Friday, 24 December 2010
A group of so-called government funded "experts" whip up alarmist fears of a killer shark off the coast of Amity, a sea side town. Their goal is to destroy the local tourist industry, send Amity back to the dark ages and thus achieve their underlying socialist agenda of wealth redistribution. The heroes of this tale are the local major and business leaders who lead a successful audit of the alarmist claims and by doing so manage to delay action long enough that the beach remains open. In the end it turns out a shark has been eating people.
It all starts when a body washes up on a beach. Of course bodies wash up on beaches all the time in natural cycles called tides. It happens. I was very unsurprised by this, but the so-called "experts" in Amity are opportunists and exploited the situation for their own agenda.
The coroner is tasked with determining the cause of death. Rather than just admitting "we do not know" he instead coins a bizarre theory that a shark is to blame. The police chief, Martin Brody, a kind of Al-Gore figure, believes the claims of the coroner unquestionably. Just laps it up. One minute he's on the phone to the coroner, next minute he's writing the cause of death on a report as "shark attack". Unbelievable.
The Town Mayor, Larry Vaughn, comes up with a much plausible theory - that the cause of death was a boat propeller. He should have thrown some more theories in there though in case they find a problem with the boat propeller one. Keep the experts busy addressing various counter explanations, however implausible, and action will be delayed.
If I was Mayor Vaughn I would have also sent an FIOA request for the coroner's raw data and all the emails sent between the police chief and the coroner. Then I could have sifted through it looking for something wrong.
Ben Meadows, a journalist for the Amity Gazette, was more effective at delaying action. First he cites technical procedures preventing closure of the beach:
"Technically you need the instruction of a civic ordinance or a special meeting of the town selectmen"
When that doesn't work he appeals to uncertainty and doubt:
"We're not even sure what it was."
Indeed. It could have been a boat propeller, or perhaps a particularly sharp piece of water. Keep the experts on their toes, don't let them reach a "conclusion".
Mayor Vaughn sums up alarmism:
"It's all psychological, anyway. You yell 'Barracuda' and everyone says 'huh'. You yell 'Shark' and we've got a panic on our hands. I think we all agree we don't need a panic this close to the 4th of July."
Another Dead Body
Another dead body is found. Yawn. Of course the alarmism hits the roof and the "shark theory" goes public. The Mayor wisely holds a council meeting, kind of like a congressional hearing, and invites all the local business leaders.
Even if there IS a shark, is mitigating the problem by closing the beach really the correct solution? Can't bathers just adapt to a killer shark? Not that we are conceding ground on the existence of the shark yet. As one of the locals helpfully points out: "Nobody's seen a shark.". True at least no-one alive has seen one, and that's all that really matters.
Enter The Scientist
Matt Hooper from the "Oceanographic Institute" turns up. No-one seems to have called him, he just kind of appears. I've heard that scientists can actually smell sources of funding from up to 50 kilometers away. Hooper takes one look at the body and arrogantly proclaims:
"It wasn't an 'accident,' it wasn't a boat propeller, or a coral reef, or Jack the Ripper. It was a shark."
What alarmist nonsense! He just blew through all those equally good explanations. And as the local pointed out "nobody's seen a shark". So it's unscientific for Hooper to assert there definitely is a shark. He's hiding the uncertainty and doubt. Of course if he admitted there wasn't a shark all his funding would dry up...
But just like the CAGW fraud, the locals fall for Hooper's academic speak as if a so-called "shark expert" is some kind of authority on sharks. They are seemingly forgetting that Mayor Vaughn's theories are just as valid.
What Mayor Vaughn should have done here is start a blog called SharkAudit or WhatsUpWithTheShark. Unfortunately he doesn't think of this.
The Shark is Caught
While the so-called "experts" are playing with their "theories" and models, the local townspeople in the real world manage to catch and kill the shark, it's a large tiger shark which they bring back onto land. At this point we can conclude it was a shark attack after-all, because now that the possibility of beach closure has gone there is no reason to deny it anymore.
Of course Hooper the shark "expert" is not happy. He refuses to accept facts and claims they need to open the shark up to check it's the right one. The police chief, who is probably a communist stooge, is only too happy for this to go ahead.
Mayor Vaugn successfully prevents an autopsy on the shark. There's no need for evidence anymore.
The Scientist Admits To Losing the Raw Data
Hooper finds a Great White shark tooth in a wreck containing another dead body. Wow that's convenient. A dead body AND a Great White shark tooth. You couldn't make it up! Oh but wait it gets better - the Mayor wisely does an audit:
"Is that tooth here? Did anyone see it?"
Hooper admits he LOST the shark tooth in the water. If I was that incompetent in my business I would go out of business. But this is Oceanography we are talking about.
So the mayor wisely ignores the 3rd body citing the missing shark tooth:
"Well, I'm not going to commit economic suicide on that flimsy evidence."
Quite right! That's exactly what these socialists want you to do - commit economic suicide!
We Need More Funding!
The police chief makes a play for more funding:
"We have got to close the beaches. We have got to get someone to kill the shark, we need non-corrosive mesh netting, we need scientific support..."
Such a transparent grab for socialism and government control of the beach! The so-called shark expert also makes a frenzied last ditch attempt to fool the masses:
"Out there is a Perfect Engine, an Eating Machine that is a miracle of evolution -- it swims and eats and that's all. Look at that! Those proportions are correct. I know sharks."
If he actually believed there was a killer shark out there about to eat people would he really get so hysterical about it?
The mayor exposes his hidden agenda:
"You'd love to prove that. Getting your name in the National Geographic."
Yes it's all about funding and fame with these so-called "experts". They want to get their names in magazines. Can't trust them.
Anyway in the end it turns out a great white shark killed all those people. But on the plus side the beach does stay open.
Saturday, 18 December 2010
Friday, 12 November 2010
This is the end.
DenialDepot has now been running for over 18 months and until now I have never dropped the act. DenialDepot isn't going away as such, but I feel it is time to reveal myself and by doing so I expect the nature of the blog to change accordingly into something more serious and thoughtful.
I am in fact a skeptic of man-made global warming, although of course not quite to the extent that the blog has portrayed.
The sole purpose of DenialDepot all along has been to build bridges between skeptics and warmists. They say laughter is the best medicine. I happen to agree. Hopefully some of you will now accept our skepticism of the temperature records, the IPCC, etc more kindly. Reassuringly I have seen a number of warmists recently crossing the bridge which I have helped build over the last 18 months. Of course there are others who keep piling on the vitriol, but the fact that they don't get it just tells me how clueless some members of the warmist community actually are (no offense to the rest of you).
That aside the new face of DenialDepot will be one of reconciliation, concern and mutual discussion about how to fix the IPCC. What's gone wrong? How did it go wrong? how can we fix it? Don't worry the blog will be discussing science too, but we'll get onto the science much later once we've fixed the IPCC together and figured out who is to blame. I am also developing a new font for the blog called 'Times New Concerned' to add a sense of gravity to my words. Thus I will appear very concerned, very sensible, yet at the same time be remarkably indifferent to the threat of climate change.
This first post will be the beginning of a long and admittedly drawn out discussion about words that relate to the IPCC. I will provide a word from the dictionary and commentors are encourages to discuss that word in relation to climate science. Eventually when no-one remembers how this subject started or even what it was about I will make a new post to start the ball rolling again. My intention is not to leave behind a lingering sense that the IPCC is corrupt, but to discuss corruption and the IPCC as two separate entangled threads.
The first subject word for discussion is Ideologue.
What do you think about that word? Is it a good word to describe any climate scientists you can think of? Come on gang, lets just have an open and fair discussion and see if we can come up with any names.
