Recent Posts


Curtin University sacred Mural vanishes — The Nobel that wasn’t, is gone

Remember how Curtin University, in Perth Australia, put up a sacred Nobel Wall? We had so much fun with it. The mural deified a climate saint — Prof Richard Warrick — one of the numberless thousands who helped the IPCC win a peace prize for generating no peace. It appears the University was embarrassed about people pointing out that the mural implied Prof Warrick had earned a Nobel Peace Prize while the Nobel committee said he hadn’t.

Curtin University not only changed the web pages, but the mural has been removed. I would have thought they might just change the wording, but the whole climate theme is gone. Possibly the University felt some pain being mocked for the religious overtones.

Call this a small win. Thanks to AndrewWA who alerted me in comments. It shows sometimes it is worth sending polite letters, getting those embarassing photographs and writing those blogs. This mural below has been replaced with another mural entirely (see below).

The former mural on Curtin Universities wall.

As for the web pages, the official Curtin page was corrected.  The bio page has evaporated? (I can’t see it at all, can you?)

From Feb 2014: “Warrick’s bio pages say that he is a “co-recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize” and that “he shared a Nobel Peace Prize with former U.S. Vice President Al Gore and other selected IPCC authors in 2007.”

I was all so meaningless in the first place: a fuss about a scientist not-winning a non-science prize? As I wrote then:

Keep reading  →

9.2 out of 10 based on 86 ratings

It’s climate apostasy again: Institute for Policy Studies terminates skeptic who cares about Africans more than climate modelers

Caleb Rossiter

No dissent over any point allowed. There shall be no other God than Carbon Reduction and the holy climate models!

The religious climate cult followers have shunned a long term member for the sin of saying the unthinkable. Caleb Rossiter, masters in Mathematics, was a fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies for 23 years until last month when he wrote  these heinous lines in the Wall St Journal:

“I started to suspect that the climate-change data were dubious a decade ago while teaching statistics. Computer models used by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to determine the cause of the six-tenths of one degree Fahrenheit rise in global temperature from 1980 to 2000 could not statistically separate fossil-fueled and natural trends.”

Furthermore, he out-greened the greens by actually caring about life expectancy of Africans.

His Wall Street Journal OpEd continued: “The left wants to stop industrialization—even if the hypothesis of catastrophic, man-made global warming is false.” He added: “Western policies seem more interested in carbon-dioxide levels than in life expectancy.”

“Each American accounts for 20 times the emissions of each African. We are not rationing our electricity. Why should Africa, which needs electricity for the sort of income-producing enterprises and infrastructure that help improve life expectancy? The average in Africa is 59 years—in America it’s 79,” he explained.

Keep reading  →

9.4 out of 10 based on 81 ratings

Marc Morano on Canadian TV: Americans are jealous of Abbott and Harper

In an interview with Ezra Levant on Sun News Canada, Marc Morano (Climate Depot) says: ‘I am jealous of the leadership of Canada & Australia. It is so sad being in America’ – ‘The rest of the world is abandoning carbon pricing as the U.S. is jumping right in’

 It’s like two junior partners of the Anglosphere are rejecting the senior partner” — Ezra Levant

Watch Here. 

Marc Morano talks about the nations winding back their carbon schemes and “laughing at us”. “Germany is going to more coal. Spain is abandoning green jobs, Europe is showing a lot of sense in this”.

Keep reading  →

8.8 out of 10 based on 83 ratings

Did Gillard and Milne leave a booby trap in the carbon legislation?

Apparently, on May 31, Australia’s targets for emissions cuts tripled overnight.Who knew? Answer: Christine Milne and Julia Gillard.

Australia was aiming for a 5% cut by 2020, but it’s now become a cut of 18% by 2020. The Clean Energy Act of 2011 set that savage goal as a default target that popped into existence if the current government had not jumped through some arbitrary hoop — in this case by setting an emissions cap.

Most likely this is a non-event — presumably the current government can wipe out the carbon legislation after July 1, which depends on Clive Palmer, a coal magnate. (UPDATE: Last night Palmer said he’ll repeal the carbon tax). But even so, I wonder if there is a sting in the cost? Are there contracts that are tied to the target, so that compensation for removing it automatically tripled as well?

And if the tripling of the target is meaningless, why would anyone advertise their deception in sneaking it in?

Could it be Milne and Gillard see themselves as Gods come to save us (damn those stupid voters!). Milne seems positively pleased she was able to trick Australians. The voters may have voted to remove the carbon tax but Gillard and Milne wouldn’t be stopped by the mere wishes of the people. The pair could have explained their “achievement” before the election couldn’t they? Instead, they saved it up til after it was triggered.

Greens leader Christine Milne said the measure was inserted in the act to insure against ”a government like this refusing to set a cap”.

How’s that for open and transparent government? Are we insuring against a government failure or a voter failure?

”It won’t have realised because it never put its mind to the detail,” Senator Milne said. ”By doing nothing more than we are already doing, we are getting to 18.8 [per cent] and if we put a bit of effort in, we can go even higher.”

It’s all so easy being a ruler. Just say the word and those emissions vanish. Pff!

