JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Archives

Is the Western Climate Establishment Corrupt? Part 6: The Hockey Stick

I know the Hockey Stick is old news to most blog readers here, but it’s easy to forget that the people reading the mainstream news (ie: most of the West) have no idea of the scale of the audacity involved. Up until the 1998 MBH paper came out, it was widely understood that there was a Medieval Warm Period, indeed there were hundreds of papers available at the time. The Hockey Stick Graph completely rewrote everything, yet was accepted and widely promoted without anyone so much as asking for the data… until, of course, McIntyre and McKitrick tried. It will do down in the annuals of science as one of the most egregious examples of “the not-so-scientific” method. — JoNova

The public might not understand the science, but they do understand cheating

Dr. David Evans

6 October 2010

[A series of articles reviewing the western climate establishment and the media. The first and second discussed air temperatures, the third discussed ocean temperatures, the fourth discussed past temperatures, the fifth compared the alleged cause (human CO2 emissions) with the alleged effect (temperatures).]

Click to download a pdf file containing the whole series

Why the Establishment Had to Manufacture the Hockey Stick

Norseman arriving in Iceland

Faced with the obvious disconnect between human CO2 emissions and temperature (Figures 21 and 22), the climate establishment either had to change its theory or change its data.

The establishment’s anti-scientific attitude that its theory triumphs over data was famously on display in the Climategate email where Kevin Trenberth, who believed (in 2008) that global warming was still occurring but was bemoaning that no one could find it using actual real-world measurements, said “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment, and it is a travesty that we can’t.”

They chose not to change their theory, so they had to change their data (thereby disqualifying themselves as scientists). Because the CO2 figures come from historical consumption data that are very hard to dispute, they had to change the temperature data instead.

“We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period”

They needed to move the start of the global warming trend from before 1700 to a time when human emissions were becoming significant compared to today’s level—to say 1910, which is also at a minimum in the warming-cooling pattern (figures 20 and 22).

And to make the current warming unprecedented, they needed the current temperature to be greater than anything in the last thousand years. In a rare insight or slip, one of the leading establishment climate scientists sent University of Oklahoma geoscientist David Deming an email in 1995 that said “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period”, according to a statement by Deming to a US Senate Committee.

By 2001 the climate establishment had radically changed its mind on what past temperatures were—it revised its version of the past from Figures 18 and 19 to:

Figure 23: The hockey stick graph by Michael Mann in 1998, so called because it has a long handle and a short upward blade, like an ice hockey stick. For the northern hemisphere. From the IPCC Third Assessment Report, 2001, page 134.

...

Michael Mann’s hockey stick graph is the most prominent and persuasive graph in the global warming debate. Most people who believe that man is responsible for global warming believe some version of the hockey stick. It was very widely publicized, and was even adopted by the IPCC for its logo (but later dropped).

Only the Climate Establishment Believes in the Hockey Stick

The hockey stick is widely discredited in scientific circles outside climate science (this has been done to death elsewhere, so we’ll just go big-picture here):

  • The statistical processing used by Mann puts a lot of weight on any hockey-stick shaped inputs and puts very low weights on temperature proxies with other shapes. Although Mann used a variety of temperature proxies as inputs, only the tree rings from bristlecone pines really counted. This way he can say “See, I used a wide variety of temperature proxies and they all contributed to the result”, while still getting the hockey-stick shape he wanted.
  • Bristlecone pines are problematic because that species is notorious for having a growth spurt in the twentieth century for reasons not directly connected to temperature. (Bristlecone pines live in dry regions and are very susceptible to CO2 fertilization and the CO2 drought resistance effect. They respond strongly to higher CO2 levels in the air, humidity levels, and to sunshine—but not to temperature. 1, 2. Also, see part 4 of this series on why tree rings make poor proxies.)
  • In 2006 the US Congress requested a committee of three independent statisticians, headed by eminent statistics professor Edward Wegman, to look into Mann’s hockey stick. From the findings:

“ In general, we found [Mann’s methods] to be somewhat obscure and incomplete* and the criticisms [by their main critics] to be valid and compelling.

… It is important to note the isolation of the paleoclimate community; even though they rely heavily on statistical methods they do not seem to be interacting with the statistical community.

… Moreover, the work has been sufficiently politicized that this community can hardly reassess their public positions without losing credibility.

Overall, our committee believes that Mann’s assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by his analysis.”

The climate establishment persists with putting forward similar temperature pictures. There are other, minor hockey sticks, similar graphs produced by climate-establishment scientists. The next most prominent is by Briffa, who refused to divulge his tree ring data for nine years (real scientists share their data). When finally revealed, his data showed that his hockey stick was based just on 10 trees in the Yamal peninsula of northern Russia, and relied almost entirely on one freak tree for the blade of the hockey stick—perhaps that special tree found a source of manure and had a growth spurt?

For more on the hockey stick shenanigans, for the more forensically inclined, see the Wegman and North Reports for Newbies.

Mann still defends his hockey stick, but gets comprehensively rubbished.

Why don’t the media inform us of the problems with the hockey stick picture, to counteract the earlier wide publicity it received?

* Scientists say “incomplete” as a polite way of saying “rubbish” or something earthier.

————————————————-

Summary | PART I | PART 2 | PART 3 | PART 4 | PART 5 | PART 6 | PART 7 | PART 8 | PART 9 | PART 10 | PART 11

Full PDF versions for printing and emailing are available from the summary page.


Hockey Stick Saga links

My short sharp wrap of the Hockey Stick story, with maps of all the empirical studies demonstrating the global nature of the MWP, and some of the statistical tricks that captures the effrontery:  Fraudulent hockey sticks and hidden data

The hot statisticians — McShane and Wyner 2010: Zombie Hockey stick dies again

The day the Briffa data was exposed as being based on one tree: Breaking news: Cherry Picking of Historic Proportions

The place with all the studies and the huge Medieval Warm Period Project (CO2Science.org)

–  Jo Nova

Image attribution: By Oscar Wergeland (1844–1910) from Wikimedia Commons

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 8.2/10 (5 votes cast)
Is the Western Climate Establishment Corrupt? Part 6: The Hockey Stick, 8.2 out of 10 based on 5 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/2cw54bt

89 comments to Is the Western Climate Establishment Corrupt? Part 6: The Hockey Stick

  • #
    pattoh

    Meanwhile, back in Aus, homogenization would appear to make older temps in the series go & more recent temps go up!

    Solar powered Air Conditioners anybody?

    00

  • #
    Adolf Balik

    Each one who knows basic of history must be literally offended by the Hockey stick. The thing is it denies virtually all what we know about our own countries history in Europe. E. g. names of months in Czech language that origin from medieval period are derived from seasonal phenomenon that occurred in the months during warmer climate then in 20th century. Then the Greens came with the hockey stick telling me to forget history of my continent and of the places where I live. They are telling us not to believe medieval chronicles of our homeland about cropping products which cannot grow here any more about birds that live in south Europe but not in Central Europe any more etc.

