JoNova

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



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



Muller-the-pretend-skeptic makes three claims. He’s half right on one.

Almost all the coverage of the Muller and BEST results confounds three different points, is poorly researched and mixes up cause and effect. Richard Muller is shamelessly promoting himself as something he is not, and his conclusions are nonsense on stilts that defy rational explanation.

Everyone knows hot air rises off concrete, yet scores of people get befuddled by statistics. The maths-talk is irrelevant. If your analysis tells you that thermometers next to combustion engines and industrial exhaust vents is recording global warming — your analysis is bunk, and we don’t need a peer reviewed paper to say so.

Muller’s three claims:

  1. He’s a converted skeptic. (Naked, demonstrably wrong, PR.)
  2. The world has warmed by 0.3C/decade. (He’s half right — he’s only exaggerating 100%.)
  3. That it’s mostly due to man-made emissions. (Baseless speculation.)

As far as public policies go the only point that matters is 3, but most of the conversation is about 1 and 2. Worse, most journalists and many so-called scientists think evidence for warming is the same as evidence that coal fired power stations did it. How unscientific.

We need to deal with each claim separately.

1. He’s a converted skeptic. No he’s a dishonest alarmist.

Thanks to PopTech for compiling the “Truth on Muller”.

No skeptic I’ve met said that “… carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels will prove to be the greatest pollutant of human history. It is likely to have severe and detrimental effects on global climate.”  (Richard Muller, 2003).  So perhaps he became a skeptic later? Not so much. Richard Muller, 2008: “There is a consensus that global warming is real. …it’s going to get much, much worse.”

The defining mark of a skeptic is that they never believe simply because there is a “consensus”.

That Muller allows himself to be referred to as a skeptic in publication after publication says it all really. He’s not concerned about accuracy, he’s in this for the PR. We can’t trust the man on anything. If he’ll lie to save the planet, he’ll lie to save the planet. Enough said. I have no respect for him.*

UPDATE: See my new post on how Impartial his daughter and co-founder of BEST is: Elizabeth Muller (Director of BEST) ran a “Green government” consultancy.

2. The world has warmed by 0.3°C/decade. “Half right”.

This is the only point Muller has any basis for at all. But how embarrassing. We didn’t even need Watts extraordinary new study (which found the US was warming by half the official rate) — we just needed those photographs he’s collected over the years, that no newspaper is brave enough to publish. If a high school science project used thermometers like these, we would fail it, but when NOAA — the $4b a year agency — does the same thing, they can afford to publish 200 pages of statistical chicanery to pretend that 2 square kilometers of tarmac doesn’t heat up on a daily basis, adding 2 to 10 degrees of noise to a signal that’s measured in hundredths of a degree.

I mean, we are kidding aren’t we? We’re talking of a global rise of 0.9°C over 100 years, and half the thermometers “measuring” that are at huge-heat-sink-airports that didn’t exist in 1910.

3. That it’s mostly due to man-made emissions.

He has no evidence, except the weakest of weak correlations. It’s weak reasoning that depends on weak evidence.  The correlation is not very good. Not only did the warming start 200 years before the emissions, but it declined as the emissions increased in the 1940s and it’s flattened in the last decade  even though emissions are higher than ever. Solar magnetic effects fit the rises and falls of temperature much better than the monotonic CO2 increases. And on a year to year basis the CO2 increases appear to be determined by the global temperature, not the level of human emissions. Not to mention postage stamps.

Ben Cubby and The Sydney Morning Herald / The AGE  story today

The Sydney Morning Herald writer Ben Cubby interviewed me yesterday. Their history of coverage of “climate change” is so one-sided that it’s a marked improvement just to have a very short article that tries to cover both positions. Sure my comment about the poor quality of US stations was followed by an irrelevant and misleading comment from the Australian BOM about Australian stations. But at least Muller’s information was not accepted as is. (The Australian BOM has not done or published individual site surveys, and they have not released explanations of why they adjust individual stations even though skeptics have asked them. They claim their adjustments are neutral and yet the unexplained “corrections” increase the trends by around 40%. So they are misleading in claiming the information is all available for scrutiny. It isn’t. And how can they claim to have removed the worst stations without a comprehensive survey of the stations in the first place?)

Ben Cubby deserves points for actually phoning skeptics. It’s not something many believer journalists do. It’s a start. We’re coming off a very low base, but the conversation has begun. Perhaps we’ll have that debate one day that is said to be “over”.

See all the posts about Australia’s BOM

————————————————————

*Lest anyone mistake this for an ad hom: Muller’s scientific work lives and dies through the strength of his statistics, his accuracy and his logic and reason. But Muller’s opinion on the science  –  that’s only as good as his character.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.4/10 (81 votes cast)
Muller-the-pretend-skeptic makes three claims. He's half right on one., 9.4 out of 10 based on 81 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/c92kc7j

135 comments to Muller-the-pretend-skeptic makes three claims. He’s half right on one.

  • #
    Phil Ford

    A concise, forensic summary, Jo. As ever, clear and simple with just the facts.

    Just a great shame that here in the UK the BBC have re-pimped their Muller coverage today, elevating it from the science pages to the political pages on their news site. I have no idea why they decided to that, but I can guess. It’s quite shamelessly unbiased[*] and partisan; but what else can we expect from the Biased Broadcasting Corporation?

    I don’t think I can even begin to describe just how unprincipled and far away from genuine journalistic principles of ‘fair and impartial’ the BBC has drifted in its hive-mind attitude to CAGW. It’s really very sad, when one thinks how the Corporation used to be admired around the world for the quality of its reporting.

    [* See the followup comment from Phil, below -Fly]


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Simon Conway-Smith

      Phil, you are absolutely correct, and not for the first time, I have today raised a bias complaint to the BBC. Everyone should do this to let them know it’s unacceptable. They’ll continue to get away with it if people don’t complain.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Phil Ford

        Simon, good luck with that complaint to the BBC. Like any bureaucracy, the BBC politburo make public complaint procedures against itself a particularly opaque exercise. I don’t suppose it has ever occurred to them that having a large, easy-to-find ‘complaints’ button prominently on their site might actually serve the public who fund them much better than the present convoluted, far-from-obvious method. Still, I guess that’s how the Corporation interpret their duty to be ‘publicly accountable’.

        I realize I made an embarrassing mistake in my opening post above; line three should read: ‘It’s quite shamelessly biased and partisan…’ *facepalm* Guess I was getting ahead of myself in my anger, lol.

        I’d be interested to know if anyone has any luck complaining to the Biased Broadcasting Corporation, btw, about their disgraceful lack of journalistic standards when it comes to CAGW reporting.


        Report this

        00

  • #

    Well, Fox News has weighed in on the Watts vs. Muller controversy. In an attemp to be “fair and balanced” they do an unusually piss poor job of conveying the truth to their readers.

    Iif Fox cannot take a stand and tell the unvarnished truth then what major mainstream media outlet can?

    The Germans are reporting on the story and that will help and others are reporting the story, as well. I believe that it will take time and tenacity to win the day. Fortunately, we skeptics are in this for the long haul and we will prevail.

    Sadly, before this scam is finally consigned to the dustbin of history, more unnecessary blood and treasure will have been squandered fighting a threat that never existed.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    A major warmist shibboleth has been torn down. Thanks to Anthony Watts et al. :D


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Certainly, I’d agree Muller is an alarmist but the abiding impression I’ve always had of the man, is that he’s a rampant self-publicist. He just craves the limelight and by seeming to bop back across the lines repeatedly, gets lots of it.

    Pointman


    Report this

    00

  • #
    R. Gates

    Oddly, urban heat island effects were a huge consideration is developing the screening routines to try and filter out these effects in looking at tempersture increases. Some act as though this is some new concept. Some may want to reduce their level of ignorance by reading:

    http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/2010_Hansen_etal.pdf

    Muller is on the correct side of th issue now and unfortunately this will prove to be another “oops…never mind” moment for Anthony Watts.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Peter Miller

      As someone who was routinely sliced and diced on WUWT for his/her spurious and unfounded BS comments, you should perhaps keep your nonsense to the CAGW faithful sites such as Real Climate.