I guess what I am trying to convey, ie the point of this post, is a sense of understanding uncertainty in science. Can we come up with a way to make the subject of uncertainty more uncertain? I am thinking of some kind of simple everyday analogy that will confuse everyone. Suggestions?
Don't forget though that this is primarily about building bridges between skeptics and those alarmists! Not that the IPCC would be competent enough to build a bridge though. Oops sorry, I meant to say my favorite bridge is the Golden Gate Bridge. Oh there I go again with ClimateGate references!
The subject word has just changed to dogma (I am pulling these out of a hat, don't worry it's all fair and we will get to the science shortly). Is dogma a form of ideology? No wait we've already done that word. Funny how this word association thing works because I am now thinking about hide the decline? What's that? Why am I thinking that?
Now for the science. Hmmm have any of you ever wondered just what IS science? Lets just all toss our ideas into the comments and maybe on this blog we will actually define what science is for the rest of the world. I think the IPCC could include some of our comments in it's next report. Yes that's a great idea lets write the next IPCC report in the comments.
Sorry this is all a bit disorganized but my head is swirling with ideas and I am not sure what my point is.
Did anyone read those emails?
Sunday, 7 November 2010
Above is a graph of September arctic ice amount taken from the website of the Nationalized Snow and Ice (adjusted) Data Center (NSIDC). Warmists will have you believe that arctic ice is in decline and will regularly show you this graph to confuse you into believing their claim.
The warmist site SkepticalScience.com has even decided to exaggerate the NSIDC graph by putting an alarming curve through it.
In order to deny the claim that arctic ice is in decline you first need to find something wrong with the graph. Anything will do, but below I will run through all the things I found wrong with the graph. This is an indictment of both the NSIDC and SkepticalScience.com
First notice the Y-axis of the above NSIDC graph starts at four million. Yet everyone knows numbers start at zero, not four million! Even kids learn this in school. In technical speak, the NSIDC graph misleads people into thinking 4 million is the smallest integer. Hilariously the SkepticalScience.com graph has 3 million as the lowest y-axis value! The warmists can't make up their minds! If they can't agree on Y-axes how can they possibly predict the weather in 100 years time? Graph y-axes should always start at zero or else they will mislead people.
Lets correct the graph and remove that biased trend line at the same time:
What's next? Is there anything else in the graph above that we can bitterly complain about? Notice the y-axis reads "kilometers". That's interesting. Why is a US science body using a French measurement system? Perhaps it has no effect though. Perhaps the unit of measurement used in the graph has no bearing on the actual rate of sea ice decline. But we can't assume that's the case. Lets replace "square kilometers" with "square miles" instead and see what difference it makes:
Shocking. Compare the two graphs above. I wouldn't like to accuse the NSIDC and SkepticalScience.com of deliberate fraud, but is it just coincidence that the French system of kilometers shows faster sea ice decline than the US system of miles?
When the French measurement system disagrees with the American one, we should always stick to to the American one, not only for patriotism, but also because men landed on the moon using miles not kilometers. If you go to Europe you will be shocked at the levels of poverty. Many of them are so poor that they only learn English as a second or even third language. Even England in Britain, UK has switched away from kilometers and now officially uses miles.
There are two more problems with the graph though. Can you spot them?
The upper limit of the graph of 8.5 million square miles is wrong. The true upper limit should reflect the total surface area of the Earth which, assuming a round Earth, is roughly 200 million square miles (a flat Earth would be somewhat more but for now lets take a conservative estimate and assume mainstream science is right).
Graph modified so that y-axis reflects range of total surface area of the Earth
That's far more clear. Immediately I am having trouble seeing the sea ice. This is good. If you can't see it, it's not a problem.
The final correction is to do likewise with the x-axis. It is typical of warmists to omit the past even as they try to predict the future. Lets add in the full age span of the Earth:
Tuesday, 19 October 2010
Slanderous accusations of "plagiarism" have been leveled by alarmists at the Wegman report. The Wegman report is of course a useful collection of quotes that disprove climate science, so it bears defending it's integrity.
Unfortunately by the literal definition of "plagiarism" the Wegman Report is indeed "guilty". But are the dictionaries wrong? I argue that yes they are. Modern dictionaries and encyclopedias are written by academics after all, and the Head Climate Gatekeeper, William M. Connolley, has the power to edit any of these books before publication.
Fortunately my fellow Climate Realists have been hard at work to find excuses. A favorite is to try and ignore the plagiarism charge and reframe it as a copyright issue. If it isn't a copyright offense what can be wrong with it? Efforts to this end include choosing to describe it as "copygate" and copious citations of the "fair use" exemption.
However it's all very confusing for laypeople. As an expert (I have studied plagiarism all my life and for many years I worked as a professional plagiarist), I shall cast some impartial light on this rather confused debate.
What is Plagiarism?
Plagiarism is defined in dictionaries as the appropriation, close imitation, or purloining and publication, of another author's language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions, and the representation of them as one's own original work.
However the use of the Latin word plagiarius (literally kidnapper), to denote someone stealing someone else's work, was in fact pioneered by Roman poet Martial, who complained that another poet had kidnapped his verses. This use of the word was introduced into English in 1601 by dramatist Ben Jonson, to describe as a plagiary someone guilt of literary theft[3.
Within academia, plagiarism by students, professors, or researchers is considered by alarmists to be "academic dishonesty" or "academic fraud", and "offenders" are subject to "academic censure" and ostracization, such as that exhibited in the Climategate emails. Some individuals accused of plagiarizing in academic contexts point out that they plagiarized unintentionally, by not including cumbersome and unnecessary quotations or giving a relevant citation. This kind of thing is absolutely fine for many forms of document, eg reports intended for Congress.
Plagiarism in scholarship and journalism has a centuries-old tradition. It's nothing new and is almost expected. The development of the Internet, where articles appear as electronic text, has made the physical act of copying the work of others much more straight-forward.
Sunday, 17 October 2010
To recap: The "Greenhouse Effect" as it is known today is an entirely fictitious mechanism based on the work of communists Joseph Fourier and Svante Arrhenius in the 1800s. Fourier had already been caught trying to transform the state under the disguise of a simple mathematical operation, but now working closely together with Arrhenius he devised the concept of a "greenhouse effect" for the sole purpose of facilitating world government and higher taxes in the 21st century.
Unfortunately all scientific means to falsify the "greenhouse effect" known to skeptics failed: The Freedom of Information Act did not exist back then and an attempt to hack into Fourier's home with an axe in order to steal private correspondence amounted to nothing. So it wasn't until 2007 that the refutation of Arrhenius and Fourier was finally published:
Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics by Dr G. Gerlich
The alarmists cannot face the facts and instead strive to drive out the realists and silence the insurrection. I speak of course of alarmists like Lord Monckton and Dr Roy Spencer who have been promoting the greenhouse effect fraud of late. Enter Dr Claes Johnson, an expert much like Hal Lewis, PhD in the field of All Subjects. Monckton has viciously smeared the likes of Dr Claes Johnson. What was Cleas's crime? Nothing short of having an opinion.
Dr Cleas: Among the many comments to Herman-Pielke's Explanation of the "The GreenHouse Effect" on WUWT we find that Lord Monckton is a believer:
Lord Monckton: I am delighted that this simple and clear but authoritative statement of the reality of the “greenhouse effect” has been posted here. Too many inaccurate statements to the effect that there is no greenhouse effect have been published recently, and they do not deserve to be given any credence. The true debate in the scientific community is not about whether there is a greenhouse effect (there is)...
Dr Cleas responds: I am surprised to see Lord Monckton appeal to authority in his denial of any credibility of scientists (like me) saying that the "greenhouse effect" is non-physical and is not described in the physics literature. Does Lord Monckton no longer believe in the virtues of a skeptical scientific attitude?
