Category Archives: Global Warming

Savant Idiots

There was a commenter at a blog I shall not mention who simply could not get anything I mentioned. Anything at all.

There was the blog owner at another unmentioned site who simply could not see anything wrong in people describing a prominent climate skeptic’s work as non accidentally cherry picked bad statistics [that] generated misleading graphs – all in the comments section of a blog post allegedly questioning where the dividing line stands between scientific criticism and libel (on the back of Mann’s latest juridical foray).

There was the anti-GMOer who turned pro-GMO for reasons that virtually coincide with all that’s good in climate skepticism, and still refused to abandon the “planet is doomed, skeptics are evil” party line. And he was not alone.

There was the superstar multimedia physicist who simply could not make any reasonable point about climate change, and wrote what was probably the longest badly thought-out column in the history of the Multiverse. And he was not alone.

There was the accidental Nobel Prize winner who wrote column after column about how fearful climate change is, and how wrong it is to live in fear. Sadly, those points never appeared in the same column.

There was the famous environmentalist who took a February flower for the end of the world, in the first recognized case of weather-related anthophobia.

There was the climate scientist who became the best thing that ever happened to climate skeptics, and would not have been able to win a debate against a primary-school Year-1 distracted opponent.

There were countless climate scientists who were so specialized in their own little field, they started reading and linking to the almighty pile of scientifically sounding garbage written by a cartoonist and the climate blogger with the biggest conflict of interest imaginable, a site where no research was safe from manipulation.

When climate alarmism is around, rooms really look clever.

Guardian’s Nuccitelli linked to leading alternative energy company

Remember when rabid arch-warmist Dana Nuccitelli of Skeptical Science and Guardian fame was discovered to be in the pay of an “oil and gas” company (Tetra Tech) (aka Dana’s Dirty Little Secret) and thus probably the worst person to pontificate about eg how bad coal and tar sands could be for the world’s climate?

It actually gets worse.

It turns out that Tetra Tech has a subsidiary company called Tetra Tech Construction, Inc. And what do they do? For example, they do “energy” (of the ALTERNATIVE variety that is):

Tetra Tech Construction expertise in the alternative energy field allows us to support and deliver energy-related projects using engineer-procure-construct (EPC), design-build and/or bid-build models. We provide design and construction services for wind, solar, hydroelectric, cogeneration, geothermal, natural gas drilling and extraction, combined-cycle, waste-to-energy, and electric transmission projects. […]

Surprise, surprise, they are also big in…”wind energy“:

Tetra Tech Construction brings our expertise to support and deliver energy related projects using engineer-procure-construct (EPC), design-build, bid-build models. We provide design and construction services for solar, hydroelectric, cogeneration, geothermal, natural gas drilling and extraction, combined-cycle, waste-to-energy, and electric transmission.

[…] We have completed construction services to clients on 19 wind construction projects in the past two years valued at more than $340 million. These projects supported nearly 1,700 MW of power, over 1,000 foundations, and over 600 turbines installed in states from New York, Alaska, Wyoming, Kansas, Oklahoma, Washington, Texas, Idaho, to Oregon. In fact, the Tetra Tech family of companies has experience on more than 250 wind projects in 34 states and Canada, totaling more than 20,000 MW of wind power generation. Our experience in the construction of wind facilities provides a more practical understanding of front-end activities, including environmental compliance and engineering, thus providing a more complete perspective for achieving project goals.

Wind power is so important for Tetra Tech Construction, it takes special pride of place in their Projects portfolio map:

Tetra Tech Construction, Inc.
Tetra Tech Construction, Inc.

It also means Tetra Tech Construction is in trouble if wind power subsidies disappear, as mentioned in a newspaper article published just two days ago. In what has to be a fantastic coincidence, Tetra Tech is juxtaposed to “interests” linked to “fossil fuels” and the “XL pipeline”:

Renewal of the wind tax credit, which can provide up to $1 million to developers of a large turbine, is a politically contentious issue. In addition to tea party congressional Republicans, opposition to continuing the wind credit comes from the American Energy Alliance, a Washington, D.C.-based industry group linked to petrochemical interests that promote expanded drilling for fossil fuels, including in the protected Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska, and approval of the proposed XL pipeline to bring Canadian tar sands oil to refineries in Texas and the Gulf Coast.

“This lack of certainty over the wind credit creates a boom and bust cycle, which is really detrimental to wind project developers,” said Valerie Strauss, executive director of Alliance for Clean Energy New York, an Albany-based lobbying group for alternative energy companies.

One such local business is Gloversville-based Tetra Tech Construction. Its website says it has built 21 wind projects in the U.S. It is currently involved in building the Orangeville wind farm outside of Buffalo, owned by Chicago-based Invenergy, and the only wind farm project under construction this year.

A Tetra Tech official declined comment, referring questions to a corporate office; phone calls to that office were not returned.

The article continues revealing another fantastic coincidence: Tetra Tech’s fortunes go down with the expansion of fracking.

Wind energy plans have been shrinking in the state, as the industry faces a glut of cheap natural gas from hydrofracking, uncertainty over federal support and dwindling financing. The amount of wind power expected to one day plug into the state’s electrical grid has fallen by more than two-thirds since 2009 as developers shelve projects.

I think that’s digging enough. Dana Nuccitelli, rather understatemently described by a reticent Guardian as “blogger on environmentguardian.co.uk […] environmental scientist and risk assessor, and also [contributor to] SkepticalScience.com” has for all intents and purposes an undeclared conflict of interest the size of a planet.

I’ll let readers decide how much such an individual can be trusted with speaking anything near the bare, honest, transparent scientific truth in anything climate change, global warming or even energy in general.

Disclaimer: I never blog or tweet or write on facebook about my day job exactly to avoid any conflict of interest. Because if you write positively about the company you work for, everybody will be entitled to believe you’re brown-nosing or worse. And if you write negatively, you’re immediately out of a job.

BBC Archives confirm Global Cooling as scientific ‘orthodoxy’ of the early 1970s

Who knew? In 1999, long before selling its soul to climate catastrophism, the BBC had no problem in letting its listeners know that scientists in the 1970s were convinced about Global Cooling. And that contemporary scientist-activists about Warming are just recycling arguments used agains Cooling.