      The official UHI ‘screening routines’ so obviously and demonstrably understates this effect that the adjusted figures have become totally meaningless and thus ideal for typical alarmist propaganda on historic temperature trends.

      You are obviously free to continue to reduce your level of ignorance by whatever means you wish, one suggestion would be to read the articles and comments on Jo Nova’s blogs, without publicly advertising your ignorance by making snotty inane comments, worthy only of spoiled brats.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        R. Gates

        Actually Peter, I was not regularly “sliced and diced” on WUWT, but found it hard to find people who could speak scientifically on the issues without falling into some ideological psycho-babble filled with nonsense they picked up on Fox News or some other garbage source.

        In regard to this little spat between Muller and Watts, it is unfortunate the Anthony hurried up his paper as a reaction the Muller. Obviously it was a reaction and not planned as he had to cancel his vacation, stop posting on his blog etc. Reactionary papers such as this rarely turn out well for those reacting. Anthony got slapped pretty hard by Muller and was primed for “payback”, but unfortunately for Anthony the motivation of revenge will not end well for him.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Bob Malloy

          I was not regularly “sliced and diced” on WUWT, but found it hard to find people who could speak scientifically on the issues without falling into some ideological psycho-babble filled with nonsense they picked up on Fox News or some other garbage source.

          Looked in the mirror lately Gates?


          Report this

          00

        • #

          R. Gates
          August 1, 2012 at 7:46 am · Reply
          Actually Peter, I was not regularly “sliced and diced” on WUWT,

          If your performance was as mediocre and your arguments as illogical at WUWT as they are here you must have felt like you were in an intellectual food processor!

          but found it hard to find people who could speak scientifically on the issues without falling into some ideological psycho-babble filled with nonsense they picked up on Fox News or some other garbage source.

          Your statement is an unsubstantiated non sequitur ad hominem diatribe. You are a hypocrite.

          In regard to this little spat between Muller and Watts, it is unfortunate the Anthony hurried up his paper as a reaction the Muller.

          Says who? Perhaps you can share with us how you used your superior deductive powers to ascertain that Watts hurried? Watts is a dedicated servant of the truth. You do know that Muller’s paper was not accepted for publication after it failed peer review, don’t you?

          Obviously it was a reaction and not planned as he had to cancel his vacation, stop posting on his blog etc.

          Pure unsubstantiated speculation! Perhaps he postponed his vacation simply because he is diligent and a dedicated professional? He worked on the paper for years! God forbid that you should discuss the merits of Watts paper or is that beyond you?

          Reactionary papers such as this rarely turn out well for those reacting.

          Your statement is non sequitur cliche thinking! A more accurate and appropriate statement is: Groundbreaking papers based on empirical data often turn out well in the end for those with the courage to publish them. Can you cite evidence to prove it was reactionary or are you staying true to form and waxing speculative?

          Anthony got slapped pretty hard by Muller and was primed for “payback”

          Are you delusional? Were you one of the judges at the Pacquiao vs. Bradley fight? Are you on drugs? Judy Curry, Muller’s coauthor, and Mike “hokey stick” Mann both threw Muller under the bus! Maybe the warmainstas keep Muller around for comic relief?

          ,

          but unfortunately for Anthony the motivation of revenge will not end well for him.

          Thats odd, I have never seen a quote from Watts where he was resentful or vindictive, have you? If you’re looking for vengeful climate scientists just google that and include climategate emails!


          Report this

          00

        • #
          Otter

          Funny how quickly you would vanish, then, if it were truly so easy to rebuff that slicing and dicing.


          Report this

          00

      • #
        publish or be be quiet

        [comment snipped - at least attempt a comment with some reference to the topic and not just a general insult. - Mod]


        Report this

        00

    • #
      Jaymez

      Gates,

      1. Where is there any evidence of GISS/NASA reducing the raw station data to dampen down the warming effect?
      2. Where has GISS/NASA re-categorised all their temperature measuring devices to update them to the Leroy et al 2010 paper to ensure their temperature records are accurate otherwise we cannot rely on the raw data currently being collected and we cannot make the split between the quality locations.

      What Watts has done is used a tool provided in another part of the world, tidied it up and now set up a paper which shows that the US is experiencing Real Global warming at around half the rate we thought it was. This rate of growth over the last thirty years, in the top quality sites is just 0.155C per Decade.

      That’s totally in line with natural climate variably for the last 2000 years before man and industry. Sure some of it may be caused by man, due to to green house gases, but that would hardly qualify as Catastrophic Global Warming!


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        That’s totally in line with natural climate variably for the last 2000 years before man and industry.

        And it also correlates pretty well with what the satellites tell us.

        Now that may just be coincidence, but if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, there is an extremely good chance it is a duck.


        Report this

        00

    • #
      AndyG55

      But DOH !!! they should have been adjusting ALL the bad warmiing station DOWNWARD to match the good stations , NOT good stations trends upward to match all the bad station.

      Pretty silly, weren’t they !!!!


      Report this

      00

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        That’s exactly the point Andy.

        Unless of course – yes that’s it.

        Every one of those UHI sites had someone build air conditioned cool rooms around them – that explains it.

        KK


        Report this

        00

    • #
      ExWarmist

      I could reply to R. Gates, however, given what Peter, Jaymez and AndyG55 have said above – it would be redundant.

      Perhaps I can sit with Andy and ask you why “adjustments” to “Correct” for UHI are made in the “Up” direction instead of the “Down”.

      It’s such a mystery. I can’t seem to work out if it is…

      [1] Willing, knowing, Mendacious fraud, or

      [2] Unaware, hopeless, ignorant, Incompetence on the part of the climate scientists handling the data (such as Hanson).

      R. Gates – could you please help out, I would love to see an explanation for why the adjustments/corrections to the raw data increase the temperature.

      Thanks ExWarmist


      Report this

      00

      • #
        R. Gates

        ExWarmist,

        Did you actually read this link I posted before related to how NASA screens out the urban effects?

        http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/2010_Hansen_etal.pdf

        The methodology used to reduce urban (and poorly sited stations) is quite extensive, and in particular, the use of highly-sensitive night light satellite data to screen off stations near urban areas is quite impressive. The notion that NASA makes adjustments up, rather than down to correct for UHI is simply not true, period. Urban sites have been carefully screened out of the data or adjusted down to match nearby rural areas. (Read Section 4 and Appendix A of the paper linked above).

        There is simply a lot of false information being spread around right now as fallout to the Muller paper and op-ed piece. This is not to say that station siting can’t be improved by following the recommendations of LeRoy 2010, but there is absolutely no way that the U.S. ground based temperature change record has been off by a factor of 2. Those people now going around thinking this is the case (because they read it on a blog or worse, watched it on Fox News) have been done a great disservice by those spreading this kind of nonsense.

        00

        • #
          KinkyKeith

          Rgates

          There’s an old saying.

          Once bitten twice shy.

          What this means for you is that because we all know that your basic thrust is to perpetuate the Myth of man made AGW at all costs regardless of science something funny happens.

          You have no credibility here.

          People will just play around with you.

          Have fun or go back to where you will feel loved and valued.

          REAL CLIMATE is the place for you.


          Report this

          00

        • #
          AndyG55

          I agree, I suspect the factor is more like 3 times


          Report this

          00

        • #
          Gee Aye

          Did you really say a factor of 2? Let me check again. Yep.

          Ever studied stats?


          Report this

          00

        • #
          AndyG55

          Yep GISS certainly screen out urban heat affects. ;-)


          Report this

          00

        • #

          R. Gates, did you read the first paragraph from the link you cited?

          Satellite‐observed night lights are used to identify measurement stations located in extreme darkness and adjust temperature trends of urban and periurban stations for nonclimatic factors, verifying that urban effects on analyzed global change are small.

