Climate Change head stood down
The Herald reports:
The chief of a British research centre caught in a storm of controversy over claims that he and others suppressed data about climate change has stepped down pending an investigation, the University of East Anglia said.
The university said that Phil Jones, whose emails were among the thousands of pieces of correspondence leaked to the internet late last month, would relinquish his position as director of the Climatic Research Unit until the completion of an independent review.
The stolen e-mails do not prove a global conspiracy to fake data, but they do show that several leading climate change scientists have developed a siege mentality, where they see all criticism as invalid, and will go out of their way to denigrate and obfuscate those they disagree with.
Andrew Bolt quotes Lord Monckton’s take on the e-mails.
Some blogs have run a story that local NIWA data has been altered from the public data, but this has been easily explained by NIWA that what happened is their monitoring station moved from Wellington Airport to Kelburn, so the back series of data was adjusted to take account of the average difference between the two sites.
What NIWA did was absolutely correct in my opinion, and I have no issues with their professionalism. However the problem is that some of their peers overseas have had e-mails about changing data to make the case that temperatures are rising, and this rightly makes those sceptical even more sceptical. Trying to pretend the stolen e-mails are of no consequence is not going to work.
While some of the e-mails are benign, very dated, or out of context – there are some that quite appalling – especially references to keeping non supporting research out of the IPCC. It is hard to see how the author of that e-mail can remain involved with IPCC work in future.
UPDATE: Heh love this cartoon from Clint Heine:
![PaperClipMan[5]](http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/PaperClipMan5.jpg "PaperClipMan[5]")
December 3rd, 2009 at 6:51 am
aka as head in sand. This thing has been and remains a rort. DPF you are welcome to pay our share of any extra costs, we don’t mind.
No one has questioned why Salinger REALLY got sacked by NIWA. Speaking to the media? really. C’mon no one with half a thinking capacity believes that.
Look out for the next lot of information. Add that to Gores reality and the scam is as bad as it gets.
Called cultism. There was a TV program on that last night.
December 3rd, 2009 at 6:54 am
The bigger issue now is the fact that the raw temperature data that their time series are based on has been deleted (when they moved offices). It’s now impossible to judge whether the alterations they (The University of East Anglia) made to the raw data series are correct or not.
December 3rd, 2009 at 7:01 am
The Climate Science Isn’t Settled – by RICHARD S. LINDZEN
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574567423917025400.html?mod=WSJ_hp_us_mostpop_read
December 3rd, 2009 at 7:03 am
2 problems:
The person appointed to head the inquiry into the Climate Research Unit and Phil Jones is an outspoken warmist. It is patently NOT an independent inquiry, and any “offical clearance” of CRU and Jones will be hollow. Jones should be prosecuted for destroying data subject to Freedom of Information requests.
NIWA, if their data “adjustments” were all kosher, would release all the raw data, along with the rationale for any adjustments. They have not (they’ve only released data for one location). If they were professional, when moving from one measuring site to another they would monitor temperatures at both sites for an overlap period of at least a year, so that they can quantify (rather than guess) the adjustment required. They did not.
I call on NIWA to release all the data.
December 3rd, 2009 at 7:05 am
There is information coming out all the time. Some, like the CRU release, bad for some scientists who have reacted badly to criticism and opposition. But most information coming out from a wide range of sources is bad news for the climate, and potentially bad news for us. That is the reality.
“The scam” is nothing more than an anti put down term. There has been no evidence of any scam. The method of dealing with it has a lot of questionmarks, but the conspiracy theories just weaken the anti arguments, the nutters dominate and valid questions get lost in the noise.
December 3rd, 2009 at 7:09 am
NIWA have given the move from Thorndon to Kelburn as an example of one type of adjustment they did.
That’s the only explanation they’ve given… nothing about any the other figures.
I doubt there is some conspiracy here, but if not, what do they have to hide, and why won’t they give Hide the full data, like he’s asking for:
http://www.act.org.nz/files/open-letter-to-nick-smith.pdf
December 3rd, 2009 at 7:14 am
They may have concerns that the data will be searched, someone will find a small discrepancy that makes little overall difference but it will be promoted as proof that all the research is flawed and can’t be trusted so we shouldn’t care about climate change.
But that sort of thing wouldn’t happen anywhere, would it.
December 3rd, 2009 at 7:20 am
These climate scientists do not develop a hypothesis then test to see if it is true.
Rather, these scientists develop a belief, then formulate tests and data to validate their beliefs .
After all, who ever likes to be wrong? Scientists have feelings too.
December 3rd, 2009 at 7:25 am
Will the conspiracy to thwart the Freedom of Information Act be looked at as part of the investigation?
December 3rd, 2009 at 7:33 am
So, does this mean if the weather station had not move from to Kelburn the temperatures would not have had to be ‘adjusted’? What about the dozens of other weather stations that provide the data for New Zealand temperature record? It is gerrymandering with the data. At least they didn’t misplace the data like the CRU did and then say “trust us, we’re scientists’.
December 3rd, 2009 at 7:43 am
“These climate scientists do not develop a hypothesis then test to see if it is true.
Rather, these scientists develop a belief, then formulate tests and data to validate their beliefs . ”
Sad, but true. Well said Wreck.
I recall reading a while ago about a survey done by the magazine Nature. They asked about 3000 scientists if they had ever skewed results of experiments to fit a “desired” outcome. A very large percentage acknowledged they had done so.
Reasons given for this were to obtain funding, get published, secure tenure etc. After all, even scientists are people.
It makes you wonder what other contentious areas of science are subject to the same distortions.
December 3rd, 2009 at 7:45 am
Scientists and scientific method will obviously always be imperfect, but that is not a good reason to scrap all science.
December 3rd, 2009 at 7:50 am
Heh. You are so out of wack on this DPF. NIWA have NOT explained anything satisfactorily, especially David Wratt. They, especially Salinger, withheld raw code for adjustments, and the fact that they adjusted does not make it right. The raw data itself suggests much ado about nothing. If the Hadley emails suggest nothing, why has Jones stepped aside, why is Michael Mann under investigation and have global warming apologist journalists suddenly changed tack? Its appalling!
I realise you don’t want to jeopardise your “position” within National but you have behaved like a sap on this. You are just acting like a lame repeater. WO and others have the guts to see the ETS for what it is. You have gone from blogging “hero” to zero over this.
[DPF: You are a fuckwit if you think my views on climate change have anything to do with National. I have had a consistent view on climate change for the last five years or so. People need to stop acting like spoilt brats just because I won't agree with them]
December 3rd, 2009 at 8:03 am
Pete George 7.14
“but it will [NIWA stats] be promoted as proof that all the research is flawed”
Not if the MSM in our parallel universe has anything to do with it… it will be studiously ignored!
December 3rd, 2009 at 8:22 am
David,
Niwa’s explanation is pathetic. They cite that the data was altered on the Wellington site because of a move. That is just one site in literally hundreds, it wouldn’t alter the overall picture by itself, It is simply astatiscally not possible and as a statistician you would know that. There must literally be hundreds of alterations to the raw data to have effected a move in the data from one of static temperatures (raw data) to one of rising temperatures (NIWA’s position).
The manipulation of the data is akin to you changing poll results because the numbers didn’t suit your customer and the reason was (pluck one out of thin air) so you altered the result to suit your customer.
They need to explain EVERY data alteration fully otherwise they look like they are just hiding the details. The other part you have missed out is that Former NIWA pseudo-scientist Jim Salinger featured rather a lot in the CRU emails.
December 3rd, 2009 at 8:28 am
Agree DPF, the thing that bugs me most about the NIWA controversy though is their reluctance to talk openly about all the adjustments that have been made to the data.
At the moment I suspect it’s mainly due the the siege mentality that, not surprisingly, seems to have become common among climate scientists. Another reason may be that NIWA doesn’t want to get drawn into a long and expensive debate over the technical details of the corrections, the managers are keeping an eye on the bottom line.
December 3rd, 2009 at 8:35 am
“Scientists and scientific method will obviously always be imperfect, but that is not a good reason to scrap all science.”
And who said we should?