From the BBC Reith Lectures of 1999, RUNAWAY WORLD by Prof Anthony Giddens; Lecture 2 – RISK – HONG KONG

Or consider where we stand with world climate change. Most scientists well versed in the field believe that global warming is occurring and that measures should be taken against it. Yet only about 25 or so years ago, orthodox scientific opinion was that the world was in a phase of global cooling. Much the same evidence that was deployed to support the hypothesis of global cooling is now brought into play to bolster that of global warming – heat waves, cold spells, unusual types of weather. Is global warming occurring, and does it have human origins? Probably – but we won’t, and can’t, be completely sure until it is too late.

In these circumstances, there is a new moral climate of politics, marked by a push-and-pull between accusations of scaremongering on the one hand, and of cover-ups on the other. If anyone – government official, scientific expert or researcher – takes a given risk seriously, he or she must proclaim it. It must be widely publicised because people must be persuaded that the risk is real – a fuss must be made about it. Yet if a fuss is indeed created and the risk turns out to be minimal, those involved will be accused of scaremongering.

Giddens’ solution is not complicated really, the total opposite of many’s attempts at shutting down debate by proclaiming “scientists say”:

We cannot simply ‘accept’ the findings which scientists produce, if only because scientists so frequently disagree with one another, particularly in situations of manufactured risk. And everyone now recognises the essentially sceptical character of science. Whenever someone decides what to eat, what to have for breakfast, whether to drink decaffeinated or ordinary coffee, that person takes a decision in the context of conflicting and changeable scientific and technological information.

Giddens (now Baron Giddens) is a sociologist, obviously from an era when sociology didn’t just produce a Lew.

 

 

Scientific guide on how to scientifically mention the scientific pause^Hstandstill in global temperatures

Have global temperatures paused in their warming rise? Nonsense, according to SkS. Are we experiencing a standstill in global temperatures in their warming rise? Yes, according to Hansen et al. Have global temperatures continued to increase in their warming rise? No, according to a PR guy meddling with statistics.

So who’s right, and who’s wrong? Well, it depends the on context.

Temps at standstill, and global warming stopped” = WRONG

Temps at standstill, but global warming will resume later” = RIGHT

In fact, you can say pretty much anything and, as long as you add the mandatory “, but global warming will resume later“, the biggest scientific institutions in the world will support you wholeheartedly, maybe Bob Ward too.

Let’s give it a try..

“Polar bears are ok, but global warming will resume later

“Arctic won’t be free of ice any time soon, but global warming will resume later

“A lot of model-based literature is rubbish, but global warming will resume later

“West Ham playing superbly, but global warming will resume later

“Elvis is alive, but global warming will resume later

“Porcine and bovine flight sightings, but global warming will resume later

See? It’s easy, and it gets you a free ride indeed. Citizen science at its best!

Insanity in the media (Australian temperature colours, and beyond…)

Much ado about new colours added to the Australian coloured temperature maps.

Then one reads (in a Revkin DotEarth post maddeningly relying on Joe Romm and Jeff Masters) “For the moment, while extreme and widespread heat is predicted to persist, the country looks to be avoiding the new purple zone“. So they could have added 15 colours for all we should care.

Then one reads (in a cursory NYT archive search on “australia heat”) the following piece from January 3, 1960:

Australia has a heat wave – SYDNEY, Australia, Jan, 2 (AP) – A heat wave gripped large areas of eastern and central Australia today. The highest official reading was 123 degrees at Codnadatta, in central Australia.

(123F=50.56C)

Who knows how many more examples of heat wave in early January in Australia one could find. But who cares.

What matters is that Global Warming has transmogrified into “it’s hot in summertime”.

CAGW Science – or what if Velikovsky had won

The LRB recently dedicated some thoughts to the Science/Pseudoscience battle at the times of Immanuel Velikovsky. It’s especially interesting considering what has happened since, with catastrophism ruling for years in matters of climate science.

The review (by Steven Shapin) is available for free and in full at the LRB website.

It really reads like a slightly modified version of contemporary CAGW, starting from its enormous, mysterious popularity, inclusive of some cult-like admiration for The Man:

[…] By the late 1960s and 1970s, Velikovsky’s books must have been in most American college dorm rooms. […] Velikovskianism had gained so much traction in America that in 1974 there was a huge set-piece debate over his views at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. His scientific opponents reckoned he was ‘quite out of his tree’, while some of his acolytes – and these included an assortment of scientists with appropriate credentials – were of the opinion that Velikovsky was ‘perhaps the greatest brain that our race has produced’.

There was also something akin to the invention of the Hockey Stick accompanied by the deletion of the Medieval Warming Period:

Although Worlds in Collision was a pastiche of comparative mythology and planetary astronomy, its major purpose was a radical reconstruction of history.

Mainstream science of course was not on Velikovsky’s side. Still, the behavior of the “community” won’t surprise anybody familiar with Climategate:

Elite scientists, notably at Harvard, reckoned that they might be able to control what Macmillan published when it was represented as science. A letter-writing campaign was organised to get Macmillan to withdraw from its agreement to publish the book; credible threats were made to boycott Macmillan textbooks; hostile reviews were arranged; questions were raised about whether the book had been peer-reviewed (it had); and, when Worlds in Collision was published anyway, further (successful) pressure was exerted to make Macmillan wash its hands of the thing and shift copyright to another publisher. The editor who had handled the book was let go, and a scientist who provided a blurb and planned a New York planetarium show based on Velikovsky’s theories – admittedly not the sharpest knife in the scientific drawer – was forced out of his museum position and never had a scientific job again.

Just like with Climategate, none of that made the “elite scientists” look any good:

From an uncharitable point of view, this looked like a conspiracy, a conspiracy contrived by dark forces bent on the suppression of free thought and different perspectives – and the Velikovskians took just that view. […] ‘Perhaps in the entire history of science,’ Velikovsky said, ‘there was not a case of a similar violent reaction on the part of the scientific world towards a published work.’ Newsweek wrote about the spectacle of scientific ‘Professors as Suppressors’ and the Saturday Evening Post made sport of the establishment reaction as ‘one of the signal events of this year’s “silly season”’. […]

Einstein, in whose Princeton house Velikovsky was a frequent visitor, was one of them. Interviewed just before his death by the Harvard historian of science I.B. Cohen, Einstein said that Worlds in Collision ‘really isn’t a bad book. The only trouble with it is, it is crazy.’ Yet he thought, as Cohen put it, that ‘bringing pressure to bear on a publisher to suppress a book was an evil thing to do.’

So why would the scientists be doing evil things?