          Here is a quote from the US EPA. I posted this quote in a comment at another of Jo’s post the other day. I guess you must have missed it.

          http://www.epa.gov/hiri/
          The annual mean air temperature of a city with 1 million people or more

          can be 1.8–5.4°F (1–3°C) warmer than its surroundings.

          In the evening, the difference can be as high as 22°F (12°C).

          Urban Heat Island Effect is something we can measure, it is not based on model simulations. If Watts is right, and the warmanistas, despite a herculean effort, can find nothing wrong with Watts paper then the climate scientists are incompetent, fraudsters, or both!

          There is simply a lot of false information being spread around right now as fallout to the Muller paper and op-ed piece.

          You must be referring to the damage control by the warmists initiated after some of the all stars from the hockey team broke ranks, right? Or, perhaps you are eluding to the fact that Muller’s paper is a bigger embarrassment than the Gergis paper?


          Report this

          00

          • #
            R. Gates

            Eddie,

            You seem to have missed the part of the pater that found that even though the overall heat island effect is small, NASA has taken them all out if their is no rural counter-part, and they even run the numbers with out any urban centers at all (with or without close by rural stations). Guess what– it made very little difference in the changing the overall temperature increases. Read Appendix A in the paper for this process. The urban heat island and poorly sighted station issue has been addressed by NASA for quite some time. This is really dead argument now that will end poorly for Watts I’m afraid. The LeRoy suggestions are good for siting stations, and can minimize the kinds of data homogenization in the future that still needs to occur, but there is absolutely no way that the increase in temperatures in the U.S. has been exaggerated by 100%.


            Report this

            00

          • #

            Are you brain dead? Do you know what the word “small” means? Let me explain this to you in the simplest terms possible so that there is a chance you might get it.

            From your link:

            If only USHCN stations are employed (as in NCDC analyses), we find 1900–2009 temperature changes of 0.73°C (no adjustment) and 0.65°C (standard night light adjustment).

            00

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            Yep, we definitely missed you Eddy


            Report this

            00

          • #

            From your link:

            If only USHCN stations are employed (as in NCDC analyses), we find 1900–2009 temperature changes of 0.73°C (no adjustment) and 0.65°C (standard night light adjustment).

            As the quote from the EPA stated:

            can be 1.8–5.4°F (1–3°C) warmer than its surroundings

            Obviously, there is a problem with the math. How could two government agencies arrive at such disparate conclusions?

            Let’s face it, the odds of every “adjustment” made showing the earlier years as being cooler and the recent years as being warmer sre so infinitesimally small as to beggar the imagination! See also Crackar at 5.5.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            BobC

            R. Gates
            August 1, 2012 at 3:21 pm
            Eddie,

            You seem to have missed the part of the pater that found that even though the overall heat island effect is small…

            Small? As the EPA admits, in the publication Eddy just linked, (and NASA has measured) the effect can be as large as 12°C. Hansen assuming that it is small and “has almost no effect” is just a way to rationalize not adequately adjusting for it.

            The urban heat island and poorly sighted station issue has been addressed by NASA for quite some time.
            … Read Appendix A in the paper for this process…

            OK… So, the way they identify ‘bad’ stations is by night-time satellite imagery in the visible. Interestingly, NOAA already has a set of standards for siting weather stations — and none of the criteria can be determined by night-time satellite images (e.g., large expanses of unlit asphalt would be dark, so would be judged “good”, and air conditioner exhaust fans are rarely lighted.) So by sorting the stations by satellite images, they are sorting them into some unknown collection of “good” and “bad” mixtures. It is not possible to draw any conclusions whatsoever from further analyzing these unverified groups — a point Hansen misses.

            On the other hand, Watts has put the time into sorting these stations by NOAA’s criteria, by actually visiting them and observing the environment (http://www.surfacestations.org/)

            ..there is absolutely no way that the increase in temperatures in the U.S. has been exaggerated by 100%.

            But, that’s precisely what Watt’s paper shows, when you separate out the good and bad stations by NOAA’s actual siting criteria, as verified from the ground — not some unverified sorting method (night-time images from satellites) that hasn’t the capability of determining whether a station meets the siting criteria or not.

            That you refuse to believe established facts (argument from incredulity?) isn’t exactly persuasive.


            Report this

            00

        • #
          Peter Miller

          This is from the horse’s mouth: NASA on UHI.

          The phenomenon can be very much more serious that even most sceptics thought. Most important is that there is no way this is even partially compensated for in any of GISS’ figures.

          http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=uhi%20nasa&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CFQQtwIwAw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nasa.gov%2Ftopics%2Fearth%2Ffeatures%2Fheat-island-sprawl.html&ei=71cZUJejGLCA0AXv6IHgCw&usg=AFQjCNE9lDzh7sic5Ok1nnTjwyLk5VhF3A&cad=rja


          Report this

          00

    • #
      crakar24

      When are you going to get it through your thick head that the problems with the stations is not wether or not UHI is correctly adjusted it is that the siting of these stations IS NOT UP TO STANDARD. Therefore the raw data that they produce is erroneous, you can add all the algorithms you like but the data is not valid.

      JESUS F WEPT.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        R. Gates

        Yes, it’s very easy to say all the data is corrupt and should now be handled differently, etc. Fortunately, NASA has done an excellent job anticipating the kinds of issues that could affect the data and has included homogenization, exclusion, and other processes to provide a high degree of confidence in the data. Muller’s confirmation of the general trend was huge blow to Anthony, and he’ll not easily let it go, even if he should.

        LeRoy provides some excellent guidance for how stations should be set up to avoid the kinds of complex homogenization and filtering and adjustments that has been required, but it does not invalidate the data. There is absolutely no way the increase in temperatures have been off by 100%. Simply not possible.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          crakar24

          Gates i know you are just taking the piss out of us so i am only responding to your dribble so that those who only read this will not be taken in by your rubbish.

          Yes, it’s very easy to say all the data is corrupt and should now be handled differently, etc. Fortunately, NASA has done an excellent job anticipating the kinds of issues that could affect the data and has included homogenization, exclusion, and other processes to provide a high degree of confidence in the data.

          I dont think i have ever read anything deceitful in my life, how in heavens name could NASA actually accomplish this feat?

          Did they got to each and every site and calculate just how much jet wash flooded over the station at airports?

          Did they calculate how much aircon hot exhaust washed over each and every site near them?

          Did they physically measure the height of each and every station to determine just what their height was (as opposed to the standard) and then make an adjustment for that site?

          And the list goes on but did they do this Gates? Of course they did not and remember 80% of the stations failed to meet the standard in one way or another so how could NASA magically account for any warming bias (and possibly cooling bias) in each of that 80% of stations if they never physically checked each and every one of them.

          Once again you will fail to answer so i will answer for the readers………they never did so NASA have not done an excellent job of doing corrects so stop lying to every one.

          Muller’s confirmation of the general trend was huge blow to Anthony, and he’ll not easily let it go, even if he should.

          MULLER USED AN OUTDATED OR IF YOU PREFER THE WRONG OR AN INFERIOR STANDARD

          LeRoy provides some excellent guidance for how stations should be set up to avoid the kinds of complex homogenization and filtering and adjustments that has been required, but it does not invalidate the data. There is absolutely no way the increase in temperatures have been off by 100%. Simply not possible.

          Next time you make such statements without any supporting evidence can you please preface the statement with I BELEIVE.


          Report this

          00

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          Fortunately, NASA has done an excellent job anticipating the kinds of issues that could affect the data and has included homogenization, exclusion, and other processes to provide a high degree of confidence in the data.

          Do you grow roses? Cow by-product is excellent for roses, but it has no place in science.

          If I have a an unknown number of errors in my data, each with an unknown magnitude of error, then I can homogenise and filter and exclude and adjust all I want, but I cannot reduce the overall error coefficient of my data set. There is no way I can improve its degree of alignment with reality.

          You can put lipstick and a wig on a pig, but it is still a pig. Even if it does look a bit like your mother in law.