December 3rd, 2009 at 8:39 am
There are plenty claiming that climate change is a dead duck, when all it’s had is a bit of a flap.
Some people seem to want to dismiss all science on something they disagree with.
December 3rd, 2009 at 8:52 am
I think you need apply a little more skepticism to this David. If all the computer models have been based on flawed data and unsustainable assumptions, then there is no evidence that would support changing our whole economic system and preventing third world countries from developing their natural resources. The costs far outweigh the vaguely possible. limited impact we could maybe, potentially, have on the climate.
At the very, very least, we need some truly independent scientists to review the entire basis for the theory that man-made CO2 has a negative impact on the climate. Before we implement any ETS.
December 3rd, 2009 at 8:58 am
[DPF, my updated comment here was from a different thread but its valid here, so please don't delete]
Paradigm said on this thread…
Furthermore the author introduces an obscure notion of “net energy flow”. The relevant quantity is the “net heat flow”,
Paradigm, I said to you to read the papers and obviously you didn’t. Let me ask you. What’s the difference between heat and energy? It is physics 101. If you can’t answer, then don’t waste my time in trying to educate you. Bloody read the papers, study them thoroughly, educate & familiarize yourself with the concepts they addressed, then come back.
Quote from Title #1)
—————————–
It cannot be overemphasized that a microscopic theory providing the base for a derivation
of macroscopic quantities like thermal or electrical transport coefficients must be a highly
involved many-body theory. Of course, heat transfer is due to interatomic electromagnetic
interactions mediated by the electromagnetic eld. But it is misleading to visualize a photon
as a simple particle or wave packet travelling from one atom to another for example. Things
are pretty much more complex and cannot be understood even in a (one-)particle-wave duality
or Feynman graph picture.
Did you understand what they say? Physics of the large (huge ensemble), bears little similarities to the laws of the small scale. Emergent behavior thus arises. Where is the thermodynamic laws (equations) in a hurricane model ? None, you wouldn’t find that in a hurricane physics model. Hurricane cannot be described by those laws and that is actually the reality. Those laws are no where to be found in those models. If you can point me out that someone has incorporated thermodynamic equations into a physics of a hurricane, then that person deserves a Nobel Prize. The reality is, you would find none. WHY? Exactly as the authors (greenhouse falsification) have stated clearly. A many-body problem where the collective behavior of the units don’t conform to the laws that govern the units. Do yo follow what I am saying here? Hurricane is an emergent system phenomena.
As I said read, interpret, dig further, then come back. I don’t want to waste time educating you.
December 3rd, 2009 at 9:00 am
This is one of the more shameful episodes in the history of science – these clowns have done to “Climate Science” what Trofim Lysenko did to biology in the Soviet Union.
December 3rd, 2009 at 9:02 am
Whale: Absolutely agree all data and adjustments should be public and transparent.
December 3rd, 2009 at 9:04 am
It looks like NIWA will be providing more info, this via Hot Topic
http://www.niwa.co.nz/news-and-publications/news/all/nz-temperature-rise-clear
December 3rd, 2009 at 9:06 am
How many climate computer models are there?
How many of them are known to be based on flawed data and unsustainable assumptions?
Are the models (all, most, some?) backed or contradicted by observations?
Are there any with the necessary expertise?
December 3rd, 2009 at 9:06 am
“There are plenty claiming that climate change is a dead duck, when all it’s had is a bit of a flap.”
What arrogant partisan crap.
These are the key group of warming scientists, a major part of the cabal that has constructed the IPCC reports. The whole UN/ IPCC strategy is now thrown into so much doubt it is worthless.
December 3rd, 2009 at 9:09 am
Climategate – Follow the Money
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574566124250205490.html?mod=WSJ_hp_us_mostpop_read
December 3rd, 2009 at 9:09 am
NIWA could’ve very easily installed a temporary temperature station at a site in the vicinity of the old airport station that was abandoned in 1928 in favour of the Kelburn station. The altitude difference of some 100m is the justification for NIWA’s 0.4 C upgrade in the older pre-Kelburn data – to adjust for the temperature difference at the higher altitude. There may well be other micro-climatic factors that affect the temperature difference. Because there were no parallel sets of data from each station (as the new one opened some months after the old one closed), it behooved NIWA to actually prove that this 0.4C difference was real and provable rather than rely on a climate model to justify it. Even daily readings at both sites over a 12 month period would’ve provided at the very least a real data set to base this assumption on.
Whale has actually pointed out NIWA’s bigger problem. That of the existence of dozens of temperature sites across NZ that have had their data similarly revised upwards. In looking at the comparitive graphs of a dozen sites, only the Lincoln site appears to not have been subject to any significant upward revision.
The Wellington temperature revision may well be legitimate but even then, to assume a model is right is perhaps to assume too much. How can almost every temperature measuring site across NZ be involved in such location changes as to require such statistically significant upward revisions in temperature? Rodney Hide is right to ask for NIWA to release ALL the data to show utter transparency so as to adequately back their assertions of climate change in NZ.
Wratt (NIWA’s chief climatologist) appears to have adopted the same stance as the CRU, the implicated scientists such as Mann, the IPCC and many others in stating “nothing to see here – move along”. If the science is so settled and so overwhelmingly indicative of AGW, it will withstand the scrutiny of any and all underlying raw data. Isn’t that the essence of the scientific method?
December 3rd, 2009 at 9:11 am
David
NIWA have resolutely refused to explain their adjustments to the temperature data.
Under pressure, they have put out a press release acknowledging they have adjusted the data and given the example of Wellington.
But NIWA need to explain why they have included some data while rejecting others, the rationale for the data adjustments, and the justification for the direction and magnitude of each adjustment. That’s basic stuff.
The public release of the information is all the more pressing because NIWA has not previously acknowledged the adjustments, the adjustments are consistently downwards in the early years and upwards in the later years, and the very trend in warming the are purported to show is an artefact of the adjustments.
I am now a believer in man-made global warming!
Rodney
[DPF: Fair point. Can't you ask for the data in a PQ?]
December 3rd, 2009 at 9:11 am
Touched a nerve did I Farrar?
NOWHERE did I mention your view on climate change – its all about the emails and ETS.
It is you who behave like the spoilt brat anytime someone questions your supposed role within National.
The ETS is a pile of crap and you refused to comment on it. When you do its a sap post. Lame, very lame.
[DPF: You think the ETS is not related to climate change? How strange. I've actually said that my preference is for a carbon tax over an ETS, but that if we have an ETS I prefer National's ETS to Labour. If you have specific issues you want to debate, then feel free]
December 3rd, 2009 at 9:12 am
That link suggests they have been providing the data already, so what’s the problem?
(c) Unadjusted (raw) data publicly available
NIWA’s unadjusted climate data is available to anyone at no charge, through web access to the NIWA climate database. This has been the case since 1 July 2007.
d) Adjusted series provided in 2006
NIWA provided Dr Salinger’s adjusted temperature series (anomalies compared with 1961–1990 averages) for each of the seven stations, to NZ Climate Science Coalition member Warwick Hughes on 19 July 2006. Information about changes to the seven station sites is documented in a publicly-available report published by the NZ Meteorological Service in 1992, and much of this information is also available from the metadata in the climate database.
December 3rd, 2009 at 9:15 am
Rodney, look at Andrew’s link: http://www.niwa.co.nz/news-and-publications/news/all/nz-temperature-rise-clear
Are they claiming something they haven’t done?
December 3rd, 2009 at 9:22 am
If the science is not settled, if the scientists are deeply divided on this issue, why did Neville Key rush (under urgency) to pass ETS legislation?
Where does Australia’s ETS delay leave NZ? Have we hobbled ourselves for the silly notion of being “first”?
Nick Smith is not only an incompetent fool, but a saboteur of our economy. His actions are tantamount to treason.
[DPF: Key did not pass an ETS. He amended one. AN ETS was passed into law in 2008 and was going to come into force (with double the price hikes for power and fuel) on 1 January 2010]
December 3rd, 2009 at 9:23 am
There are a couple of law suites underway against the offenders at CRU for criminal fraud by British and Canadian scientists.