It was American scientists who went ballistic over Velikovsky, not historians, and one purpose of Michael Gordin’s probing and intelligent The Pseudoscience Wars is to ask why they responded to Velikovsky as they did. […] Scientists in the years after World War Two were upset by Velikovsky because, Gordin argues, they felt insecure, uncertain of the new authority and influence they had apparently gained by building the bomb and winning the war. […]

First, there was concern that political support might translate into political control. […] And there were the McCarthyite witch-hunts, some of which targeted distinguished scientists. How much autonomy did American scientists actually have? How vulnerable was that autonomy to the dictates of politicians and to the delusions of popular culture? No one could be sure.[…]

We know that the climate answer to that has been a full cooperation between some politicians and some scientists, mutually supporting each other.

In another analogy with the present, the pseudoscience side went for self-fulfilling diagnoses of mental illness among opponents:

The greatest ingenuity of Velikovsky’s thought lay in its merging of naturalistic catastrophism and psychoanalytic theory. […] what was the violence of scientists’ opposition to Velikovsky’s ideas but a persistence of that same tendency to deny the catastrophic truth of what had happened to the human race, how very close it had come to obliteration? The fact that the scientists were leagued against him was precisely what Velikovsky’s theories predicted. It was further evidence that he was right. What the scientists needed, indeed what the culture as a whole needed, was therapy, a cure for collective amnesia.

Shapin turns the table around, and embarks in a good explanation on why so many people are attracted to catastrophism, an explanation that applies to Velikovsky fans like to Gore supporters:

Here are the reasons for the enormous appeal of Velikovsky’s theories to Cold War America, and, specifically, to the young, the angry and the anxious. Lecturing to campus audiences, Velikovsky told the students what they already knew: the world was not an orderly or a safe place; Armageddon had happened and could happen again:

  • The belief that we are living in an orderly universe, that nothing happened to this Earth and the other planets since the beginning, that nothing will happen till the end, is a wishful thinking that fills the textbooks … And so it is only wishful thinking that we are living in a safe, never perturbed, solar system and a safe, never perturbed past.

Alfred Kazin, writing in the New Yorker, understood that this was part of Velikovsky’s appeal, and tellingly linked the great pseudoscientist with the Doomsday warnings of orthodox atomic scientists: Velikovsky’s work ‘plays right into the small talk about universal destruction that is all around us now’, he said, ‘and it emphasises the growing tendency in this country to believe that the physicists’ irresponsible scare warnings must be sound.’

The review ends with a brief discussion on how to evaluate what is scientific knowledge (with Shapin strangely unfamiliar with Sagan’s famous quote “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence“), plus a history of how the term “pseudoscience” came into being, once again reminding the reader of contemporary debates, in this case about blogging:

By 1964, some of Velikovsky’s scientific critics were drawing a […] lesson from the affair: the nuclear chemist Harold Urey was concerned ‘about the lack of control in scientific publication … Today anyone can publish anything,’ and it was impossible to tell the signal of truth from the noise of imposters. We must return to the past, Urey urged, when there was a proper intellectual class system and a proper system of quality control: ‘Science has always been aristocratic.’ In a society insisting on its democratic character, that was not a wildly popular position, though doubtless it had appealed to the scientists who tried to prevent the original publication of Velikovsky’s book and who sought to block his later efforts to publish in mainstream scientific journals.

Even the very end of the review is still relevant:

if it struts around the barnyard loudly protesting that it’s a duck, that it possesses the very essence of duckness, that it’s more authentically a duck than all those other orange-billed, web-footed, swimming fowl, then you’ve got a right to be suspicious: this duck may be a quack.

And that’s where mentions of 2,500 IPCC scientists and 97% consensus spring to mind.

 

Global Warming? Nevermind the Warming, still nobody knows if it’s Global…

first reported by Fabio Spina on Climatemonitor.it - in Italian

How Global is Global Warming? A very interesting slide from the “WMO Technical Conference on Meteorological and Environmental Instruments and Methods of Observation organized by CIMO WMO (Commission for Instruments and Methods of Observations of the World Meteorological Organization) (Brussels, Belgium, 16-18 October 2012).

The slide is from “Introduction on WMO Priorities” by Wenjian Zhang, Director, Observing and Information Systems Department, WMO. It was in the second presentation for the day, after the introduction by the CIMO President. One might logically assume that Zhang’s was one the most important presentations of the whole conference.

The slide shows Dr Zhang’s thoughts on the “key challenges” as “identified through widespread consultations with experts of key communities“.

Remember, this is from the people that actually observe the globe:

Challenges in Climate Observations
Challenges in Climate Observations

Every “key challenge” would be interesting to explore but of course the one about “Data” is particularly telling: “The current availability and quality of climate observations and impacts data are inadequate for large parts of the globe“.

For all the discussions and conferences and proclamations we have been having since the IPCC AR4 in 2007, one has to wonder how little we have moved on the basics.

Five years ago in fact, two thirds of the landmass was still forgotten from the WG2 chapters. And with 96% of Significant Changes coming from Europe alone, the open question was if “Global” Warming could be just European.

We have twice as many changes that are INCONSISTENT with warming in Europe, than CONSISTENT with warming in the rest of the world.

Thousands are waiting in Qatar right now for COP18 to open in a few hours. This news can’t be good. Unless, as suggested by Fabio, every area of the world is equal in importance for the global climate, but some are more equal than others…

BBC: The most curious piece of evidence of institutional AGW bias

From “Yes, John: Steve Jones Is Wrong And The BBC Totally Unbalanced On Climate Change“, 1 year 3 days ago on this site – see what happens when everybody including the Head of Comedy is pushed to insert climate change / global warming in their BBC output:

[…] I can now present […] the most curious piece of evidence yet of BBC’s institutional bias in favor of AGW proponents and away from skepticism.

And yes, this evidence makes a mockery of Steve Jones’ allegations too. Introducing Spiked Online and Patrick West’s experience with various language courses in Italian, and in particular the words dedicated to the BBC (my emphasis):

I’m currently on the second volume of the BBC’s Active Talk Italian Course. The two books and CD companions contain some bizarre diversions, Talk Italian 2 (2007) especially so. This volume is rich fare for those convinced that the BBC is governed by a liberal-left cabal, aging hippies and proselytising environmentalists.

Much of Talk Italian 2 is concerned with asking for directions in the rustic campagna of Tuscany and Umbria, where one would expect BBC bigwigs and well-to-do liberal-left champions of the corporation to take their vacations. A chapter is devoted to renting and buying luxury property (In zona panoramica e comoda… quattro camere, due bagni, cantine di 50mq, garage e giardino… Prezzo: €840,000). This no doubt appeals to Italy-loving Islingtonians who think holidaying in Spain is for the ghastly hoi polloi and that the south of France is a repository for the vulgar bourgeoisie.