Indeed. It's almost like Monckton is using a double standard isn't it? But that's alarmists for you. There are no right or wrong answers in science and what better example of that than the fact that the greenhouse effect has now been shown to be wrong after all these years.
Saturday, 2 October 2010
Shockingly offensive video released. I cannot over-exaggerate my distaste for this video enough, so much so that I am delighted to post it here on Denial Depot.
I keep playing it back again and again to maintain sufficient levels of outrage.
It's like Shock and Awe, except not even mildly entertaining. It's like the Abu Ghraib photos except this time it's actually offensive.
You don't solve disagreements by blowing people up, unless of course it's in a war and they are civilians disguised as enemy combatants. But this video isn't taking part in a war, it's in a classroom, on a flight of business-stairs and during a game of Soccerball.
The last time brown shirts tried to silence critics was in the run up to World War II when Godwin imposed a law that stated that anyone who referenced Hitler in an argument would automatically lose that argument. What happened? Hitler rode into power unopposed. Ironically, later on Hitler would literally try to silence critics with explosives.
The video raises further worrying questions that will have to be FOIed. Are eco-fascists working on the ability to detonate people they disagree with at the push of a button? What role does the Bilderberg Group play in all of this? How do they plan to get the explosives into our bodies? What is water fluoridation really about? Why are there so many strangely shaped contrails over my house? Do I need more guns?
What the Eco-Fascists need to do:
1) Apologize for their stasi-style video
2) Withdraw their Final Solution to tax co2
3) Stop calling us "Deniers" as the term offensively links us to holocaust deniers. Tritely comparing your opponent to a despised group is an outrageously underhanded and offensive debate tactic that has no place in decent society
'hattip to Dr Delingpole
Tuesday, 21 September 2010
Nationalized Snow and Ice Data Center reports large quantities of frozen sea ice in the Arctic. Confirmed by ground and satellite observations. Ships unable to circumnavigate Greenland. Globe Cooling. Warmists baffled.
It is now the warmest time of the year in the Arctic, yet vast quantities of frozen sea ice are being spotted in the Arctic Ocean. So far more than two million square miles of ice have been detected from ships and satellites. NSIDC scientists have warned that more ice is just around the corner.
Paraphrasing Mark Serreze, director of the government funded NSIDC: "There are [reports coming in from] some communities that the Arctic sea ice is recovering, is getting thicker again"To put two million square miles of arctic sea ice into perspective, imagine two million square miles of arctic ocean covered in ice. That's 4,146,000,000 Olympic swimming pools.
Public funded scientists at the NSIDC even admit that this figure is a minimum. They predict even more sea will freeze in coming months, a clear sign that we have a very cold winter in store for us this year.
Meanwhile alarmists try to play down the continued Arctic recovery and Global Cooling by drawing trend lines on graphs. Well the numbers don't lie and they are:
- The PDO has recently tipped upside down and it's cold side is now facing directly towards us.
- The Sun is in a Maunder Minimum. If the Solar Cycle slows down much more it might lose it's balance and topple over. That's what wiped out the Vikings.
- El Nino has turned into La Nina. During an El Nino caloric is released from the depths of the tropical pacific, bleaching the surface waters an anomalous yellow. During a La Nina the opposite happens and the caloric is absorbed deeper into the ocean resulting in a bluer ocean surface. Scientists have recently detected anomalous blue hues in the pacific tropics. Even some purples.
And if you are still not convinced the world is cooling try to explain this:
New Ice Age 'to begin in 2014'. Russian scientist to alarmists: 'Sun heats Earth!'
Response to Anonymous Criticism
Anonymous asks: "Can you please explain why you plot the years in the graph in non-consecutive order ? The "trend" you show at the end of the graph covers the years 2007, 2008, 2009 then 2005, 2006 and finally 1996, 1999 and 2010?"
I chose not to go into much detail in the post because I thought it was obvious.
Would you rather I had opted for ordering years in so-called "chronological order"? I hear that's very much in vogue with UN scientists, but it's certainly not in keeping with the rigors of Blog Science. You see any Blog Scientist must question such dogmas and ask if years could not be better ordered in some hither unknown fashion, such as alphabetically. Or, as I did, in order of the most memorable years. Certainly 1996 was such a crucial year in the ongoing arctic ice Recovery that it sticks foremost in my mind, more than any year since. As such it should be placed ahead of all other years on the x-axis. The question mark in 2010 is not asking what the ice level will be in 2010, it's asking "should 2010 even be here?"
Also I notice from your IP address that you are posting from "academia" and yet you have chosen to remain anonymous. That's interesting. Does your employer (the government or UN) know you are commenting on this blog? Have you been directed to do so? Please sign any future comments with your real name, home address and political affiliation.
Sunday, 25 July 2010
Several Eminent Physicists Skeptical Of AGW fear for their academic lives tonight as WhatsUpWithit irresponsibly publishes their names on a public blog: Seven Eminent Physicists Skeptical of AGW
Questions are being asked as to why WhatsUpWithIt, previously a reliable campaigner against blacklisting skeptical scientists, has today published a blacklist of our secret eminent physicists.
Concerns mount that WhatsUpWithIt has been infiltrated by enemies of our Nation. Has WhatsUpWithIt fallen to Red Communism?
Related Climate News Items:
- Bafflement as 31,487 American scientists skeptical of manmade global warming inexplicably add themselves to a blacklist.
- The Denial Depot Concern Room this week poses the question: Just Why do man-made Global Warming alarmists frequently use the fallacious appeal to authority?
Saturday, 10 July 2010
Up is Down
Comrades, it has come to my attention that certain cowardly, possibly treasonous, elements in our ranks are questioning whether denial of Arctic sea ice decline is a viable strategy. They have suggested that the recent questionably sharp decline in JAXA arctic sea ice extent is consistent with the so-called alarmist "longterm decline" in arctic sea ice and has therefore put us in a corner. They further suggest that if we rely on The Recovery of arctic sea ice and The Recovery does not in fact happen we will be defeated.
I would like to make it absolutely clear that our strategy of insinuating a Recovery is strong. Claims to the contrary undermine our efforts and provide fodder to the enemy and as such are treasonous and will not be tolerated. Violators will be shipped to the Climate Depot where they will be publicly flogged.
Be aware that The Recovery is merely a forward offensive against the enemy. Our rear is well protected by three lines of defense. At the outer line of defense we deny the arctic ice is in fact in decline. If we must we can fall back to the middle line, that the decline although happening is nevertheless not caused by man. And finally if all else fails we can fall back and hold the final line - that a decline in arctic sea ice is a Good Thing.
Arctic Sea Ice Is Not In Decline
It is hard to deny that Arctic Sea Ice is in longterm decline. But we find ways to do it anyway. We must hold the line. I see far too many young deniers taking flight at the first sight of an enemy graph. Noone ever said denial was going to be easy. In times of doubt repeat to yourself the following Wise Words:
The ice isn't melting. The ice is recovering. It's healthier than ever. The arctic is jam packed with thick, multi-month, healthy looking, well fed ice. It's possibly so thick that it's affecting satellite readings which are confusing the thickening ice with a decline in extent.
When faced with enemy graphs, remember that if extent is dropping then clearly we are looking at the wrong metric. Perhaps we should look at volume instead, unless that is dropping too, in which case we should look at area. If all that fails take a look at extent again because it might have gone up again in the meantime. If not then we should look to regional ice trends or if push comes to shove abandon the arctic entirely and talk about Antarctica instead. This is not cherrypicking because we know there is a recovery it is only a matter of finding a metric that shows it.
The Arctic Sea Ice Decline Is Not Caused By Man
Now is not the time to fall back to this line of defense, but rest assured that it exists. If the time comes we can fall back to this second line of defense, waiting patiently to advance back to the first line of defense at the first sign of the promised Recovery. The first step to denying a decline is caused by man is to suggest other reasons. Could it be wind, the aurora borealis, earthquakes or mystical natural cycles? If that fails and it becomes apparent that the decline is due to rising temperature we can claim the temperature rise is due to the Sun or cosmic rays.