Their case, quite simply, is that the scientists implicated in Climategate have gained funding and career advancement by twisting data, hiding evidence, and shutting out dissenters by corrupting the peer review process.
The GW scam is over.
December 3rd, 2009 at 9:30 am
“I am now a believer in man-made global warming!
Rodney”
You gave me a scare there Rodney until I realised you refer to man-made-UP global warming!
December 3rd, 2009 at 9:35 am
“His actions are tantamount to treason.”
Nick Smith is (IMHO) one of those who has been most responsible for NZ’s collapse into the chasm of Progressivism, and along the way, he has destroyed the National Party.
In opposition he has been spineless and weak, and in government, he has done the left’s work for them.
The National Party must be restored to a true opposition.
Nick Smith and those many Nats who think like him have to go.
December 3rd, 2009 at 9:39 am
“Key did not pass an ETS. He amended one. AN ETS was passed into law in 2008 and was going to..”
DPF, are you saying that the government has no option but to pass its ETS to stop Labour’s version of it? Are you claiming National is giving us the lesser evil solution?
Please stop being disingenious with us, and have the fortitude to accept Key’s government has made a very costly blunder.
[DPF: Labour' ETS was the law of the land. National campaigned and was elected on a policy to make amendments to it. They could abolish it, but that would then just mean the taxpayer pays 100% of the costs of Kyoto and any post-Kyoto agreement. Do not confuse the issue of an ETS (which is about who pays) and the global agreements (which is about how much a country pays)]
December 3rd, 2009 at 9:41 am
When one has idea and selects or modifies data to produce equations that match viewpoints that’s not science. When billions of dollars of taxes with economic consequences are riding on it, that’s recklessness to the point of being fraudulent. The more at stake the greater the caution required.
From the charts I have seen from NIWA I could readily have produced a contrary view. This matter should be tested in Court.
December 3rd, 2009 at 9:42 am
“The Science and Public Policy Institute announces the publication of Climate Money, a study by Joanne Nova revealing that the federal Government has a near-monopsony on climate science funding. This distorts the science towards self-serving alarmism.”
http://www.transworldnews.com/NewsStory.aspx?id=104031&cat=12
An article written before Climategate, but very accurate in its predictions.
December 3rd, 2009 at 9:44 am
>if all the computer models have been based on flawed data and unsustainable assumptions
>>How many climate computer models are there?
I don’t know – do you?
>>How many of them are known to be based on flawed data and unsustainable assumptions?
Since the raw data seems to have been tortured beyond any resemblance to it’s raw state, I’d say all of them.
>>Are the models (all, most, some?) backed or contradicted by observations?
They are contradicted as the ‘scientists’ who created them say it a ‘travesty’ that they can’t account for global cooling.
>we need some truly independent scientists to review the entire basis for the theory that man-made CO2 has a negative impact on the climate
>.Are there any with the necessary expertise?
Sure. Not everyone scientist in related fields is corrupted by this scandal. Start with the 30,000 odd who signed a statement that they were skeptical of the claims. Skepticism is a great place to start. If you can convince them, then you’ve really proved your point.
December 3rd, 2009 at 9:45 am
Another prophetic article-
=================
One in seven scientists say colleagues fake data-
Faking scientific data and failing to report commercial conflicts of interest are far more prevalent than previously thought, a study suggests.
One in seven scientists says that they are aware of colleagues having seriously breached acceptable conduct by inventing results. And around 46 per cent say that they have observed fellow scientists engage in “questionable practices”, such as presenting data selectively or changing the conclusions of a study in response to pressure from a funding source.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article6425036.ece
December 3rd, 2009 at 9:45 am
On NIWA:
1. Whale – they don’t have hundreds of sites, it’s only about 7 included in this series. Of course, that should make it easier to explain the adjustments, not harder
2. Pete George: yes, they provided the raw data and the adjusted data. Very good. And what we learn from that was that all adjustments bar one were in the direction of increasing warming. The only explained adjustment is that to Wellington based on the Kelburn site move. That is a bit of a red flag to me, but as someone else has pointed out, the early stations were almost all at sea level, so it would be hard to move a station to a lower point – most moves were to somewhere higher. It isn’t clear to me, however, that all the adjustments were to correct for station moves.
3. Hard to complain that they didn’t overlap the stations in 1920, based on them somehow knowing this data would be really important in 2009. The data they have is the data they have, and holding scientists today accountable for what their predecessors did nearly 100 years ago seems a bit silly
4. I personally think NIWA are circling the wagons here. I don’t think it can be that hard to explain adjustments made to the record for 7 stations. I doubt there is much to hide, but refusing to provide information makes it look like there is.
5. Pete George: refusing to provide info because someone might find a minor mistake in it sounds like a silly idea to me. That is akin to saying “you’re too stupid to judge for yourself whether this is important or not, we’ll do it for you”
6. I’ve also seen argument that many of these corrections were done in the past, and the details for them weren’t kept – they just add new data to the series. Not sure if that’s true, but if it is, surely one of the more important things that NIWA could spend some funding on would be redoing the adjustments from scratch? I presume some of these adjustments were done at a time when the temperature record wasn’t quite as important as it is now.
7. I asked about urban heat island as one example of something that might cause adjustment in the other direction. Apparently not much of NZ qualifies as “urban” under the measurement rules – cities not big enough, but also we have quite a bit of wind coming off the ocean – that is to say that we wouldn’t get that much heating. That sounds sort of OK as an explanation, but I’m wondering about the windless days. If windy days have no urban heat island effect, and windless days have some effect, wouldn’t that average out as a small increase. I wonder what the plot would look like if you plotted the windy days and the windless days separately – would the windy ones show no warming and the windless ones lots of warming? That would be an interesting graph.
December 3rd, 2009 at 9:49 am
National could’ve scraped the ETS. It made no election promise to keep it.
Just another example of “Me too” from John Key and the National team.
You do realise that 2025 is like 15 years away and when New Zealand is still 35% below Australia or worse on income differential that this will be another broken election promise to go with the tax cuts that weren’t?
December 3rd, 2009 at 9:50 am
Whatever NIWA have or haven’t done they are paid by public money. OUR money. I am sick to death of these chumps trying to excuse the non release of information with lies and subterfuge.
It’s public information – we own it, we paid for it. We want it.
Not just their raw data – we want to see the adjustments, the rationale behind the adjustments – everything.
Politicians, the media and ‘climate scientists’ seem to be vastly underestimating the rising anger brought on by the CRU documents. The MSM media especially are in a very dangerous position.
Personally I’m at the point where I don’t trust ANY of them. None. Zip. Nada. Twisters and Liars all.
What they need to remember is that they work for us. They only have the power while we let them have it.
This issue is the type of issue that can change the political landscape and I hope it does. If the people say no then the answer is no, not ignore the public and do what they want.
I’m an exporter, how will I compete with competitors that aren’t shackled by an ETS? If I stay here in NZ then I can’t. So do shift offshore? Close my business down and go on the dole? Years of my hard work down the drain because of these idiots want to ‘look good’.
Politicians are supposed to be our representatives, well they better start representing if they don’t want to hear the baying of the Mob coming for them down Lampton Quay.
December 3rd, 2009 at 9:51 am
Well done for maintaining a rational perspective on this topic DPF.
Others, read NIWA’s website: http://www.niwa.co.nz/news-and-publications/news/all/nz-temperature-rise-clear
This will also seemingly be updated soon with more information. They are obviously responding to the need for greater transparency given the political situation around AGW.
But already as it is today the pages on their website do well to explain the common claims against their data. Also, all the raw is publicly available from NIWA – this was never an issue.
It can only be said that the ‘NZ Climate Science Coalition’ is being deliberately deceptive in its use of the data.
December 3rd, 2009 at 9:59 am
I agree, I wasn’t trying to say it was a good idea, just that there may have been a human reason for it.
I think that could be quite common in science – and politics. Often with good reason. Stupid might be a bit harsh on some people, but uninformed, ill-informed, agenda driven all come in to it.
December 3rd, 2009 at 10:04 am
The truth is, I hate being lied to. Possibly well meaning, but misguided, people have been doing it for years. We have been told stuff that is not supported by proof – eg that we are experiencing unprecedented global warming. Not true.