The section in Talk Italian 2 on telling the time casually envisages a scenario of ‘Jorge’ and ‘Alessandro’ co-ordinating a meeting at a climate-change conference: Il cambiamento climatico: rischio per la biodiversità marina. The reader is invited to insert the Italian for ‘we start’ in the following ominous sentence ‘_____ alle dieci e un quarto con il discorso del Ministro sul cambiamento climatico’ (answer:Cominciamo) (1). Whatever happened to time-keeping dialogues simply based on railway enquiries?

On visiting the doctor, a further chapter asks you how to recognise notices for ‘alternative solutions’: medicina olistica, agopuntura, omeopatia, meditazione. Would you like to mettere in armonia le dimensioni fisiche, emotive, spirituali e sociali della persona? When ‘Simona’ complains of having l’influenza and asks for some painkillers, you, her hypothetical friend, are inveigled to suggest a superior alternative: Io ho un prodotto omeopatico molto efficace (2). Simona ought to reply Che stronzata! (3)

Some translation to help:

(1) “We start at quarter past ten with a speech by the Secretary of State for Climate Change”

(2) “I’ve got a very effective homeopathic medicine”

(3) “What a load of bull!”

[…]

Why the List of Participants to the BBC CMEP Jan 2006 Seminar is important

updated Nov 13 23:29: those four were not actually “low level”

updated Nov 18 10:20: added direct link to Bruce’s comment

Yesterday night this site has seen the second large journalistic scoop of my life (so far): “Full List of Participants to the BBC CMEP Seminar on 26 January 2006” (here’s the first one: “World Exclusive: CIA 1974 Document Reveals Emptiness of AGW Scares, Closes Debate On Global Cooling Consensus (And More…)“).

Here’s a summary of why such a list if very important, thanks to Bruce Hoult in a Bishop Hill comment I wish I knew how to link to:

  • This is incredible. In Jan 2006 the BBC held a meeting of “the best scientific experts” to decide BBC policy on climate change reporting (t)
  • The BBC has been in court blocking FOI attempts to get the list of the 28 attendees, but it’s just been discovered on the wayback machine (t)
  • It turns out that only 3 were current scientists (all alarmists). The rest were activists or journalists (t)
  • The BBC sent four low level representatives: Peter Rippon, Steve Mitchell, Helen Boaden, George Enwistle. All have since risen to power. (t)
  • Amazingly, those are also the exact four who have thus far resigned this week over the false paedophilia accusations against Lord McAlpine. (t)

For more background read Andrew Montford’s “Conspiracy of Green” and Andrew Orlowski’s recent article “FOlA judges: Secret 28 who made the BBC Green will not be named“.

The Unknown Skeptic – My Essay at WUWT

Anthony Watts of WUWT has been kind enough to host “The Unknown Skeptic – Journalism, awaiting to be freed“, a rather long essay of mine of the work done by James Painter and others in order to identify what makes climate change skeptical voices audible and readable more or less often in six countries.

The original and twice-as-long essay, divided in seven parts, was published on this site at the beginning of February 2012 (starting point here).

Finally and BTW, let me top this shameless self-promotion and elevate this comment left at WUWT:

John Whitman says:

Maurizio Morabito (aka omnologos ),

Your piece is a feast of ideas that I think will fertilize others to write an avalanche of additional posts on the virtues of hard core scientific skepticism toward the IPCC ‘consensus’ / ‘settled’ alarming climate science.

I really liked your, “Rather differently than Isaac Newton, Dr Painter might have found himself not on the shoulder of giants, but under the boots of minions.”

I really like your sense of style.

Thank you.

John

Climate Scientists Are Always Right…Yes They Are!

(originally published on Nov 17. 2007. The Italian version is here.)

Read scientist Vincenzo Ferrara, former Climate Change advisor to the Italian Environment, explain how to become a famous Climatologist (from ”Rivista di Meteorologia Aeronautica”, Vol XLII n. 1, Jan-Mar 1982):

(The following is an abridged translation)

If you are a climatologist and you want to survive as a climatologist, perhaps even increasing your reputation, all you have to do is provide the exact diagnosis and prognosis that people expect.

To the question “Is the climate changing?“, by all means, never, ever reply “No, everything’s normal“, or “It’s just fakery pumped up by newspapers and on television“: because people would unanimously conclude that you understand nothing about metereology, and nothing about climate.

It would be the end of your career.

The only sensible answer is: “Of course it is changing! It’s a well-known fact, scientifically confirmed and one that none cannot argue against“. You can then launch yourself in forecasting for the next hundred years a climate identical to the current one, amplifying the latest phenomena to extreme consequences.

If it is cold you’ll therefore predict “ice ages“, if it’s warm a “torrid period“, and if there are signs of strong variability “short-term climatic extremes” and more-or-less the same climate in the long term.

You may be wondering, how can a serious climatologist provide impossible, mutually-excluding forecasts without looking silly? Fear not: science will provide all the support needed.

Because climatology has already thought of everything and will supply the right solution in every circumstance, even in the most hopeless cases.

So if it is cold, here’s what you will have to say: “The climate is changing and we are approaching an Ice Age.

This fact has already been scientifically assessed because since 1940, the average temperature of the northern hemisphere has diminished by approximately 0,4°C, probably because of a decrease in atmospheric transparency due to air pollution.

The cooling of the air causes an increase in the extension of glaciers and of snow fields, furthering lowering temperatures with their highly reflecting (high albedo) surfaces. Glaciers therefore increase even more, in a positive feedback that will bring us to a new Ice Age in a hundred years or even less“.

What if it is warm? Then the discourse becomes: “The climate is changing and we are approaching a Torrid Age.

This fact has already been scientifically assessed because since 1850 the carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere has progressively increased and just in the last twenty years has gone from 315 to 334 parts for million. That means that in 2020 the accumulation of carbon dioxide will have more than doubled, taking into account the continuously increasing energy demands and consumption of fossil fuels.

The increase of carbon dioxide reduces the Earth’s long-wave emissions to space (greenhouse effect) so within half a century the average air temperature will increase by approximately 2 or 3°C; the polar ice will dissolve and a sizeable sea level increase will submerge several coastal cities“.


Negative Thinking and Tipping Points

A comment I just wrote at Bishop Hill (Jun 20, 2012 at 12:16 AM), answering a researcher on the topic of tipping points and climate change:

Doug – thanks for the reply. I can feel some major fundamental disagreements on the approach.