    00

  • #
    Adolf Balik

    To Pattoh 1:

    Maybe the homogenization should be renamed to hockeyization.
    Prague has the second longest continuous history of instrumental temperature measuring – Klementinum time series. For purposes of the “climatologic science” it was censored:
    http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/02/climate-czechgate-pragues-klementinum.html#praguetrends

    00

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    Totally off topic: From Bishop Hill.

    William Connolley has been topic banned by Wikipedia. Climate change is now off-limits for WC. http://bishophill.squarespace.com/

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Since when have such inconsequential things as history and evidence ever bothered the dishonest?

    They get away with it because so many people don’t know history or have a clue about what constitutes evidence (of anything, science or otherwise). Just watch our trolls going to impossible lengths to make a square peg fit in a round hole.

    00

  • #
    Roy Clark

    The important point, that may not be well understood is that the ‘hockey stick’ is still used to ‘calbrate’ the IPCC models to ‘predict’ global warming.
    The increase in CO2 concentration of 100 ppm has produced an increase in downward ‘clear sky’ atmospheric LWIR flux of about 1.7 W.m-2. This is a reasonabley good number that can be calculated using radiative transfer and the spectroscopic constants of CO2 from the HITRAN database. It is not directly ‘tainted’ by climate science.
    Next it is assumed, using the ‘hockey stick’, that the increase in ‘surface temperature’ produced by CO2 is 1 degree C. A ‘calibration’ or ‘radiative forcing constant’ for CO2 is then derived by dividing these two numbers. [1/1.7 = 0.67 C/W.m-2] This empirical ‘constant’ is then used to ‘predict’ the effect on ‘surface temperature’ of every other greenhouse gas and aerosol imaginable. The increase in downward LWIR flux is calculated using HITRAN or equivalent ‘respectable’ spectrscopic techniques. Then the flux is just multiplied by 0.67 to get the increase in ‘surface temperature’. No physics (or brain) is required. These ‘radiative forcing constants’ figure prominently in the IPCC AGW alarm scare tactics and are used directly in the IPCC climate prediction models. Yes that’s right the ‘hockey stick’ is used to predict the ‘hockey stick’ in an invalid circular argument. [Table SPM 2, page 4 in the 2007 IPCC policy maker's summary, and Table 2.2, page 141 in the main 2007 IPCC report]. Take a look at the NASA Goddard website: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/. Those with a strong stomach can also dig into the references. The Hansen 2005 ‘Efficacy of climate forcings’ in J. Geophys Res. is a good example. One must also ask ‘Why were these papers even published in the first place?’

    This website shows how the great global warming fraud was perpetrated and just how pervasive it is. It is just the hockey stick feeding back on itself.

    The whole global warming argument rests on one fraudulent number: 0.67 C/W.m-2.

    (There is more discussion at http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/what-surface-temperature-is-your-model-really-predicting-190.php.)

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Roy

    Great post! I never realised the IPCC used the hockey stick for anything more than a marketing tool and a scare tactic. Their use of circular argument and dodgey correlations shouldn’t have been a surprise, however.

    Is it possible to under-estimate these guys???

    Cheers,

    Speedy

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whaakaro

    Adolf Balik: #2

    They are telling us not to believe medieval chronicles of our homeland about cropping products which cannot grow here any more about birds that live in south Europe but not in Central Europe any more etc.

    Ah, but you see, the birds would still be living in Central Europe if is wasn’t for human intervention in the ecosystem. This is just more evidence that mankind is destroying the planet – and it is worse than we thought!

    O/T: I had the New Zealand Forest and Bird Society (known colloquially as “Twigs and Tweeters”) knock on my door yesterday to tell me I was destroying the planet.

    They should have consulted the local blacklist of people not to visit.

    00

  • #
    Lawrie

    We don’t need to go overseas to find apparent or real corruption. WE have seen examples of our great BoM fiddling the temp record to show warming. Now they want to prove by manipulation that the Murray- Darling is drying out. There are some illuminating graphs at:

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/why_did_the_bureau_remove_the_rain/

    These people are crooks and need to be prosecuted because their dodgy data is used as the basis for long range political decisions.

    00

  • #
    Lawrie

    All the best Jo for your appearance on QANDA. See if you can mention the money Tim Flannery makes out of the AGW scam.

    00

  • #
    janama

    wrong site Lawrie – you meant Jen.

    00

  • #
    Macha

    BOM and CSIRO have absolutely NO credibility left in the wake of the CAGW mongers. The dept’s have sold their soul for their portion of silver.

    its unfortunate for those unwitting beleivers in the lower ranks that are totally unware of their involvement in such a travesty being pushed onto our community.

    (boy.. this read like something Lionel would write).
    yeah?

    00

  • #
  • #
    mc

    lawrie @ 10, janama @ 11. is jo or jen? appearing on QANDA? if so i would be very greatfull if you could supply the details.i would love to see jo get a go on QANDA. cheers.

    00

  • #
    Ross

    This should be on the thread below about CO2 but

    http://www.suite101.com/content/royal-society-humiliated-by-global-warming-basic-math-error-a296746

    The Royal Society(UK) made to look like idiots again.

    00

  • #

    Lawrie, janama, MC, Actually QANDA have asked me before and rang again last week, but logistically, unfortunately, it’s very difficult for me to get there. I’m delighted that Jennifer Marohasy is appearing – if you are in Sydney, rush now to get seats for Monday if there are any left.

    00

  • #
    Lawrie

    Janama et al.

    My humble apologies for mixing the two wonderful ladies. I’m sure Jennifer will give Tim and Tony a run for their money.

    Fiddling data may be on the agenda at BoM again. They have just discovered the UHI effect. New research shows etc although they have been persistantly told about it for years.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/14/bom-embraces-uhi/#more-26382.

    00

  • #
    janama

    It’s a shame the two of you can’t be there instead of the Greg Hunt :) Girlpower Rocks :)

    Wow – They’ve now added Jennifer Hewett from The Australian in your place Jo.

    00

  • #
    Allen Ford

    MC

    Here is the panel makeup, from the Q & A site:

    Next Program’s panellists
    Tim Flannery – scientist and author
    Greg Hunt – shadow minister for climate action
    Jennifer Marohasy – climate skeptic
    Bruce Guthrie – former News Limited editor
    Jennifer Hewett – journalist, The Australian

    So, it’s Jennifer!

    00

  • #
    janama

    yeah – notice they call Flannery a scientist/author and Jennifer a climate sceptic. Jennifer should be called Dr Jennifer Marohasy, scientist, author.

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Jamama

    What else do you expect from the ABC? Balance?

