza di loro.

Preferisco il mondo…

Categories
Climate Change English Environment Global Warming Policy Politics Science Skepticism

Climate Change Activism’s Wreck of a Train

Observationally, they have nothing to show to support their claims of upcoming climate disasters. Scientifically, they got it mixed up and regularly distort what Science is and is not showing. In practice, they are using persuasion tools developed to save pandas and the Hudson river, and those are the wrong ones because Anthropogenic Global Warming is not a species in peril now or a river polluted at the present, but a risk for the end of the century.

No wonder then, Climate Change activists have been fighting a mostly political battle for at least two decades. And the main objective appears time and again to force their solutions upon us, and to stifle all forms of dissent.

In desperation, what else have they got?

Categories
Abrupt AGW catastrophism Climate Change CO2 Emissions Culture Data GHG Global Warming IPCC Omniclimate Policy Politics Science Skepticism

Nothing to Show: AGWers' Big Stumbling Block

UPDATE NOV 29: William M Connolley says he is not impressed by Romm’s list either

There’s an underlying feeling of desperation in Joe Romm (ClimateProgress)’s “What are the near-term climate Pearl Harbors?, a list “of what might drive action strong enough to avoid the worst“.

The list includes the Arctic “ice-free before 2020“, “superstorms like Katrina“, “a heatwave as bad as Europe’s 2003” , and the 2012 IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (perish the thought it might be less catastrophiliac than the Fourth Assessment Report…).

Note that Romm’s blog has been echoed by Heliophage, on Andrew Revkin’s Dot Earth, and in Nature’s Climate Feedback. An unwise move, if you ask me: one wonders what people would make if they knew that those claiming to work towards saving Planet Earth, are actively hoping disasters of all sorts befall upon us.

Talk about striving for unpopularity!!!

The desperation is evident in the fact that a person allegedly as well-informed on climate stuff as Romm, comes up with wholly inappropriate examples. Katrina was a big storm but not more superstorm than other hurricanes (Romm even acknowledges this point), and the destruction of New Orleans was evidently a matter of bad engineering and incompetent relief management. Didn’t he have anything better to put forward?

Likewise for the European heatwave of 2003. And even more importantly: neither Katrina, nor the European heatwave, can be linked to Climate Change and/or Global Warming. And so if, say, another heatwave will materialize, it will tell us absolutely nothing about Climate Change and Global Warming.

Actually, looking at the list of 9 items posted by Romm, the only ones that may provide ammunitions to the AGW cause may be the ice-free Arctic, and “accelerated mass loss in Greenland“.

Most likely, Romm is simply and perhaps unwittingly acknowledging the fact that for all the huffing and all the puffing, there is very little that AGWers can show to support their claims.

Look at when Revkin (a journalist I am grudgingly but steadily learning to respect) makes a very clear point to Romm:

As I [Revkin] wrote in 2006 (”Yelling Fire on a Hot Planet“) problems that get people’s attention (and cause them to change) are “soon, salient and certain” and the dangerous aspects of human-forced climate disruption remain none of those things

In other words, the dangers of AGW are not about to happen, they are not strikingly conspicuous, and they are not sure or inevitable.

And what has Romm got to reply to that? Very little. Actually, almost nothing: he spells out some kind of humanitarian deathwish, a desire for a big climate crisis; makes a critical point against journalists (who doesn’t); and decries how he understands things but most people don’t:

Multi-hundred-billion-dollar-sized government action happens only when there is a very, very big crisis […] labeled as such by very serious people who are perceived as essentially nonpartisan opinion leaders […] bad things must be happening to regular people right now […]

Better journalism would help. […] We simply don’t have a critical mass of credible nonpartisan opinion leaders who understand the nature of our energy and climate problem.

Revkin’s “soon, salient and certain“, by the way, is a quote originally from “Helen Ingram, a professor of planning, policy and design at the University of California, Irvine.

Won’t Prof. Ingram be excited upon hearing that salience is not a problem, but persons not being bright enough is…

The supreme pinnacle of irony, in the Romm/Revkin exchange, lies in the former’s misunderstanding of the latter’s point about “certainty“. In 2006, Revkin noted that:

Projections of how patterns of drought, deluges, heat and cold might change are among the most difficult, and will remain laden with huge uncertainties for a long time to come […]

While scientists say they lack firm evidence to connect recent weather to the human influence on climate, environmental campaigners still push the notion […]

Romm’s reply? Another accusation, refusing to acknowledge Revkin’s first point (emphasis in the original):

You [Revkin] understand this but you don’t convey this to your readers: Doing nothing or doing little eliminates the uncertainty.

Romm’s near-term climate Pearl Harbors post, actually, does look suspiciously as a way of “pushing a notion” the non-scientific notion of connecting recent weather to (future?) climate change.

======

The above doesn’t look very promising for the AGW movement.

I am actually starting to think that the problem is in the fact that most AGWer haven’t grasped the nature of the issue they are concerned about. And so they use the tools learned to protect pandas or clean up the Hudson river. And for most intents and purposed, they fail: because, as Revkin has realized, Anthropogenic Global Warming, aka Climate Change, truly is a completely different beast.

Categories
America Economics Economist English Humanity International Herald Tribune Politics USA

Why Lehman’s Failure Was The Right Move

Millions of gallons of ink must have been consumed in the neverending discussions about the “disaster” represented by the US Government’s decision to let Lehman Brothers fail and disappear. Andrew Ross Sorkin on today’s IHT agrees:

With hindsight, many in the financial industry blame a deepening of the global financial crisis on the government’s decision to let Lehman crumble

I disagree with that analysis, for two very simple reasons. When Lehman was allowed to go bankrupt, a signal was sent to all, saying that not everybody will be rescued. This was in direct contrast with the Japanese Government’s decadal efforts to prop up every financial institution under its watch (that’s why those efforts lasted for a decade or even more).