          Report this

          00

        • #
          crakar24

          Gates,

          BEST has been rejected via the peer review process and here are the reasons why

          http://www.rossmckitrick.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/referee_report.pdf

          http://www.rossmckitrick.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/2nd_review.pdf

          Any more talk about BEST particularily in reference to the Watts et al paper should cease immediately that is if you “do science” if you “do trolling” then continue by all means.


          Report this

          10

          • #
            BobC

            Wow! I’ve had papers rejected, but I’ve never had a slapdown like this:

            …the authors conclude that their result “agrees with the conclusions in the literature that we cited previously” which is a baffling statement given that they cite papers that directly contradict one another. My overall impression is that the authors have not actually read all the papers they cite, and have not come to terms with the technical issues involved in the current debate.

            the authors’ empirical results are consistent either with the stated conclusion or its opposite, and therefore they are in no position to say anything decisive.

            Thanks for the link, crakar.


            Report this

            00

        • #
          Simon C

          “and has included homogenization, exclusion, and other processes to provide a high degree of confidence in the data”

          It doesn’t matter what the ‘processes’ are, if the data is bad in the first place and there’s no reliable quantification or characterisation of the errors because there is no reference, there’s no way of ‘adjusting’ low quality data to high quality. All you can do is the correct scientific method, and state the data plus the error.

          Two simple analogies:-

          In computing: The universal law is GIGO.

          In photography: An out of focus picture once taken cannot be focussed after the fact, and any ‘sharpening’ algorithms cannot re-create the original image, but themselves INTRODUCE artefacts that are NOT original data.


          Report this

          00

      • #
        publish or be be quiet

        Those without facts resort to abuse…….thick head….brain dead….your rubbish…….that’s the norm for this site and the reason why it has no serious discussion

        (You have been warned once and still you publish nothing worth reading.Keep this up and your empty comments will be just that in fully moderated snips.Meanwhile YOU can post something that is worth discussing and maybe you begin to be part of the discussion community of this blog) CTS


        Report this

        00

    • #

      Oddly, urban heat island effects were a huge consideration…

      If they would have adjusted the temps correctly then they would have adjusted the numbers in the recent past downward and left the 1930′s, the hottest decade since the LIA, untouched . Instead, they committed fraud by doing just the opposite.

      Are you obtuse or are you working on a stand up comedy routine?


      Report this

      00

  • #

    Maybe Muller was a skeptic in the sense that John Cook and Micheal Mann claim to be “skeptics“. Maybe he has got out a proper dictionary and realised that he better expose himself as an alarmist. :)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Snotrocket

    I could accept that R Gates is a little unhinged – but then, as he is a great supporter of the faith, perhaps he can tell us all when exactly Dr Muller was a sceptic – and when he became a ‘believer’. Be nice to know…


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      That is a good idea.

      Well Gates, are you up to it? Do you have enough cognitive ability to be able to produce anything productive to this discussion?

      Having a timeline is a useful way of putting change into perspective.

      Your friends, followers, and fans, are calling for you …


      Report this

      00

    • #
      AndyG55

      I suggest that Muller started allowing himslef to be called a skeptic when his daughter took over the BEST project.

      She is a RAPID warmist, up there with Hansen et al. and I suspect that making her dad a “skeptic” (in name only of course) was very much her doing.

      Would be nice to check the time-lines of when he first beca,me a pseudo-skeptic, and when his daughter became involved.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      jorgekafkazar

      I’ve suspected for some time that R. Gates is more than one person. Some of Gates’s comments are halfway rational; some are just barmy in the crumpet.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    The Black Adder

    The Australian BOM has not done or published individual site surveys, and they have not released explanations of why they adjust individual stations even though skeptics have asked them. They claim their adjustments are neutral and yet the unexplained “corrections” increase the trends by around 40%.

    This is important !!

    I live in Cairns, and guess where our BOM Site is?? Yep, at the Cairns International Airport.

    I believe if we did a Watts et al. study of BOM, we would find large scale upping of temps Australia Wide.

    This is a scam and needs to be thouroughly investigated….we need a mole inside to start blowing whistles.

    We need the next Govt. to audit the BOM. I do not trust them anymore than Mr Gates. Both dodgy with stats.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Well, Blacker Adder,

      That was:

      Clean – only the bare minimum.

      Concise – stated the problem + gave an example + suggested action.

      Incisive – can just see the fangs sinking in.

      High Believability – piggy-backs off Watt’s paper for support of method.

      Nice piece there!

      KK :)


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Christoph Dollis

    I reluctantly agree with you here:

    1. He’s a converted skeptic. No he’s a dishonest alarmist.
    Thanks to PopTech for compiling the “Truth on Muller”.

    No skeptic I’ve met said that “… carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels will prove to be the greatest pollutant of human history. It is likely to have severe and detrimental effects on global climate.” (Richard Muller, 2003). So perhaps he became a skeptic later? Not so much. Richard Muller, 2008: “There is a consensus that global warming is real. …it’s going to get much, much worse.”

    The defining mark of a skeptic is that they never believe simply because there is a “consensus”.

    That Muller allows himself to be referred to as a skeptic in publication after publication says it all really. He’s not concerned about accuracy, he’s in this for the PR. We can’t trust the man on anything. If he’ll lie to save the planet, he’ll lie to save the planet. Enough said. I have no respect for him.*

    It’s sad, really. The other day I said on this site that I suspect most of the errors have been inadvertent and are examples of human weaknesses and biases. Muller on his “scepticism”? I think he’s a liar.

    And it’s a damn shame.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      I saw your previous comment, and thought at the time that you were being very generous.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Tel

      No sir, it is indeed a human weakness, just as you first suspected.

      The weakness for making an easy living at someone else’s expense. Who amongst us can honestly claim it has not crossed their mind? Not me!


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Alexander K

    Jo, terrific article!
    I have just finished reading (at WUWT) and digesting Willis
    Eschenbach’s elegant and concise skewering of MUller’s Best silliness re Vulcanism affecting climate.
    My late Dad warned me many years ago that whatever proven liars do or say is ALWAYS tempered by their inability to avoid lieing: sadly, Muller seems also to be ego-driven, which is never healthy!
    Muller has proved himself to be a Liar by his own documented pronouncements, and is aided and abetted by his daughter, who has been caught out thoroughly by Ross McKittrick in his expose of the truth about some of the Best team’s papers failure to pass peer review.
    In closing, I am always amused by the pronouncements of R Gates, who pops up in all sorts of places to defend the self-appointed clergy of his faith.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ross

    Unfortunately it looks like Anthony Watts may have mismanaged this abit. Over at Climate Audit , Steve McIntyre is explaining how he was only involved at the last moment and he may have found an error in part of the stats.

    http://climateaudit.org/

    How significant this , we will have to wait and see , but you can be sure it will be jumped on.
    Hopefully it is nothing serious and will become part of the “tidying up” process.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Christoph Dollis

      Yes, Ross. This is most regrettable.

      I still think the paper has value and McIntyre will probably tighten it up. However, I had thought of him as a co-author of the paper in the sense of being significantly familiar with all of it.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Ross

        Christoph

        Reading some of the comments on Climate Audit by people who are far more knowledgible than I’ll ever be in the area it seems that :

        1. The paper can still “stand its own” without the TOB issue being addressed.

        2. But they are going to address the TOB issue and this will make the paper better. It is even suggested it may show the amount warming to be LESS.

        So it looks like all will be OK but I still think AW mismanaged it abit On another blog I said I thought that AW and people like Lord Monckton would be working on a media strategy but we not see much of it until full peer review had taken place. I hope I am right. I do not think a delay is a problem for something that is so significant.


        Report this

        00

      • #

        I’m not overly concerned. As long as we are honest about what happens, this is how open peer review works. Given that Watts results meet the common sense test in every way (bad thermometers overestimate warming, airports are unnatural environments, MMTS are more accurate than older thermometers) I can’t see the newer results turning results around in a major way. AS I said, I have confidence that he is just finding something we knew all along. The strength of the skeptical work is it’s honesty, it’s open source nature and the uncensored nature of criticisms. The fact that it was skeptics who pointed the TOBS issue out first is a good thing.