Temps went up quite fast 1940-1970 – then dropped for 30 years – then started to rise again 1970 to about 1998. Now they are dropping again. So what. CO2 levels increased consistently during this period. Temperatures didn’t.
Over this time period (100 years) there is a clear correlation between solar activity and temp changes – but none between CO2 levels and temp changes. In fact going back over millions of years, the only correlation of between CO2 levels and temps is where higher temps appear to drive higher CO2 levels with a lag of some 800 years.
However the correlation between cosmic rays and solar activity and temperatures holds up over 450 billion years.
A little common sense says the sun is driving our climate – not CO2.
December 3rd, 2009 at 10:07 am
Shame on ShonKey and his crew, when allegations of corrupt and manipulated data started to emerge the entire ETScam should have been placed on hold, pending further investigations, this is nothing more than common sense.
The whole thing now smells of “follow the money” weather it’s scientists promoting their funding and status, politicians seeking glory (will we ever see a register of pecuniary interests), or bullshit “end of the world” media sheep trying to sell column inches.
If there is nothing to hide then NIWA should release the raw data yesterday, their continued failure to release this information implicates them in far bigger things, they are funded with taxpayer dollars after all.
Smith as Minister of Climate Change is delinquent in his duties, this is not what I voted for last year, and as a lifetime National voter, I would be unlikely do so again.
It’s not a question of changing horses, it just looks like the jockeys are the problem.
ShonKey needs to remember there is only one poll that matters, and after people have had 2 years of the ETScam on their pockets, he might just finish up as the most popular leader of fuck all.
December 3rd, 2009 at 10:07 am
The major cause for concern with the NIWA temperature graph is that Dr Wratt has consistently claimed that because New Zealand is surrounded by oceans, all the modelling indicates that the temperature impacts of climate change are most likely to be less for New Zealand than for other parts of the globe.
Dr Wratt has to explain why NIWA’s graph shows GREATER warming than the global average. Ie: 0.92 degrees versus 0.6 degrees.
NOtice too that the temperature increase is stated to be 0.92 as though we can measure these trends to one hundredth of a degree.
The error terms in basic instrumentation and location and relocation are more that a degree and some say we cannot get surface temperatures right over the long term to more than plus or minus FIVE degrees.
Climate science seems to have done away with error terms in its search for false precision. Even TV pollsters are more honest – they give the margin of error.
Why don’t NIWA?
December 3rd, 2009 at 10:08 am
“..There are a couple of law suites ..”
are you thinking of moving into one..?..red..?
(ah..!..the involuntary humour provided by the terminally ignorant..eh..?
red is the gift that just keeps on giving..tho’..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
December 3rd, 2009 at 10:09 am
Hmm. I’m looking for the (1992) book that describes this. Anyone have a copy or have seen the relevant chapters online?
“Fouhy, E., Coutts, L., McGann, R., Collen, B., Salinger, M.J., 1992: South Pacific Historical Climate Network Climate Station Histories. Part 2, New Zealand and Offshore Islands. NZ Meteorological Service, Wellington. ISBN 0-477-01583-2.”
I can understand that this is pretty old stuff so might not be online, but that in itself gives me some concern – this wasn’t quite so important an issue in 1992 as it is today, are we sure that the corrections were done carefully enough?
December 3rd, 2009 at 10:11 am
http://whoar.co.nz/2009/debunking-the-great-global-warming-conspiracy-conspiracy/
December 3rd, 2009 at 10:14 am
look..!..there’s owen..!
here to talk on his area of expertise..
..telling lies/spreading misinformation about climatechange..
(are you still being paid/getting monies from the oil-company funded climatechange-denial frontgroups..?..there..owen..?
..if not..when did that stop..?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
December 3rd, 2009 at 10:21 am
Hmm. I have some spare time today, and apparently I can get the base temperature (and, hopefully wind) records from Kelburne off the NIWA site. I must be a bit thick though, because I haven’t figured out where. Anyone seen it?
December 3rd, 2009 at 10:22 am
Changed my mind.
December 3rd, 2009 at 10:25 am
Rodney Hide 9:11 am,
Good on you Rodney; keep up the good fight.
The more I hear and read about so called man-made Climate Change, the more I see and smell the rotting corpse of this pseudo scientific ‘theory’. Are there any ‘warmist scientists’ who don’t lie?
One does get the impression that they have either sold out, or been bought out, by their political masters who have their own overarching agenda.
Global Governance anyone? Methinks so.
December 3rd, 2009 at 10:32 am
If anyone here should understand the value of good data it is David. David is a statistic lover and understands things that I barely comprehend. Surely if the data you use to get a certain result is compromised then one must start again and especially so if there are now huge questions over the result. As my teachers use to say, put crap in get crap out. Whether you want a ETS or a carbon tax both are irrelevant if the whole thing is based on the wrong data to start with. If Shonkey was still playing the stock market and he brought in on lies there would be hell to pay, there should be hell to pay now, not some sickening fawning to corrupt socialists in Carbonhargen.
December 3rd, 2009 at 10:35 am
Didn’t Key also say before the election that’d we’d wait and see what Australia did? That we’d tie in with them?
Well Australia’s ETS is not going so well. The Liberals believe (and rightly so) that’s it’s a load of crap.
December 3rd, 2009 at 10:39 am
No, they’re scheming deceiving liars. Every one of them. Must be, you disagree with them.
Have any any evidence at all of this? Has anyone admitted being involved.
These are the sort of claims that give valid skepticism and examination of research such a bad reputation.
December 3rd, 2009 at 10:42 am
“..One does get the impression that they have either sold out, or been bought out, by their political masters who have their own overarching agenda.
Global Governance anyone? Methinks so…”
total/untramelled fucken delusional paranoia..
(mind you..kkk is a fundie christian..eh..?
.with all the requisite ‘total/untramelled fucken delusional paranoia’..that is demanded by that particular belief system..
eh..?
..a religous belief/based on/ in ‘fear’..
..of the ‘unknown’..
a.k.a..’paranoia’/fear of hell..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
December 3rd, 2009 at 10:44 am
If all science worked like that then it would advance much more slowly – hey, we may not be in the shit we could be in now.
If you apply fertiliser one year and your next year increase in returns are less than the cost of fertiliser do you get rid of all your cows, plough up your paddocks and start again?
December 3rd, 2009 at 10:49 am
Phil U said…
are you still being paid/getting monies from the oil-company funded climatechange-denial frontgroups..?..there..owen..?
Phil, if your accusation is true, at least Owen is getting paid to do something meaningful and earn an honest income out of that. What the fuck you do all day? You’re getting paid on the dole to do nothing.
I suggest that you should approach oil companies requesting that you’re willing to do some campaign on their behalf and get paid for that. You can do that regardless of your take on AGW issues. Money is money, phil. You can be a warmist at night after doing work for denialist oil companies during the day. At least you can earn some honest money.
I know some people who are anti-smoking, but they work in tobacco related industries (ie, advertising agencies, suppliers of tobacco manufacturing companies, etc,…) . Their views on earning for a living is completely different from their views on the industries that they work for, even there are obvious conflicts in there for them.
Now, do you understand a thing about honest earnings?
I wouldn’t mind, being paid by oil companies as a proud denier myself to do their campaigning, and I wouldn’t hide my involvement with them, since the money that they would pay me is honest earning and not something to be ashamed of , since it is not money that I robbed from a bank or from someone else, like leechers like you (rob from taxpayers).
December 3rd, 2009 at 10:50 am
then there is bloody-hands-bob..(and his ‘socialist-conspiracy/’masters’ brand of ..
..‘total/untramelled fucken delusional paranoia’
i suspect he is a fundie/weird religous cult member..as well..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
December 3rd, 2009 at 10:51 am
Is this what you are after PaulL?
http://www.niwa.co.nz/our-science/climate/publications/all/cu
http://www.niwa.co.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/99657/Climate-Statistics—October-2009.pdf
Bah now i see you change your mind
December 3rd, 2009 at 10:55 am
“..I know some people who are anti-smoking, but they work in tobacco related industries (ie, advertising agencies, suppliers of tobacco manufacturing companies, etc,…) . Their views on earning for a living is completely different from their views on the industries that they work for, even there are conflicts in there..”
basically..people who are easily ‘bought’..?