But hey, if we have to cut emissions nearly 20% by 2020 we better start building those nuclear plants today. I’m sure Milne would be pleased…

Keep reading  →

8.2 out of 10 based on 81 ratings

Australian BOM “neutral” adjustments increase minima trends up 50%

UPDATED, Ken has now finished the full tally of comparisons and the adjustments to minima increase trends by 47% . (Headline changed from 60% to 50% to reflect the shift.) See the new details of the last few stations at KensKingdom.

Billions of dollars, climate models, predictions, and hundreds of press releases depend on the BOM records of Australian temperatures. There were so many inconsistencies, inexplicable adjustments and errors that we put in a Senate request for the ANAO to audit the records. In response, to dodge the audit, the BOM dumped its HQ (“high quality”) dataset entirely, and established a new “best practise” ACORN dataset.

Independent volunteer auditors have been going through the ACORN records — thanks especially to Ken Stewart who is publishing his findings on his site as he works through the set. He’s analyzed 84 out of  104 sites, and finds that ACORN is just as bad as the HQ set. At Kenskingdom he shows that so far, the adjustments used to create the official Australian temperature record increase the warming trend by13% for maxima and a whopping 66% for minima. (Note the caveats in the conclusions below.)

The raw Australian data suggest the nation warmed by 0.6 °C over the last century. The BOM adjustments lift that to 1.05 °C.

The BOM wants the Australian public to think it is impartial, neutral and honest

Some adjustments are necessary. Perhaps these are, but the BOM does not explain on a station by station basis why they are justified. The BOM also claim their adjustments are neutral but a simple comparison with the raw records shows the adjustments themselves create a large part of the warming trend.

The first time around a bias in adjustments could have been inadvertent. But after critics pointed out the inexplicable bias, and the dataset was redone, the BOM issued a carefully crafted wording, that was too-clever-by-half.

For the old HQ set, the BOM said the adjustments were neutral. But contrary to what the head of the BOM said, Ken Stewart found they increased the trend by 40%.

Dr David Jones, Head of Climate Monitoring and Prediction, National Climate Centre, Bureau of Meteorology, stated clearly that the adjustments madea near zero impact on the all Australian temperature”.

For the new ACORN set, the official CAWCR Technical Report No. 04 carefully wordsmiths their position on adjustments so it is technically true, but misleading at the same time:

“There is an approximate balance between positive and negative adjustments for maximum temperature but a weak tendency towards a predominance of negative adjustments (54% compared with 46% positive) for minimum temperature.”

The number of positive versus negative adjustments is not what matters. What matters is the change to the trend. The size of the positive adjustments is a lot larger than the negative ones. It’s not balanced at all.

A few examples of  unexplained adjustments:

Ken Stewart has analyzed 83 ACORN sites of the total 104 sites.

Figure 4 shows my plot of annual mean minima for the same period (calculated as a straight average- the BOM graph is area averaged) for 83 sites ‘raw’ compared with Acorn.

Figure 4:

 

The average difference between raw and adjusted records shows a strange pattern (see Figure 5 below). Apparently the thermometers before 1971 were recording temperatures that were overestimating temperatures. Generally the better modern thermometers after that were underestimating the temperatures. What bad luck!

In addition, the urban population grew, cities retained heat, and airports got more traffic and larger tarmacs. It makes sense (if you are bonkers) that those thermometers near hotter bigger buildings and more bitumen would shift from a “warm bias” to a “cold bias” right? Really…

Keep reading  →

9.2 out of 10 based on 86 ratings

It’s on: Abbott’s message to David Cameron “Join skeptics in Aust, Canada, NZ, and India”

The Australian PM wants Britain to join an anti-carbon pricing alliance with Canada, NZ and India

Tony Abbott, Australian PM, has been shaking hands with Stephen Harper, Canadian PM, saying “it’s like a family”. They are both skeptical of schemes that aim to change the weather through fake markets which don’t do much to reduce emissions, but do enrich financial houses, lawyers and bureaucrats. Harper has applauded Abbott before, now Abbott is returning the favor.

The message is aimed at David Cameron, British PM, who has been quite the friend of the greens — leaving a legacy of  “collectivist, bat killing, bird chomping, property-rights-destroying wind farms”, as James Delingpole would say.  But Cameron got savaged by the UKIP skeptics in the recent elections. Signing up with Obama won’t solve that headache.

Obama, meanwhile, is trying to swing momentum back to costly climate action with his aim to bypass congress and use an executive order to enforce a 30% cut in US emissions by 2030. He’s on his own. Even the Chinese are watering down expectations (see below). New Zealand abandoned Kyoto II and tied themselves to the lowest value carbon credits there are.

Sydney Morning Herald has the video

All five Commonwealth countries now have “centre-right”-leaning governments but it is Mr Abbott’s personal and philosophical closeness to Mr Harper that the Prime Minister regards as most important.

The combined front would attempt to counter recent moves by the Obama administration to lift the pace of climate change abatement via policies such as a carbon tax or state-based emissions trading. It is a calculated attempt to push back against what both leaders see as a left-liberal agenda in favour of higher taxes, unwise interventions to address global warming, and an unhealthy attitude of state intervention.