(I do hope you appreciate frankness, and rest assured I am not trying to convince you of anything!)

1. You say you don’t know much about positive tipping points. Like with Adam Corner’s psychosocial studies only of skeptics, this doesn’t sound like the wisest way towards understanding tipping points in general and independently from their “policy value”.

2. You say you “would expect a policy maker to take in information from a large number of sources on this”. But you’re aware the policy maker will never hear about positive tipping points, from anybody at all. This removes value to the advice and information you yourself provide, sort of telling a ship’s captain to steer away from the continent port-side whilst the two of you don’t notice the island approaching from starboard.

3. You are of the opinion that “there is a strong argument that an abrupt change in climate would likely affect social and ecological systems negatively”. Not really. I can see the problem from a Development Studies perspective thanks to some University-level studies of mine in that respect. There is an approach there called “Vulnerability Analysis”, where poverty is defined in terms of number and size of one’s vulnerabilities. Abrupt change of any sort of course will affect negatively the most vulnerable, simply because almost everything affects negatively the most vulnerable. Imagine somebody starving for a week, even eating food will become a risky activity for them.

This tells us nothing about the negativity of the change. OTOH the effect of the change on the less-vulnerable will depend on what kinds of vulnerability they suffer from. A priori, it is impossible to tell if change and even abrupt change will be overall negative or positive.

For example the invention of the internal combustion engine has been an abrupt, enormous effect on societies everywhere, but who would say it has been negative in general? And like there is no such a thing as a “system” of people that is mostly tuned to a particular environment (travel from Iceland to Senegal to see how flexible human societies are), just as well what happened at Krakatoa means “systems” of the wild can recover in amazing fashions.

Therefore, there cannot be any “strong argument” of the kind you describe. Perhaps there is a diffuse opinion that change=bad and abrupt change=awful, but it is an opinion, not a scientific finding.

4. Your final statement is perfectly logical but conveys a curious, illogical message. You say, “if there was a really large change in some aspect of the climate over, say, the next decade (anthropogenic or not), and climate science hadn’t at least warned about it, you would rightfully be angry”. Perhaps me, but surely whoever is paying for climate change research.

This is some form of recursive logic.

(a) Somebody finances climate change research with the aim of understanding if there is change in the pipeline and of what kind. This makes sense.

(b) Researchers whose job is to work about climate change with the aim of etc etc, in the face of obvious, enormous difficulties in providing what’s been requested think about how best to fulfil their duty. This makes sense.

(c) As the duty is to be able to warn in advance of changes, those researchers arrive at the conclusion that, if anything happens and they didn’t warn about it, they will be seen as a failure at their job/profession. This makes sense.

(d) Therefore, those researchers make sure they describe all the possibile negativities, so that nobody will be able to say, “you didn’t warn us about this”. This makes sense.

However, the end result is that the researchers don’t focus any longer on understanding if there is change in the pipeline and of what kind, but mostly on figuring out all the bad things that might happen, and assigning each a probability.

This makes no sense. The information finally provided risks reading like plain-language Nostradamus prophecies with informed risk estimates attached to them. If we did the same exercise about health risks in the home, there would be a law against entering bathrooms and kitchens.

Live Microblogging of GWPF 2012 Annual Lecture with Prof Fritz Varenholt

The following are the ordered notes published live on Twitter at @mmorabito67 during the GWPF 2012 Annual Lecture with Prof Fritz Varenholt, at the Royal Society building in London on June 13, 2012:

  • Benny Peiser starts right on time. Around 200 or more in attendance. Full house.
  • Peiser describes the environmental credentials of Varenholt. Reaction to Seveso, early Green.
  • Lecture starts with reference to upcoming #Euro2012 Germany match tonight.
  • Varenholt says he passed from green hero to doubtful scientist. Ironic but expected.
  • Varenholt mentions feeling of suppressed knowledge upon seeing LIA disappeared
  • Lots of dry humor
  • Varenholt talks of own experience with wind power company. Wind index in Germany shown highly correlating with NAO
  • Wind in Spain anticorrelated to NAO. Doubt on IPCC starting there. Then flattened temps since 1998
  • Standard Answer climate is 30y not 14y but then why the stoppage? Shows longer term graphs with temp increases
  • Varenholt mentions increase in CO2 and solar activity. Then #IPCC diagram of sensitivity. Says CO2 influences climate change
  • Varenholt says “solely the degree of influence is disputed”. IPCC had to introduce an “amplifier” for CO2 effect.
  • CO2 and temps shown correlating only between 1977 and 1998. Why not other periods?
  • Hockey Stick used with Gore’s movie in 000’s DVDs free to Germans to show people AGW real.
  • Mentions #Gergis trying to revive a ghost even Mann has renounced to
  • Now for natural cycles on the centennial scale and longer. Steinhilber 2009, Ljunquist 2010 with #MWP and #LIA -
  • Synchronicity between solar activity and temps in North Atlantic in Bond (2001) but Rahmstorf high priest against it
  • Shows 18 papers all over the world all finding what Bond 2001 found eg Kemp 2012
  • Example Liu et al 2011 Tibet with mwp and lia and forecast of no warming to 2200.
  • Chinese papers can also show what the government approves so even more interesting
  • Solar activity correlates with historical events too since 1600. Eg French revolution and scarce food
  • Solar cycle 24 current weak like cycle 5 of french revolution
  • People dismiss solar activity by considering #TSI which changes very little
  • However UV solar activity changes by 70% – no physical explanation how Sun influences climate change though
  • Varenholt explains possible mechanism with solar magnetic field shielding cosmic rays
  • Shows decrease in cosmic rays reaching earth during 20th century then slightly increasing after 2000
  • Mash Svensmark 2003 showing correlation between low-hanging clouds and solar activity
  • 60y cycle in Pacific #PDO warm phase between 1977 and 2006. Says AGW trend is underlining natural cycles
  • Critique of flawed temp graph with shortening timespans
  • Varenholt forecasts 0.5C by 2100 prolonging AGW trend minus natural oscillations
  • Kyoto efforts only 15% of emitters EU + ANZ. All for compensating 8 weeks of Chinese development
  • Speed of transformation in Germany “exaggerated” ie uselessly overambitious
  • Effort on photovoltaic energy maximum now that it’s the most expensive
  • €8B collected from all and given to wealthier people so transfer from poor to rich
  • Wind and solar not on-demand so lower reliability and more need for storage.
  • Germany forced to pay Netherlands to provide electricity to the Dutch. €100M per year.
  • Ethics Commission of bishops and sociologists suggested converting energy into H2 then methane. V. expensive
  • In 2050 Germany needs 230 times more storage capacity – compares to Constance Lake brought up in mountains
  • Problem of additional grid needed. Lots of it.
  • Summary: good news. Sun gives time to change energy system. Catastrophism has been used to justify madness.
  • Sacrificing forests for wind turbines is a very bad thing for nature.
  • Speaks of a climate of fear. Conventional always part of good energy mix alongside renewables
  • Current efforts not SUSTAINABLE. (Key sentence for the night?)
  • Final phrase of “it’s the sun stupid”
  • I asked how to communicate with greenies. Also other q on how to increase number of people “on road to.Damascus”
  • Varenholt mentions building trust. Communication via newspapers where everybody should be involved in discussions.
  • Politicians react to emotions in people.
  • Engineers need be more involved in discussions also political
  • Czech ambassador asks about abandonment of nuclear in Germany. Another q on carbon cost of renewables
  • Nuclear abandoned even if tsunami danger minimal. Political will.
  • Steel carbon recovered in 6 months. Solar 5 times more.
  • Solar not sustainable apart from in a new DDR
  • Don Keeler asks why greens against shale gas. Varenholt says it’s the game changer. Poland will definitely exploit it.
  • 400y of gas between Wales and Bielorussia. Environmentalists pushed moratorium but Varenholt says we’ll need shale gas later.
  • Huge amounts in China too. Gas will level volatility. But too cheap for wind and solar.
  • Carbon tax would kill photovoltaic if all subsidies removed unless very very high.
  • Ends with Lord #Lawson reminding what GWPF is about.
  • Says Varenholt pointed out how.uncertainty means correct policy difficult to identify.
  • Praises Varenholt for being able to.change mind according to.evidence
  • Hopes book will be translated. Says models obviously wrong.