    Cheers,

    Speedy

    00

  • #

    Off topic but Alan Jones on 2GB Sydney has a poll on “Do you want a Tax on Carbon” …here

    00

  • #
    mc

    lawrie, janama, joe and allen, many thanks for the info. speaking of girl power, i dont know what jen is like in the ring, but it might have been very interesting to see jo and jen go head to head against “team fashionabe” as a tag team. maybe we could have dubed them “team voodoo”, tongue in cheeck.

    00

  • #

    The hockey stick that AGW hypothesis hopeful supporters who were excited by the statement that the year 1998 was the warmest year on record.

    Despite that the Hockey Stick paper was only for the NORTHERN HEMISPHERE!

    LOL

    00

  • #

    Jenifer will be speaking at the Australian Environment Foundation conference tomorrow.

    We will be holding a Q&A to sharpen her up for Monday night.

    Greg Hunt is a nice guy who is a believer unfortunately but at least his direct action policy is somewhat moderate compared to the ETS churn or a silly carbon tax.

    00

  • #
    mandarine

    Why did the Bureau remove the rain?

    Why the Bureau of Meteorology has adjusted the rainfall records for our foodbowl……

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/why_did_the_bureau_remove_the_rain/

    00

  • #
    TWinkler

    The place with all the studies and the huge Medieval Warm Period Project (CO2Science.org)

    Except when CO2Science go looking for warming in each study, they change the definition of when the MWP actually occurred.

    The move the MWP around so it aligns better with any warm period in the data or so it avoids cooler data.

    Very poor science!

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    From the archive, but topical…

    If the ABC were Relevant…

    Kerry: Bryan interviews our Chief Scientist and asks a few questions about a hot topic.

    Bryan: Thankyou, Dr. Clarke, for joining us today.

    John: Not a problem at all, Bryan, not a problem at all.

    Bryan: John, as Australia’s Chief Scientist, you’re advising the Government on the latest developments in Global Warming. How’s business?

    John: Well, for starters, Bryan, we of the cognisati no longer refer to this phenomenon as Global Warming. The official term is Climate Change Disruption.

    Bryan: Why’s that?

    John: Well, climate surveys over the last 10 years by thousands of dedicated, peer reviewed, consensus-loving, grant-seeking climate science professionals support this latter moniker on the basis that the said measurements are trending in a direction which is not commonly associated with the term “warming”.

    Bryan: So global warming has stopped?

    John: You have to appreciate, Bryan, that only a highly trained and peer reviewed climate professional can differentiate between medium term weather trends and long term climatic effects.

    Bryan: In English please?

    John: Yes.

    Bryan: Does the scientific community understand why this is or is not happening?

    John: We’ve got some very sophisticated climate models, Bryan. Very sophisticated. So smart that if I told you about them it would make your eyes to glaze and your layman-quality head to spin. Very sophisticated.

    Bryan: But do they work?

    John: Hard to tell. They’re very sophisticated.

    Bryan: Then what is the cause of Global Warming?

    John: Climate Change Disruption.

    Bryan: Sorry. Climate Disruption.

    John: Very simple Bryan. The overwhelming and unanimous consensus of all climate scientists world-wide, and decreed unequivocally by the UN’s IPCC, is that there is an at least 90% probability that the catastrophic changes to global climate that we’re not seeing at the moment, but which all of our computer climate models clearly demonstrate, are due to human-sourced emissions of carbon dioxide, or, as we call it, CO2.

    Bryan: So the atmospheric CO2 levels have gone up?

    John: Like a bride’s nightie, Bryan. About 0.039% last time we checked the dial out the back.

    Bryan: Yet global temperatures are the same or lower than they were about 10 years ago? Doesn’t that invalidate your hypothesis?

    John: Would you like to see some pictures of a polar bear?

    Bryan: So the science is settled then?

    John: Absolutely Bryan. Think of any reasons why not?

    Bryan: How about the Medieval Warming, about 1000 years ago?

    John: Didn’t happen, Bryan. Denialist propaganda.

    Bryan: So how do you explain the Viking colonisations of Greenland and Newfoundland?

    John: Some people might say that, Bryan, but they’re mostly historians. They know nothing about climate science.

    Bryan: And the Vostok ice core data showing how atmospheric CO2 increases after a rise in temperature, not before? Doesn’t that mean CO2 rises are a product – not a cause – of global warming?

    John: Just parlour games there Bryan. Basic chemistry. Solubility of CO2 in the earth’s oceans decreases as temperatures rise. Henry’s Law. Of course the oceans are going to puff out a little CO2 in the course of a warm millennium. Totally irrelevant.

    Bryan: But if higher atmospheric CO2 makes the earth hotter, and higher temperatures increase the atmospheric CO2 levels, where does it stop? Why isn’t Earth served up medium to well done in a red wine sauce by now?

    John: It’s a very complicated question Bryan but your big mistake was talking to a chemist about this. A group-think of climate scientists would sort this one out in no time. It’s a climate issue, not a chemistry question. Trust me.

    Bryan: Then why do you think the temperatures on Mars, Uranus and Pluto seem to have tracked with those of earth in the latter part of the 20th century? Doesn’t that suggest the driver for global temperatures is more likely to be solar, or at least extraterrestrial?

    John: Crazy-man talk, Bryan! Crazy-man talk! We all know there’s no carbon dioxide on Pluto, so how can it have global warming disruption? Besides, Pluto isn’t a planet any more, so that theory is totally debunked. Just stick to the climate science, Bryan.

    Bryan: After 20 years of investigation and billions of dollars of reseach, does the IPCC have any evidence to show that man-made CO2 is driving the earth’s Global Warming?

    John: Climate Change Disruption.

    Bryan: Sorry. Climate Change Disruption.

    John: Yes, Bryan, and I’m glad you asked. If you’d like to peruse the IPCC report from 2001, you’ll find that the climate models clearly and unambiguously predict a sharp rise in the equatorial tropospheric temperatures arising from man-made CO2. So there.

    Bryan: And the actual measurements have demonstrated this?

    John: “Demonstrated” isn’t the word we’d normally use in this regard Bryan. It appears that the theory is a little ahead of the facts at this stage and Mother Nature doesn’t seem to be taking the IPCC very seriously.

    Bryan: So there’s no evidence?

    John: It’s more a meteorological thingy Bryan. We climate scientists have a longer term perspective on these issues.

    Bryan: Speaking of longer term – does it concern you that we’ve had several Ice Ages where the atmospheric CO2 was much higher than it is today? Doesn’t that suggest CO2 is irrelevant, or at least a very secondary factor in determining climate?

    John: I take your point Bryan, but the Climate Science community has a very clear and unanimous consensus on this.

    Bryan: And what would that consensus be?

    John: We don’t talk about it. Goodbye. (Leaves)

    Bryan: (To camera). Do you think we should tell Kevin Julia?