More importantly, the failure of Lehman Brothers showed everybody what the failure of “just a bank” may mean, with innumerable, overwhelmingly negative consequences propping up even in unlikely places. And this was good: because it is in the human nature to seriously question people advising that something bad may be happening in the near future, and to need a direct experience of that “something bad” before properly reacting.

You can spend every last molecule of your breath explaining a child that eating too many sweets can be painful. But there is nothing like going through a “tummy ache” that will convince the child of changing their way.

And you could transfer yourself back to January 1939 and explain all the reasons for the upcoming Nazi continent-wide monstruosity, but I am sure nobody in the UK or France (or the USA) will agree to go to war until forced to by the pain of circumstance.

And so, had Lehman Brothers been rescued alongside the other relatively large institutions, we would still be discussing the pro’s and con’s of rescue packages. And we would have never known that it takes just a bank to fail, to see a run on money-market funds.

Hindsight will fuel further commentaries on now-defunct Lehman Brothers: and hindsight can be useful to make sense of the world, but only works when there is something to look back at…

Categories
catastrophism Climate Change Global Warming Omniclimate

Climate News Confusion At The National Geographic Society

Just sent to the National Geographic Society newsdesk

Subject: Acidic oceans…are you out of your mind?

Dear Newsdesk

Who dreamed up the title for the “Oceans Ten Times More Acidic Than Thought” story?

It is absurdly misleading.

What the scientists have reported is that “the acidity INCREASED ten times QUICKER than climate models predicted” (my emphasis). It is written in the second sentence of that same article.

Do check it out with all major media organizations: they all reported something along the line of “Oceans Becoming Acidic Ten Times FASTER Than Thought” (again, my emphasis)

Please correct the title of the story at the earlies opportunity. This is too big a mistake to leave untouched.

There are other obvious issues with the original scientific article but I’ll talk about them in a later blog…

Categories
Climate Change Dissent Global Warming Omniclimate Policy Science

A "Scientific Ombudsman" To Avoid a Scientific Schism

The Scientist” reports about University of Cambridge biologist Peter Lawrence‘s (and others’) complaint against Cell, “one of the most cited scientific journals” according to Wikipedia.

Improper citation, disregard for antecedent research, and shoddy experimentation – those are just a few of the allegations levied against a recent research paper […]

Lawrence wrote in a letter to Cell that the paper was “seriously flawed both scientifically and ethically […]” Lawrence’s letter was not published in Cell, but he sent it to The Scientist. […]

Editors at Cell did not respond to an email request for comment in this story. However, the journal’s senior scientific editor, Connie Lee, did respond to Lawrence’s letter [but] declined his request to publish a minireview, instead offered Lawrence the opportunity to post his comments on Cell’s website. […]

Lawrence, however, would like to see action taken to address the issue of scientific scoopsmanship on a broader level. “There should be some kind of scientific ombudsman that people could contact when they feel they’ve been wronged,” he said. “At the moment, there’s nothing.”

It is said that scientific peer-review is like Democracy: full of flaws, but there isn’t anything better (I do have indirect experience with asinine comments by ignorant reviewers taken as Truth by editors of scientific journals with a purpose). But Democracy has been evolving and dare I say improving itself with time, whilst peer-review is somehow considered too saintly to be touched.

This has the unfortunate consequence that there are now people explicitly asking for its “overhaul”.

=============

UPDATE NOV 26: The Scientist has today another article praising peer-review as it happens today, and a few comments critical of it.

=============

The risk there is for a major Scientific schism, with some sticking to their little ivory towers of mutual peer-review; and others deliberately abandoning any attempt to publish in peer-reviewed journals, consigning their work to the Internet masses.

Whole areas of research may descend into “scientific wars” full of mutually-incompatible claims about the world we all live in. That will leave everybody unfamiliar with the field at a complete loss on what is, and what is not known.

This may have already happened, in Climatology, leading to Intergovernmental Panels etc etc.

I’d rather prefer a scientific ombudsman, thank you very much.

Categories
AGW catastrophism Climate Change CO2 Emissions Culture Data GHG Global Warming Omniclimate Science Skepticism

The "Argumentum ad Timorem" and the Failure of Climate Models

Fellow netizen LM reminds me about Mark Buchanan’s “Thesis” op-ed in Nature Physics: “Less reticence on nonlinear climate change” (May 2007, Vol. 3, p. 291). A few extracts:

“…There are so many factors involved [in global climate] that no one can be absolutely sure […]
[Computational models] always seem open to legitimate criticism given the number of parameters they contain […]
The latest and biggest model may be ‘the best’, in some sense, but that doesn’t mean it is any good […]
What we shouldn’t be reticent about are the inherent dangers of strongly disturbing a highly nonlinear system that we’re not close to understanding, and on which our lives depend. We may not know the future, but we can have confidence that it won’t unfold gradually and predictably. There will probably be plenty of surprises, driven by instabilities and positive feedbacks. Precaution would seem very well-advised.”

(by the way: a trip to the local Library and a few days of wait for that magazine to be delivered there are in order…nice to see how “Nature” opts for the milking of $32 out of its readers rather than the free and full dissemination of articles on an issue about which they claim “time is running out“…)

Buchanan’s point is as interesting as it is flawed. And it is interesting because it can be used:

  1. to argue that climate skeptics have been right all along: climate models are no good, and
  2. to illustrate yet another example of out-and-out catastrophism, taking “change” as synonym of “bad”, and
  3. to elucidate the flawed reasoning behind appeals to fight Climate Change in the name of the Precautionary Principle, with the Argumentum ad Timorem of accepting AGW as a given, out of fear for its consequences.