A History Of Scientific Uncertainties (on their way to policymaking oblivion)

I know this story well about climate science. I am pretty sure it happens all the time in every scientific field that has social implications.

  1. The scientific paper details the uncertainties
  2. The IPCC chapter mentions the uncertainties
  3. The IPCC SPM (summary for policymakers) contains some indication of the uncertainties inside one item in the bibliography
  4. The Press Release doesn’t have space for the uncertainties apart from a side remark in the middle of the text
  5. The interviewed scientist is not asked about the uncertainties
  6. The journalistic article isn’t interested in the uncertainties
  7. The policymaker either doesn’t know the uncertainties exist, or pivots all his/her career about some of the uncertainties as reported to him/her third- or fourth-hand.

Broken telephones all around…

How To Become A Connect-the-Dots Campaigner

  1. Take the IPCC SREX report
  2. Find any mention of unusual weather
  3. Remove all words, adjectives, adverbs that indicate uncertainty
  4. Change all verbs from future to present (or near-past) tense
  5. Claim that the resulting mangled mess is “science” and that it is on your side
  6. Scour the planet in the hope somebody, somewhere has had their life ruined by an atmospheric event – collect dramatic pictures about it
  7. Go out on 5/5/12 and shout antiscientific fakehoods to save the planet

How The Media Pollute Science – The Deepwater Horizon Example

American Scientist“‘s latest Science in the News Weekly points to the popularity of an insightful, harshly titled piece at Wired: “How Science Failed During the Gulf Oil Disaster” by Christopher Reddy (April 20, 2012), that is also a good way to explore how the media industry ends up polluting science almost beyond recognition.

Reddy concludes that “most of these problems are avoidable” (longer excerpts at the bottom of this post). I do not think he has grasped the magnitude of the problem.

The press pack only wants to “provide immediate, definitive information“, that is uncertainty-free. They of course end up distributing simplified, fact-free news and spreading unnecessary fears.

Scientists are in the meanwhile:

  • pestered by the media
  • “lured” by the limelight
  • pressured in forgetting uncertainty
  • ignored unless there is anything worrying to humans or wildlife in their reports
  • reprimanded if they don’t publish soon enough
  • openly invited to get rid of peer-review for the sake of quickness of decision

In the background, scientific freedom turns into parody, as “tenure decisions” loom hard. And therefore what can we expect the scientists to do? Of course they will end up:

  • deemphasizing uncertainty
  • playing for the audience
  • screaming loud about anything that might be considered remotely toxic
  • hurrying their articles to be printed
  • pretending to be always and invariably 100% correct.

Sounds familiar?

—————————————————————————-

Extracts from Reddy’s article:

When the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig exploded two years ago in the Gulf of Mexico, many scientists, including me, stepped outside of the Ivory Tower to study what was an unprecedented — and unintended — environmental experiment. We succeeded in gathering mountains of data, learning all sorts of new things, and advancing science.

But we also failed.

Academic scientists chose the research that most interested us, rather than what may have been most important to responding to the immediate disaster. We failed to grasp the mechanics of the media

[…] on land, the press just kept calling

[…] Our academic training did not prepare us for the media attention we received, and sometimes liked too much. We did not recognize that the media’s mission to provide immediate, definitive information about unfolding events to an anxious public can limit its ability to be comprehensive and complex. Academia provides us the luxury to move slowly with the goal of perfection. So we had problems explaining uncertainties, and we did not understand the ramifications of our statements to the media.

Time, more than anything else, separated us. The media has hours to make a deadline. We have five to eight years to get tenure.

An example of how this played out was the reporting of oil plumes flowing from the well deep underwater.

Oil generally floats, so in the early days of the spill, scientists were startled to find high levels of hydrocarbons deep in the Gulf and relayed their findings to the media. The scientists hypothesized that high pressure at the depth where the leak occurred was causing some hydrocarbons to flow horizontally away from the well, rather than up to the surface.

The resulting news reports gave the impression that rivers of oil were flowing at the bottom of the sea, potentially killing shrimp and fish that supported the local economy and harming the ecosystem. Government responders and industry had to respond to the press about the plumes, rather then focusing on higher priorities such as capping the well. And the public had to respond to these reports, too. I recall one Gulf resident asking me if he should sell his house and move away.

Many academics, including me, were hard on the scientists who reported the presence of plumes. We thought they had veered from the standards of good science. Their findings were not peer-reviewed. In their communications with the public, they seemed susceptible to the lure of limelight.

[…] A month after the well was capped, we published a study in the journal Science confirming a subsurface plume more than a mile wide and 600 feet high that flowed for miles from the Macondo well at a depth of 3,600 feet. However, this plume was not a river of oil, but rather a layer in the ocean that was enriched in hydrocarbons. Water samples taken from within the plume were crystal clear.