        I think Watts handled the news cycle well on this, and being realistic, that matters.


        Report this

        00

    • #
      R. Gates

      Haste makes waste. Anthony’s reactionary approach to attempt to get this paper out under some deadline to upstage Muller was a huge mistake. But worst of all, the overly-hyped importance of this paper will mean that Anthony will be ignored even more in the future.


      Report this

      00

      • #

        One more times, Gates, provide evidence that Watts was hasty or man up and admit that it is juspinion opinion!.

        Your idiotic green religious prophecies mean that you are the one who will be ignored, not Watts. If you can provide any empirical evidence to prove Watts is wrong then do it! Otherwise put the kool aid down and get a life you time bandit global warming water boy!


        Report this

        00

      • #
        Otter

        If haste makes waste, perhaps you shouldn’t be so hasty to post your nonsense here- the waste is piling up thick. Try to take some time and think, rather than emote.


        Report this

        00

      • #
        Sonny

        Haste makes waste?
        Not always. Gergis’ hockey stick Australis took 2 year and $400000
        In taxes to produce a paper which was withdrawn from publication when massive errors were discovered.

        Waste makes waste. Shit in = shit out


        Report this

        00

  • #
    Christoph Dollis

    Maybe I spoke too hastily about Professor Muller  . . .

    . . .  in the sense that I was too soft on the guy.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    manalive

    …. the 20th century had a temperature rise of nearly one degree Celsius …. although the reason for this warming is not fully understood, many climate scientists think it is the result of the addition of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere by humans …

    That was Muller in his brief introduction to the history of climate, which appears to date from the late 90s and in other respects is a very reasonable summary.
    It seems it was sometime in the early 2000s that the panic set in.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Hi Manalive

      I’m just not sure that your quote of Mr Muller could be seen as – “a very reasonable summary: ”

      ” .. the 20th century had a temperature rise of nearly one degree Celsius …. although the reason for this warming is not fully understood,

      many climate scientists think it is the result of the addition of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere by humans …”

      The only thing that EVER linked Human Origin CO2 was the wish by the Green – Left – Political Axis of Evil that it be so.

      There is no sensible scientific mechanism by which Human Origin or any other CO2 can influence the Earths atmospheric temperatures in the

      manner hoped for by the Axis of Evil.

      The fact that temperature data has had to be Pasteurised, Homogenised and Deodorised to create and hold the Dream tells the whole sorry

      story. It was always a Fabrication and it only ever survived out in the open because of Trust.

      Other scientists were fooled by the claim that qualified scientists had “done the work’.

      We now know that our trust has been betrayed : FOR MONEY.

      We will not be so Unscientific in the future.

      Everything will be checked and double checked.

      Sure accidents will always happen. I recall one US space mission that had a hick-up because some engineering calculations had been carried

      out using SI values in a formula requiring the US system of units (the old Imperial).

      Unfortunately the wrongful conviction of CO2 in this mess was not a mistake; it was willful deception at all levels.

      KK :)


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        KK,

        You need to put this into an historical perspective. Right through the 20th Century we had scare after scare starting, I think, with thalidomide (which was real), and university students smoking banana skins to get high (which was not). In those scares, and all of the scares that followed, SIF and Government money was thrown into proving the scare to be valid, and it was industry money that was thrown in to trying to demonstrate that they were not.

        Government money then, as now, was justified on the precautionary principle, so all the SIF’s had to do was describe the bogie man (and produce a photo or artists impression) and they were guaranteed a significant proportion of their required war chest. Industry had to front up with their own money, which they got by passing on the costs to the consumer. The amount of money from both sides was more or less equal.

        Scientists, on both sides of the argument (whatever it was) were therefore guaranteed copious funding from one side or the other. They were, and are, the primary benefactors of popular scare stories.

        In the ’80′s and ’90′s, people like Muller may well have looked at the balance of the funding around climate research, and decided that more money was being put on the table by Governments, so figured that industry would have to match that amount in order to stay in the game. In those days it didn’t matter which side you were on, so the savvy scientist would go for the side with the most remaining money – industry. Thus some scientists will have become professional sceptics.

        In the reality, there was never enough funding for the sceptical view (and still isn’t), so quite a few scientists, “reconsidered the evidence”, and effectively changed allegiance.

        A good example was Stephen Scheider who, in the 1971 was extremely worried about the world moving into another ice age, then in 1977 wrote, in Nature: we just do not know enough to say definitively whether the world is warming or cooling, and by his death in 2010, was thoroughly committed to warming. Now I may be extremely cynical in thinking that it was all about the money and prestige, but it seems to be a pattern adopted by other scientists as well, and we must not forget that these statements invariably attracted “interesting research commissions”, from one side of the fence or the other.

        As Eddy is fond of saying, “Always follow the Money”.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          KinkyKeith

          Thanks RW

          It’s good to have that perspective.

          The Stephen Schneider thing was a bit tragic.

          I saw him speaking on TV or the net not long before he passed away and was amazed at the things he said with a straight face.

          No self respecting scientist would put the point of view he was advocating and I suspect that the internal conflict may have led to his early passing.

          Your outline of people being paid by the amount of air time they get to put an argument exactly fits what I saw.

          KK


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            There is an hour long TV program on YouTube about the Blizzards that shut down a considerable part of the US east coast in the late ’60′s early ’70′s, that started the whole climate change movement. A very young, fit, and tousle-haired Stephen Schneider appears towards the end of the film worrying that we were moving into an ice age, and that it would “bring us all down”.

            I have spent several hours tonight (my time) looking for it. If anybody knows where it is, I would be grateful to be told.

            The message is almost the opposite of what gets dished-up today. Has the science improved over the past forty years? No. Have the PR and propaganda techniques improved over that time? Absolutely!


            Report this

            00

          • #
  • #
    pat

    for once Reuters can’t blame China in the headline:

    31 July: Reuters: US Senate panel passes bill to block EU airline law
    Reporting By Valerie Volcovici; Editing by Kenneth Barry
    A U.S. Senate committee passed a bill on Tuesday authorizing the transportation secretary to bar U.S. airlines from complying with a European Union law that would require them to pay for carbon emissions on flights to and from Europe.
    The measure approved by the Senate Commerce Committee will be sent to the full Senate for a vote…
    “More than $3.1 billion will be wrapped up in new taxes between 2012 and 2020 that could otherwise be invested in creating jobs and stimulating economic growth in our country,” Thune said.
    Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer, a long-time advocate of mandatory curbs on carbon emissions and author of several cap-and-trade bills, said she and fellow Democratic Senator John Kerry would back the measure after Thune included compromise language…
    The U.S. Department of Transportation and State Department are hosting talks on Tuesday and Wednesday with 16 other countries that oppose the EU’s trading scheme to find a global alternative under ICAO.
    Kerry, who also announced his support for the bill, warned if ICAO does not come up with an alternative solution soon “we are headed for a trade war.”…

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/31/aviation-co-idUSL2E8IVFTY20120731


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Grant (NZ)

    If Muller was a skeptic (note “If”), the question is, what changed him? Was he changed by the evidence? Has someone been able to convince him through a demonstration of cause and effect?

    If so, then why won’t they show the same evidence to me?

    Or was there a gravy train passing?


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Bruce of Newcastle

      Dr Muller has an environmental consultancy which provided this service:

      GreenGov™ is a service offered by Muller & Associates for Governments, International Organizations, non profits, and other organizations that work with Government.

      Firstly the service was called GreenGov, which doesn’t sound remotely sceptical. Secondly governments and the only NGO with money are overwhelmingly climate alarmist.

      You will find Ms Ostrov’s link no longer mentions GreenGov™ as the site has been modified since the time of the post. However they have not yet changed the blurb here (at the time of my posting this).

      Does this answer your question?


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Grant (NZ)

        Was GreenGov setup while the gravy train was approaching the station?

        Incidentally my Big Oil cheque hasn’t arrived this month. Just like last month and the month before and the month before… Skepticism just doesn’t seem to pay all that well….