(btw..fisi..did you know you are on the shortlist for this years ‘blog-awards’..?
you are a finallist..in the ‘most consistantly totally icomprehensible commenter category..
..you never/rarely fail.. to smother with garbled jargon..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
December 3rd, 2009 at 10:55 am
How many carbon credits are you sitting on DPF? It’s the only explaination of your lame ass defense of a lame ass explaination.
December 3rd, 2009 at 10:55 am
Pete George, I don’t think I can recall ever, such a brainless, self serving allegory as this.
“If you apply fertiliser one year and your next year increase in returns are less than the cost of fertiliser do you get rid of all your cows, plough up your paddocks and start again?”
No you don’t. You find cheaper fertiliser or you reduce the number of cows to produce at a level the land will sustain without the addition of fertilser.
It is wonderful sport watching the Global Warmenisers spewing their rings out as their comfortable world of ‘scientific consensus’ unravels before their very eyes. Why even the Copenhagen carbon credits register has been found fraudulent and the whole bullshit business has hardly even started.
Fancy a conference there anybody?
December 3rd, 2009 at 10:57 am
“Global Governance anyone?
Have any any evidence at all of this? Has anyone admitted being involved. ”
Lord Christopher Monckton found the evidence of the global goverance agenda.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1Qhm6YRdJE
This link is part 1 of 5 and I can’t remember which part he talks in particular about the document that is regarding the global government, but the whole interview is worth listening to anyway.
December 3rd, 2009 at 10:59 am
“..Falafulu Fisi (353) Vote: Add rating 0 Subtract rating 1 Says:
December 3rd, 2009 at 10:49 am
Phil U said…
are you still being paid/getting monies from the oil-company funded climatechange-denial frontgroups..?..there..owen..?
Phil, if your accusation is true, at least Owen is getting paid to do something meaningful and earn an honest income out of that…”
there ya go..!..owen..!
fisi dosen’t mind that you have been paid to peddle climatechange denial misinformation..!
‘honet work’..(?)..he calls it..
is that how you feel about it..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
December 3rd, 2009 at 11:00 am
ps, I just saw Backbenches, and the warming believers (Chris Carter etc) are positively foaming at the mouth!
The guy on the panel next to him was talking about the stolen emails saying we should have a closer look at the science and carter keeps interrupting him and jumping up and down.
It is seriously like they’re having a religious debate. Climate Change is his religion.
Then they interview some other guy in the crowd who helped design the original ETS and he starts saying, oh it must have taken a long time for them to have made up all those emails. Any tricks they can use to sweep it under the carpet they will.
December 3rd, 2009 at 11:01 am
Thanks Banana. I changed my mind about that next comment I wrote, not about looking at the data. That wasn’t very clear though.
That data isn’t really what I’m thinking is there. I’ve seen a couple of claims that the temperature record is available on the NIWA web site, but I can’t see it there. I’m looking for something similar to this page in Aus:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/dwo/IDCJDW2801.latest.shtml
Basically what I’d like is a daily min and max, plus average wind speed, for the last 120 years in Wellington. From that, I could do some analysis. It must exist, I’m just not seeing it easily.
December 3rd, 2009 at 11:02 am
Pete George 10:39 am,
The evidence does increasingly lead one to this conclusion, Pete.
Do you have stocks invested in this ‘scheme’ or something?
Follow the money, Pete, and draw your own conclusions.
I’m not alone in this view.
December 3rd, 2009 at 11:04 am
Ask at Hot Topic Paul, couldn’t hurt?
December 3rd, 2009 at 11:04 am
The really funny thing is……
I’m a bit of a, y’know, christian….
and the other day…….
I was quite prepared to stand by Phil…….
All he had to do was say “yes”……
When I asked about the (alleged) level of abuse…..
directed at his kids…….
and all I got in return……
was a tirade of ‘total/untramelled fucken delusional paranoia’……..
offer the guy a hand……
and he tries to bite it off…..
meh…..
Leonidas.
December 3rd, 2009 at 11:06 am
Phil said…
to smother with garbled jargon
Wrong Phil. I pointed to facts and illiterate like yourself called them jargons. Those terms are not found in the Tongan dictionary (my first language), but of course in English academic subjects, publications, online references, … So, it means that your wee brain doesn’t comprehend those English jargons, and you simply try to deflect the AGW debating issue as jargon, rather than you admitting that they’re not jargons at all (well they’re clearly to you), but they’re (not Tongan but English) scientific jargons. You admit that you simply don’t know them because it isn’t your area of study (whatever your Masters Degree in). You must admit that your involvement in climate debate, is too deep for you, since you call physics (English) terms as jargons.
Why don’t you do that Phil? Don’t get involve in climate AGW debate because you know that there will be physics jargons brought up in the debate and discussion (beyond your understanding).
Here is the thing, at least that if you award me the title of the most consistent debater in AGW for using proper physics jargons, then at least I can award you the most useless human being ever lived on earth that gets his living by going on the dole, just to look after a teenage son. What a pathetic fuck.
December 3rd, 2009 at 11:10 am
A Lord Monckton interview is not evidence of anything, apart perhaps from his mentality.
What evidence is there of climate change being a cover for achieving global governance Kris?
December 3rd, 2009 at 11:13 am
Adolf it seems you didn’t understanding the point but you did reinforce it.
There are quite a few dice being rolled coming up to Copenhagen, a few hands being revealed. It was always going to be a focal point for vested interests. I’d wait to see what claims stand up over a bit of time.
December 3rd, 2009 at 11:13 am
Pete George 10:44 am,
Yeah, but at least it would still be SCIENCE, not this pseudo science crap we keep getting fed.
December 3rd, 2009 at 11:16 am
A Lord Monckton interview is not evidence of anything,
Oh c’mon, the guy’s got a journalism degree.
December 3rd, 2009 at 11:17 am
Falafulu Fisi, ask the clown how much water is needed to make a glass of milk, hilarious.
December 3rd, 2009 at 11:19 am
Tune to Fox, more on the global warming scam.
December 3rd, 2009 at 11:21 am
PaulL 9:45am
An excellent post. With regards to the Thorndon to Kelburn move in the late 1920′s, no one can change the fact there was no overlap nor is it sinister that isn’t one. What NIWA should’ve done IMHO is to find a site somewhat proximate to the old airport site and set up a temporary temperature measuring station to accurately test the real temperature difference between the sites. Yes there will be variations from the old site in the 1920′s due to increased urbanisation etc but at least it would be a control against the CURRENT Kelburn site and PROVE the 0.8C temperature diffence occurs with a 100m increase in altitude. Right now they are relying 100% on climate models. These models may be accurate but we just don’t know. For example the change of sites in Hokitika was preceded by a 12 month+ overlap to test for exact location temperature differences.
In looking at the CSC 30 Nov press release, it would appear that changed temperature measuring sites in Hokitika and Auckland both saw altitude related differences move in the complete opposite direction to those that led NIWA to adjust the Wellington temperatures so they are going to have to make public some very specific and rational reasons to back their nationwide downward adjustments in the earlier temperatures that lead to their conclusion of the 1C rise in temps since 1908.
December 3rd, 2009 at 11:32 am
DPF your head is so far in the sand that it is not funny. You will protect your leader at all costs. I use to love your blog. No More I will read your general comments but you……..forget it. You are no longer objective you have become a sycophant and it is so sad.
[DPF: That is the same leader I approvingly quoted Fran O'Sullivans harsh criticism of earlier this week. God you people are so twisted that because I disagree on ETS, I have no independent thought. It is sad]
December 3rd, 2009 at 11:35 am
It looks like China & India might give the whole globalwarminism fraud at Copenhagen the big “get fucked”
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Copenhagen-conference-India-China-plan-joint-exit/articleshow/5279771.cms
This whole politicized AGW scam is beginning to fractionate, big time.
December 3rd, 2009 at 11:39 am
Pete George 11:10 am,
Have a read of this, Pete.