    00

  • #
    mc

    Speedy @ 28. Brilliant work, i just about pissed myself. Can you imagine our fearless jurnos over at the abc asking some of the questions your mock bryan asks? They would sooner chew their own heads off. BTW, if you ever get sick of your current job a career in commedy could be in order. cheers

    00

  • #
    Adolf Balik

    Rereke Whaakaro 8:

    Some of the temperature sensitive species that used to live in Central Europe before LIA began to return here within the last 20 years. But this increase of variability is always referred to as dangerous AGW caused importation of alien species by the Greens.

    00

  • #
    Adolf Balik

    To Speedy 28:

    Each one who is interesting in their models should read this:
    http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2010/10/11/when-is-a-model-a-good-model/

    00

  • #
    John Smith

    I have to admit it fooled many people while it lasted, but this sort of deception has to come to an end sooner than later.

    00

  • #
    Joe Lalonde

    Jo,

    What happened to that weasel Gore?
    Did he take his millions and run?

    00

  • #
    Rich

    “Will go down in the annals of science”

    Nice summary.

    00

  • #
  • #
    Mike S.

    TWinkler #27 – try reading CO2Science’s own description of what they’re doing (emphasis added):

    As we discover new peer-reviewed scientific journal articles pertaining to the Medieval Warm Period, we briefly describe their most pertinent findings in the Study Descriptions and Results section of the project. The locations of all such studies are then plotted on a map of the globe, and the intervals of time they associate with the Medieval Warm Period are incorporated into a graph of the frequency distribution of all such time intervals, which is located just beneath the map in the project’s Interactive Map and Time Domain Plot feature.

    CO2Science does not “change the definition of when the MWP actually occurred”; they do report the definitions provided in the studies they are organizing. Pay attention to what the people you are disparaging actually say, or more knowledgable folks will make it come back to bite you (been there, done that, got the teeth marks).

    00

  • #
    elsie

    I will try to shorten this as much as possible. Funny thing is I was going to post it on Andrew Bolt’s blog but somebody else did similar. I well remember being taught this in primary school. There is nothing new about the Murray-Darling climate, etc. Saltiness, drought and useless lakes at the mouth were well known well before settlement.

    On 4 November 1828 Sturt received approval to proceed with his proposal to trace the course of the Macquarie River…On 22 December the expedition started down the Macquarie through country blasted by drought and searing heat…on 31 December Sturt and Hume began independent reconnaissances in which Hume established the limits of the Macquarie marshes and Sturt examined the country across the Bogan River. They then proceeded north along the Bogan and on 2 February came suddenly on ‘a noble river’ flowing to the west; Sturt named it the Darling. Unhappily its waters were undrinkable at that point because of salt springs…The Darling River had offered a new challenge and Sturt soon sought permission to lead another expedition to trace the Darling to its assumed outlet in the inland sea. However, it was decided instead that he should investigate the Lachlan-Murrumbidgee river system discovered by Oxley and proceed to the Darling only if the Murrumbidgee proved impassable.
    On 3 November 1829 the second expedition left Sydney. ….they left Warby’s station near Gundagai which was then the limit of settlement and set off into the unknown country. After many crossings of the Murrumbidgee to find suitable tracks for the drays they moved down the north bank of the river and on Christmas Day arrived at its junction with the Lachlan. There difficult marshes raised the question whether they should follow the governor’s instructions or go to the Darling….On 7 January 1830 he set out with seven men in the two boats on the Murrumbidgee.
    … the journey was uneventful until 14 January when the rapid current of the Murrumbidgee carried them to a ‘broad and noble river’ which Sturt later named in honour of Sir George Murray, secretary of state for the colonies….and on 23 January came to a new large stream flowing in from the north. After rowing up it for a few miles Sturt was convinced that it was the Darling and returned to the Murray. An uneventful voyage brought them on 9 February to Lake Alexandrina whence they walked over the sandhills to the southern coast. They reached the channel where the lake entered the sea but were dismayed to find it impracticable for shipping. Depressed by failing to find either an effective inland waterway or the ship which Darling had promised to send from Sydney, Sturt now faced the appalling prospect of rowing more than 900 miles (1448 km) …

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whaakaro

    Adolf Balik: #31

    Thank you for the reference – very interesting.

    00

  • #
    Siliggy

    elsie:
    October 16th, 2010 at 3:09 am
    Thanks for that! Great to be reminded how things were.
    I wonder how they will get it to return to that condition in the face of hocky sticks like this one will be next week: http://www.actewagl.com.au/water/facts/damCapacity.aspx

    00

  • #
  • #

    TWinky:
    October 15th, 2010 at 4:12 pm

    “…they change the definition of when the MWP actually occurred.
    The move the MWP around so it aligns better with any warm period in the data or so it avoids cooler data.
    Very poor science!”

    Mike S. @ 36 hit the nail on the head.

    The Medieval Warm Period was global and there are hundreds of peer reviewed papers that substantiate the fact. Here are some incontrovertible facts for you: The Medieval Warm Period, The Roman Warm Period, The Minoan Warm Period and the Holocene Maximum of the Bronze Age were all warmer than today and yet CO2 levels were lower. Unless you can cite other forcings that caused higher temperatures to exist during these various periods your CAGW hypothesis is falsified.

    Speaking of “poor science”, Mikey Mann is indeed audacious! Does anybody remember his hurricane frequency reconstruct using tree ring data? As usual, his conclusions reached using unreliable tree ring proxies were utterly and completely contradicted by a wealth of empirical data. Using tree ring proxy data and state of the art computer models I wouldn’t be surprised if Mann proved the existence of a square circle!

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Mark @40,

    Glad to see through a link from the one you provided that the rain has returned. But also sorry to hear that it’s being destructive in some places.

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Roy:

    It’s ever been that way in Oz – drought or deluge, no in-between.

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Further to the above link:

    Gobsmacker! read the comment by R de Haan:

    “Did you guys know that Austria and Switzerland are buying cheap coal generated electricity from German plants to pump water in their lakes and later sell this “hydoelectric power as “Green Power” on the German market.

    If this isn’t a fraud I don’t know what is”.

    00

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    Well spotted Mark @40.

    A further coverage of the event can be found at Pierre Gosselin’s No Tricks Zone. Along with Jo and WUWT, a must visit site.

    http://notrickszone.com/2010/10/15/climate-change-now-questioned-at-german-universities-professors-speaking-up/

    and just for shelly, TWinkler, Spatch and oyhers that continually defer to peer review.

    At the 7:10 mark Dr Landfried slams any peer review process run by a good ol boys network.

    In the world of science it is unavoidable, as humans are involved, that there are always attempts to portray truths as unacceptable, or to try to suppress them using methods that have nothing to do with science, and perhaps to even slander persons in an attempt shut them up. One method used here is to claim that everything that is good must go through peer review.