Keep reading  →

9.5 out of 10 based on 101 ratings

Surprise, West Antarctic volcano melts ice

Who would have thought? Antarctic volcanoes are hot after all.  Having a volcano under an icesheet makes a difference, and some of the sea level rise blamed on CO2 is more likely to be because 1,000 °C lava is not far from sub-zero ice. Right now, according to scientist Dustin Schroeder and co,  it is as if the Thwaites Glacier in West Antarctic is sitting on a “stovetop burner”.[1]

Only last week I wondered if West Antarctic volcanoes had something to do with the Antarctic warming and pointed out this strange coincidence below where almost all the warming seems to occur over the volcanic area which is part of the hot “Pacific rim of fire”. I also wondered why some parts of the media don’t seem to mention the volcanoes. Wait and see if this story gets picked up. So far, Fox, and Business Insider have it.

“Using radar data from satellites in orbit, the researchers were able to figure out where these subglacial streams were too full to be explained by flow from upstream. The swollen streams revealed spots of unusually high melt, Schroeder said. Next, the researchers checked out the subglacial geology in the region and found that fast-melting spots were disproportionately clustered near confirmed West Antarctic volcanoes, suspected volcanoes or other presumed hotspots.

“There’s a pattern of hotspots,” Schroeder said. “One of them is next to Mount Takahe, which is a volcano that actually sticks out of the ice sheet.”… “It’s pretty hot by continental standards,” he said.” — Fox

West Antarctica is melting. East Antarctica is not really. Could it be CO2, or is it volcanoes?

Significance
Thwaites Glacier is one of the West Antarctica’s most prominent, rapidly evolving, and potentially unstable contributors to global sea level rise. Uncertainty in the amount and spatial pattern of geothermal flux and melting beneath this glacier is a major limitation in predicting its future behavior and sea level contribution. In this paper, a combination of radar sounding and subglacial water routing is used to show that large areas at the base of Thwaites Glacier are actively melting in response to geothermal flux consistent with rift-associated magma migration and volcanism. This supports the hypothesis that heterogeneous geothermal flux and local magmatic processes could be critical factors in determining the future behavior of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet.

The actual Watts of heat are not large: 0.1 W/m2, but applied to the base of the glacier, may create a lubricant layer of meltwater.

From the press release:

Major West Antarctic glacier melting from geothermal sources

Thwaites Glacier, the large, rapidly changing outlet of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, is not only being eroded by the ocean, it’s being melted from below by geothermal heat, researchers at the Institute for Geophysics at The University of Texas at Austin (UTIG) report in the current edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The findings significantly change the understanding of conditions beneath the West Antarctic Ice Sheet where accurate information has previously been unobtainable.

Keep reading  →

9.4 out of 10 based on 61 ratings

Failure of Peer Review, meaningless statistical significance, needs fixing says Doctor & journal

Most of the results reported in peer reviewed literature in medicine are mere artefacts of poor methodology, despite being done to more exacting standards than climate studies. There are calls in the medical literature for all data to be made public and for higher P values to be required. (Yes please say skeptics everywhere). Miller and Young recommend that observational studies don’t be taken at all seriously until they are replicated at least once. That would have ruled out the original HockeyStick two times over.

Even the absolute best medical papers are wrong 20% of the time, but mere observational studies (like climate research) failed 80 – 100% of the time. These studies of papers demonstrate why anyone who waves the “Peer Review” red flag is in denial of the evidence — “Peer Review” is not part of the scientific method. It’s a form of argument from authority. A fallacy of reasoning is still a fallacy, no matter how many times it is repeated. Those who claim it is essential or rigorous are not scientists, no matter what their government-given title says.

 GEN, Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology News, May 1, 2014, Point of View

Are Medical Articles True on Health, Disease?

Sadly, Not as Often as You Might Think

S. Stanley Young  |  Henry I. Miller, M.D

How many ways can a reported result fail?

Science works only when experiments are reproducible. If an experiment cannot be replicated, both the scientific enterprise and those who depend upon its results are in trouble. Driven by the realization that experiments surprisingly often do not replicate, the issue of claims in scientific papers is receiving increasing scrutiny. Given that biomedical research is one of the most important goals of the scientific enterprise, it is especially important to know how well the claims that result from clinical studies hold up.

Observational studies are mere “data mining” they say, while RCT (randomized controlled trials) are the gold standard.  Neither was producing very useful results but observational studies were especially poor. By its nature, most climate studies are observational.

Observational studies could be replicated 0% of the time.

Young and Karr1 found 12 articles in prominent journals in which 52 claims coming from observational studies were tested in randomized clinical trials. Many of the RCTs were quite large, and most were run in factorial designs, e.g., vitamin D and calcium individually and together, along with a placebo group. Remarkably, none of the claims replicated in the direction claimed in the observational studies; in five instances there was actually statistical significance in the opposite direction.

Ioannidis looked at highly cited (supposedly the most important papers) and found that RCT’s were replicated 67% of the time (which is still a 37% failure rate) but observational studies only replicated one time in 6 (16%).

He remarked that this was not good enough:

Keep reading  →

8.7 out of 10 based on 48 ratings

Green climate pornography — cheer for the deaths of the heretics!

Whatever you do, don’t let those skeptics speak:

Cartoonist accidentally captures intellectual depth of greens

Adrian Raeside ,Victoria Times Colonist on June 4, 2014

Paul McRae was not impressed. Me, meh. It’s another dying publication which just alienated the half sane readers who haven’t already left. Bravo, eh. They whittle away at their base til they will only have teenage low-self-esteem green fans and a few old hippie die-hards left. Not a good business model.