And if you don’t like Ian Wishart, then I suggest you download and read the following document:
The Socialist International paper, referencing UNDP material, can be downloaded from the UN website:
http://www.un-ngls.org/orf/UN-reform-Socialist%20International-%20Position%20Paper_%20240105.doc
December 3rd, 2009 at 11:43 am
If you have to argue your science by using fraud, your science is not valid.
Professor Pilmer.
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/143573/Climate-change-fraud-
December 3rd, 2009 at 11:59 am
David, Rodney has asked PQ’s, quite a lot of them.
http://whaleoil.gotcha.co.nz/2009/12/02/climategate-rodney-applies-the-blow-torch/
December 3rd, 2009 at 12:05 pm
[DPF: That is the same leader I approvingly quoted Fran O'Sullivans harsh criticism of earlier this week. God you people are so twisted that because I disagree on ETS, I have no independent thought. It is sad]
You can do what ever you like DPF but so can I. As far as I am concerned you have stopped being ‘objective’ and have started to be an excuse for the National Party. I was always a National Party supporter until I voted for Labour in ’84 to get rid of Muldoon as in my mind he was leading the country to ruin. I was right and he was. However I changed back to a National voter when Lange ‘had his cup of tea’. I feel the same about the National government now as I did when Muldoon was the PM. National are continuing the race to ruin the country that the Labour party started.
Can you tell me that you honestly believe that a computer model (with data fed in by people with an agenda) is more reliable than history when it comes to the planets future?
And dont tell me that NZ cant stand up against the rest of the world if that was true then why havent the National government repealed the Nuclear ban in NZ?
December 3rd, 2009 at 12:07 pm
DPF is being disingenuous National already had the numbers in Parliament to delay the ETS. What we now have is a total mess: how can you have a trading scheme where the price is fixed and you get paid if the price of carbon goes over the fixed price (assuming a mature carbon market emerges) – how does that send a signal to emit less carbon?
The “small nation wanting to impress the big guys” insecurity was at play in National’s desire to sign up to the ETS. Nick Smith so wants to be the first climate change minister to have an all gases all sources ETS; like one of those badges that one gets in Scouts. It’s pathetic really. The “doing our bit” will make New Zealand no less ignored on this issue than it was before. The nutty British food miles/no GE/eat local seasonal produce crowd will be no less vocal – why they should drive public policy here is beyond me.
The significance of Australian political events is simply that politician’s do not change a leader unless they are getting the message their party is offside with its voters. Consider the Nationals were already against the Rudd Government’s ETS. The Liberals must have been getting loud messages from their supporters.
The issue here is whether centre right voters who are upset with a centre right party on the ETS/Climate change issue shift their vote. The beauty of MMP is that they have the option without actually changing the Government to a Labour led one. Key is betting that not many do; that if they do, it won’t result in a change in policy; even if it’s sufficient to change the policy, that wont change the government.
Regarding NIWA data, it is quite possible that New Zealand has slightly warmed since the 1930’s. The issue is surely whether this is a natural phenomenon or caused by more carbon in the atmosphere. This is a scientific question of cause and effect; not one of probabilities, likelihoods or other statistical qualifications to what is essentially an educated guess.
While data accuracy is a problem the bigger issue for me is the computer models that process the data. All models say that there is a positive feedback from increased carbon i.e. the climate system amplifies the minimal effect of the carbon principally by clouds to make it so much worse in terms of warming. None assume ANY negative feedback. All say the climate system is super sensitive. All the models look for a balance of energy in and energy out.
None of the models assume that the climate system is non linier , variable and by its inherent nature chaotic or that the balance of energy in and energy out is achieved over very extended periods of time in cycles and patterns that we don’t fully understand yet.
That is why none of the models are predictive; that’s why there is not the observed warming that there should be according to the models.
It’s this rigid abstract approach that results in models that produce a super sensitive climate system that means that every glassier retreating (or advancing), every hurricane, every ice berg coming adrift from Antarctica, every drought, every flood, the most recent opening of the northwest passage, and every other dramatic weather phenomenon is now treated as evidence of man made climate change and reported as such my journalists.
December 3rd, 2009 at 12:08 pm
Banana Llama, we really want more data than just 2009 and the late data from 2008.
How about data from 1880 to 2009, and in a form that is easy to copy into a spreadsheet like text, and not in a PDF.
And to hell with the Wellington data if the station has been moved around that much.
Why not look at say Christchurch and Hokitika? Have they had to be “adjusted” and if so, why?
December 3rd, 2009 at 12:12 pm
Seven stations…..Seven!….we are have a fricken ETS based on the evidence of just seven stations! WTF, that is idiocy.
December 3rd, 2009 at 12:14 pm
Here are a few sources
There’s plenty more. And like it or not, the Salinger/CRU connection makes us part of this agenda.
December 3rd, 2009 at 12:30 pm
BTW DPF for the first time ever I made a financial contribution to a political party last year. Not a big one I admit $50 but a financial contribution all the same. I wanted the National Government to succeed and I am sick to my stomach with what is happening.
December 3rd, 2009 at 12:47 pm
This is a solid document on the Climategate scam. NIWA’s duplicity is picked up on page 32, but I’d encourage anyone ‘new’ to all this to get a good coffee, and read from the top.
December 3rd, 2009 at 1:04 pm
Getstaffed as you will know the SPPI are committed “skeptics” (professional deniers, including Monckton).
Do you have any independent sources?
December 3rd, 2009 at 1:05 pm
“It is wonderful sport watching the Global Warmenisers spewing their rings out as their comfortable world of ’scientific consensus’ unravels before their very eyes.”
Yes, it is. By the way, Adolf you should include Nick Smith and Neville Key amongst the “warmenisers”. Otherwise, how do you explain your leaders’ attendance of the incoming talkfest in Copenhagen?
These two politicians are lamentable examples of lack of courage, supreme examples of cowardice.
December 3rd, 2009 at 1:10 pm
I wonder if any of the warming jihadists have stopped their own use of air travel? Chris Carter? Al Gore? John Key? Kevin Rudd? What have they personally done to reduce their carbon footprint?
December 3rd, 2009 at 1:11 pm
Pete – Galileo was a skeptic. Skepticism was, and remains a cornerstone of science.
That you’d try to dismiss skeptic’s makes you part of the problem, not part of the solution.
As for independent sources, try http://www.google.com
December 3rd, 2009 at 1:37 pm
Agreed. But there are two meanings of skepticism:
1. questioning, probing, testing. 2. disbelief, atheism, agnosticism.
The first relates to science. The second relates more to many climate science “skeptics”.
I have many doubts and uncertainties about climate science and remain skeptical. I won’t rule it out, I think it is possible but it’s difficult to be sure of the extent.
I’m more skeptical about the ETS. But it’s possible that people who know a lot more about it than me know what they are doing.
I’m very skeptical (questioning, probing, testing) of those who seem to argue as though their skepticism is simply disbelief. I don’t see how any of it (climate science and mitigating methods) can be completely discounted at this stage.
December 3rd, 2009 at 2:03 pm
Pete
You are confused.
“I’m more skeptical about the ETS. But it’s possible that people who know a lot more about it than me know what they are doing”
This isn’t scientific skepticism but rather deferral (or appeal to) authority.
That is what the IPCC process is. It’s an appeal to authority. Appeals to authority have nothing to do with science. From time immemorial appeals to authority have everything to do with politics.
You can tell much of the AGW movement is an appeal to authority by the authoritarian public and now private tone used by those advancing the theory of man made climate change. The private remarks and behaviour are IDENTICAL to those behaviours displayed in any political movement.
December 3rd, 2009 at 2:05 pm
Okay Lord Montrose about the Format i can’t help you there but go to here and make an account http://www.cliflo.niwa.co.nz spoke to a chappy from NIWA on the phone and he told me that’s where i needed to go.
December 3rd, 2009 at 2:12 pm
Chris, how scientifically skeptical are those opposing the theory of man made climate change?