A Decline In Arctic Sea Ice Is A Good Thing
An ice beast posturing in a typically threatening manner
Ice is man's second worst enemy after taxes. Ice is fanatically cold to the touch and walked upon by fearsome beasts. It obstructs the economy by haphazardly getting in the way of oil extraction and shipping. Neither is ice unfamiliar with human tragedy. In 1912 a rogue iceberg in the mid Atlantic was ultimately responsible for the suffering of audiences around the world to one of the worst movies ever made. Noone in their right mind should care ice disappears. It would be a good thing if humans were melting arctic sea ice. If God wanted ice why did he invent the Sun? The real reason alarmists don't want the ice to disappear is probably because they are part of a secret ice worshiping cult.
Wednesday, 2 June 2010
The paper, ‘Rocks Can Fly’ is a cogently-argued scientific refutation of the basic equations used by flight theorists. Apparently, rocket scientists may have incorrectly assumed the forces acting on rockets all along.
The study questions the numeric bedrock of the theory of flight by applying data collected by NASA decades ago. It seems during the Apollo Moon landings era NASA devised a whole new set of hitherto unreported equations, more reliable than those relied upon by supporters of the theory of flight, to get Neil Armstrong's carbon boot prints safely planted on that airless Sea of Tranquility.
The paper is co-authored by Martin Hertzberg, PhD, Consultant in Science and Technology, Alan Siddons, a former radiochemist and Hans Schreuder, a retired analytical chemist. The researchers had the bright idea of delving back into NASA’s archives to test the "Newton law of Gravitation" equations in fine detail. The three men stumbled on the apparent flaws during an online debate on the science behind the theory of flight.
Published online on May 24, 2010, the study argues that the flaw has always lain in Newton's equations. The long-trusted formula has been used by rocket scientists without question - until now. The researchers report that the numbers used in those equations are the “first assumption that rocket science makes when predicting the flight of a rocket.”
NASA Abandoned Flawed Gravity Calculations in 1960’s
To theory of flight sceptic scientists it seems self-evident that rockets should not be treated like a point mass. It is more properly a complex spinning structure with large variability in air resistance and thrust. But, despite the U.S. government knowing since the 1960's that the graviational equations were of no use to real-world science, these facts don't appear to have been passed on to rocket scientists.
Rocket Flight Paths Cast Doubt on Gravitational Theory
NASA had found that the flight path of rockets was different than expected because rockets are propelled with thrust rather than only being affected by gravity - an empirical fact that challenges the theory of flight. Computer models supporting flight theory had predicted that rockets would fall out of the sky.
In fact, the Apollo data proves that rockets can fly in paths not predicted by the gravitational equations because the rockets also have thrust.
Thus the success of NASA’s moon landings becomes evidence against the unreliability of gravitation equations in real world science.
Newton Law Of Gravitation Calculations Way Out
The paper tells us how far out Newton's Law Of Gravitation equation could be, “the path of the real rocket is completely different than that predicted by the force of gravity alone. The rocket flies while Newton's Law of Gravitation says it should just fall to the ground!"
But it isn’t just NASA Rockets that don't support the GHG theory. Rockets belonging to other space agencies don’t conform either. As the paper tells us, “The rockets of every country in the world also fly higher than predicted” The three scientists pointedly ask, “Is it any surprise, then, that even a relatively simple body like the biplane would refuse to conform to such a method?”
Other scientists have also come out to refute the theory of flight. Some even go as far as to say the theory actually contravenes the established laws of physics.
NASA Rockets Do Not Fly “Unusually” High
The paper concludes that NASA Rockets do not fly “unusually” high. It is the application of the predictive Newtonian gravitation equation that is faulty and overly simplistic and should not be applied in a real-world context. The proven ability of common substances ( e.g. paper when folded) to glide in defiance of gravity makes all such gravitational estimates questionable.
Are Gravitational Equations Mere Junk Science?
Some may be, if this analysis of NASA’s Apollo numbers is correct. Newton's Law of Gravitation failed to give NASA the crucial information it required on rocket flight paths. Thus, NASA scientists had to create their own model to chart the flight path of the rockets astronauts took to the moon.
Along with the Flightgate revelations, these new findings contradict the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), which has placed enormous reliance on predictions based on research around flight theory that has now been called into question. Even some International Civil Aviation Organization members have denounced the theory....can't remember which ones.
Monday, 17 May 2010
Global warming is blamed for everything. Too warm? global warming. Too hot? Global warming. So it was only a matter of time until some "scientists" blamed global warming for killing lizards. Here is the start of the press release:
For many lizards, global climate change is a matter of life and death. After decades of surveying Sceloporus lizard populations in Mexico, an international research team has found that rising temperatures have driven 12 percent of the country's lizard populations to extinction. An extinction model based on this discovery also forecasts a grim future for these ecologically important critters, predicting that a full 20 percent of all lizard species could be extinct by the year 2080.
The first step of reading a Press Release is to check the photos. Unfortunately in this case the photo doesn't look photoshopped so we can't deny the science out of hand on this occassion.
Next read the press release carefully. Everything we need to deny can be found in the press release - don't waste time tracking down the "journal reference", that's just some notes or something. Examine every sentence of the press release very carefully for problems.
Okay the first thing we can exploit is how much this all cost. They say they spent decades surveying a lizard in Mexico. That must have cost a lot. Who paid for it? No doubt it was the taxpayer. Is there even a stationary audit? FOIA anyone? Immediately I am very much opposed to this press release.
Then there is evidence that this "international research team" is far from objective. For example they seem to know way too much about lizards for their own good. It's a vested interest. I would have been far more convinced if it was a team of international car mechanics who reached the same conclusion without knowing a thing about lizards.
Also note this is a Research Team, so yep that means team science. Social networks anyone?
The Team admit to using an extinction model. I've never heard of such nonsense. So now GIGO computers are used to predict extinctions? Computers can only say what they are told by the tape operator. I know this for a fact. So one of the Team must have fed in a line of code like:
IF LIZARD THEN KILL LIZARD
Then they ran the program in a LOOP until all the lizards were dead. Then they blame it on global warming. I should be shocked at such shenanigans, but this kind of postnormal science is sadly all too common these days in climate "science".
The press release also uses the phrase "a grim future", blatant Alarmism. Who decides whether a world with less reptiles is more grim? What's the optimum level of grimness? Perhaps less lizards would be better? In fact YES it would be better with less lizards. Notice that the Team try to convince us the lizards are friendly by calling them "critters" rather than the cold blooded bastards we all know they are. The Team use a trick to hide a little known fact about the origins of the word Dinosaur (the trick is called omission). In Greek dinosaur means Terrible Lizard.
Dinosaurs - Terrible Lizards, Terrible Dangers
So naturally we come to Jurrassic Park. One of the key lessons Jurassic Park taught us was that dinosaurs are notorious killers. They gang up, chase after cars and have even learned to open doors. Certainly we do not want them returning. A future with less dinosaurs will be far from grim.
How many dinosaurs exist today? If you exclude alligators and Reptilians then there are probably none. But remember a key lesson from Jurassic Park was that Life Will Find A Way. There are things about Intelligent Design that science doesn't yet understand and it's just possible that a pair of Sceloporus lizards in Mexico could breed and produce a proto-tyrannosaurus (or worse - one of the key lessons from Jurrassic Park is that there are as many bigger and better dinosaurs as you can make sequels of a movie. It's best not to tempt fate).