A Letter in the Times Colonist June 5 re: Adrian Raeside cartoon, June 4.

“Does anybody find it ironic that Adrian Raeside’s cartoon gleefully depicting the death of a “climate-change denier” appears on the same page as Naomi Lakritz’s column on the murder of Dr. Mehdi Ali Qamar, motivated by the fact that he was an Ahmadi Muslim, a sect not recognized by the rest of Islam.

Can there be any doubt that climate activism has become the new religion…

Terry Sturgeon

 

@hockeyschtick

 

9 out of 10 based on 64 ratings

Remarkable boost for immune systems after fasting

There’s a fascinating study out this week suggesting that if we fast for three or four days a couple of times a year we can regenerate white blood stem cells. Fasting cuts down the number of white blood cells during the fast, but afterwards they recover, and then some.

This new result comes from both mice and phase I clinical human trials.  Probably in paleolithic times, famine or at least hungry days were a part of nearly everyone’s life. Many different philosophies and religions have fasting traditions. Apparently our genes are selected to deal with that, and being short of food makes the immune system do a kind of efficiency sweep. Perhaps access to unnaturally continuous food stops our stem cells from reactivating?  Something to think about from Killjoy Jo. 😉 Yes, fasting is not exactly fun, but nor is cancer. For what it’s worth, the hard part of a fast is usually the start.

Obviously, consult your doc, do your own research, etc.

The NZ Herald

Fasting for three days can regenerate the entire immune system, even in the elderly, scientists have found in a breakthrough described as remarkable.

University of Southern California

Fasting triggers stem cell regeneration of damaged, old immune system

“We could not predict that prolonged fasting would have such a remarkable effect in promoting stem cell-based regeneration of the hematopoietic system,”

In the first evidence of a natural intervention triggering stem cell-based regeneration of an organ or system, a study in the June 5 issue of the Cell Stem Cell shows that cycles of prolonged fasting not only protect against immune system damage — a major side effect of chemotherapy — but also induce immune system regeneration, shifting stem cells from a dormant state to a state of self-renewal.

In both mice and a Phase 1 human clinical trial, long periods of not eating significantly lowered white blood cell counts. In mice, fasting cycles then “flipped a regenerative switch,” changing the signaling pathways for hematopoietic stem cells, which are responsible for the generation of blood and immune systems, the research showed.

The study has major implications for healthier aging, in which immune system decline contributes to increased susceptibility to disease as people age. By outlining how prolonged fasting cycles — periods of no food for two to four days at a time over the course of six months — kill older and damaged immune cells and generate new ones, the research also has implications for chemotherapy tolerance and for those with a wide range of immune system deficiencies, including autoimmunity disorders.

Keep reading  →

8.5 out of 10 based on 48 ratings

Weekend Unthreaded

For odd thoughts

6.9 out of 10 based on 11 ratings

Are Australians more concerned about climate — or are Lowy polls loaded and misleading?

The new Lowy Poll has got some commentators arguing that climate fear is rising in Australia. What the survey actually shows is that 55% of Australian don’t want to spend money fighting climate change. The Lowy poll asked loaded questions, didn’t ask people to rank their concerns, and showed nearly everyone was critically worried about nearly everything. Was there a point?

Predictably, one small uptick is portrayed to pretend the climate religion is gaining momentum again.

The SMH leaps to say the climate of dread is heating up (they wish):

“In a striking shift in public opinion, 45% of Australians now see global warming as a ‘serious and pressing problem’, up 5 points since 2013 and 9 points since 2012. 63% of Australians say the government ‘should take a leadership role on reducing emissions’, while only 28% say ‘it should wait for an international consensus before acting’.” — Peter Hannam, Sydney Morning Herald.

How important is a 5 point shift? The survey was of 1,000 adults in Feb 2014. The margin of error is 3.1%.

Peter Hannam doesn’t mention that the level of concern is 22 points down on the high that was recorded in 2006 when 68% of people thought climate change was a “critical threat”. Nor does he mention that more than 40% of Australians think nearly everything in the survey is a critical threat.

These threats are not prioritized. The Lowy institute didn’t ask people to rank their concerns. Peter Hannam could have given SMH readers the full perspective on the news- but evidently chose not too. His title is Environment Editor, not Climate Activist, though that might be more honest. The SMH also gave space to The Climate Institute which predictably pushed the scare factor too. Did they contact any skeptics? If they’d asked me I would have said that almost every other survey shows the long slow decline of a belief in man-made global warming. On the internet, people are just not looking. A CSIRO survey showed 53% of Australians don’t think humans are causing climate change, and 80% of Australians chose not to voluntarily pay money for “the environment”, and in 2013 only 16% of all Australians were “very worried”. The reason the Lowy survey shows something so different, is thanks to the loaded question design, and lack of options for half the population.

Are you super worried, a bit worried, or not worried – yet? (You will be!)

The Lowy Institute claim their annual Poll has “challenged preconceived notions about Australians’ views”. Shame their poll results have not challenged their own preconceived views. In Table 13 they assume climate change is a “problem” and something we have to deal with. The options are three shades of alarm. Skeptics are not people who’ve made a different choice, but merely alarmists who haven’t realized it yet.  The weakest answer allowed is until we are sure that global warming is really a problem we should not take any steps that would have economic costs”. It’s just a matter of time, right?