December 3rd, 2009 at 2:12 pm
Tuvalu is one of the stars of the warmist camp .the BBC and others go there to film the ‘rising seas’ and its scary stuff,thats the point ,its done to scare and convince the unbelievers.They never mention the “borrow pits.”During the war the place was turned into an airstrip.To do this huge holes were quarried into what is basically the top of a mountain.In addition to this massive intervention in the physical structure of a low lying coral island, floods occur with king tides and winds and rain from a particular direction, so its not necessarily rising sea levels that s the problem .But the MSM have their emotive footage and Al Gore can run around telling the world that islanders have been evacuated to NZ…..lies and half truths are not science and certainly not the basis for panickstricken alarmism.
December 3rd, 2009 at 2:16 pm
“..side show bob (2019) Vote: Add rating 2 Subtract rating 0 Says:
December 3rd, 2009 at 11:19 am
Tune to Fox..”
aah..!..that explains part of yr problems..
watch ‘a lot of fox’..?..d’ya..?
(heh..!..)
that does seem to be something a lot of you ‘conservative-types/reactionaries’ do..
get yr ‘facts’/information..and yr real fruit-loopy-stuff…from pox-news..
eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
December 3rd, 2009 at 2:27 pm
As I posted on the general thread yesterday too (in case anyone missed it), Al Gore in his new book has admitted that recent data shows that CO2 is only responsible for 40% of the climate warming effect.
SOURCE
Personally, I believe it’s not even that amount.
Do we hear about this in the MSM though? Of course not…
December 3rd, 2009 at 2:48 pm
In keeping with the climate thread we are in – Nick Smith is an el-NINO (elected-National in Name Only)
December 3rd, 2009 at 2:57 pm
December 3rd, 2009 at 2:57 pm
“I am now a believer in man-made global warming!
Rodney”
‘You gave me a scare there Rodney until I realised you refer to man-made-UP global warming!”
You were referring to man made- up global warming Rodney please tell us you havent gone over to the dark/warm side!
December 3rd, 2009 at 3:07 pm
Kris K – Love your list. Can I adopt it too?
December 3rd, 2009 at 3:21 pm
This is an interesting piece of work.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/opinion/3117225/Forecasters-breaching-principles
On another matter, some people believe other people only hold ideas because someone has paid them to have those ideas.
That is such a ludicrous idea that I just presume it says more about the people making the claim than anyone else.
I have recently been invited to attend conferences and present papers in India (the Mahatma Ghandi University) and Sydney International Surveyors Annual Conference). I did not apply. I just received the invitation.
I don’t think either has any money to fund my airfares or anything but it seems to me that they want me there because of my ideas which they have already read about.
However, if I should go and be sponsored some people will assume I only got the ideas because somebody paid my fares.
December 3rd, 2009 at 3:48 pm
Those interested in my response to fala’s 8:58 am, should check the general debate.
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2009/12/general_debate_3_december_2009.html#comment-638760
The highlights:
The section he line he attributes to me, and claims I lack a basic understanding of physics because of, was actually a direct quote out of the paper he was pimping and I was criticising. So I guess he is actualy unwittingly doing my work for me by attacking it.
December 3rd, 2009 at 4:01 pm
Interesting, yes, with obvious links to the same old.
Willie Soon (astrophysicist) has long been associated with various U.S. and Canadian think tanks disputing human-induced global warming.
Kesten Green began his master’s studies in Management Science at Victoria University, and received a doctoral degree from Victoria Management School at Victoria University
- according to his Heartland Institute profile, “became interested in climate forecasting when he realized the dire predictions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and others might result in policies that would cause great harm to people.”
December 3rd, 2009 at 4:11 pm
Owen McShane 3:21 pm,
So you’re saying that money (, position, power, etc) isn’t a motivating factor for SOME people to tell porkies and tow the party line?
This side of heaven there will always be people in this category.
At the moment AGW pseudo scientists head my list in this regard.
December 3rd, 2009 at 4:13 pm
“In keeping with the climate thread we are in – Nick Smith is an el-NINO (elected-National in Name Only)”
LOL Brian.
December 3rd, 2009 at 4:18 pm
Pete, you need to try comedy – really. If you are going to dismiss anyone and/or any source that doesn’t fit your world view then how are you going to demonstrate the open-mindedness that you demand of others?
December 3rd, 2009 at 4:21 pm
Why should anyone linked with “denial” think tanks or research groups be any less credible than your “climate clergy”?
December 3rd, 2009 at 4:27 pm
Um, getstaffed, who dismisses anything related to CRU?
I didn’t dismiss it, I read it and looked at connections. I’m pointing out that most of the critical linking that gets posted here seems to have common links, and there are a few names and organisations that keep popping up, all widely labeled as climate skeptics, and few being climate scientists. Those trying to appear as scientific opposition are small in number and incestuous.
Surely you are open minded enough to see that.
December 3rd, 2009 at 4:33 pm
Leonidas, I usually give scientists who are supposedly experts in their fields the benefit of the doubt unless proven unreliable (which some of them are).
I usually am skeptical of non-in-the-field-scientists pushing “scientific” reports. Some seem genuine, most seem to be linked to a common agenda.
December 3rd, 2009 at 4:44 pm
“..that show methane and black carbon or soot had a far greater impact on global warming than previously thought…”
mm..!!..’methane’ eh..?
better keep that one quiet fletch..
seeing as cows emit ginormous amounts of ‘methane’..eh..?
sshh..!!!
(and..
will you file that one again..?..tomorrow..?
just in case somebody missed it..?)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
December 3rd, 2009 at 4:59 pm
Fair enough Pete. Can you tell me how taxing the economy to death, either by making farming untenable, or, shifting tthose costs on to taxpayers is actually going to save the planet, because to me, If I give you the benefit of the (my) doubt about AGW, I don’t see how “trading” carbon credits will solve the problem.
December 3rd, 2009 at 5:02 pm
All that methane from wetlands and rice paddies?
One does not have to be a climate scientist to be able to analyse statistics or comment on forecasting methodologies or the computer models.
Climate studies cover a multitude of disciplines. The group commonly described as climate scientists (like the ones in NIWA) are in fact focusing on the gaseous atmosphere and atmospheric exchanges which means they have a very narrow view of the discipline. They are not interested in exchanges between the soil and other parts of the system.
This point is well made by Freeman Dyson.
My relation to the field is my work on debunking the hijacking of junk science by central planners, and urban planners in particular, to socially engineer us into living and working and playing where they want us to, rather than where we want to. Global warming is the urban planners’ best friend. But their theories are not evidence based.
Public transport is NOT more energy efficient than private transport and central city living is NOT more energy efficient than living in the suburbs and beyond.
But they never let the facts get in the way of their desire to control our lives.
December 3rd, 2009 at 5:11 pm
Leonidas, I don’t see how carbon trading will solve anything either. I sort of understand the theory and it makes a bit of sense (I know someone researching in Environmental and Resource Economics who has helped a bit) but in practice, severely corrupted in different ways by different countries, I have major doubts.
December 3rd, 2009 at 5:20 pm
Thanks for that, when I see the answer our leaders have come up with, I have to say, is there really a problem?
December 3rd, 2009 at 5:24 pm
Paradigm, you made an absurd comment that the paper is crap because you think it is. You didn’t attempt to refute it. I didn’t think that you don’t understand physics, because it was obvious from your message that you do. It would be foolish for me to think otherwise. There are lots of people like you here on this forum who understand physics. The depth of each one’s understanding is what I was saying to you on the other thread and it wasn’t ad hominem at all. Saying to someone to educate themselves relating to a specific issue (AGW) IMO is not ad hominem since it is fact, because how many people here who understand climate numerical modeling? My self is one, so who else? I was challenging you to step us, since you wanted to talk physics.
Ok, lets dissect the paper itself, shall we? We should start from the very top of the article, section by section. Here are the questions that I pose to you (raised in the paper):
1) Does radiative equilibrium exist, if so, then on what basis ? (in both theoretical & observational)
2) Does black body radiation apply in the scale of the size of the atom?
3) Classical radiation theory treats radiation homogeneously (parallel rays), which is what everything in the IPCC is based on. Do you consider that treating electromagnetic fi eld with the Poynting vector (modern radiation theory) is irrelevant if so, then why?