You might argue that the little ones don't matter, so lets keep the little ones for our amusement and just kill the big ones. Wrong! That's a logical phallusy called the Slippery Slope. If we tolerate the regular little lizards then we'll end up legitimizing the kinda-medium lizards and before we know it a whole herd of of fully blown T-Rex will appear from left of field. And then it will be too late. It'll be Jurassic Park I, II and III all over again, possibly combined with Mad Max if the oil runs out at the same time.
So even if carbon dioxide DID cause warming, that's a good thing as it will prevent the return of the dinosaurs. I checked and SkepticalScience.com doesn't have any response to this argument so I feel I am onto something.
My interpretation. My facts. This is the kind of stuff money can't buy unless it's funnelled through a network of think-tanks.
Sunday, 9 May 2010
This is definitely going into the Blog Science 2010 Report For Policymakers (A stunning glossy PDF to be published this December)
The Baron points out that "This simple graph disproves two of the most egregarious lies of the IPCC cabal: (1) it is getting warmer and (2) the warming is due to CO2. There is clearly no correlation between temperature and CO2! The increase in CO2 is instead caused by the medieval warming period: as we know from the ice cores, CO2 lags 800 years behind temperature. Using the current CO2 levels as a proxy for past temperatures, we can also conclude that it was about 100 degrees warmer 800 years ago"
Read the full post with more information here: Correlation - what correlation?. This idea is very Not The IPCC so I just wanted to help it permeate the Internet.
Note that Baron von Monckhofen's findings tie in with previous Blog Science Research from DenialDepot:
CO2 levels may have been over 2000ppm in 1200AD
I figure that linking to other people's posts is a good way of amplifying the noise and increasing my own post count with little work on my own part. It's also not my fault if it's wrong. I guess I could even start posting News Articles verbatim, adding just one original sentence with my interpretation of what it all means. My post count should go through the roof if I do that. Which is surely just what the World needs and will reinforce the status of this blog as the #1 Blog Science Blog Of the Millennium.
I am a bit of an expert on the subject of planet Venus. I can tell you all about orbits and diameters and other science physics. I recently got to prove this when I was invited to debate the subject of climate change on a local radio station.
My tactic was to throw out as many arguments as quickly as possible. At one point I clocked 27apm (arguments per minute). This devastated my opponent who only had time to cross-examine one of my arguments about Venus, so naturally I won the debate. Unfortunately the powers that be got wind of my victory and made sure the interview was never broadcast, but here is the relevant part of the transcript for educational purposes. The other guy's questions are in bold.
You've made a whole load of arguments there but I will pick up on one subject I am familiar with - what did you mean when you said "Venus is a con"?
It's a big fat con, the planet Venus reflects so much sunlight that it should be freezing. Instead it's really about 800 degrees F. For centuries so-called "climate scientists" have been coming up with all sorts of wacky explanations for Venus being so hot. Typically climate scientists take drugs to come up with their ideas. One of these "ideas" is called the greenhouse effect. They claim Venus is so hot because of greenhouse gases.
(pointless arguments about whether climate scientists do or do not take drugs removed)
I discovered climate scientists didn't have a clue. It's all just group think. I found the actual reason for Venus being so hot and it isn't anything to do with greenhouse gases.
So you are saying the greenhouse effect doesn't have any effect on Venus?
I never claimed that! The greenhouse effect perhaps causes as much as a few degrees F of the 800F on Venus. I believe that's sufficiently low to prevent tax rises and that's all that matters.
So how do you explain the bulk of the warming on Venus?
Venus has a thick atmosphere and therefore, like my blog schedule, it has a lot of pressure. Pressure leads to stress, stress leads to things getting hot under the collar. On Venus things are about 800F under the collar. In technical physics speak, air gets very hot when it is squashed together. If ever you travel to the arctic be sure to carry a canister of squashed air to provide yourself with a permanent heat source.
So you are saying a planet can be warmed indefinitely with a high pressure atmosphere?
I didn't make that specific claim, stop putting words in my mouth!
The thing you are missing and scientists are missing is that there is a thing called a lapse rate. As you travel upwards it gets colder. So clearly temperature is determined by height, not "greenhouse gases" or "sunlight". That's why hospitals should put patients with hypothermia in the basement.
But you said it was pressure now you are saying it is height!
Yes I did, I am saying both and at the same time saying neither. If you pick one I will say the other. The only thing I am saying for sure is that it's not the greenhouse effect. That's the main point, the rest of the stuff is just loose justification. Stop going on about it. You are missing the main point which is that it's definitely not the greenhouse effect! Not the IPCC!
But where are you proposing the additional heat comes from? Even if all incoming sunlight is absorbed how do you get a temperature warmer than a blackbody without greenhouse gases reducing outgoing radiation?
Pressure and height! It's obvious! My Theory of Height predicts that the center of the Earth will be very hot. It is! Your greenhouse gas theory doesn't predict the center of the Earth will be hot. Therefore I am right and you are wrong! This is good old fashioned observational science from yesteryear! Admit your science is a lie! Admit it!
None of that makes sense, it's
simplistic and if it
was remotely true scientists would have already noted it.
No! they suffer from Group Think! Lying fraud group think! Also they arrogantly don't realize they are all wrong and I am right! Just admit it! Can't you just admit it and confess?!
(the host ended the debate at this point, apparently because I was "shouting and thumping the desk", but I suspect the station receives some form of state funding and he was just worried the truth I spoke might jeopardize it)
Sunday, 2 May 2010
We all know that arctic sea ice decline and global temperature rise peaked years ago and have now stopped, effectively falsifying manmade global warming.
A little overlooked variable of climate has also peaked in defiance of so-called "scientists". IPCC climate models predict that solar output should follow an 11 year cycle. According to this "theory", solar activity should now be rising. And at first, probably by fluke, it appeared that was so. But now there's just one problem: The solar cycle hasn't increased for 3 months.
That's right, as the above image shows, solar output peaked in February (marked with a blue circle) and since then has fallen or at best has been flat. It would appear the sun has returned to normal levels. How can the 11 year cycle theory explain this? Solar activity should be increasing, not going flat for three months.
Real science abandons a theory when observations disagree. The observations now disagree with the 11 year solar cycle, so all books claiming there is an 11 year solar cycle should be immediately burnt and the models thrown in the dustbin of history. That's how science should work.
But thanks to the corruption of science by Al Gore, the "solar cycle" theory of the Sun is guaranteed to be kept alive on a wave of grant funding and IPCC meal tickets. If challenged the alarmists will probably resort to typical excuses about short term variation over long term trends just as they do for global temperature and arctic sea ice.
But ask the alarmists this - just what observation would falsify the 11 year solar cycle theory of the sun? How long do we have to go with no increase in solar output until they admit the 11 year solar cycle is a fraud? If nothing can falsify it, it isn't science!
See also the following image of orbit adjusted solar flux and sunspot count. All metrics show a peak in solar output occurred in February and there has been a decline since then. This is completely opposite of what I would expect from my idea of the theory. The 11 year cycle theory of the Sun is evidentially falsified.
Click for larger image. Source: http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-SORCE-2008-now.png
Saturday, 1 May 2010
Blog Scientists have been busy making rules that climate scientists should abide by. One of the as yet unchecked auditables of climate science is the stationary scientists use.
Why should this matter? Well, for example a pencil with insufficient nib circumference can lead to overtly thick lines being drawn, which may in turn lead to hard to interpret graphs, leading to mistakes and even the very corruption of science itself.
As another example, a biro may be half exhausted, merely scratching at the paper rather than leaving it's telltale clear and distinctive mark. Such scratches may be misinterpreted as actual data points.
So improper maintenance of stationary is a concern. For this reason I have compiled my own industry strength Principles of Stationary. In the post below I will outline these principles and then apply them to a random field of science to see if that particular field of science passes the test. I was surprised and very concerned to find that the randomly chosen field, climate science, fails abysmally to pass my Principles of Stationary. I won't bother applying the principle to other fields of science as I am sure they will pass.