        Report this

        00

      • #

        Thanks for catching that Bruce … I’ll update the page. They don’t haven’t “disappeared” GreenGov™ on LinkedIn, yet – so I’ve taken the double precaution of grabbing a screen capture and WebCite (to make up for the fact that I had foolishly assumed they might be somewhat more professional – and reliable about this!)

        Interesting that the LinkedIn Page indicates that Muller & Associates was founded in 2009. Didn’t indicate which month, though!

        One thing I don’t remember seeing on their website last time I visited is a link to “A Chapter from Richard Muller’s Undergraduate Text” Chapter 10 – Climate Change

        Needless to say he covers all the alarmist bases and, not surprisingly, accords due reverence to the authority of the IPCC!

        Some “skeptic”, eh?!

        Hilary


        Report this

        00

  • #
    Christoph Dollis

    Joanne,

    McIntyre’s post needs to be addressed.

    Specifically that he didn’t even know he was being made a co-author, and that he’s found at least one flaw (or at a minimum, oversight) with the paper.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Philip Bradley

    Everyone knows hot air rises off concrete

    In which case, everyone is wrong.

    Fresh concrete has a fairly high albedo (0.55 according to wikipedia), old concrete somewhat less. Which means it reflects more than half of the solar energy. The heat you feel on a sunny day over concrete is the reflected solar energy (radiant heat).

    Air near the ground is heated by conduction from the ground’s surface, High albedo surfaces absorb less solar energy and therefore have less energy to heat the air above through conduction.

    The air above concrete is cooler than lower albedo surfaces. Even though it feels hot, because of the radiant energy.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      • #
        Philip Bradley

        At night time as well and for the same reason. Less heat energy absorbed during the day = less heat energy released at night.

        Here is a US EPA report on the subject.

        http://www.epa.gov/heatisland/resources/pdf/CoolPavementReport_Former%20Guide_complete.pdf


        Report this

        00

        • #

          Phil (and Jo)

          I worked graveyard shifts at a petrol station for over 9 months (I still do occasionally). As part of my duties, I’d use an IR thermometre to read the temperature of the refrigerators and freezers every 6 hours (around 11pm and 5am) every single day.
          Due to my interest in this subject, I went outside with my IRT and took readings of the various surfaces on numerous days.

          The coolest objects were the leaves of plants and grass especially when wet.
          Asphalt was almost always 5-6Deg warmer. A little less on cloudy nights.
          Concrete was about 2-4Deg warmer (Oil stained sections warmer still)
          Soil was 1-3Deg warmer even when wet.

          Only one object was cooler than leaves and grass and that was the steel covers of the fill and dip points especially during the wee hours.

          My experience tells me that yes indeed, hot air rises off concrete, even during the wee hours. Concrete also dries the quickest, even quicker than asphalt.
          I trust my experience ahead of the US EPA any day.

          p.s. Under the 4.5m high canopy was always warmer than the open areas by up to 6Deg but not the metal fittings of the bowsers.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Philip Bradley

            I assume when you say a surface was warmer or cooler, you mean compared to the ambient air temperature. And you don’t say whether these measurements were taken during the day or night. Its not surprising that wet vegetation was the coolest you measured as evapotranspiration is the main heat transfer mechanism near the surface.

            Otherwise, your measurements confirm what I said, albedo determines heat capture by surfaces and consequently how much these surfaces heat the air above.


            Report this

            00

          • #

            you mean compared to the ambient air temperature.

            My apologies for not being clear Phil.

            No, I mean soil was warmer than leaves and grass. Concrete was warmer than soil. Asphalt was warmer than concrete.
            I don’t know how these compared to ambient air T.
            I pointed the IRT to the sky on many occasions and got readings anywhere from -3 to -15Deg. Holding it directly up always showed coldest. Angling towards the horizon was always less cold than directly up.
            (Please note these numbers are from memory. But next late shift I do I’ll take readings and note them down)

            And you don’t say whether these measurements were taken during the day or night.

            I did actually, in the very first paragraph..

            “to read the temperature of the refrigerators and freezers every 6 hours (around 11pm and 5am) every single day”.

            You also say..

            albedo determines heat capture by surfaces and consequently how much these surfaces heat the air above.

            Yes of course. And as you say, the surface warms the air above it, hence the truth to Jos statement that warm air rises above concrete.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Philip Bradley

            Whether air rises due to heating over a particular surface results from how much that surface heats the air relative to adjacent surfaces + the effect of humidity. The key word being ‘relative’. That is, the air above the surface that heats the air above it the most (+ the effect of humidity), rises.

            I think our point of disagreement is heat versus temperature. Heat = temperature only when humidity is constant. Increase humidity and temperature decreases. Which is why natural surfaces result in lower air temperatures than manmade surfaces.

            If you are arguing that air above concrete has a higher temperature than natural surfaces then I’d generally agree with you, but when you factor in humidity, manmade surfaces with lower albedos than concrete, and generally speaking natural surfaces, will result in convection of the air above. This is because the mass of H2O is less than the mass of O2 and N2. That is, the mass of humid air is less than dry air when temperature is equal.


            Report this

            00

    • #
      AndyG55

      Which of course explains why house designers use concrete mass as a sink to store heat.;-)


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Philip Bradley

        There is no relationship between thermal capacity and albedo. Which is why in the link I posted the EPA proposes covering dark surfaces with a thin layer of lighter more reflective material to reduce urban temperatures.


        Report this

        00

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      On a hot summer night.

      Whoah Meatloaf – take a break.

      Sorry.

      That should have been on a hot weekend day when walking to the beach barefooted.

      I can tell you that only a fool would walk on black tarred road surface.

      By comparison white concrete was very manageable.

      KK


      Report this

      00

    • #
      jorgekafkazar

      Hot air still rises off concrete. Nothing you have said establishes anything different. No amount of tap-dancing about relative albedo, humidity, or heat vs temperature will change that. In fact, hot air rises off every object that is hotter than the surrounding air.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    pat

    31 July: News1130 Canada: Shane Bigham: CTF wants BC to scrap the Pacific Carbon Trust
    Federation says the PCT is failing taxpayers
    Canadian Taxpayers Federation is calling on the provincial government to scrap the system that manages the sale of carbon credits in BC…
    According to the Federation, the Vancouver School District was forced to buy $454,824 in carbon credits last year. The Vancouver Island Health Authority spent $887,926. The Northern Health Authority paid $650,466.
    “You’re talking about hundreds of thousands of dollars for every school board, every health region, every government ministry,” Bateman adds. “Anything that’s tied to the provincial government has to buy these carbon credits through the Pacific Carbon Trust.”…
    Bateman says taxpayer money flowed exclusively into the pockets of corporations, including some of the largest companies in the province.
    Lafarge, a $20 billion company, was paid by the Trust for 22,998 carbon credits. Encana, an $8.8 billion company, sold 84,276 credits. Canfor, a $2.5 billion company, sold 41,573 credits.
    Other sellers included TimberWest and Interfor.
    “Essentially, it’s just corporate welfare,” states Bateman…
    He notes two years ago, individuals and businesses bought 6,790 carbon credits. Last year, that number fell by more than two-thirds to 2,167.
    http://www.news1130.com/news/local/article/387895–ctf-wants-bc-to-scrap-the-pacific-carbon-trust


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] As far as public policies go the only point that matters is 3, but most of the conversation is about 1 and 2. Worse, most journalists and many so-called scientists think evidence for warming is the same as evidence that coal fired power stations did it. How unscientific. (source) [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    1 Aug: Herald Sun: Genesis fitness centre fined for blaming carbon tax for price rises
    The Genesis Fitness Club in Berwick, 45km southeast of Melbourne, has been issued with a $6600 infringement notice on the one-month anniversary of the introduction of the carbon tax…
    Australian Competition and Consumer Commission chairman Rod Sims said the gym sent a letter to 2122 members in April promoting a “rate freeze” to beat the carbon tax.
    It claimed a lengthy contract extension would save between 9 and 15 per cent.
    “The ACCC believes that GFC Berwick did not have a reasonable basis for claiming the carbon price would increase the cost of gym memberships by 9-15 per cent,” Mr Sims said…
    http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/genesis-fitness-centre-fined-for-blaming-carbon-tax-for-price-rises/story-fndo48ca-1226440077878