    00

  • #
    speedy

    Eddy

    A further comment on twinklers above: When you measure something, there is a risk that you will be in error. The more MEASUREMENTS you make, the more ERRORS you get. But if just INVENT THE EVIDENCE you can be EXACT every time. That is why Briffa and Mann’s Hockey Sticks seem to agree so well.

    They just chucked out the data they didn’t like.

    Cheers,

    Speedy

    00

  • #

    Mark,

    That has been going on for a long time. An engineer friend of mine from Germany told me about it. They buy power at off peak rates, pump water and sell hydro electricity back for peak loads and at peak load rates.
    AFAIK this was before all the present green nonsense started so it probably makes economic sense for all the parties concerned.

    They can probably get a subsidy now by calling it “Green”. Which shows how stupid governments and people can be.

    00

  • #
    Athlete

    I would like to disagree very strongly with one sentence of this otherwise excellent article.

    Only the Climate Establishment Believes in the Hockey Stick

    It’s quite obvious to me that many inside the CRU climate establishment don’t even agree with the hokey stick.

    Ed Cook:
    From: Ed Cook
    To: Keith Briffa
    Subject: Re: Esper et al. and Mike Mann
    Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 13:20:40 -0400

    Hi Keith,

    Of course, I agree with you. We both know the probable flaws in
    Mike’s recon, particularly as it relates to the tropical stuff. Your
    response is also why I chose not to read the published version of his
    letter. It would be too aggravating. The only way to deal with this
    whole issue is to show in a detailed study that his estimates are
    clearly deficient in multi-centennial power, something that you
    actually did in your Perspectives piece, even if it was not clearly
    stated because of editorial cuts. It is puzzling to me that a guy as
    bright as Mike would be so unwilling to evaluate his own work a bit
    more objectively.
    Ed

    Kieth Briffa:

    The latest tree-ring
    >density curve ( i.e. our data that have been processed to retain low
    >frequency information) shows more similarity to the other two series- as do
    >a number of other lower resolution data ( Bradley et al, Peck et al ., and
    >new Crowley series – see our recent Science piece) whether this represents
    >’TRUTH’ however is a difficult problem. I know Mike thinks his series is
    >the ‘best’ and he might be right – but he may also be too dismissive of
    >other data and possibly over confident in his (or should I say his use of
    >other’s). After all, the early ( pre-instrumental) data are much less
    >reliable as indicators of global temperature than is apparent in modern
    >calibrations that include them and when we don’t know the precise role of
    >particular proxies in the earlier portions of reconstruction it remains
    >problematic to assign genuine confidence limits at multidecadal and longer
    >timescales. I still contend that multiple regression against the recent
    >very trendy global mean series is potentially dangerous. You could
    >calibrate the proxies to any number of seasons , regardless of their true
    >optimum response …I do
    >believe , that it should not be taken as read that Mike’s series (or
    >Jone’s et al. for that matter) is THE CORRECT ONE… I know there is pressure to present a
    >nice tidy story as regards ‘apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand
    >years or more in the proxy data’ but in reality the situation is not quite
    >so simple. We don’t have a lot of proxies that come right up to date and
    >those that do (at least a significant number of tree proxies ) some
    >unexpected changes in response that do not match the recent warming. I do
    >not think it wise that this issue be ignored in the chapter.
    > For the record, I do believe that the proxy data do show unusually
    >warm conditions in recent decades. I am not sure that this unusual warming
    >is so clear in the summer responsive data. I believe that the recent warmth
    >was probably matched about 1000 years ago. I do not believe that global
    >mean annual temperatures have simply cooled progressively over thousands of
    >years as Mike appears to and I contend that that there is strong evidence
    >for major changes in climate over the Holocene (not Milankovich) that
    >require explanation and that could represent part of the current or future
    >background variability of our climate
    > cheers to all
    > Keith

    And the Big Whopper himself, Michael Mann, who doesn’t have any confidence in his own work:

    Walked into this hornet’s nest this morning! Keith and Phil have both
    raised some very good points. And I should point out that Chris, through no
    fault of his own, but probably through ME not conveying my thoughts very
    clearly to the
    others, definitely overstates any singular confidence I have in my own
    (Mann et al) series.
    I believe strongly that the strength in our discussion
    will be the fact that certain key features of past climate estimates are
    robust among a number of quasi-independent and truly independent estimates,
    each
    of which is not without its own limitations and potential biases. And I
    certainly don’t want to abuse my lead authorship by advocating my own work.

    00

  • #
    Lawrie

    Mark @ 14 and Mike Borgelt @47.

    The use of water as a battery (storage device) is not new. The Snowy Mountains hydro used to and maybe still do use off peak power to pump water back to the reservoirs for later generating at peak prices. Makes good use of thermal power that is being generated anyway and lightens the load on thermal capacity at peak usage times.

    Much as I think wind is totally useless for reliable power it may be useful for pumping water for later hydro use. Unfortunately there are few high elevation storages in NSW or Vic apart from the Snowy Scheme. Seems a better use of fickle wind than trying to balance a thermal system with unpredictable input.

    Wind in a stand alone closed system might also be used to generate hydrogen by electrolysis for use in transport. Problems with compression and storage but if the waste in AGW research was redirected we might get something worthwhile.

    00

  • #
    John Smith

    @33
    You are absolutely correct Joe Al “Big Hypocrite” Gore is too ashamed to show his ugly face these days.

    00

  • #
    george

    Absent for a while, I was – has this been mentioned recently?
    A supposedly new item from NASA on CO2 being the earth`s “thermostat”. Verified by projection models, of course…some eyebrow raising “facts” in this one too, check it out;

    http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/co2-temperature.html

    00

  • #
    Binny

    I know this is off topic, but its mid-October and here in western Queensland I have had a coat on all day. I have had warmer days than this in July, I can never remember it turning cold in October, September yes; but never mid-October. Unusual weather to say the least, I wonder if it will make the news.

    While on the subject I was listening to the early-morning weather report in late September. The presenter and the usual forecaster from the BOM were discussing the September rainfall totals.
    The BOM forecaster actually said “Yes it is an unusually high rainfall for September, but I’m sure it is probably happened before”. (It has – 70mm this year; 108mm in1921) It would appear that not all the foot soldiers are sticking to the script.

    Checking through the Station(Ranch for our American friends) records I found that September rainfall has exceeded 50 mm 9 times since 1889. This year, in 2008, and the other 7 times are all between 1903 and 1947, so there was a 60 year period when the September never exceeded 50 mm, which just goes to show how long some of these climate cycles are.

    00

  • #
    george

    Binny – snow down to 500m in parts of Vic…but don`t get excited, it`s not a 30 year trend yet, ho hum ;)

    And changing tack a bit, there`s this from BoM;

    The La Niña has strengthened
    Issued on Wednesday 13 October | Product Code IDCKGEWWOO

    The La Niña in the Pacific remains a moderate to strong event. The Southern Oscillation Index (SOI) value of +25 for September was its highest monthly value since 1973, while central Pacific Ocean temperatures are comparable to those observed during previous moderate events, such as 2007 and 1998. Long-range models surveyed by the Bureau suggest that this La Niña will persist into at least early 2011.