BYE-BYE MODELS
Wittingly or otherwise, Buchanan is suggesting that all the work done to model the global climate has been futile at best:

  1. Models have inherently flawed results “no one can be absolutely sure” of (actually, that’s an euphemism). We can’t even tell if the best model is “any good”
  2. Model have brought us nowhere in our quest to grasp the evolution of climate, “a highly nonlinear system that we’re not close to understanding”
  3. Models can’t tell us much or anything at all about the future they purport to be describing. We can only have confidence in the fact that “there will probably be plenty of surprises”

No need to spend millions of dollars to figure out the above: even RealClimate acknowledges that climate models are “scenarios” and not “predictions”. It is not just a matter of building more powerful computers: no model will ever be able to take into consideration a future volcanic eruption, for example, as the actual start and end dates cannot be fathomed in advance by any computer we can dream of.

Everything considered, in Buchanan’s view models become a big waste of time, and of money, with the situation made all the worse as models are what politicians refer as predictive tools, when trying to conjure up ways to prevent a climate catastrophe.

Climate skeptics, wondering for years what the value could be in a multidecadal computer simulation with no chance of direct verification, truly may feel vindicated.

CHANGE IS ALWAYS BAD (DON’T TELL OBAMA)
Buchanan takes it for granted that climatic reactions will always be bad. And he brings his reasoning to its logical conclusion:

[…] Talk of a catastrophic shutdown of the North Atlantic Conveyor, or of possible ‘runaway’ global warming, isn’t irresponsible hysteria; it’s plausible speculation that is consistent with everything we know about nonlinear sysems. […]

Cue troublemaking “instabilities” and ominous “positive feedbacks”.

Yet, if we can only expect that in the future “there will probably be plenty of surprises”, why wouldn’t positive surprises be just as likely to happen as negative ones? For example: a more benign global climate, more rain in the deserts, fewer/weaker hurricanes, etc etc.

It’s exactly because we do not understand the climate, that everything and anything can happen in the short-, medium- and long-term.

FLAWED REASONING BEHIND THE ARGUMENTUM AD TIMOREM
Upon casual reading, models appear pretty much irrelevant in Buchanan’s description: the real point of climate change worry is not the uncertain stuff the models indicate, rather that we shouldn’t be “strongly disturbing” the climate because we do not know how it might react. That’s a good example of the Precautionary Principle: don’t do it if you have the remotest chance of hurting/killing some human (or animal) in the process.

And it’s also an “Argumentum Ad Timorem”, a reasoning based on fear: don’t touch anything, it might break!

In other words, Buchanan recommends precaution in face of admitted, abject ignorance and outright fear of what could happen. Note how the phraseology implies that Homo Sapiens is an extraneous body to the rest of the Biosphere. Quadrillions of microorganisms can “breathe” in and out as they please, yet it’s the animal called human that is singled out as the Strong Disturbance.

And how can we define what “strongly disturbing” means, in order to avoid doing that? After all there are many ways in which we (as individuals, and as a species) interact with the highly nonlinear system we live in. It’s not just CO2 emissions: people cut trees, replant forests, build roads, turn on stoves, cover green fields with industrial estates. One feels that unless the human race is trimmed down to 10,000 or less by tomorrow, we are bound to be “strongly disturbing”, whatever we do. Alternatively, by opting for voluntarily holding one’s breath, again we can stop disturbing (within a few minutes) whatever we have been disturbing so far.

Often, the Precautionary Principle appears as unassailable as it is paralyzing. But there is a way out, in matters of Climate Change.

In fact: why is Buchanan worried about CO2 emissions? Because climate models suggest that emissions may lead to changes in global climate. But at the same time, those same models are not good enough to make Buchanan limit his worrying.

With an understanding far from complete, and little clue on how the system will actually evolve, Buchanan finds himself fearing any “strong disturbing” of a system that we have been living with for thousands of years. Hence the Argumentum ad Timorem, whose actual source is in the models, not in the “disturbing”. Like a cancer test reporting too many false positives, worrisome-yet-too-uncertain models are less than useless: they are dis-useful: effectively, harmful.

Remove the models, and the very bases for the Precautionary Principle and the Argumentum ad Timorem go with them. And didn’t we show a few lines back, that climate models are a big waste of time, and of money?

Categories
English Politics USA

How Many People For Obama?

How likely is it going to be, for 1.5million people to gather for President Obama’s inauguration?

Who can say? IMNSHO the crowd will be a bit smaller, but around the same order of magnitude. Check what Clark McPhail, professor emeritus of sociology at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign had to say a few years back to Salon.com:

The counting formula divides the mall into eight panels and measures the square footage of each. For really huge [gatherings], aerial photographs are necessary to determine how much space is occupied […]  A crowd of 500,000, he says, would [fill] all eight panels, stretching from the Capitol Building to the Lincoln Memorial, or from Third Street to 14th Street […]

It is therefore not too much of a stretch of one’s imagination to think of a million people in the Mall on January 20, 2009.

Categories
Italia Italiano Partito Democratico Politica Veltroni

Nel PD, Tornano Le Maggioranze Bulgare

Riguardo le elezioni per i Giovani Democratici, una nota del PD riferisce i seguenti risultati a meta’ scrutinio:

Raciti (gia’ responsabile per la Sinistra Giovanile): 72%
Innocenzi (candiata per i Radicali): 12%
Marini 8%
Bruno 8%

Saro’ un po’ cattivo, ma guarda caso, il Partito Comunista Bulgaro vinse le elezioni del 27/10/1946 con il 78% dei voti

Curioso, eh? una volta si parlava di “maggioranza bulgara” in maniera un po’ piu’ figurata…

Categories
Ambiente Cambiamento Climatico Catastrofismo Clima Italiano Politica Riscaldamento Globale Scienza USA

Obama – Primo Scivolone Sul Clima – Articolo su Svipop

Terzo mio articolo su Svipop, l’agenzia online del CESPAS, il cui Presidente e’ il giornalista e scrittore Riccardo Cascioli:

OBAMA, PRIMO SCIVOLONE SUL CLIMA

di Maurizio Morabito

Nel primo intervento sulle politiche climatiche da futuro presidente degli Stati Uniti, Barack Obama ha subito inanellato una serie di sciocchezze dal punto di vista scientifico, dando per certi fenomeni (mari che salgono, siccità, uragani sempre più violenti) che sono oggetto di dibattito scientifico. Un inizio poco incoraggiante. E come pensa Obama di conciliare la filosofia del “Yes, we can” con il catastrofismo imperante?