We had just mapped an underwater plume with a one-of-a-kind underwater vehicle carrying a state-of-the-art mass spectrometer. It could be the greatest scientific contribution of my career. But the media wasn’t that interested. They were more concerned with whether the plume was toxic.

We were confused and said to them, “You need to know where the plume is before you can consider harmful effects.” It seemed so simple to us, but it was only newsworthy if the plume, at that time, could harm marine life or the environment.

[…] when I was the academic liaison at the oil spill’s headquarters the following month, I learned that those on the front line weren’t impressed by the publication of a paper a month after the crisis was over. Crisis responders often must make decisions on the spot, with imperfect information, even if it is risky.

During a crisis, “peer review is the biggest problem with academia” Juliette Kayyem, who was an assistant secretary at the Department of Homeland Security during the Deepwater Horizon and teaches crisis response at Harvard, told me.

But to release unvetted data is a leap of faith. I observed a very talented junior scientist struggle with this. He was afraid he might be not be 100 percent correct, word would get out, and it would affect his tenure decision. […]

The Immoral Judgement behind Climate Activism

Judith Curry has a very concise summary of the latest Nature Climate Change shot-in-the-dark, called “Climate change and moral judgement” (by Ezra M. Markowitz and Azim F. Shariff, NCC, vol.2, April 2012).

The study is based on the usual wholesale vapidity of bombastic statements made meaningless by the absence of any quantification

The climate science community has arrived at a consensus regarding both the reality of rapid, anthropogenic climate change and the necessity of urgent and sustained action to avoid its worst environmental, economic and social consequences

Having switched off their brains to accept the ‘consensus’, the authors forgot to turn them back on before writing gems like

Unlike financial fraud or terrorist attacks, climate change does not register, emotionally, as a wrong that demands to be righted. As a result, many individuals, even those who believe that climate change is a problem, may feel complacent in delaying immediate — and costly — ameliorative action, such as investing in alternative-energy technologies or reducing one’s own energy use

Markowitz and Shariff clearly don’t understand that “climate change” belongs to the future, whilst financial fraud and terrorist attacks belong also to the past and present. They don’t even understand that “ameliorative action” has nothing to do with “reducing one’s own energy use” (a wishy-washy commitment for anybody bothering to do the maths), and that “investing in alternative-energy technologies” is pointless unless the cost is linked to some benefit, with the benefit being larger than the cost that is.

Another classic:

the more space there is for uncertainty the more wishful thinking we have

As if. Markowitz and Shariff are dangerously toying there with the idea of becoming totally anti-scientific. As per another of Curry’s posts, “Uncertainty is a necessary ingredient in the recipe for discovery. Certainty gets in the way of discovery because we are not inclined to investigate further the things we think we know for certain“. From this POV, “certainty” is the realm of the uninterested ignorant, the last type of people that is who could possibly do anything meaningful about climate change.

There are more signs of science having taken a leave of absence from Nature Climate Change in this case. The authors list “six psychological challenges posed by climate change to the human moral judgement system” (table 1) and “six psychological strategies that communicators can use to bolster the recognition of climate change as a moral imperative” (table 2). Perish the thought that having six items on both tables suggest there is not science behind, rather the style of self-help manuals (aware perhaps of the problem, the blog minimolecule recommended by Judith forgets to mention the 5th item of table 2, “Expand group identity“).

Anyway, the biggest flaw of the study lies elsewhere. It appears deeply contradictory. If the

in depth cognitive processing required to negotiate our way through these problems leads to poor activation of moral reasoning

the authors should have demonstrated first if and how their own moral reasoning hadn’t been properly “activated”. The same applies to all other points in table 1. Psychomagically, the authors believe themselves immune from something they claim is affecting a large part of humanity.

This sounds clearly and deeply immoral, just like the continuous underlying suggestion that people who don’t believe it’s time for unspecified “costly ameliorative action” are somehow anti-environment (this is a common anti-ethical thinking trait of climate activists, as demonstrated by its ugly head rearing again in the description of the upcoming Policy Exchange event “A Greener Shade of Blue” in London).

And as for the topic of the paper: IMNSHO the biggest obstacle in moving forward on climate change is that activist-communicators keep trying to reduce an issue that is “complex, abstract and cognitively challenging” to “It didn’t snow last January” or “March was weird”. And those are clear evidences of “poor activation of moral reasoning” on the part of those communicators.

Is anybody reading Real Climate any longer?

An interesting side-story about HadCRUT4. Look at RealClimate, March 20, 2012 “Updating the CRU and HadCRUT temperature data” by gavin:

the difference between 1998 and 2010 is in the hundredths of a degree, and most of the attribution work on recent climate changes is looking at longer term trends, not year to year variability. However, there is now consistency across the data sets that 2005 and 2010 likely topped 1998 as the warmest years in the instrumental record

Compare that now to Skeptical Science, April 18, 2012 “First Look at HadCRUT4” by dana1981:

In HadCRUT4, the hottest years on record are 2010 and 2005, with 1998 right behind in a statistical tie.

From the quotes above, it is difficult to ascertain if Gavin Schmidt has any understanding of the meaning of a difference “in the hundredths of a degree” (hint: for all scientific intents and purposes, it’s a difference of zero). The point that “there is now consistency across the data sets” seems to indicate an obsession with numbers and a forgetfulness of the underlying physical aspects of climate.

Even Dana Nuccitelli, amid the usually flurry of anti-skeptic rants and dubious interpretations passed as Truth, appears to have a better grasp on science itself.

Note that among the scarce number of comments (83), a couple of people try to make this simple point, only to be told by the likes of tamino that it doesn’t matter because of evil skeptics of course. As if surgeons would regularly use subpar anaesthesia justifying themselves by saying there are evil doctors out there doing far worse.

Dr Robert Wilson is not listening

(a comment of mine published at Bishop Hill)

Dr Wilson is not listening. All, please do save yourselves the trouble of trying to explain to him anything…he will still not listen.

The fact that this obviously leaves him a total ignoramus of anything that is discussed on this website, is apparently not a concern for him. Why? Because he is not listening.

He won’t even notice what kind of sorry figure he’s cut of himself now, despite having started from the enviable position of having actually sat through a presentation by the Bish.

Anyway, I am not feeling sorry for him, as I actually envy the people who don’t understand…they’ll always be the ones beaming about, happy and content.

Inability to listen is of course a trait of Climate Change Believers. What a coincidence.

If NASA has no official position on climate change, what is this?