Lead and Graphite Marking Instruments (pencils)
Above Image: traditional and modern methods of pencil manufacture (so obviously I know what I am talking about)
- Principle 1a: A pencil should be sharpened immediately before use and observed closely throughout the work process for signs of blunting.
- Principle 1b: If a break must be taken midst work (undesirable), the pencil can not be assumed to have maintained the same sharpness on return.
Ink devices (pens)
They say that pens are mightier than swords. This is no joke. Special attention should be made when wielding a pen and careful maintenance is essential.
- Principle 2a: Before use, pens should be dismantled and cleaned using light fabric and weak solvents. Reassemble the device with caution.
Ink cartridges and ink wells must be treated with special care. The potential for ink spills is always high.
- Principle 3a: Before any ink refill cover all surfaces in the vicinity with water proof coverings.
- Principle 3b: Never use red ink when compiling maps of temperature.
Linear Measurement Instrumentals (rulers)
Rulers are especially dangerous as they can cause false trends.
- Principle 4a: All rulers must be carefully analyzed under a microscope before use to ensure they are perfectly linear..
To ensure compliance with the Principles of Stationary scientists must assign identification codes to all individual units of stationary. A record sheet must be maintained and updated whenever a stationary instrument is utilized. Each record must contain:
- The identification code of the utilized stationary item
- The date and time the item was utilized
- The intended use of the item
- Details of the measurements taken (nib width, ink levels, etc)
- The stationary used to update the record sheet must also be recorded in the record sheet.
Failure to undertake any of the necessary compliance criteria will result in the underlying science being discredited and any theories in the field of science will become void.
Applying the principles to climate science
I was shocked to find that Climate Science fails all points of my principles. On all points they have either not applied my principles or have neglected to provide sufficient documentation. Therefore Not the IPCC.
A random paper I surveyed, Mann et al 1999, did not contain a Stationary Record Sheet! For this reason Mann does not received a Principles of Stationary compliance certificate from myself. Neither has anyone in IPCC headquarters contacted me about this. This is sheer negligence. Dangerous negligence.
Once Cuccinelli has finished having his go, I recommend that we next go after Micheal Mann's stationary. All pens and pencils that he's ever touched should be placed carefully into clear bags for CSI style analysis. We mustn't falter from inventing new ways of keeping alive the idea that Micheal Mann is hiding something.
Then this morning over breakfast an article in the local paper caught my eye and caused me great concern.
"Mild weather to continue into next week"
Could it be? The title was indeed very alarmist. Had man-made global warming escaped it's coffin of infinite nails to once again threaten the free world?
I fled to the box room and dusted off the computer, flipping the switch for the first time in two months. When I peered into the internet my worst fears were confirmed. Realclimate still existed. Running Rabett and Wikipedia Stoat were still at large.
So was I wrong to think manmade global warming was dead? No, so far I have never been wrong and it would be odd if that had changed. Anyway I was there. I saw the smoking guns. I read the emails. Even Harry who wrote all the IPCC climate models admitted they are all bogus. It is clear that AGW has risen from the dead. That's how I explain it. I just have to keep going with more nails. But how do you kill something that is already dead?
A Daily Mail Blog reports that Virginia’s Republican attorney general, Ken Cuccinelli, has made his move toward a Climategate lawsuit by demanding that the University of Virginia turn over documents related to Michael Mann.
DailyMail: Going after the Mann
I left a comment on the blog which has now passed moderation.
This is good news, but doesn’t go far enough.
We need to demand that *all* so-called “universities” the world over hand over *all* data and emails that has ever passed by so-called “scientists”. I am sure that in decades of research and data there will be something we can use to convince the public that science is corrupted by liberal bias and needs to be reformed.
The first step will be to abolish so-called “peer review” and “peer reviewed journals”, which are corrupt and elitist. Even scientists admit peer review is flawed. All science should be done on blogs. And anyone should be able to contribute, no matter their level of expertize or PHds (”expert” is a term of elitist discrimination). Let the public decide what science they like and what science is wrong. Blog Science is freedom of science.
There is only one caveat to freedom of science however. To prevent the likes of the manmade global warming myth from ever occuring again we must make sure that anyone who proposes a theory that can potentially harm the economy or usher in UN world government should be immediately fired and charged with criminal offenses. A cross party political body in every university should be in charge of detecting and blocking funding of any such potentially subversive research.
The age of the “intellectual elite” is over. Now is the age of Blog Science. It’s time we went back to science of the 20s and 30s where every Bob in the street had a good idea of what was right and proper and scientific. Afterall anyone can spot if an aircraft can fly or not.
In the meantime another nail just in:
Melting icebergs cause sea levels to rise by the width of just a human hair every year
It's the Daily Mail so I think they know what they are talking about.
Tuesday, 2 March 2010
I regret to inform you that I have withdrawn my support for your continuing role as chairman of the IPCC. Please resign your chairmanship immediately after reading this message. You may take the rest of the day off.
It was thanks to our help that you became chairman of the IPCC in the first place. We've never trusted the IPCC and the previous IPCC chairman, Dr Watson, was one of those so-called "Climate Scientists". So we had him ousted. We certainly didn't want a "scientist" chairing the IPCC - too close to the "science" you see and therefore too dependent on grant money.
No what we needed was someone with industry links who could make money the good old fashioned way. So we picked you, in light of your industrial links and your qualifications in Economics and Railway Engineering (at a time when trains correctly bellowed co2!). To seal the deal, your directorship of an energy and environment research institute made you a relevant candidate for the position.
Remember? No? Perhaps you don't recall how you became chair of the IPCC? It's hard to deny when it's in print in a 2002 NYT article:
Auto manufacturers and oil companies have long seen Dr. Watson as a foe, and their lobbyists have said that Dr. Pachauri, who has worked with industry in the past, was clearly preferable.
If only you had remembered who put you there. Too late. You've overstepped the mark with your continued insistence that human activity is warming the climate. I guess reading too many IPCC reports made you go all "sciencey".
How quick you forgot the industry symposiums on co2-is-life! And you are a railway engineer? What are you doing chairing the IPCC if you are a railway engineer? It should be a climate scientist in charge - no wonder we don't trust the IPCC if it's being chaired by a railway engineer.
And we hear you are a director of an energy and environment research institute? That you have links to industry? I suppose you stand to benefit financially from all this? So you are not only unqualified to head the IPCC, but possibly in the pocket of industry too?! This is a scandal! How can the IPCC be so corrupt?
Then to top it off I just heard you wrote a book?!
Just stop. Stop now. Last month I believed in manmade global warming. I trusted science. I thought climate science was the best. But thanks to your activities I no longer trust the IPCC or climate science. I can only hope in a very sincere way that somehow the good name of science will survive.
With a tear in my eye,
Chief Climate Scientist and Chairman of the DenialDepot Climate Science Blog
P.S. don't steal the pens when you leave
Thursday, 18 February 2010
Malicious bullets fired by the global warmists’ guns
In response to accusations he had misquoted John Houghton, Piers Akerman did the right thing and made a call to International Rescue. It worked:
"Unfortunately for The Independent, Crikey and the ABC, my call to international scientists has borne fruit.
Yesterday I was forwarded an article published in The Sunday Telegraph (UK) on September 10, 1995, in which Houghton told writer Frances Welch: “If we want a good environmental policy in the future we’ll have to have a disaster.”"
This is indeed unfortunate for the Independent. It's tragic in fact. Here we have a different quote with different meaning to the one Houghton never made. But if we really want to - if we close our eyes and really wish - we can imagine that perhaps the misquote was just a paraphrase of this quote. A slight paraphrase in fact.