Categories
AGW Climate Change Global Warming Humor Omniclimate Skepticism Warming

Barbecued Climate Stations: Reality Catches Up With Fiction

For a bit of Sunday fun, compare the picture of the official NOAA USHCN climate station of record in Fairbury, NE (from WUWT’s “How not to measure temperature, part 75” of Nov 20, 2008) with the cartoon published on WUWT’s “Grilling the Data” of Sep 19, 2007

Official NOAA USHCN climate station of record in Fairbury, NE
Official NOAA USHCN climate station of record in Fairbury, NE
How do you want that data?
How do you want that data?

They have substituted a tree for the happy “I love UHI” chap and the sausages…perhaps the NOAA USHCN people are starting to get inspiration from WUWT jokes to locate their climate stations?

Categories
Ambiente Cambiamento Climatico Catastrofismo Clima Italiano La Stampa Politica Riscaldamento Globale Scienza

La CO2 Non E’ D’Accordo Con I Catastrofisti – Articolo su Svipop

Un mio nuovo articolo su Svipop, l’agenzia online del CESPAS, il cui Presidente e’ il giornalista e scrittore Riccardo Cascioli:

LA Co2 NON E’ D’ACCORDO CON I CATASTROFISTI

di Maurizio Morabito

Le oscillazioni del clima della terra sono state notevoli negli ultimi 800mila anni e 120mila anni fa erano di 5°C superiori a quelle attuali. Inoltre la concentrazione di Co2 è legata alla proporzione di ferro nelle polveri atmosferiche. Sono alcuni dei risultati delle analisi sulla carota di ghiaccio più profonda mai estratta, presentati al convegno internazionale “Epica” a Venezia. Quasi del tutto ignorato dai media. Chissa perché?

For the English version click here: “Two-Mile-Deep Antarctic Ice Core Reveals Stupidity of AGW Catastrophism

Categories
AGW Climate Change Data Global Warming Omniclimate Science Warming

NASA Study Confirms Climatic Impact of Weather Station Relocation

UPDATE NOV 25: Anthony Watts did cover the mentioned LA weather station in a March 24, 2008 post. I was looking for the Earth Observatory link, while he mentions the JPL one. Still, my blog below adds to the story, by providing links to the original Poster Presentation and pointing out that many stations were moved around 1998-1999.

Perhaps there is a good reason why the study below is not mentioned in Watts Up With That or at surfacestations.org. Perhaps it’s just me unable to use Google properly. Or for some reason I am the first one making the connection.

So in full glare of all my ignorance I point to this Poster Presentation at the 16th Applied Climatology Conference, American Meteorological Society, Jan. 14-18, 2007, San Antonio, TX (joint with the 14th Symposium on Meteorological Observations and Instrumentation):

Patzert, W.C., S. LaDochy, J. K. Willis, and T. Mardirosian, 2007: Will the real Los Angeles stand up: Impacts of a station move on climate records (and record weather) (short Abstract) (long Abstract)

Some may remember seeing that study mentioned on NASA’s Earth Observatory (EO)’s “A Tale of Two Sites: Impacts of Relocating L.A.’s Weather Station” (Jan 17, 2007).

Since it’s a Poster Presentation, a brief note about the authors is due, to check their trustworthiness (you wouldn’t believe what is presented nowadays as “poster” in many scientific conferences):

“Mardirosian Mystery” aside: what is that they’ve found?

In August, 1999, the National Weather Service (NWS) moved the official downtown Civic Center weather station to the University of Southern California (USC) campus, a 3.78 miles (almost 6 km) distance to the southwest of its previous location near city center at the Department of Water & Power (DWP) […]

By moving the official LA downtown weather station location, weather is now recorded as cooler, drier and less extreme than at its original DWP location […] there appears to be a discontinuity in the records. Maximum and mean temperatures are cooler, especially Tmax. Minimum temperatures are similar for the two sites. DWP also records higher rainfall amounts, although there is great variability monthly and inter-annually. Extremes occur less often at USC than DWP. […]

Moving a weather station away from the city resulted in cooler, drier, and less extreme weather. And in a “discontinuity in the records”. That appears to vindicate all the work done by Anthony Watts and surfacestations indeed.

Consequences? For example:

[…] In the 2004-5 water year (July 1-June 30), the USC rain total was 37.25” (946.2 mm), second only to 1883-84, which had 38.18” (969.8 mm). However, DWP recorded 38.32 (973.3 mm), which would have been the wettest year on record for downtown Los Angeles had not the station moved […]

[…] At USC, the all-time record for highest temperature minimum for the date June 4th was set with 68oF (previous record being 66F in 1997). At DWP, the Tmin was 70F. […]

We are talking 973.3-946.2=27.1mm and 70F-66F=around 1C overestimated in downtown LA compared to the new site. In the first case, we would have heard about “yet another climate record” having been broken. In the second case, we would have been told a temperature value that is more wrong than the total estimated temperature increase from 1850 to today.

And it’s just one station, where they were “fortunate in that the original location (DWP) is still in operation and can be compared to the new site“. Sounds ominous doesn’t it? It means that most of the time, a new station’s measures are simply attached to the previous one’s, with no time provided for suitable medium-term comparison.

Actually, it’s worse. From the EO:

The National Weather Service moved the station [in 1999] as part of a nationwide effort to locate all official weather stations on ground-level sites in natural settings

In other words, there are many weather station records that are for all intents and purposes useless for comparing recent data to measure done before around 1999.

=========

And before somebody says that the above would have resulted in a spurious cooling trend for LA: it doesn’t matter. What matters is always the quality of the data.