Respondents are pretty good at figuring out what the surveyors want them to say. In the long run, I daresay it will surprise the Lowy team when they realize the skeptics were right.

 

Table 13 (Click to enlarge)

As well as not starting with a loaded question, a neutral survey would offer a 3 or even 5 point scale with pro-action choices, neutral and skeptical options. Other groups that have done this — like the recent UK survey, showed fully 62% of UK citizens don’t believe in man-made climate. That survey was one of the first to ask very specific and useful questions and offer a simple Agree/Disagree/Neutral choice. It also showed that  educated high income respondents were more likely to be skeptical than manual workers and less skilled respondents.

The Lowy Institute could have asked whether the real problem with global warming is that climate models don’t work, predictions are wrong, and scientists have been exaggerating. Just having that option there would shift all the other response rates wouldn’t it rather?

Even so, 45% of people chose “significant” costs , while 55% chose low or no cost, or don’t know.  What does significant mean? Even in the halycon days of climate fears in 2008, at least 52% of Australians were not willing to spend anything over $10 a month on climate change. (That was from the Lowy Institute poll of 2008).

Everything is critical!

In table 11 climate change is ranked 6th 9th of 12 in “total: important threat”. But the Lowy Institute didn’t ask people about some of their most pressing concerns at all — namely, “the economy”. It also didn’t ask people to rank their fears. This is a Santa wish list — a kind of “name everything” — it’s a you-can-have-it-all list. If everything is “critical” then nothing is.

When even the least feared option is perceived as an “important threat” by 75% of respondents, you know this is blunt instrument. 

Table 11 (Click to enlarge)

In table 12 (below) about half the population will say “yes” when asked if something (anything) is a critical threat and are also not asked to choose between threats. Given the error in the response rate, this makes a fair bit of the table fairly uninsightful. The top two threats are probably significantly perceived as more threatening, and the bottom one less, but this is not as useful as forcing people to choose. When they do, climate change universally ends up near the bottom of the list.

Only 3% of Americans name the environment as the top issue. In the recent CSIRO survey Australians ranked climate change as 14th out of 16 concerns.

Did the Lowy institute really want to find out what Australians think? They say they are non-partisan, but on climate change they aren’t hearing the voices of half of Australia.

Keep reading  →

8.9 out of 10 based on 53 ratings

Are dead fish worth more than live person? Could be… Let’s ban fishing too.

Did you know you can change the weather by not eating deep sea fish? Me neither. But apparently fish and other marine life in the high seas contain $148 billion dollars worth of carbon dioxide. (The carbon price used, which includes mitigation costs, is apparently almost $100/tonne — a tad higher than the current EU carbon price of 5 Euro. The “price” was derived from a US govt agency, wouldn’t you know, not the free market.)

The high seas catch is worth a mere $16 billion and is only 1% of all fish caught. But it follows that either hungry people will have to pay a bit more for their fish, or fishermen will switch to take more fish from the low seas. Either that, or hungry people can just eat more rice, right? And it’s not like anyone cares about the protein content of poor people’s diets is it? (Look who made a hyperbolic fuss about a potential 5% reduction in the mineral content of rice by 2050.)

Lets think for a minute about how anyone would make a global oceanic ban work?  Since people only catch deep sea fish for fun, I suppose we  just ask them to stop, right. Or not.  Anyone smell a global bureaucracy coming to guard the oceans from fisherpeople? It would need full time satellites, custom boat-spotting image-recognition software, lots of coastguards, helicopters and maybe an aircraft carrier. They could set up offices in Geneva. The UN would love it.

The fake market gets us into trouble every time

If we pay people to not catch some deep sea fish, pretty soon every man and his swimming dog will be not-catching all kinds of fish. There will be a whole industry of people who could’ve caught fish but didn’t.

Except the cynic in me knows how this is really done. Just like in Peter Spencer’s case with the monster value of carbon-credits on farms, there is no need to compensate the farmers or fishermen. Governments just legislate that fishermen are banned from the high seas. Then the government helps themselves to the carbon credits, while the fishermen get nothing and go broke. And we all know where the money ends up. In most cases the government was already broke, the carbon credits are worthless, and the banks still make a motza.

I would have commented on the carbon price, the feedbacks and assumptions but this is an orphan press release as far as I can tell. See the reference*.

 

Report supports shutdown of all high seas fisheries

Fish and aquatic life living in the high seas are more valuable as a carbon sink than as food and should be better protected, according to research from the University of British Columbia.

Keep reading  →

8.6 out of 10 based on 43 ratings

Cook scores 97% for incompetence on a meaningless consensus

John Cook’s 97% consensus paper was never going to tell us anything about climate science, so it does seem somewhat pointless to analyze the entrails. It was always a marketing ploy. If it had been done well it might have been useful as a proxy for government funding in science. But it wasn’t, so all we’re left with is some insight about the state of academic competence.