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    1 Aug: Cairns Post: Tarina White: Carbon tax will hit prawn pricing
    CONSUMERS can expect to pay more for farmed Australian prawns and barramundi as a result of the Federal Government’s controversial carbon tax, delegates at a national farmers conference in the Far North will be told today.
    Alistair Dick, president of the Australian Prawn Farmers Association, said the high environmental standards in this country mean the industry would not be able to compete on price against foreign prawn and barramundi farmers.
    “Every time we add extra environmental requirements on producers, the cost of production increases and so does the price we have to charge consumers, otherwise, we will go out of business,” Mr Dick said…
    Mr Keogh said the institute’s research into the impact of the Federal Government’s carbon policies on Australian wild fishing and aquaculture businesses identified potential cost increases of about 2 per cent for farmed prawns.
    “A large component of the cost increase is associated with the relatively high level of electricity used by prawn farmers, due to the need to constantly operate pond aerators, and also due to electricity costs associated with water pumping and refrigeration for coolroom and storage facilities,” Mr Keogh said.
    “The second area where cost increases may impact in the future will be increased freight costs associated with shipment and road transport of feed to prawn farms.”…
    Marty Phillips, president of the Australian Barramundi Farmers Association, said any cost increases would impact heavily on land-based aquaculture.
    http://www.cairns.com.au/article/2012/08/01/231121_local-news.html

    memo to business: do not blame your increases specifically on the CO2 tax, which will never tell the full story, but rather on all the costs associated with the Labor/Greens general environmental polices which are based on flawed manmade global warming science.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Capn Jack Walker

    Avast there Josephine, or may I be calling you Jo.

    The issue is best solved scientifically if you are measuring man made effect urban encroachment then you use the ones that are clearly UHI impacted, if you be measuring the climate away from local effecs then use the class 1 and class 2 sites and none other.

    You can’t homogenise apples and oranges, unless you wants some furit punch to puts yer rum in.

    I nominates you for science presenter at the AB Bloody C. I knows a couple there that needs some plank walking. They missed climategate, they missed all the UN mischiefcalling on what their and who their scientific authorities are.

    [Her name is "Joanne", as you may deduce from the domain name, but in the 17th century, you may have written it "Jo-Anne" -Fly]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    RoyFOMR

    If, hypothetically, a business had to pay a large fine because it blamed cost increases on the Carbon Tax would it get fined again if it had to raise its prices because of the imposition of that fine and then reporting same?
    If so could it get fined again and be forced to increase costs further?
    Great move by the Herald Sun though in featuring the story as linked to by Pat
    http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/genesis-fitness-centre-fined-for-blaming-carbon-tax-for-price-rises/story-fndo48ca-1226440077878

    The revenue from the heading advert on ten things to know about the Carbon Tax plus the footer plug for saving energy costs must have been a nice little earner for the newspaper!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    1 Aug: ABC: Michael Jands: Carbon tax partly blamed for manufacturing slump
    A leading private index shows the Australian manufacturing sector slumped in July, with industry groups in part blaming the carbon tax.
    The Australian Industry Group – PwC Performance of Manufacturing Index fell 6.9 points last month to 40.3 – a reading below 50 indicates the sector is contracting.
    The reports authors say wages and input costs, including the upstream impacts of carbon pricing, rose, while selling prices declined further.
    The report suggests this indicates a limited ability for businesses to pass on carbon price cost increases to customers…
    Ai Group’s chief executive Innes Willox: “Manufacturers are responding by reassessing and re-modelling their businesses but, as suggested by another drop in new orders and with the full impact of the carbon tax still to be felt, further falls in overall activity are likely in the months ahead.”
    The overall PMI result was the lowest for three years…
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-01/manufacturing-slumps-in-july/4168832?section=justin


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bob in Castlemaine

    How transparently opportunistic Muller’s publicity seeking claims to being a recently converted “climate sceptic”.

    Also Muller’s paper provides no evidence to support his fundamental assertion of his would be CO2, temperature correlation indicating a causal relationship. In fact it would be equally valid to claim that the DOW Jones Industrial Average shows a better correlation with temperature than does atmospheric CO2 concentration.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      AndyG55

      “DOW Jones Industrial Average shows a better correlation with temperature than does atmospheric CO2 concentration.”

      And is FAR more likely to be the cause of any insignificant warming that there might have been. Certainly a cause of any trend in the global urban land temperature measurement.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Randizzle

    Hey Phil Ford.

    I agree whole heartedly with every word you wrote. In Canada we have the CBC, a mouthpiece for everything left as is the BBC. How will we ever claw it back? I’m dumbfounded by these organizations. I complained about a short segment on a CBC science program regarding AGW. The ombudsman wrote back claiming there is not a single credible, peer reviewed paper in print which disputes any of what AGW theory claims as truth. End of story, he’d engage no further.

    Bloody hell!!!!!!!!!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    R. Gates

    Well worth the read for an excellent summary of some of the very significant issues that Watts will need to address in his new paper:

    http://rankexploits.com/musings/2012/initial-thoughts-on-the-watts-et-al-draft/

    Thanks to Zeke and Kenneth Fritsch for this…


    Report this

    00

    • #

      Gates,

      Your link is a flop, a bust and a waste of my valuable time. You truly do take up valuable oxygen tha a rodent could be consuming!

      From your weak link:

      While doing a detailed analysis of the results is not possible until the actual station siting classifications are released, I’ll provide an initial set of thoughts and discuss potential areas where the paper could be improved.

      Its also worth highlighting Kenneth Fritsch’s summary …
      I have not read all 300 plus posts and I have only skimmed through the Watts paper.

      And you call Watts hasty?

      Good night and get a life, Gates!


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Philip Bradley

      A cursory read of your link I noticed 2 errors in the critique.

      “The problem with using a current station rating to predict temperature trend effects is that it says nothing about the past history of the quality of that station and when you only look at the past 30 years of data a station change that predates that period and remained more of less constant should not affect a temperature trend. Obviously in principle a change point can look into the past and would be better equipped to find these changes. Unfortunately those change point algorithms are limited and particularly so by noisy data.”

      Current station rating, assuming a general trend from more to less compliant (a safe assumption) will most definitely impart a trend to the network.

      Measured temperature data isn’t noisy. To say that it is, shows a fundamental mis-understanding of what noise is.

      BTW, I was one of the first to flag the TOB issue, and as far as I am concerned no one has clarified whether TOB is an issue or not. But I rightly pointed out that it would be one the main lines of attack on the paper.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    cb

    “How unscientific.”

    No. How irrational. There is a difference, space cadet.

    Science is not some magic bunny that supersedes reason. Reason stands above science: this is a classical hippie misconception.

    Moreover, reason is located inside your head, not in the deeply corrupted products of the ‘peer-review process’.

    Science. Is. Dead.
    It was infested with hippies, who brought with them a disease called Corruption. Then the whole world stood by, engaging in an incredibly fruitless political activity called Debate, as the entire edifice rotted.

    There are a great many low-brow morons such as myself, who will with great gladness relegate ‘science’ to the toilet of history. Why? Given that human garbage like Hall et al are CEASELESSLY seeking excuses for these corrupt bastards, what ELSE is there to do?

    And yes, a lot of us morons do think that over-educated twits who refuse to see the sets of utter improbabilities that IS the ‘science’ of evolution, are, well, intellectually CORRUPT. (Not stupid, not ‘biased’, not ‘mistaken’: CORRUPT.)

    So let this farce continue, where the players on both sides are equally given over to corruption. Satan playing tennis with Lucifer. You all are being watched by the morons, and we ain’t amused.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Sonny

      Absolutely agree on evolution. The science is as corrupt as it is for climate change.
      People did not evolve from hydrogen, helium and other atoms. All nonsense.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Tel

      It was infested with hippies, who brought with them a disease called Corruption.