And if NASA says that many weather stations have poor quality records, doubts on the very existence of an ongoing, potentially worrying global warming can only increase.

Has anybody noticed how the “warming trend” has almost stopped…exactly since 1999?

Categories
AGW catastrophism Climate Change CO2 Emissions Data Global Warming GlobalCooling Omniclimate Policy Science Skepticism

How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Climate Change

(yes, it has already been used: here, here, here, here, here)

Will human civilization survive the giant climate shifts that will be caused by our SUVs (or by any other cardinal sin brought about by the comforts of modern life)? And what about humanity?

Who knows?

But one thing I am now more sure of. The biosphere will do just fine. Plenty of animals and plants and bacteria and archeas and viruses will prosper if the world will get warmer, if it will get cooler, or if it will continue as before (whatever the meaning of “continue as before” is).

And it’s all written loud and clear in scientific, peer-reviewed literature. For example:

Jeffrey P. Severinghaus and Edward J. Brook, “Abrupt Climate Change at the End of the Last Glacial Period Inferred from Trapped Air in Polar Ice“, Science, 29 October 1999: Vol. 286. no. 5441, pp. 930 – 934 DOI: 10.1126/science.286.5441.930 (Abstract)

The last glacial period was terminated by an abrupt warming event in the North Atlantic ~15,000 years before the present, and warming events of similar age have been reported from low latitudes […] the Greenland Summit warmed 9 ± 3°C over a period of several decades, beginning 14,672 years ago […]

Jørgen Peder Steffensen et al., “High-Resolution Greenland Ice Core Data Show Abrupt Climate Change Happens in Few Years“, originally published in Science Express on 19 June 2008, Science 1 August 2008: Vol. 321. no. 5889, pp. 680 – 684 DOI: 10.1126/science.1157707 (Abstract, free Full Text)

The last two abrupt warmings at the onset of our present warm interglacial period, interrupted by the Younger Dryas cooling event, were investigated at high temporal resolution from the North Greenland Ice Core Project ice core […] A northern shift of the Intertropical Convergence Zone could be the trigger of these abrupt shifts of Northern Hemisphere atmospheric circulation, resulting in changes of 2 to 4 kelvin in Greenland moisture source temperature from one year to the next.

Let’s also keep in mind that 8 ice ages and 8 warm ages have happened during the last 800,000 years.

What can we conclude?

  1. Abrupt climatic changes happen quite often
  2. There is a sizable amount of evidence of climate changes more abrupt than anything experienced in recorded human history. In other words, present-day temperature changes are neither special nor unprecedented
  3. All existing species have gone through several rounds of those abrupt climatic changes. ADDENDUM: And since there is no evidence for periodic widespread extinction episodes linked in any way to the changes in climate, we can rest assured that the overwhelming majority of species adapt to cooler and warmer environments
  4. With or without humanity, another climate change is bound to happen. And another. And another. (etc etc)

Hence, there is very little sense in all the cries about global warming being the destroyer of life on Earth, or of any species in particular.

Note that Humanity itself has survived everything that has been thrown at it. If anybody is seriously worried, rather than overcomplicated and resultless negotiations on carbon emissions, they should dedicate all their efforts to mantaining civilization (=adaptation).

And if we take the LIA into account: who can seriously think that present-day humanity has feebler defences than 1650’s?

Categories
AGW Climate Change Global Warming Omniclimate Skepticism

On Feyerabend, or…With AGW Believers Like These, Who Needs Climate Skeptics?

Curious choice of preferred “philosopher of science” for Real Climate’s Gavin Schmidt: Paul Feyerabend.

Who he? According to Schmidt:

Feyerabend had what I consider a better appreciation of how science actually works and the difficulty of trying to assign a methodology to what it is that scientists actually do

Why Feyerabend? Most likely, because Popper can’t do. Climate models cannot be falsified, you know. Much easier to stick with them if one believes that “science is an essentially anarchistic enterprise“…

But there’s plenty of more surprises behind Schmidt’s statement (why limit oneself to Wikipedia…). In a 1983 article on The New York Times (“New Attack on Galileo Asserts Major Discovery Was Stolen“), William J Broad writes:

In his 1975 book ”Against Method,” Dr. Feyerabend argued, using Galileo’s grand eloquence and reputed corner-cutting as key examples, that all progress in science depended not only on rational argument but on a mixture of subterfuge, rhetoric and propaganda.

Let’s hear it from the horse’s mouth, in a letter by Feyerabend, published on The New York Review of Books on Oct 11, 1979:

Discussing the rise of Western rationalism I pointed out that the transition created more problems than it solved, that most of the problems are still with us, that they do not occur in Homer, that Aristotle was aware of this advantage and therefore adapted philosophy to common sense.

That letter is a scathing attack against a June 28, 1979 review by David Joravsky of several books, including two by Feyerabend: “Science in a Free Society” and “Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge” (the one mentioned by Broad above). Joravsky replies himself quoting from “Against Method”:

[Feyerabend writes that] “Galileo the mountebank” used “deception,” “trickery,” and outright “lying” to promote views he knew he could not prove by rational argument with available evidence; and that’s the way that science develops.