Finding a consensus should have been easy. After all,  billions of dollars of funding has gone to find some evidence (any evidence) that CO2 causes a crisis, and entire research departments have been set up to produce papers to discuss that. And if they didn’t find evidence (they didn’t), they could still write papers discussing the bias of instruments, the error bars, the adjustments, and so on and so forth. What are the chances that hordes of scientists would not find anything to publish? We also know that while believers were being employed left, far-left, and center, quite a few skeptics were sacked. Sometimes skeptical papers got delayed by up to two years, while there was usually a rapid-print option for believers. Once, a whole journal was even shut down for publishing skeptical papers (the sin!).

In that environment, how hard would it be to find “a consensus” among government funded officially approved climate scientists? A gift project, you would think, for any half-capable data-cruncher who can read and spell. Which is why it’s all the more amazing that the Cook 97% consensus paper managed to get so much so wrong:

  1. The study can’t be replicated. (Legates et al)
  2. The data is hidden. Either Cook et al didn’t keep it (and are incompetent) or they did but it does not reflect well on them and they won’t release it (they are incompetent and deceptive too?).
  3. The definitions changed between the claims in the abstract and those in the paper. (Legates et a;)
  4. The raters were not independent. 7% of the ratings were wrong, and biased.
  5. The ratings data shows inexplicable patterns.
  6. Cook et al fail to report that their data fail their own validation test. 
  7. Most of the papers were irrelevant. Those authors were writing about “impacts” or “mitigation” of climate change and not about the cause of climate change. Obviously skeptical scientists will not write about “mitigation” or “impacts” of climate change, so including these papers (and there are thousands) served the purpose of increasing the total number of papers claimed to be surveyed and also increases the percentage of “consensus”. That is an utterly predictable outcome. Good PR, lousy design.
  8. It’s not a representative sample, and Cook did not test to see if it was.
  9. The paper is used to make profoundly unscientific statements in the media. Cook et al endorse the fallacies.

We shouldn’t blame John Cook entirely though. Surely the standards here are a reflection of those at the University of Queensland, and the University of WA (where he is doing his PhD). Isn’t his supervisor Prof Lewandowsky?

Keep reading  →

8.5 out of 10 based on 71 ratings

Obama Rule by Decree: If you like Your Lifestyle — You can keep your lifestyle…

How many people will die in order to reduce world temperatures by possibly, maybe, something a lot less than 0.05 F? Commiserations to the people of the USA.

Obama said almost nothing about climate change in the 2012 election campaign. Ain’t that the way? He can’t persuade the people to take the medicine they don’t need. Congress won’t pass it, so he’s going around the voters entirely and doing it through EPA regulations.

Rothbard and Rucker look at the toll of Obama’s EPA plan to slash CO2 emissions by a pointless 30%:

  • 224,000 more lost jobs every year (U.S. Chamber of Commerce figures).
  • Cost to every American household $3,400 per year (U.S. Chamber of Commerce figures).

What’s the point of electing a congress if the President rules by executive order ?

“Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., went so far as to describe it as an unconstitutional power grab.

— Jo

——————————————————


EPA’s next wave of job-killing CO2 regulations

Unleashing EPA bureaucrats on American livelihoods, living standards and liberties

David Rothbard and Craig Rucker [CFACT]

Supported by nothing but assumptions, faulty computer models and outright falsifications of what is actually happening on our planet, President Obama, his Environmental Protection Agency and their allies have issued more economy-crushing rules that they say will prevent dangerous manmade climate change .

Under the latest EPA regulatory onslaught (645 pages of new rules, released June 2), by 2030 states must slash carbon dioxide emissions by 30% below 2005 levels.

The new rules supposedly give states “flexibility” in deciding how to meet the mandates. However, many will have little choice but to impose costly cap-tax-and-trade regimes like the ones Congress has wisely and repeatedly refused to enact. Others will be forced to close perfectly good, highly reliable coal-fueled power plants that currently provide affordable electricity for millions of families, factories, hospitals, schools and businesses. The adverse impacts will be enormous.

The rules will further hobble a US economy that actually shrank by 1% during the first quarter of 2014, following a pathetic 1.9% total annual growth in 2013. They are on top of $1.9 trillion per year (one-eighth of our total economy) that businesses and families already pay to comply with federal rules.

A U.S. Chamber of Commerce study calculates that the new regulations will cost our economy another $51 billion annually, result in 224,000 more lost jobs every year, and cost every American household $3,400 per year in higher prices for energy, food and other necessities. Poor, middle class and minority families – and those already dependent on unemployment and welfare – will be impacted worst. Those in a dozen states that depend on coal to generate 30-95% of their electricity will be hit especially hard.

Millions of Americans will endure a lower quality of life and be unable to heat or cool their homes properly, pay their rent or mortgage, or save for college and retirement. They will suffer from greater stress, worse sleep deprivation, higher incidences of depression and alcohol, drug, spousal and child abuse, and more heart attacks and strokes. As Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) points out, “A lot of people on the lower end of the socio-economic spectrum are going to die.” EPA ignores all of this.

It also ignores the fact that, based to the agency’s own data, shutting down every coal-fired power plant in the USA would reduce the alleged increase in global temperatures by a mere 0.05 degrees F by 2100!

President Obama nevertheless says the costly regulations are needed to reduce “carbon pollution” that he claims is making “extreme weather events” like Superstorm Sandy “more common and more devastating.” The rules will also prevent up to 100,000 asthma attacks and 2,100 heart attacks in their first year alone, while also curbing sea level rise, forest fires and other supposed impacts from “climate disruption,” according to ridiculous talking points provided by EPA boss Gina McCarthy.