If NASA has no official position on climate change, as claimed to Andy Revkin by as-usual clueless Gavin Schmidt, what is this? “NASA Policy Statement – Adapting to a Changing Climate” (May 2011)

There are two points about it:

(1) I won’t hold my breath waiting for some of the involved folks to wake up to the idea that if they write something as “NASA Head of this” or “NASA Head of that”, then ipso facto their statements will be taken as “Official NASA Position” on this or that.

In the private sector, anything one writes in the course of business is of course considered what his/her company thinks about that course of business. How can it be any different?

(2) NASA doesn’t live in a vacuum. It can’t play the Ivory Tower Scientist today, and the Federal Agency tomorrow. If the Government pursues one particular line of thought (eg for worry of dangerous climate change), then NASA of course is pursuing that same line of thought.

Therefore…NASA has a very big OFFICIAL POSITION on climate change indeed.

Official IPCC Words: We Do Not Know If The Climate Is Becoming More Extreme

SREX is out in full.

FAQ 3.1 | Is the Climate Becoming More Extreme? […] None of the above instruments has yet been developed sufficiently as to allow us to confidently answer the question posed here.

Full text follows.
Continue reading

What The HadCRUT4 Update Means

Building up on Paul Penrose’s comment at JS:

How is this news if the results are not statistically significant? Or do people not know what that means? Once you take that into account what they are saying is: News flash – global temperature has not increased since 1998!

Actually, the news flash should be that, since 1998:

  1. Global temperature has not increased in any meaningful manner
  2. Northern Hemisphere temperature has not increased at all (some bits of the Arctic aside)
  3. At most we could talk of an Arctic, not Global Warming
  4.  All of the above, despite all the continuous fudging and cooling of the past

Once again…Whatever Arctic warming there’s been, it’s also been inconsequential. And if HadCRUT4 doesn’t kill Global Warming, it certainly helps putting it in the right place..

A Sea-Surface Miracle!

Overlong “On the adjustments to the HadSST3 data set” blog post just out (after a few technical glitches) at Judith Curry’s comes to a conclusion that aounds like yet another climate-related miracle

HadSST3 selectively removes the majority of the long term variations from the pre-1960 part of the record. ie. it removes the majority of the climate variation…

…that cannot be attributed to anthropogenic global warming!

How unexpected!

Two Matters Of Logic (And Timewasting Avoidance)

A couple of timewasting avoidance schemes when dealing with anti-skeptic Defenders of the Faith in Science:

(1) The Congealed Minds

Some people pop up in skeptic blogs commenting in a way similar to swashbuckling (or marauding), making statements such as “I believe the scientists doing the research are a much better judge of that than you are“.

That’s a very good sign that we’re dealing with people who:

  • Worship mainstream scientific literature
  • Are willing mouthpieces of somebody else
  • Routinely misrepresent science as an organically growing process where past interpretations are cast in stone
  • Act like those philosophers who would reply to Galileo continuously quoting Aristotle and the Aristotelians, rather than accept to reason by themselves

The only question to ask them is: Is there anything anybody could ever say, show, write, demonstrate, ask or explain in a blog or comment to a blog, that will make you change your mind?

The answer will of course be “No”. Therefore there is no point debating with them.

(2) The Deferrers

Another common anti-skeptic tactic is to invoke some Higher Authority, eg: “I won’t presume to substitute my non-professional judgment for that of someone who’s dedicated his career to a pursuit of unbiased scientific knowledge, just as I wouldn’t substitute my judgment for that of an oncologist or a neurologist treating myself or someone close to me“.

That’s a completely meaningless statement, because it is supremely illogical. If a person defers judgment to somebody else, obviously what that person writes has no value at all: we should always be looking for the opinion of “somebody else”. Anybody arguing “don’t listen to me, listen to somebody else” is a prisoner of twisted logic, as the first part of that sentence negates the second one. Therefore there is no point debating with them.

Threatener In Chief

There are 2,830 hits for @BBCRBlack on the BBC News site. Of them, 785 include the words “threat” or “threaten”.

That’s 28%.

Environment reporting is a subset of professionalised scare.

Terrible Ski World Cup Images Confirm Dangers Of Global Warming

You’ve been warned!!.

THIS IS The #Climate Question

Everything else, is a corollary….

From Bishop Hill’s “Nobel laureate on temperatures” (Feb 2012):

The question is not whether temperatures have risen or whether mankind has affected the climate. Temperatures have always risen and fallen and mankind has always affected the climate. The question is whether we have a problem on our hands. The poor performance of the climate models suggests that the problem is much less than we have been led to believe.

Perspective Amiss At @AmSciMag

Summary of the latest email edition of “Science In The News Weekly“, “a digest of science news stories appearing in the mainstream media. It is delivered every Monday afternoon (or Tuesday afternoon in the case of a Monday holiday) as part of Sigma Xi’s public understanding of science program area, in conjunction with American Scientist magazine

Science-y news

Another science-y news

Yet another science-y news

World to end(*)

More science-y news

More more science-y news

In particular the (*) bit is of the form:

Scientists say that if carbon dioxide emissions don’t begin to decline soon, the complex fabric of marine ecosystems will begin fraying–and eventually unravel completely.

Evidently reason takes a momentary leave of absence at American Scientist like in many other places, whenever carbon dioxide is mentioned.

BTW the link is to the study that used naturally-occurring CO2 seeps to try to figure out what might happen in 2100, an impressive collection of “might’s” if you ask me.

A Crickey Mystery About #Gleickgate

On Feb 20 Crikey.com came out with an interesting announcement:

Frozen version

Crikey understands The New York Times will tomorrow reveal the identity of Heartland’s “Anonymous Donor”, an individual who has donated $13.7 million to the Heartland Institute since 2007 and at times has provided 60% of the institute’s funding.

The page says (in the code) it’s been published 2012-02-20T13:11:12+1100

Now as we know, the NYT has published nothing of the sort…actually, Gleick confessed sometimes around midnight GMT between Feb 20 and Feb 21, a little less than 24 hours later.

I wonder if this missed announcement has anything to do with Gleick being forced to reveal himself as the Gleickgate perp. BTW make sure you don’t miss out this thread at Climate Audit.

Is Thickness of Mind Mandatory To Become A Distinguished Climate Scientist?

My answer is of course “not”. However, there are some worrying signs. A guy in East Anglia is unable to use Excel, a bunch of guys from the US and elsewhere don’t know how to use Acrobat.

No wonder they haven’t got a clue where their missing heat has gone to. And no wonder they are foreign to the scientific method.