Finally, two excerpts from a website allegedly publishing the whole Analytical Table of Contents from “Against Method:

[…] Galileo prevails because of his style and his clever techniques of persuasion, because he writes in Italian rather than in Latin, and because he appeals to people who are temperamentally opposed to the old ideas and the standards of learning connected with them […]

[…] Thus science is much closer to myth than a scientific philosophy is prepared to admit. It is one of the many forms of thought that have been developed by man, and not necessarily the best. It is conspicuous, noisy, and impudent, but it is inherently superior only for those who have already decided in favour of a certain ideology, or who have accepted it without having ever examined its advantages and its limits. And as the accepting and rejecting of ideologies should be left to the individual it follows that the separation of state and church must be supplemented by the separation of state and science, that most recent, most aggressive, and most dogmatic religious institution […]

In summary: it can be argued that according to Feyerabend’s “appreciation of how science actually works

  1. Science relies on a mixture of subterfuge, rhetoric and propaganda
  2. Rationalism should be adapted to common sense
  3. Science commonly develops with deception, trickery and lying, especially when one doesn’t have rational arguments or evidence to promote one’s views
  4. A scientific point of view may as well prevail through persuasion and by becoming more fashionable
  5. Science is inherently superior only for those ideologically believing in it
  6. State and Science should be separated

Yikes! Points #1. #3 and #4 describe what many have accused RealClimate of doing. Points #2 and #5 refute the prevalence of climate models over real-world observations. Point #6 is incompatible with the very existence of the IPCC as intergovernmental entity in charge of assessing the science of climate change.

Is that really the way Gavin Schmidt wanted to describe his field of work? Perhaps he should have checked one thing or two about Feyerabend first. Because with AGW believers like these, who needs climate skeptics?

ps no, I do not think all of Feyerabend work was incoherent rubbish

Categories
Berlusconi Italia Italiano Politica

Quando l’Economist Appoggio’ Berlusconi

Rottura della tradizione antiberlusconiana, sull’Economist della settimana scorsa, con un articolo addirittura a favore del Ministro Gelmini: “A Case for Change – Universities desperately need reform—yet resist change“.

Invece della solita tiritera su questa o quella marachella o manchevolezza di Silvio, ci viene detto che le universita’ italiane hanno disperatamente bisogno di essere riformate; il Governo vuole abbassare l’eta’ della pensione per i professori universitari da 72 a 70 anni; la mancanza di fondi probabilmente non e’ il piu’ grande problema del sistema accademico italiano, ma il sistema dei Baroni che controllano “la vita e la morte” nell’Universita’, quasi fossero in un sistema feudale, con gran numero di posti accademici distribuiti a parenti prossimi; la mediocrita’ regna uniforme; solo il 17% degli Italiani ha un’istruzione universitaria, invece che il 34% come dalla media dei Paesi dell’OECD; ben il 55% delle matricole non termina il corso di laurea, neanche breve; etc etc.

Le idee della Gelmini, insomma, “meritano di essere ascoltate“. Chissa’ cosa se ne dice, fra una protesta (yawn!) e l’altra…

Categories
Blogging English Politics

No Blogs For Thin-Skinned People

Troubled times at the National Review, apparently. Especially so if this is an example of their attitude:

[…] conservative […] columnist Kathleen Parker, received when she wrote a column in National Review that argued Palin was unfit to be vice president. Parker received nearly 11,000 e-mails, one of which lamented that her mother did not abort her. “Who says public discourse hasn’t deteriorated?” she wrote in a follow-up column. (National Review, as Lowry pointed out, can hardly be held responsible for a reader’s nasty e-mail.)

There’s lots of persons out there on the internet. And there’s all sorts. If one cannot bear the thought of receiving “nasty” comments and messages, one should really stay away from the web.

Categories
AGW Climate Change Culture Global Warming Omniclimate Policy Science Skepticism

Jack Schmitt on Computer Models vs. the Real World

Astronaut, Moonwalker, NASA Advisor, former Congressman, and accomplished scientist, writer and public speaker Harrison “Jack” Schmitt has left the Planetary Society for a variety of reasons, apparently including global warming:

As a geologist, I love Earth observations. But, it is ridiculous to tie this objective to a “consensus” that humans are causing global warming in when human experience, geologic data and history, and current cooling can argue otherwise. “Consensus”, as many have said, merely represents the absence of definitive science. You know as well as I, the “global warming scare” is being used as a political tool to increase government control over American lives, incomes and decision making. It has no place in the Society’s activities.

A couple of perhaps not-well-known explanations are in order.

First of all, Schmitt is referring to the recent, pretty dumb decision by The Planetary Society (of whom I am a longtime member myself), of jumping onto the Climate Change bandwagon, to the point of dedicating a rather uncharacteristically clueless issue of “Planetary Report”, the Society magazine.

Another indication about the reasons for Schmitt’s decision can be found in this pre-lecture Q&A video from April 2008. At 23m 19s into the recording, Schmitt says

the first major important scientific discovery…when I stumbled across the..”orange soil”..and that is still a thorn in the side of the people who believe that the moon formed by a giant impact here on Earth. that hypothesis comes from computer modeling. models are great but they still have to agree with the real world. one big part that the model cannot explain in that hypothesis is how do you get the material that is in what is called the non-glass component in that soil. that material is very rich in volatiles…and just doesn’t fit…the debris [from the impact, would have experienced] very high temperatures.

Perfectly and very personally aware of the limitations of computer models, Schmitt cannot just take them as the ultimate Truth in Climate stuff just as he cannot, in Geology stuff.

Anybody wanting to bet if a person as accomplished and as scientifically renowned and respected as Schmitt will be called a denialist, with people figuratively dancing on his grave were a deadly disease to kill him?

Categories
Elezioni2008 Italiano Politica USA

Perche’ Obama Dovrebbe Ringraziare Osama

Al Qaeda in prima pagina oggi e forse anche domani, con la “risposta” alle elezioni presidenziali USA. Buon per loro. E buon per Obama, che viene maltrattato quel tanto che basta, con la ciliegina sulla torta della comparazione con Malcolm X.

Perche’ tutto cio’ sarebbe una buona cosa per Obama? E’ facile capirlo. Proviamo a immaginare il casino che sarebbe successo se Al Qaeda avesse mandato le sue felicitazioni, promettendo di lavorare al fianco del nuovo Presidente…

Categories
America Antiterrorism English Politics USA

Obama Should Thank Al Qaeda

Al Qaeda in the news today with a “response” to the American Presidential Elections. Good for them. And good for President-Elect Barack Obama, who gets mistreated just enough, with a top-notch comparison to Malcolm X.