    ENSO indicators remain firmly at La Niña levels. The central Pacific Ocean is more than 1°C cooler than the long-term mean at the surface, while temperatures below the surface are up to 5°C cooler than normal. The SOI remains above +20, which places it in the top 5% of observed values. Although trade winds are stronger than normal over the western Pacific and cloudiness over the central and western Pacific continues to be suppressed, a strong Madden Julian Oscillation (MJO) may weaken some of these indicators over the coming fortnight.

    La Niña periods are generally associated with above normal rainfall during the second half of the year across large parts of Australia, most notably eastern and northern regions. Night time temperatures are historically warmer than average and Tropical Cyclone occurrence for northern Australia is typically higher than normal during the cyclone season (November-April).

    A negative IOD event is also underway in the Indian Ocean. Negative IOD events are typically associated with above average rainfall over large areas of southern Australia during spring. IOD events usually decay in the months of November and December with the onset of the Australian monsoon.

    00

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    Are these two reasons why Australia should not introduce a price on carbon.

    1 from France.

    http://www.globalwarming.org/2010/10/14/report-of-the-french-academy-of-sciences-looks-devastating-to-the-ipcc/

    Facing criticism from climate skeptics, some French scientists had gone to the Government asking it to take sides in the scientific controversy. In reply to this rather medieval request, Minister Valérie Pécresse had instructed the Academy of Sciences to organize a « peaceful confrontation of points of view and methods » to « establish the current state of scientific knowledge on climate change ».

    The Academy of Sciences has already issued a communique (during the night of 20th to 21st September

    Remember that the IPCC reports are normative cathedrals (what you can not do, what you must do, education, etc.: for the past ten years there is not been any environmental policy, whose genealogy can not be related to the IPCC) built on the foundation of the scientific certainties of their first part. What would crack the pseudo-scientific foundations, would destroy the normative cathedral.

    Mr. Sylvestre Huet, who was acquired some of the previous reports of the meeting of the Academy of Sciences, of which he gives on his « scientific » blog, a characteristic account. Opposing the report of Jean Aubouin, eminent scientist, recipient of the CNRS (National Centre for Scientific Research), owner of the cream of scientific awards and rather skeptical about the science of the IPCC

    No offense to the ineffable Mr. Huet, but by affirming the reality and the thickness of the grey areas of contemporary climate science, the report of the Academy of Sciences is set to be the second stop on the way of the Cross of this unfortunate hybridization of science and politics that is the IPCC, after the report of the Inter-Academy Council, which found on last 30th August, that the functioning of the IPCC is flawed at all levels, from the treatment of sources, of minority scientific views, to the prevention and resolution of conflicts of interest, the transparency about the factual deductions, etc.

    2 from MIT. on what action America should take.

    http://tech.mit.edu/V130/N45/yost.html

    Global warming is real. It is predominantly anthropogenic. Left unchecked, it will likely warm the earth by 3-7 C by the end of the century. What should the United States do about it? Very little, if anything at all.

    Instead of thinking as economists, we should think as international relations realists. In the realist school of thought, a man comports with another’s will only in proportion to the cudgel wielded over his head. We will not, solely through moral suasion, convince others to act against their own national interests.

    It is not in our national self-interest to try and bear the costs of global warming by ourselves. For a wealthy, cold, non-agrarian, stable country such as ours, it is unclear whether we even stand that much to lose from a rise in temperatures. There have been several studies that suggest the costs of mitigating climate change exceed the benefits in a country such as the United States — work by William Nordhaus and Robert Mendelsohn of Yale, Richard Tol of Carnegie Mellon, Melissa Dell and Benjamin Olken of MIT, and others, suggest this outcome is likely.

    More to the point, unilateral action will not mitigate climate change. The U.S. is only a small fraction of total emissions. Even if all of the Annex I countries of the Kyoto Protocol agreed to binding constraints, they would account for less than half of the world’s total emissions, and a far smaller fraction of the expected growth in emissions between now and 2100. To act unilaterally, or even in conjunction with the rest of the developed world, would mean paying the full measure of mitigating climate change while receiving only a fraction of its benefit.

    Even though MIT still believe Green House Gasses from mans folly are to blame they see the futility in trying to prevent it.

    Armed with these two pieces of information a new email campaign should be unleashed on Canberra.

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whaakaro

    Speedy: #46

    The more MEASUREMENTS you make, the more ERRORS you get. But if just INVENT THE EVIDENCE you can be EXACT every time.

    This is a useful and well known technique in establishing good evidence. Truthful evidence is usually inconsistent in minor details, but lies presented as evidence are invariably pristine. If it sounds to good to be true, it probably is.

    The first thing that got me interested (professionally) in the climate fiasco, was the consistency of the message. It had to be orchestrated, nothing is that clear cut, and only soldiers march in step.

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    I know this is way off topic, but I think it is something Western Australians should stay abreast of… the West Australian has FOId papers from the Feds regarding the proposed mining tax:

    http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/newshome/8143314/secret-documents-reveal-mine-tax-truth/

    The fears that the mining tax may be unconstitutional (which is bloody obvious if you live in WA… it is grossly discriminatory) makes good reading.

    As a ballpark estimate WA with 10% of the population produces approximately 50% of the country’s mineral wealth. We also help balance the trade because we export three times as much as we import into the state, resulting in a trade surplus of approximately $50 billion.

    The Feds should be thanking Western Australians for keeping the overall economy healthy, not making ambit tax grabs for the boom profits… not like they’ll be here helping us out when the boom ends… I wish we could cut the Canberra leeches free but cessession is not a viable option (the other states have to agree to it).

    00

  • #
    janama

    All the more reason to retire State Governments and go to National Government and Local Government.

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    The first thing that got me interested (professionally) in the climate fiasco, was the consistency of the message. It had to be orchestrated, nothing is that clear cut, and only soldiers march in step.

    Rereke @55,

    You and I could be twin brothers on that one. I didn’t give global warming much thought, just another fad that would peter out because it didn’t ring true. But then I heard it was a done deal, no more debate possible (ad nauseam) and the hair stood up on the back of my neck. That had to be dishonest because I knew science just wasn’t that way. So I started looking into it for the same basic reason you did, that consistent lock-step message.

    Software engineering wasn’t very good preparation for understanding what I found. But fortunately I had been an engineering major first.

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    A supposedly new item from NASA on CO2 being the earth`s “thermostat”. Verified by projection models, of course…some eyebrow raising “facts” in this one too, check it out;

    George @51

    GISS modeling. WOW!

    There you have it right from the horse’s mouth well-l-l-l…anatomy you might say.