"How that remark came to be slightly paraphrased in the quotation sent to me we shall probably never know. It’s possible that someone, somewhere in cyberspace tidied up Houghton’s original remark before including it in the material which was sent to me. That sort of thing occurs in the blogosphere."
Akerman gives the blogosphere the credit it deserves, but strangely he claims we will never know how the quotation was paraphrased. If he consulted a Blog Scientist such as myself he could have found out.
The Blog Science technique of "tidying up" quotes - an example
Take what John Houghton actually said in 1995:
"If we want a good environmental policy in the future we’ll have to have a disaster. It’s like safety on public transport. The only way humans will act is if there’s been an accident."
This is quite boring. He's claiming humans won't act until it's too late. We could indeed paraphrase him as saying such. But that's not blog science. That's just telling people what John Houghton said, which would be alarmist. No we need to tidy up his words before we can discredit him and the science. Let me tidy up his words a bit so that it sounds like Houghton is advocating lying:
"Unless we announce disasters no one will listen"
There we go. Now it's blog post material.
True to form, The Independent ran Connor’s story which said I had not responded to his queries and, just as reliably, two left-leaning Australian organisations eagerly followed, convinced that they could discredit first me and, more generally, the convincing argument against global warming theorists.
So Conner misquoted Akerman. Typical! Misquoting people is a grave journalistic malpractice. But in Conner's defense perhaps he had simply tidied up Ackerman's words and was just slightly paraphrasing Ackerman.
Even worse we find out that other media outlets eagerly parroted the Independent's story! And it was all done to discredit an individual and discredit scientific arguments! I am glad us skeptics never stoop to such low practices.
Connor was playing ambush journalism and Houghton had never and still has not contacted me.
Ambush journalism? How typical! Fortunately Ackerman knows Ambush Journalism when he see's it. Skeptics would never resort to such a thing.
Houghton hasn't contacted Akerman which technically means he wasn't misquoted and Akerman is off the hook. I mean if you were egregiously misquoted and smeared by a journalist, wouldn't you be just dying to have a phone conversation with them? In journalism if you can misquote someone without them finding out, that's fine.
The ABC’s MediaWatch was next with a piece in which The Independent’s claim it had received no response from me was repeated.
That was patently false but then The Independent was not interested in accuracy. It was interested in discrediting me
Indeed and accuracy is of course very important. Journalists shouldn't be allowed to get away with patently false claims. Akerman is on the ball here.
his agenda was clearly to discredit the messenger (me) and, through that, strike a blow for the warmists, those who have been distorting and withholding data, manipulating scientific evidence and falsifying reports.
Discrediting messengers is bad, yet that is just the kind of behavior that mad "scientist" James Hansen would resort to.
The little Crikey website had a defamatory reference to The Independent and me, clearly unsupported by any research.
Defamatory statements? Statements unsupported by any research? Who would ever print such things? Certainly not Ackerman. Only those bastard warmist rags.
As it happens however, Houghton has made numerous remarks about catastrophic events that would flow from global warming, all of them now found to be baseless, and there is every likelihood that he wishes he never made them. When I read the material on Houghton sent to me, I believed it because it was entirely at one with the quote he gave The Guardian when he equated global warming with WMD in a piece it published on July 28, 2003.
We know what Houghton thinks so we should be allowed to put words in his mouth.
If The Independent, Crikey and the ABC had done some research they would have found the remark ascribed to Houghton which I was given was so little different to what was published 11 years earlier as to make their claims totally misplaced and devoid of anything but malice.
Ackerman is right. Journalists really should research quotes before publishing them.
Tuesday, 16 February 2010
"I urge Sir John Houghton, the Independent, and all those blogs to apologize to Benny Peiser whose quote was inaccurate in its wording but certainly not in the content."
All I can say is PHEW! At Denial Depot we've been up late the last couple of nights in a kind of panic situation as the John Houghton incident (not a scandal, definitely not a gate) developed. We recognized immediately that the incident was nothing but a commie plot to embarrass the Dear Leader, The Honorable Sir Lord Monckton who had prominently displayed the quote in question on one of his famous lecture slides:
The incident was sparked when Sir John Houghton, former head of the IPCC, decided to haphazardly deny he ever uttered the quote attribued to him, "Unless we announce disasters, noone will listen"
Then to make matters worse an IPCC cheerleading backwater gossip rag had the audacity to publish the headline Fabricated quote used to discredit climate scientist.
So we were frantically trying to figure out a response - a way of spinning it back to make John Houghton the criminal again. As an early attempt we pointed out that skeptics had been citing the quote for years. Why had it taken John Houghton so long to raise an objection? Hasn't he been reading our blogs?
Next we planned to provide the original source and show them where John Houghton had said those words. Being skeptics we of course keep meticulous notes and have a thorough auditing system in place so we were confident that the quote was genuine and our ace journalists had the source. But something odd transpired, it turned out we had lost the notes. Not in a climategate crime-against-humanity way, just that we couldn't find the original source which we based our claims on. This isn't a big deal. Mistakes happen. And anyway it's just one error in such a lot of slides. It happens. Sometimes you lose things. Sometimes you make mistakes. Move on is what us skeptics say. I don't see the big deal anyway, we are only smearing the reputation of a scientist by accusing him saying something that amounts to dishonesty. Ok the quote happens to not have been made by him at all. Is that really a big deal?
We were aghast at the possibility that we would have to apologize. Apologize? No way! We're not apologizing to some commie new world order. In flies Lubo on his white horse and shining armor to save the day and craftily spin the story back onto John Houghton. The answer was simple: Just call him a liar.
So our story now is, OK, John Houghton didn't make the claim "Unless we announce disasters, noone will listen". But he could have done. In some alternate reality he could of said that. And look in our own reality he has said other stuff OK? And now we think about it, we could have quoted that other stuff instead. Yea. But by chance we quoted the false quote, just a coincidence. But the other stuff is just as good OK? And that alone means we shouldn't need to apologize. Oh and it also means that logically John Houghton is a liar.
Look what John Houghton did say. Look at the scandal that Lubos has uncovered:
"If we want a good environmental policy in the future, we'll have to have a disaster. It's like safety on public transport, The only way humans will act is if there's been an accident."
It sounds very much like he's justifying the London terrorist attacks in 2005. So next headline for Lubos:
John Houghton is an Al Qaeda terrorist
And that's the memo.
Saturday, 13 February 2010
When I discovered that in fact he was to debate a warmist blogger I immediately shot off a series of emails to The Honorable Sir Lord Viscount Monckton's head servant. I instructed him to proceed to the Keep immediately and inform the Lord that it was nothing more than a trap.
There is nothing to be gained from debating a warmist blogger I told him. You'll only lend them credibility. You are a climate scientist after all, a royal one at that, you should surely be seeking out Al Gore or James Hansen. I received no reply of course. The Honorable Sir Lord Monckton will reply if he wishes to.
I watched the debate online using my computer. I had expected a long drawn out affair. So imagine my surprise when The Honorable Sir Lord Viscount Monckton won the debate almost immediately by raising the point that the world renowned skeptical scientist, Dr R. T. Pinker, had in fact already proved that manmade global warming is a fraud and had done so before the debate had even started.
Tim Lambert was left flailing for a response. In desperation he resorted to mere ad hominem, playing a recording of a womans voice to paint Dr Pinker, the world renowned skeptical scientist, as a mere woman. Most of the audience, like myself, gasped at the sheer sexism inherent in this. Some of the girls in the audience even fainted.
In my frankly unbiased view, The Honorable Sir Lord Monckton can be considered to have won the debate simply because of this turn of events and that his little pictures of crowns are better than James Hansen's little pictures of crowns.