Why is that good for Obama? Well, imagine what would have happened had Al Qaeda sent unqualified congratulations to him…

Categories
AGW catastrophism Climate Change Global Warming Humor Omniclimate

Climate Change Will Cause LOLs, ROTFLs and BWLs

I immediately renege my pledge about writing mostly on unsung Climate Change stories, to point to this extremely funny video “Global Warming: The List” apparently based on the well-known Numberwatch list.

WARNING: DO NOT WATCH THIS VIDEO ON TRAINS OR PUBLIC PLACES INCLUDING THE OFFICE. Not everybody appreciates apparently uncontrollable bursts of laughter.

Categories
Italia Italiano Partito Democratico Politica Radicali

Vota e Fai Votare GIULIA INNOCENZI Alle Primarie dei Giovani Democratici

Ricevo e rimando

From: Giulia Innocenzi, Associazione Coscioni
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 6:51 PM
Subject: Poche ore al voto

venerdì 21 novembre si terranno le primarie dei Giovani Democratici. Nonostante aver chiesto da due mesi a questa parte regole certe, trasparenza e conoscibilità dei candidati e dei loro programmi, queste primarie sono rimaste clandestine e sostanzialmente avranno risultati prestabiliti e imposti dall’apparato di partito.

Un’occasione mancata per la possibilità di rinnovamento e partecipazione, e per l’adozione di un nuovo metodo di fare politica: quello dal basso, quello mosso dalla passione e dalla voglia di portare avanti iniziative concrete.

Tuttavia, come per la presentazione della candidatura a Segretario, per la quale siamo riusciti a raccogliere 1915 firme, a fronte delle 600 necessarie, superando quelle raccolte dagli altri candidati, così possiamo farcela anche per le elezioni del 21 novembre, se uniamo le forze e mobilitiamo le nostre conoscenze e gli individui singoli.

Le elezioni si terranno questo venerdì in tutta Italia, dalle 8 alle 23. Nel momento in cui ti scrivo non si sa ancora dove saranno posizionati i seggi – nonostante più di un mese fa abbia fatto richiesta per il rinvio delle elezioni, che fu accettato, proprio per sopperire alle disfunzioni organizzative e comuinicative! – ma la loro ubicazione in tutte le città sarà pubblicata in tempo reale su www.giovanidemocratici.org (seggi elettorali).

Ti chiedo di fare l’ultimo sforzo per la conclusione di questa avventura, che si è tramutata in una vera e propria campagna per la democrazia interna dei partiti, anche a fronte dell’ultima iniziativa sulla libertà di associazione  e la doppia tessera Radicali – Pd.

Ecco cosa puoi fare:

  1. inoltrare questa mail a tutti i tuoi contatti, per chiedere a chi abbia dai 14 ai 29 anni di andare a votare. Può votare chiunque, basta pagare 1 euro;
  2. fare volantinaggio fuori dalle scuole, dalle università e in tutti i luoghi di aggregazione dei ragazzi, per invitarli al voto (puoi scaricare qui il volantino);
  3. organizzare un tavolo di raccolta firme per chiedere al Parlamento leggi antiproibizioniste sui temi della ricerca, della Ru486, della pillola del giorno dopo, dell’eutanasia e volantinaggio vicino ai seggi dove si voterà. Coglieremo la giornata del 21 novembre per far sì che le battaglie per la laicità, l’autodeterminazion e e i diritti civili ad oggi silenziate, possano finalmente riemergere nel dibattito all’interno del Partito Democratico, magari anche con la mia elezione a Segretario dei Giovani Pd! (scarica il modulo online)
  4. sostenere la candidatura dei delegati all’Assemblea Nazionale e all’Assemblea Regionale di riferimento dela tua provincia.

Ogni elettore potrà votare il Segretario, un uomo e una donna all’Assemblea Nazionale e un uomo e una donna a quella Regionale. Vai sul mio sito a vedere chi sono i candidati della tua provincia!

Perché le battaglie radicali di Piergiorgio Welby e di Luca Coscioni per la libertà di scelta, per la libertà di ricerca e per l’antiproibizionism o possano essere le battaglie dei Giovani del Partito Democratico. Perché l’università si liberi dei baroni attarverso l’abolizione dei cavilli corporativi del valore legale del titolo di studio e l’obbligatorietà dei concorsi universitari. Perché Marco Gentili possa portare avanti le politiche sulla disabilità coinvolgendo  giovani e studenti. Perché il Pd possa essere veramente democratico e la Sinistra italiana possa essere liberale e laica. Perché anche in Italia uno esterno, uno che ha deciso di candidarsi per la voglia di portare avanti battaglie per la democrazia e per lo stato di diritto possa farcela. Perché anche noi abbiamo voglia di cambiare.

Categories
AGW catastrophism Climate Change Culture Global Warming Omniclimate Policy Politics

Is The President of the Maldives Serious About Climate Change?

Plenty of publicity for the new President of the Maldives, Mohamed “Anni” Nasheed, after his proposal to buy land somewhere to resettle the population in case the low-lying islands get submerged. Is that something to take seriously? I don’t think so.

  1. The Economist dedicates one of its Leaders to the topic, but the article rapidly descend into banter: “[…] if the Maldivians are looking for an island, Iceland is said to be going cheap. But they may be spoilt for choice: think of all the tiresome bits of territory that other countries would like to offload. The snooty English, for instance, have long disparaged Wales […]
  2. The issue has monopolized the discussion for a few days in the INT-BOUNDARIES mailing list (you can start reading from here), with no final consensus on all the aspects of something that may very well be legally unprecedented. Couple of interesting links about how to deal with disappearing inhabited islands in this post. All in all it does look like President Anni’s idea has not been thought through in the necessary details as yet…
  3. Finally, is there any indication that the Maldives are actually sinking? I am not sure.