As part of a nationwide White House campaign to promote and justify the regulations, the American Lung Association echoed the health claims. The Natural Resources Defense Council said the rules will “drive innovation and investment” in green technology, creating “hundreds of thousands” of new jobs.

Bear in mind, the ALA received over $20 million from the EPA between 2001 and 2010. NRDC spends nearly $100 million per year (2012 IRS data) advancing its radical agenda. Both are part of a $13.4-billion-per-year U.S. Big Green industry that includes the Sierra Club and Sierra Club Foundation ($145 million per year), National Audubon Society ($96 million), Environmental Defense Fund ($112 million annually), Greenpeace USA and Greenpeace Fund ($46 million), and numerous other special interest groups dedicated to slashing fossil fuel use and reducing our living standards. All are tax-exempt.

Keep reading  →

9.3 out of 10 based on 66 ratings

Climate science hopelessly politicized. Geological Society of Australia gives up on making any statement

So much for the consensus.  In 2012 The Geological Society of Australia (GSA) was one of the few associations to make a slightly skeptical position on climate. For poking their heads above the parapet they’ve had years of headache and debate, and finally have issued a statement saying they have given up entirely on putting out any statement. The debate is so furious and divisive that no position could be agreed on. (I wonder exactly how many of their members are fans of climate models? Was this the work of just a few zealous believers?) I think I’ve hardly ever met a geologist who wasn’t somewhat skeptical.

The back story is that, like most science associations, in 2009 the GSA chanted the litany. (Their 2009 statement is here). They wrote that governments should take strong action to reduce CO2 and that meant paying geologists more to do research and sit on plum advisory committees. How predictable…

1. That strong action be taken at all levels, including government, industry, and
individuals to substantially reduce the current levels of greenhouse gas emissions and to
mitigate the likely social and environmental effects of increasing atmospheric CO2.

2. That Earth Scientists with appropriate expertise be included in Australian advisory
bodies…

4. That sufficient targeted funding and resources be allocated by Australian
governments,…

That’s when they discovered that their members were furious and did not agree. It caused an uproar. So they surveyed their members (if only all associations would do that) and reissued a statement in 2012 which was more skeptical. Now, after being badgered for another two years they have backed away from the whole debate. It is too divisive to even put forward a statement that does not pander entirely and 100% to the so-called consensus. Read below how tame and banal their 2012 statement was. They merely pointed out some feedbacks were not well understood. But no cracks in the faith are allowed!

This story shows firstly how meaningless statements from most science associations are. Argument from Authority always was, and still is, a fallacy of reasoning. A small committee of six can easily spout a position that many of their own members disagree with. Almost no associations go to the trouble of surveying their members. It also shows how aggressively faithful the believers are. Even a statement with mild truisms that does not profess complete obedience to the approved chant is not allowed.

A comment from Chris on the ABC site in June 2011 reveals the depth of feeling:

The reason you cannot find the link on the Geological Society of Australia web site to their [2009] “policy statement” supporting AGW is that it was withdrawn about 12 months ago after a howling, screaming objection from the majority of GSA members who objected to a “policy statement” that we did not agree with being put forward by 6 members of the management committee (all, I am told, employed by government) without reference to, or approval from, the wider membership. The majority wider GSA membership (some 4,000 members) does not support AGW.

Earth scientists split on climate change statement

, The Australian

AUSTRALIA’S peak body of earth scientists has declared itself unable to publish a position statement on climate change due to the deep divisions within its membership on the issue.

After more than five years of debate and two false starts, Geological Society of Australia president Laurie Hutton said a statement on climate change was too difficult to achieve.

Keep reading  →

8.9 out of 10 based on 108 ratings

Mass carbon emissions, yet Australian sea levels rise at similar speed as 1920 – 1950

Australia is one of the most stable land masses on the planet, and has more gauges than anywhere else in the southern hemisphere, so it’s very useful for sea-level measurements. It also had a couple of rare continuous long records “… the two longest sea-level records in the southern hemisphere, Sydney Fort Denison from 1886 and Fremantle from 1897″ .

A new paper by White et al, concludes that Australian sea level rises are similar to global measurements (so not a bad proxy for the world), and that during times when CO2 levels were much lower — like before World War II, sea levels were rising at the same speed (or possibly faster) than they are today.

A generalized additive model of Australia’s two longest records (Fremantle and Sydney) reveals the presence of both linear and non-linear long-term sea-level trends, with both records showing larger rates of rise between 1920 and 1950, relatively stable mean sea levels between 1960 and 1990 and an increased rate of rise from the early 1990s.

Does a “larger rate of rise” mean larger than today, or larger than average — I think, given the error margins, that we could only be sure it was a similar rate. They do point out that the Australian sea level rise was slightly faster than the global rise from 1920-1950. But they did not say by how much (did I miss it?)

For example, Australian MSL rose slightly faster than the global average from 1920 to 1950, slower than the global average from about 1960 to 1990, and similar to the global average since about 1990.