Tuesday, 26 January 2010
Image: University of Texas - click for related story (I hope this gets me out of using their bandwidth)
Someone called Mosher has written a dreadful WhatsUpWithIt article. I never realized you could use hacking in the context of 'hacking a deadline'!
Sorry for the snark but the WhatsUpWithIt blog steals so many of my commenter's that I sometimes get very jealous and critical of it!
Tuesday, 19 January 2010
Some people say the Internet is a cesspool of jumped up idiots publishing their idiotic ideas for other idiots to read. Not me. I think the Internet supersedes traditional sources of knowledge. For example why learn Climatology from a college when you can learn the most important fact online from Oregon Petition signer and Independent Scientist Gary Novak at nov55.com?
Here is the most important fact about climatology science: There is a massive amount of randomness in the complexities of climate, and the randomness multiplies for each interacting factor. There is no higher knowlege that turns randomness into a measurement or calculation. For this reason, all but the simplest measurements or calculations in climatology are a fraud. The fakery of pretending to reduce any question to analysis with a number is charlatanism.
Become the tortoise, not the hare by learning this most important fact about climatology science (not to be confused with climate science which has an even worse reputation). There is a massive amount of randomness, not only in climate but even in the very complexities of climate.
That randomness alone has a large mass - I don't know how much, Gary fortunately doesn't bother wasting time quantifying things. I imagine it's possibly the kind of mass that can collapse stars. But it doesn't end there. That mass of randomness multiplies you see - for each interacting factor, until it's so massive that it can probably collapse an entire galaxy of stars.
There is no higher knowledge that can turn randomness into a measurement, or even a calculation. Think of a dice - how could a higher knowledge possibly measure the result of a series of dice throws, let alone calculate anything about the behavior? This is why as Einstein proved, God never plays with dice - he just cannot be bothered wasting his time on such a random activity.
And so in conclusion, that's why climate science is a fraud.
Gary can teach you today about "The infinite complexities of science". Are you aware of the 41% and 30% Fraud? If you keep reading you will be.
The 41% Fraud
"Supposedly, the surface of the earth gives off its energy as 41% radiation and the rest as conduction and evaporation. 41% is about how much radiation an incandescent light bulb gives off at 3,000°C, not what a cold basement gives off at 15°C. A fraudulent Stephan-Boltzmann constant rationalizes the over-emission of radiation."
These are all good points. If anyone asks you how much radiation a 3000C lightbulb gives off, the answer of course is 41%, just before it melts. A cold basement perhaps gives off only 4% or even as little as $2. I am not surprised to discover that the Stephan-Boltzmann constant is fraudulent. I think James Hansen used that constant once in the 1980s to justify more funding.
"Normal temperature matter gives off almost no radiation. Yet NASA claims it gives off 41% as much radiation as strikes the earth from the sun."
Here we see correct use of the three state temperature scale, Cold-Normal-Hot, rather than the elitist "Kelvin" scale or the European Socialist Centigrade scale. It is well known that Normal temperature matter gives off almost no radiation, where "almost no" means "some" or "a bit of" or $0.02
The 30% Fraud
"Ice core measurements supposedly show a 30% increase in CO2 in the atmosphere over the past 150. Ice core measurements of CO2 are junk science to a point of fraud, and they conflict with direct measurements."
Now you know ice core measurements of CO2 are junk science. Completely junk science. The only thing they definitely tell us is that co2 follows temperature, not the other-way around.
There is a lot you can learn about climate science from Gary and the other 32,000 Oregon Petition signers thanks to the Internet. Maybe one day you will even become an Independent Scientist yourself. And if you still believe in manmade global warming after you finish reading the internet? Well as Independent Scientist Gene Ray would say, the problem is "you've been educated stupid"
Friday, 15 January 2010
International Journal of Climatology, Volume 4, Issue 4, pp 399-409, July 1984
Sherwood B. Idso
An analysis of northern, low and southern latitude temperature trends of the past century, along with available atmospheric CO2 concentration and industrial carbon production data, suggests that the true climatic effect of increasing the CO2 content of the atmosphere may be to cool the Earth and not warm it, contrary to most past analyses of this phenomenon. A physical mechanism is thus proposed to explain how CO2 may act as an inverse greenhouse gas in Earth's atmosphere. However, a negative feedback mechanism related to a lowering of the planet's mean surface albedo, due to the migration of more mesic-adapted vegetation onto arid and semi-arid lands as a result of the increased water use efficiency which most plants experience under high levels of atmospheric CO2, acts to counter this inverse greenhouse effect. Quantitative estimates of the magnitudes of both phenomena are made, and it is shown that they are probably compensatory. This finding suggests that we will not suffer any great climatic catastrophe but will instead reap great agricultural benefits from the rapid increase in atmospheric CO2 which we are currently experiencing and which is projected to continue for perhaps another century or two into the future
Back in 1984 we were arguing that rising co2 might cause cooling. Why aren't we still arguing that? I hate the way we seem to have watered down our arguments over the years.
We used to claim the world hadn't warmed. Then for some reason we started saying it had, but that the troposphere hadn't. Then for some reason we started saying okay it has, but that the tropical troposphere hasn't warmed enough.
I for one will continue using any arguments I can get away with.
Wednesday, 13 January 2010
|Image adapted from global weekly anomaly map published by Japanese Meteorological Agency |
Using my technical skills I have extracted a cooling signal from the Japanese Meteorological Agency data. Witness the proof of the coming Ice Age.
Also in Blog News this week:
A previously no good IPCC bastard of a scientist turned overnight into a internationally renowned nobel prize winning scientist by denouncing manmade global warming as false, fraudulent and a lying lie of a religion. I paraphrase slightly. Dr Professor Lord Mojib Latif also predicted an ice age would hit us within hours, much to the dismay of warmists! His change of stance appears to be a direct result of ClimateGate. You won't hear any of this in the so-called "reputable" media.
More and More scientists are becoming "deniers" with each passing hour. Within weeks there will only be Gavin and Michael Mann left and they will be wandering about their vacant ivory tower trying to figure out where everyone has gone.
PS still no reply from Roy Spencer regarding my request for UAH source code.. Maybe I should resend.
Saturday, 9 January 2010
Carbon Dioxide and Global Temperature: What the Data Show
Journal of Environmental Quality, Volume 12, Number 2, pp. 159-163, 1983
Sherwood B. Idso
"Analyses of data from a number of sources indicate that (i) there was a gradual increase in global atmospheric CO2 concentration from about 1860 to 1945, (ii) there has been a much more rapid rate of increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration from 1945 to the present, (iii) the most recent trend of global surface air temperature during this period of rapid CO2 increase has been downwards, which is in contradiction to the predictions of the most sophisticated general circulational models of the atmosphere in use today, (iv) this downward trend in surface air temperature has been most pronounced in northern latitudes, which is also in contrast to the model predictions, and (v) the downward temperature trend has been greater in summer than in winter, which is again in contradiction to the models. It is thus concluded that the theoretical numerical models of the atmosphere are grossly in error in their predictions of future CO2 effects on world climate, as is also suggested by several recent empirical studies. Consequently, since increasing global population requires more and more food, and since elevated CO2 concentrations have been documented to enhance crop productivity by increasing rates of photosynthesis, and water use efficiency by decreasing rates of transpiration, it is further concluded that increased levels of atmospheric CO2 may actually be beneficial to our future well-being."
Here are two shortened arguments from the paper. Arguments we made against manmade global warming in 1983:
1) Recent temperature trends contradict the model trends.
The temperature data show cooling, but the models predict warming! That means the models must be wrong and manmade global warming is a lie!
2) An increase of co2 will be beneficial. CO2 is life!
Just look at that. So the temperature records showed cooling in 1983 too, contradicting the models that expected warming. Looks like we are still making similar arguments today so we must be doing something right!