      No way, corruption is much older than hippies. Anyhow, why can’t corruption be scientific? Sheesh, how would you feel to pay more for your bribes than you really needed to? Don’t rip yourself off man! Is there anything in the scientific method that says, “use this power only for good”? You think the bad guys are so genuinely dumb that they don’t study the problems they are up against?

      Science is moving along just fine… you might not find it where you expect to look, but that’s not a problem with the method, more of a public relations hiccup.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    John Brookes

    A bit late on this one, but it will turn out that Anthony stuffed up. I hope for his sake that his work ends up finding something interesting, but of course it won’t be that non-existent “final nail” in the AGW coffin.

    I hate to say it (actually, no I don’t), but Anthony may end up the same as Muller, finding that its easy to criticise, but once you get your hands dirty actually doing some real work your views change. And good “skeptics” never change their minds, because they never made them up in the first place.

    The correct attitude to Mr Watts is to dump him. He is trying to do real science (not so well, but he’s trying), and science might show that AGW is real. Far better to scoff at science, and anyone doing science, and generally mock science. That way you have a perfectly good reason to ignore it (don’t you, db?).


    Report this

    00

    • #
      MadJak

      And yet, you fail to elaborate the reason why.

      Seriously Mr brookes, what a waste of electrons


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      John,

      Would you care to share why you think that, “it will turn out that Anthony stuffed up”?

      He is trying to do real science …, and science might show that AGW is real

      And what would be the problem with that? If somebody is doing real science, they accept the results they find. And they hold to those results, until they find additional evidence that requires them to modify their opinion. That is real science.

      The current stupid position where scientist are forced to take sides, and then take a position, and then hold that position at all cost, or be termed a failure, is not real science.

      It is playground toilet bullying. And the bullying is all over the money.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        John Brookes

        I think that he will have stuffed up by working with raw data. The adjustments to data are made for very good reasons, and I think Anthony wil come to realise this. He may persist in his quest by looking at why adjustments are made, and maybe re-doing some, but my bet is that when he finishes, he, like BEST, will get pretty well what everybody else has got.

        This is hardly surprising, as there is no great reason to believe that all who came earlier were incompetent, misguided or corrupt. Hence their results are most likely to stand.

        And I agre with you entirely about taking sides. Just do good research and let the results do the talking. If you look at Tamino’s blog, you’ll see a few posts ago where he basically shows that a yet to be published paper by Hansen and others purportedly showing that weather is becoming more variable is mistaken. You know that Tamino is a warmist, but he had no qualms doing an analysis that showed another warmist was wrong. Hansen my cling to his wrong idea for a while (people get attached to their ideas and find it hard to let go), but the world will move on.

        When Muller set up BEST I was happy, even though he was a skeptic (or at least fooled me into thinking he was one), because I really liked his basic idea of getting a really good team together and finding ways of automating all the adjustments that have to be made so that there was no direct human judgement involved. Similarly I like Watts getting involved in the nitty gritty. He has his idée fixe about the quality of temperature data, but he still may do good work.

        I think Muller and Watts have their pride, and integrity, and that should stop them deliberately doing bad work. Others, like Lindzen, seem well past redemption.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          BobC

          John Brookes
          August 1, 2012 at 10:55 pm · Reply
          I think that he will have stuffed up by working with raw data. The adjustments to data are made for very good reasons, and I think Anthony wil come to realise this.

          We already understand why “adjustments” are made to the raw data John — It seems you haven’t yet realized that the CAGW crowd are funded by, and work for a political goal, which the raw data keeps refusing to support.

          He may persist in his quest by looking at why adjustments are made, and maybe re-doing some, but my bet is that when he finishes, he, like BEST, will get pretty well what everybody else has got.

          Before you bring BEST up again, you might want to look at the amazing slapdown the reviewers gave it, while rejecting publication. — see crakar’s links.


          Report this

          00

        • #
          Tel

          I think Anthony wil come to realise this.

          Interesting statement… who is going to front up the money to encourage Anthony’s realisation? How much do you think it would take?

          I note that BEST have at least published their MATLAB code, and also published a bit of their data. I’m kind of curious to run their adjustment algorithm against some random input data… just to see what it does.


          Report this

          00

    • #

      John Brookes
      August 1, 2012 at 6:57 pm · Reply
      A bit late on this one

      It is okay to be late John. We usually save the piñata for last!


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Otter

      Who were you chasing down with your beat stick this time, brooksie?


      Report this

      00

  • #

    [...] Jo Nova Share this:PrintEmailMoreStumbleUponTwitterFacebookDiggRedditLike this:LikeBe the first to like this. This entry was posted in Climate Change and tagged climate fraud, climate hysteria, climate research, weather superstition. Bookmark the permalink. ← Peter C Glover: UK’s Energy Policy ‘Schizophrenia’ Spreads to Europe [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #

    [...] says, “[carbon dioxide] is likely to have severe and detrimental effects on global climate.”  JoNova quotes this compilation in a more extended “debunking” of Muller’s conclusions. Share [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    Graham Lloyd has a piece in the Oz today on Anthony Watts’ and Richard Muller’s papers.

    While I think Graham is unusual in trying to be balanced he appears to never have heard of WattsUpWithThat, which is the highest traffic climate blog on the planet.

    Watts, who publishes the website Watt’s Wrong With That, …

    Graham is the Oz’s environment reporter! Don’t MSM journos ever visit blogs?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    JamesG

    Even if Watts assertion that half of official US warming is spurious is correct it doesn’t mean the global increase is affected. We need something other piece of corroborative investigation to allow such huge extrapolation.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Justin

    Ah so, this was what the climate denial movement looks like. Do you guys do hoax moon landings too? What about the flat earth theory, do you chaps support that too?

    ————————
    ‘Justin: name a person who denies the climate and you can keep posting. Or you can apologize sincerely for using sloppy english and promise to do better. No more from you until you show you can write in English and with manners. – Jo


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Creek

    BTW: Has any denier noticed that UHI are anthropogenic? Doooh!

    ————————————————————
    [Creek, unless you care to define what it is you think anyone at this site is denying please refrain from the use of that offensive term. - Mod]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Jaymez

    Creek, if your comment is meant to be a serious one then you clearly don’t understand UHI. Yes it is human caused by urbanisation, but it only warms the immediately surrounding area and apart from effecting the local temperature gauges, it has no impact on climate!


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Simon C

      The issue at the core of this though is that with Muller et al. making out to the legislators that the temperatures measured by thermometers so clearly affected by UHI (Watts et al.) are not affected by UHI, UHI is being mistakenly, but deliberately used to drive climate policy.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Jaymez

        Oh yes, there is no doubt that Muller is trying to say what UHI? We’ve adjusted for that, it’s not a problem.

        But it is remarkable that around the world when you get temperature stations where there is virtually no man made structures or other UHI impact on the temperature station, apart from the natural variability of around 0.3C per century natural variability warming since the little ice age, the stations pretty much all agree (subject to adjusting for some regional climate change due to PDO).


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Simon C

          The obvious question is why would we want to adjust for regional climate change due to PDO, when that is the natural local conditions, and real? PDOs happen, as do El Ninos and La Ninas, as do Jet Stream movements (that’s understood to have been the primary cause of the UK’s cooler and wetter summer).

          What really gets my goat though, is people like Muller, Hansen and especially Bill McKibben who will use any sort of weather anomaly to gloat that it’s ‘climate change’ without morals, yet are in denial of some basic climate and biosystem facts, e.g. “Greenhouse Effect” and droughts are mutually exclusive (http://t.co/Wpec2iie – h/t Carl Brehmer), and that CO2 is wholly beneficial to vegetation, i.e. crops and trees that provide us with food and air.


          Report this

          00

  • #

    About 100 + comments are missing from this thread (thanks to the hack). We have text copies, so hopefully they can be restored.


    Report this

    00