    00

  • #
    Adolf Balik

    Rereke Whaakaro 55 & Roy Hogue 58

    Guys, take me to your brotherhood.

    When I attended communistic schools we had to undergo exams on the Bolshevik Catechism called Scientific Communism, Dialectic Materialism etc. like if they were a sciences regardless the real subject that we really studied. We didn’t like it considering it useless but we were wrong.

    When the communism collapsed I was confronted with a lot of contradictory view. Some of them had a perfect logical construction and neat language of advocacy but in spite of it they were shear rubbish. Then I found the real utility of my education. I could see the “scientific” communism in all the perfect lies thus I had recognized them still before I knew their factual irrelevance. The same was with the AGW and other Green alarmism rubbish. I didn’t know any science that could put their confirmation in doubt yet but I knew they must have been taking me through a garden path as I could see the “scientific communism” in their doctrine regardless the topic, which was different, but the form was the same. Then I got down to searching for a science that really covers climate.

    00

  • #
    J.Hansford

    It’s snowing in Victoria….. and the Dams are full in Queensland…. The Murray river mouth is open and the river flowing now that a Ten year drought is broken….

    So much for Global Warming and Flannery’s prediction that it would never rain again. The CSIRO’s prediction that the ski fields would become snowless within blah blah blah….

    Anthropogenic Global warming… er…. Climate Change… er…. Global Climate Disruption… ah, the colder, hotter, drier, wetter climate theory of Everything has obviously kicked in…..

    …. Sometimes I think I’m watching a Monty Python skit…. It’s just that bizarre.

    00

  • #
    J.Hansford

    janama:
    October 16th, 2010 at 8:33 pm
    All the more reason to retire State Governments and go to National Government and Local Government.

    No Janama… We need our state sovereignty… We can do away with most of the bureaucracies associated with all of them instead… and much of the “regulations” that they administer….. A much better solution.

    … Don’t reduce our Elected Positions. Instead elect better representatives…. Get rid of the Socialist elite that are ensconced within the unelected Bureaucracy and the Quangos that have sprung like toadstools all about.

    00

  • #
    pattoh

    Ahoy Bulldust (@56)

    Irrespective of how much of the “can” is being carried by WA’s miners in particular (we need the Gold with all the Quantitative Easing), it’s a fair bet Australia’s the foreign earnings that come from resources amount to 50% or better.

    Along with primary production this would have to figure for the greater part of our balance of trade.

    It does not take a “Garnaut” level education to see exactly what is supporting the “Home & Away/Neighbours/McMansion” lifestyle which Murdoch & Packer have deluded us we deserve.

    Most of us over 45 can remember the 16% + interest rates we dallied with in the 70s. If the government sees fit to pillage the mining industry & choke the land in green red & black tape, the balance of payments will go through the floor. The only way it will be able to keep any money coming into Australia & operate will be to have 70s style interest regimes or worse.

    How many McMansion mortgages will be defaulted then?

    How cheap will Australian real estate, resources & farms be then?

    Who will own this country?

    00

  • #

    Those so called “sceintists” are really corrupt sissies. Hockey is a girls’ game. Mann is no male.
    If he’d not been falsifying the data we’d have gotten a good ol’ macho baseball bat instead.
    And don’t get me started on all those homos at CRU and their e males!

    AOL:)

    00

  • #
    Binny

    It would seem that like everyone else, it was the way the message was being presented that aroused my suspicions.
    For me it was the way there was no upside – all scenarios have two sides, there would have to be positives to a warming world somewhere.
    Would you trust and investment adviser who vowed and declared there was no downside to investment, that it could only go up?

    Initially I didn’t take any notice of the media hype, every time it stops raining for 10 minutes. You will get a headline somewhere stating the ‘WORST DROUGHT IN LIVING MEMORY’
    Alternatively if two dogs cock their legs on a tree you’ll get ‘RECORD FLOOD’ headlines.
    It wasn’t until election campaigns were being fought on the issue and governments of all persuasions were seriously proposing a broad-based consumption tax on energy and food.
    That I started to look seriously at the science, and of course soon as you do that you very quickly find out that there is no real science.
    Just some vaguely scientifically plausible scenarios.

    All scenario models including computer models have to start with assumptions.

    Assumption – scientific term for wild-assed guess!

    00

  • #
    Lawrie

    J Hansford @ 62.

    Like Janama I thought State Governments were a waste of space. Now, with a marxist government in Canberra we need the protection afforded by the state to slow and mitigate some of their crazier ideas.

    Our problem is not the quantity of politicians ; it’s their quality as you point out. Weak pollies allow bureaucrats to rule as in “Yes Minister”. Too many politicians come from backgrounds that ill prepare them for decision making based on thorough research of the issues. Short service times in portfolios does not help either. Maybe it is time to consider ministers being drawn from outside the parliament although the prospect of a Holdren advising Gillard is the stuff of nightmares.

    00

  • #
    Lawrie

    Further to @66. I suppose the permanent heads of departments provide a bridge between government and between ministers. The problems arise when a Ken Henry takes control and espouses his own, as opposed to national benefit, beliefs in the form of policy recommendations.

    00

  • #
    Binny

    Lawrie:
    In my opinion the best reform that could be made to all parliaments, would be secret voting. Firstly a secret vote of the entire Parliament to elect a prime minister or premier.

    (Technically the prime minister or premier is already elected by the entire Parliament, but because of the party political system the outcome is known beforehand)

    The prime minister or premier would then have no idea who they owe favours to and could select a Cabinet on merit from whole parliament.

    After that any legislation should also be voted on in secret.
    So once again the legislation is being assessed on merit by all members of Parliament and no one is being coerced by the party political system.

    It is ironic that we go to great lengths to make sure our representatives are elected in the most democratic means possible, via a secret ballot.

    Then after they are elected their put in a position of voting for their leader and legislation under the duress of the party political system.

    00

  • #
    speedy

    Adolf @ 60

    I think we have seen the creation of a brand new scientific theorem – the Whakaroo-Hogue theory, which states:

    “People who make stuff up on the spot achieve a data precision of 99.73% or more.”

    This theorem is “very likely” to be true, indicating that the probability of it being correct is 90% or better.

    Cheers,

    Speedy.

    00

  • #
    george

    Speedy, would you be able to provide a peer-review reference to the Whakaroo-Hogue Theory with confirmation of appropriate utilisation of the requisite Trans-Pacific weighting adjustment?

    00

  • #
    speedy

    george

    I have run a peer review on this personally. Trust me. The evidence is overwhelming and the science is settled! And as soon as someone gives us $79 billion, we will have an overwhelming consensus. This is in accordance with yet another scientific principle:

    “The more you pay people, the more likely they are to agree with you.”