Check in fact the NASA data for “Trend of Sea Level Change (1993-2008)” as measured by the Topex/Poseidon satellite and then Jason-1 (via Accuweather’s Global Warming blog):

from NASA
Trend of Sea Level Change (1993-2008)

Where are the Maldives? South-West of the Indian Subcontinent, of course (map from Wikipedia).

Location of the Maldives
Location of the Maldives

And what is the trend in sea level change there, according to NASA? Something they define as “moderate”, that is between 1 and 3 millimeters per year (right at the limit of resolution, by the way. It may as well be zero: note the light-blue areas peppered around):

Trend in Sea Level Change Near the Maldives
Trend in Sea Level Change Near the Maldives

Going for a 2 mm/year trend, it’s 3 centimeters in the last 15 years.

Using Wikipedia: given the average height of 1.5 meters above sea-level, if trends could be extrapolated the Maldives would be doomed around 150/.2=750 years from now

(in truth, sea levels at the Maldives may have dropped as much as 30 centimeters around 1970).

====

President Nasheed’s election must surely be celebrated, as he had been arrested several times for his ideas under the Gayoom regime. But his first foray into the climate change debate, won’t do much to help him build credibility as his nation’s leader. Unless his true goal is to extract money from rich countries, no matter how baseless the stated need appears to be.

Categories
English Iran Politics USA

Not Your Usual Take On Iran

Great article by Ervand Abrahamian (“Who’s In Charge?”, London Review of Books, Nov 6, 2008), showing how false is the caricature of Iran as part of an “axis of evil”. I’ll try to post all interesting quotes: for now these two should suffice:

We need to take a reality check. Iran spends $6 billion a year on its armed forces; Turkey and Israel both spend more than $10 billion, Saudi Arabia $21 billion […] Meanwhile, the US pours more than $700 billion a year into its war machine. Before the 1979 revolution, Iran allocated as much as 18 per cent of GDP to the military; the figure is now under 3 per cent. During his recent tour of the region, Dick Cheney offered to sell $36 billion worth of arms to Saudi Arabia and the Gulf sheikhdoms to counter the Iranian threat

And

Iran is not a totalitarian state: the Islamic constitution, drafted in the early days of the revolution, is a hybrid, combining democracy with theocracy, vox populi with vox dei, popular sovereignty with clerical authority, modern concepts of government with Ayatollah Khomeini’s notion of velayat-e faqih (jurist’s guardianship).

Yes, Iran does have many issues to solve. But bullying it around surely will not help solve any of those.

Categories
Italia Italiano Politica Repubblica Scienza

Sciopero della Lettura Contro Repubblica.it

Che me ne faccio del sito web de La Repubblica se continua a pubblicare panzane, e quando non lo fa arriva a delle storpiature orrende della realta’, se non alla sua manipolazione completa? Eccoli infatti che in qualche modo cercano di collegare “i tagli della Gelmini” che forse ci saranno nel futuro, alla “fuga dei cervelli” che c’e’ nel presente e c’e’ stata nel passato. Come dice uno dei lettori:

635. roberto polito –
Non pigliamoci in giro. La Gelmini non c’entra nulla. Il problema e’ il feudalesimo universitario italiano.

Con questo episodio “Repubblica” ha superato il limite del patetico. Dichiaro quindi uno “sciopero della lettura” dalla mezzanotte GMT di oggi, dopo la quale non visitero’ quel sito di sciocchezze per un mese.

Categories
AGW Climate Change Cooling Global Warming Omniclimate Science Skepticism Warming

The Pointlesseness of Climate Data

Brett Anderson of Accuweather links to a Nov 5, 2008 Earth Observatory article by Rebecca Lindsey, “Correcting Ocean Cooling“, examining how Josh Willis “determined that there were errors” in his “Recent Cooling of the Upper Ocean” work.

(both the 2007 correction and 2006 original are available at this link)

Brett explains that:

“After applying a correction, the historical record shows a relatively steady increase (ocean heat content) in line with what’s shown by climate models”

I am sorry but it does sound fishy that all the hard digging was done only because the data were too cool. One is left with the lingering feeling that no such an effort ever materializes for data that shows warming (talk about WARMING BIAS there…)

And in fact: taking the Earth Observatory article at face value, one can indeed figure out the real reason behind Willis’ revisiting of his original data. At the time of publication of the original article (2006):

Willis described the [original] results as a “speed bump” on the way to global warming

Apparently, he soon convinced himself his data was not right. In February 2007, Willis said to his wife:

“I think ocean cooling isn’t real”

Why? Because:

In fact, every body was telling me I was wrong

And what was Willis’ own “tipping point”?

It wasn’t until that next year of data came in that the cooling in the Atlantic became so large and so widespread that Willis accepted the cooling trend for what is was: an unambiguous sign that something in the observations was “clearly not right.”

In all likelihood, had the original data shown warming, and/or the “next year of data” shown widespread warming, few if anybody would have told Willing that he was “wrong“. Chances are he would not have re-analysed anything at all.

The real irony can be extracted from the end of the EO piece:

We need multiple, independent, overlapping sets of observations of climate processes from space and from the Earth’s surface so that we can create long-term climate records—and have confidence that they are accurate. We need theories about how the parts of the Earth system are related to each other so that we can make sense of observations. And we need models to help us see into the future.

But for years, Willis has been stressing that

Argo data show no warming in the upper ocean over the past four years, but this does not contradict the climate models

Now, obviously the corrected data do “not contradict the climate models” either.

And so it really does look like there is no need for “multiple, independent, overlapping sets of observations“. Any and every data is always unable to “contradict the climate models“.

Why do people still bother to measure anything related to climate when the end result is pre-ordained, one wonders.

Categories
Italia Italiano Partito Democratico Politica Veltroni

Non So Se Veltroni Sia Stupido, Arrogante E Incapace…

…pero’ direi che se lo stesse facendo per finta, allora vorrebbe dire che recita bene.