Figure 2: (a) Overview of Australian sea-level data and comparison with global sea-level estimates, all expressed as OVMSL (section 2.3). The gauges flagged “TV” in column 10 of Table 1 are plotted in grey. The records flagged because of possible ground movement and credibility issues are plotted in cyan, but not used in calculating averages. The arithmetic mean of the tide gauges considered to be of reasonable quality is plotted as a heavy black line. The GMSL estimated from satellite altimeters (see Section 2.2) is plotted as a heavy red line, and the area-weighted mean from satellite altimeters along a line around the Australian coast is plotted in orange. The cyan trace that goes very high at the end is Wyndham, and the one that goes very low in the 2000s is Point Lonsdale. (b) As in (a) but after the signal correlated with the Southern Oscillation Index is removed (see Section 3). (c) The changing number of gauge stations available for use over time.

Figure 8 Figure 8: Upper panels show the fitted generalized additive models (GAMs) and approximate
pointwise 95% confidence intervals fitted to RMSL (adjusted for SOI and seasonality) at Fremantle and Sydney. Note the use of different RMSL scales. Lower panels show the nonconstant trends as instantaneous rates of change (first differences) and approximate pointwise 95% confidence intervals; dashed lines are the estimated long-term linear trend of 1.58 mm yr-1 for Fremantle and 0.65 mm yr-1 for Sydney.

They produce a model to try to sort out the factors that jostle sea levels up and down to find the long term underlying trend, and claim they can explain 69% of the variance, and most of it is due to ENSO.

Remember also that sea level rise started before Napoleon’s time, long before our evil CO2 emissions rose, so we can quibble over whether the pre WWII rise was faster around the world, or pretty much the same as today, but it’s all deck chairs on the Climatanic. We’ve increased our CO2 emissions dramatically in the last ten years and sea level rises have slowed. Over and over we get the message that CO2 is not the defining force of our climate, other things are changing it, and the models don’t know what they are.

This paper, though, ought to calm a few councils down. How much do we need to panic over Australian sea level rises that are the same now as they were when CO2 was ideal in the 1920’s and 1930s?

Another noteworthy point is that Australia is generally stable, but some places (like Hillarys, Port Adelaide and, potentially, Darwin) are sinking. I covered the bizarre difference between Hillarys and Fremantle here. The two spots are 20 km apart yet show vastly different rates of sea level rise. Panic-merchants prefer the shorter more exciting record from Hillarys.

Keep reading  →

8.9 out of 10 based on 50 ratings

Obama tries to change the weather by burning US jobs

Bad news for the environment. Obama has a plan.

Obama’s power plant rule leaked: EPA seeks 30 percent reduction in emissions

The proposal will aim for a 30 percent cut in carbon emissions by 2030, according to the WSJ

The Obama administration is set to announce its draft proposal to cut carbon emissions from existing power plants at 10:30 am ET Monday morning, but the Wall Street Journal claims to have the early scoop on the basics.

The Environmental Protection Agency is seeking a 30 percent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by 2030 from existing power plants based on emission levels from 2005, “two people who have been briefed on the rule” told the WSJ. That’s considerably higher than the 20 percent cut that had been predicted – although, because CO2 emissions have already been on the decline in recent years, not as stringent as it would have been should the administration chosen 2010 or 2012 as a baseline. The EPA refused to comment before tomorrow’s release. [read more]

 

I’m sure China, Brazil and India are grateful…

Source UNEP

Source: UNEP

American ingenuity may yet win the day despite the pointless ball and chain.

 

..

Then again, Greens ought be very concerned at Obama’s new plan. In nearly every country where governments have tried to reduce CO2, the emissions have risen. Getting the government involved could spell the death-knell of US achievements in reducing CO2.

The US States may yet be able to limit the damage:

Keep reading  →

9.1 out of 10 based on 79 ratings

Weekend Unthreaded

 

Litchfield National Park, Northern Territory, Australia | Photo Jo Nova

7.8 out of 10 based on 26 ratings

Cutting calories can stop cancer cells from spreading

Something different to discuss – for the medical-revolution cynics among us. Cells from a human triple-negative breast cancer were implanted in mice under their mammary fat pads. Triple negative breast cancer is a nastier form of breast cancer which is harder to treat because these cells don’t respond to the usual anti-estrogenic drugs.

The mice were then allowed to eat only 70% as many calories as they would normally freely choose to eat.  This is a particularly interesting study because it shows that calorie restriction inhibited the expression of certain micro RNAs even from foreign (non mouse) implanted breast cancer cells, and this apparently kept the cancer from spreading. Notably fatalities from cancers don’t usually come from the initial solid tumor but from the metastasized version, so this is potentially very useful.

The mechanism involves strengthening the matrix around the cancer cells. When these cancer cells have metastasized they produce more of these particular micro RNA’s which in turn appear to stop production of proteins that strengthen the extracellular matrix. In other words, the cancer cells probably use the micro RNA’s to degrade the cellular matrix around them in order to spread. The implications of this are both that the micro RNA’s could be used as a target for future drug development, and also that it may help explain why people who gain weight are more likely to have a recurrence. A link between weight and breast cancer is already well established. Dieting may especially help people undergoing radiation therapy, and other trials on this with patients have already started.

For the rest of us, it’s a bit more incentive not to eat the other half of the block of chocolate (til tomorrow). Of course “cutting calories” means being careful to avoid vitamin and mineral deficiencies too.

Keep reading  →

8 out of 10 based on 48 ratings