    Ye gods! It’s another scientific theorem! We’re on a roll! :)

    Cheers,

    Speedy

    00

  • #
    speedy

    george

    As to confirmation of the W-R Theorem, I’m afraid we can’t release the raw data or the methodology used in the calculations. Would you like to see some impressive graphics and the output from our computer models?

    And please don’t even think about a Freedom of Information Act request. We lost the files.

    Sounds familiar?

    Cheers,

    Speedy

    00

  • #
    J.Hansford

    Thanks for the response Lawrie…. Yep, the most important point is that the Elected MP’s are OUR representatives…. We don’t want to curb their number, power or effectiveness…. But we need to be able to control them. After all, they work for us and represent us in all three tiers of Government on both sides of politics as per our Two party system.

    Australia’s weakest political link, is our ‘out of control’ bureaucracy. It has too much power and has become a law unto itself. In many cases now, it just works behind the scenes frameworking the socialist, globalist and envirofascist policies without any of the Australian people being able to do anything about it… and when the “correct” political party wins power. The legislation gets passed into law…. Understanding this allows you to understand how situations like the AGW hoax and “Carbon Pollution” can arise… Or the destruction of the Queensland fishing industry, or Murray Darling basin debacle, or Native vegetation legislation forcing farmers off their land, or the poor Thompson’s and the abuse of power by the environmental authority in WA, etc.

    So we need to make government accountable for every taxpayer cent it spends so as to control funding and Bureaucratic departments… and we need to reduce, to the barest minimum, the regulatory structure needed to run a Democratic Capitalist free market society…. But first, we all must reaffirm that what we are living in, IS a Democratic Capitalist free market Society… We do this by making sure our Elected representatives understand and promote this ideology. We select them on that basis so as to form government with powerful majorities to ensure a mandate…… That’s how we make Australia great once more.

    Reading blogs like JoNova’s, Andrew Bolt’s, WUWT, etc… and the responses that interested people write back, shows me that most/a great many people are thoughtful and engaged… We are not the sheep that the Socialist elites think we are….. and they are in for a rude surprise.

    00

  • #
    Another Ian

    70george:
    October 17th, 2010 at 12:32 pm
    Speedy, would you be able to provide a peer-review reference to the Whakaroo-Hogue Theory with confirmation of appropriate utilisation of the requisite Trans-Pacific weighting adjustment?

    George, I’d suggest that a quick writeup might make it in Journal of Irreproducable Results where the editor might have a quick peer at it and decide to publish. And then it would be publically reviewed. Which process might have helped some of the notables we’re supposed to believe!

    00

  • #
    well

    seems Jennifer a “the earth is in fact cooling” person too.

    funny how this is claimed against surface temps that don’t have statistical significance.

    how we love a good short term cherry picker.

    00

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    Well, Well @75

    All I can say is, Very impressive lady and scientist.
    You just keep enjoying the cherries.

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Speedy, would you be able to provide a peer-review reference to the Whakaroo-Hogue Theory with confirmation of appropriate utilisation of the requisite Trans-Pacific weighting adjustment?

    George, I’d suggest that a quick writeup might make it in Journal of Irreproducable Results where the editor might have a quick peer at it and decide to publish. And then it would be publically reviewed. Which process might have helped some of the notables we’re supposed to believe!

    Hey gang, if I’m going to be famous and my work used by someone then I want to be paid. I’m sure Whakaroo will want his cut too. So ante up! No one works for free!

    PS:

    We’re paid by the minute at outrageous consultant’s rates.

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    seems Jennifer a “the earth is in fact cooling” person too.

    funny how this is claimed against surface temps that don’t have statistical significance.

    how we love a good short term cherry picker.

    Considering what is happening now is not “cherry picking”.
    It is assessing the present situation.

    Considering what has been happening immediately prior to now is not “cherry picking”.
    It is an assessment of what led to the present situation.

    Refusing to look at now or immediately prior to now because it does not show what one wants to assert is “cherry picking”.

    And a decade or a decade-and-half is not a “short term” assessment for climatology
    (e.g. the 1994 IPCC Report considered adjacent 4-year periods when considering change to hurricane frequency).

    Making stupid comments which have no relation to fact is troll behaviour.

    Richard

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Bob, Richard,

    From one friend to another, “well” isn’t worth the effort. He’s unmoved by any argument. Ignoring him is the fastest way to be rid of him.

    Roy

    00

  • #
    TWinkler

    Richard, picking one decade of data one which to base your conclusion is cherry picking when the data is subject to natural fluctuations that are longer than the data you selected.

    A cherry picker she is, and she’s not alone. Just about every “skeptic” falls for this one.

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    And yet another who isn’t worth the effort!

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Roy Hogue:

    I accept your advice in posts #79 and #81.

    These anonymous fools present drivel and, as you say, they may go away if ignored.

    However, although I accept your advice and I intend to abide by it, I point out that there is a risk in accepting that advice: failure to rebut the nonsense they present could imply to unknowledgeable onlookers that we do cannot answer it because we fail to see it for the nonsense that it is.

    Richard

    00

  • #
    TWinkler

    (SNIP)

    (You are quickly wearing out your welcome here) CTS

    00

  • #

    TWinkler writes at post #80:

    Richard, picking one decade of data one which to base your conclusion is cherry picking when the data is subject to natural fluctuations that are longer than the data you selected.

    A cherry picker she is, and she’s not alone. Just about every “skeptic” falls for this one.

    I recall very recently where a lot of AGW believers,just about went insane with joy.That from just from a 5 month period,screamed that it is the HOTTEST YEAR ON RECORD!

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

    But of course it is not true at all.But try telling guys like you who care less about being consistent on temperature time scales,is impossible because you run on alarmist B.S. thinking.The same people who continue to wet their pants over GISS temperature trends.The one data set that has been demonstrably shown to be strongly adjusted upwards in dishonest fashion.It is junk today.

    Pathetically dishonest is what you and others like you are.

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Richard @82,

    You’re right of course. But he seems to be stuck in just a few grooves like a busted record (I hope you remember those old vinyl 33 1/3 rpm jobs, I don’t know how old you are).

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Richard, I broke my own advice though and responded to TWinkler in a different thread. But never again.

    00

  • #
    Paul

    I am sorry to have to say that your BoM is going to ‘peer-review’ our [NZ] ‘revised’ official temperature records. A bit like putting the foxes in charge of the hen-house it seems from comments above!

    00

  • #
    TWinkler

    sunsettommy:

    That from just from a 5 month period,screamed that it is the HOTTEST YEAR ON RECORD!

    Care to give a link to where climate scientists sream this?

    If it difficult to believe that you can look at 5 months of data and declare that it’s hotter than other years. At best it would only contain 2 partial years worth of data.

    00

  • #

    [...] fifth compared the alleged cause (human CO2 emissions) with the alleged effect (temperatures), the sixth canvassed the infamous attempt to “fix” that disconnect, the hockey stick, and the seventh [...]

    00