4) Does the Stephan-Boltzman a universal constant ? If so, you then absolutely believe 100% sure that it hasn’t failed in its application anywhere? Note : IPCC climate models treat this as a constant? If it is not a constant, then the model is invalid, no ifs no buts. Can you find a counter-example ?
That’s enough for now. All were covered in the paper that we’re discussing here. Ok, over to you.
December 3rd, 2009 at 5:47 pm
Correction to question 2) should be rephrased as:
2) Does black body radiation law apply in the scale of infrared radiation wavelength?
December 3rd, 2009 at 5:53 pm
Leonidas, I think the possibility of a problem (climate change) is real, but the “solution” could end up being a bigger problem than the original (possible) problem.
December 3rd, 2009 at 6:49 pm
Bananallama @ 2:05: Thanks, looking into that now.
December 3rd, 2009 at 7:01 pm
I think these are the reasons why many are skeptical, I think most people would like do do things in a less destructive manner, like more efficient energy, cars ect. but when the solution touted is tax, and lots of it that’s a huge red flag and lets face it, who wants to pay more tax?
December 3rd, 2009 at 7:22 pm
Yep Leonidas, what is essentially a tax is a hard sell, and the sales job has been shoddy – I don’t know how much if any effort has been bothered with getting the public on board.
December 3rd, 2009 at 7:36 pm
I don’t have a problem with a tax. I have a problem with an ETS.
A tax is nice and clear and above board. It goes to the govt, the govt could give a compensating reduction in income tax. All good.
An ETS has the benefits accruing to god knows whom. The amount it will cost we don’t know. There are no compensating reductions anywhere.
Hmmmm.
December 3rd, 2009 at 7:46 pm
And that’s the other thing, you don’t have to be a rocket scientist to figure out someones making a shitload of money out of it and its bad enough to think your government is doing it, but when you realize the money your government collects will be shipped of to a destination as yet unknown so the pollies can have a nice warm fuzzy feeling, well it just makes you want to destroy the foundation upon which the scam is built which leads us to climate science………
December 3rd, 2009 at 8:38 pm
OK, so I registered for the NIWA site, and downloaded the Kelburn temperature record, excluding the pre-1930 bit that had the adjustment.
Graphing the raw data for just that one site, doing a linear regression on the average by month of the daily max temp, I find that:
Jan shows a warming in the period of 0.5 deg
Feb 1.1 deg
Mar 0.5 deg
Apr 0.1 deg
May 1.4 deg
Jun 1.3 deg
Jul 1.3 deg
Aug 0.8 deg
Sep 0.6 deg
Oct 0.2 deg
Nov -0.6 deg (i.e. a cooling)
Dec -0.6 deg (i.e. a cooling)
Leaving aside that global warming only occurs 10 months of the year (that was a joke, for those of you who don’t have a sense of humour) this tells me that this temperature record, without any of the adjustments, shows a warming from 1930 to 2005 in the order of 1 degree or a bit less.
I’m now on to correlating this to wind speed to see if windy days warmed less than non-windy days. If anyone wants the data, feel free to ask. NIWA have an EULA, but so long as I tell you about that it appears I can pass it on.
December 3rd, 2009 at 8:56 pm
“but the “solution” could end up being a bigger problem than the original (possible) problem”…why ?
December 3rd, 2009 at 9:27 pm
sbk – no one can really tell what the consequences of climate change will be (forget for this how they have been caused), but we can guess that some places will be drier, some will be wetter, some will probably be warmer and some could be cooler. What the affect of that will be on crops and people etc is a big unknown.
Carbon trading looks like it is happening in some form, but who knows what that will cause. Some people will get richer, some will get poorer. It may have the desired effect and encourage some businesses and some people to consume less and pollute less. It will also probably have unintended consequences, some negative. Their could be booms and busts, and bust-ups. Who knows?
Either could lead to happier people and/or dissatisfied people, jealousy, disgruntlement, competition, conflict? Who knows – I don’t know if they have models for any of this, but it’s unlikely because there is absolutely nothing to base them on, no history.
December 3rd, 2009 at 9:27 pm
I made the comment that the paper was crap because it was verbose and without focus. That is my based on my experience as someone who has written research papers. I can say without question that if I attempted to submit such a manuscript (even as a review article), I’d be told to lose a lot of it: the section on how to perform elementary integration would be gone. The section where they complain about bad definitions of the greenhouse effect would be relegated to a short paragraph at best in the introduction. Most of the derivations would be shortened. “Kid’s school experiments” would be dumped as well. It seems to me the paper was (for lack of a better term), schizophrenic: oscillating between a layman’s guide and a more proper scientific review. Given it got into an academic journal, it should have stuck exclusively to the latter.
I was also disgusted by the incorrect application of the second law of thermodynamics, and I consider a massive failure of peer review by the journal. The last time I saw the second law of thermodynamics so bastardised it was in the “second law disproves evolution” fallacy. I make a big deal of this as there is no way the paper would be allowed to go to press with that section intact, were it subject to normal peer review standards.
Based on those two reasons I thought the paper would never be published as is, were it subject to peer review, and I stand by that statement. As such I deemed it a “crappy paper”. I still challenge you to tell me (in your professional opinion) that you think it is well written, concise and generally meets the standards needed to pass a fair peer review without major alterations.
That is somewhat different to what you said earlier:
I consider accusing someone of having a sub-stage 1 knowledge in response to a very legitimate criticism to be a gratuitous personal attack. Perhaps not ad-hominem in its strictest definition, however certainly falling into the category of “very poor form” none the less. Here I once again also note the line you were critical of is actually a quote from their paper, something I made abundantly clear by applying blockquotes in the original message.
I would now like some clarification on the second law issue before moving on to your questions. It has been hanging since my original post and has not been given any attention aside from that afore mentioned personal attack (which did not actually address it).
Are you happy with the use of the second law of thermodynamics and claims of the greenhouse effect being a perpetual motion machine?
December 3rd, 2009 at 9:30 pm
OK, final data.
The statement someone made to me was that Wellington wasn’t subject to urban heat island effects, as it had little urban density, and the usual high winds meant that the heat was blown away / new air off the sea came in. (I’m paraphrasing and elaborating a little on the argument there, but you get the gist).
My hypothesis was that there was, in fact, some urban heat island effect. If this were true, then I would expect more heat island effect on days with little wind than days with lots of wind.
To test that hypothesis, I correlated wind speed and max temp for each day 1961-2004. (Kelburn wind data only available back to 1961). I then looked at the wind speed at 9am, and split the data set into high wind days (> 5m/s) and low wind days (< 5 m/s). I then separately graphed the average max temperature for the high wind days in a month, and the low wind days in the month. For each graph I added a linear trend line for each month.
Note that even a high wind day under my coarse definition would/could have some periods of no wind. So even the high wind days could have some urban heat island effect – to prove my hypothesis it isn't necessary that high wind days show no warming at all, only that they show less warming than low wind days.
For my hypothesis to be true, it should be the case that high wind days show less warming than low wind days. This would indicate that, in fact, the data could be contaminated by urban heat island effect, or perhaps some other effect that is correlated with wind.
So, drumroll please….
Low wind days show an average monthly warming over the period of 0.56 degrees celsius. High wind days show an average monthly warming of 0.06 degrees celsius – or almost no warming at all.
Does this tell us anything? Well, no, because my methods are pretty rough. Caveats are:
– I used Excel's linear regression function on the graphs, and then read the gradient off the graph by eye. So not hugely accurate
– I'm not sure linear regression is the right regression to use – but then it looked to me like the original graph had a linear regression too…..
– Using my method, it should have been the case that every trendline crossed the x-axis midway through. Some didn't, so something is wrong in my analysis
– I arbitrarily selected 5 m/s as a split between high and low wind. It looks to split the days roughly 50/50, but I didn't check exactly. Some months may have very few high wind or low wind days
– There aren't all that many data points in a single weather station. The result could be random luck.
– Conversely, this is the example weather station that NIWA plotted and showed warming in, so I could be successfully calling into question that single station
If I have time some point in the future, I may look for a weather station that has more wind data.
– Only wind data since
December 3rd, 2009 at 9:34 pm
OK, final data.
The statement someone made to me was that Wellington wasn’t subject to urban heat island effects, as it had little urban density, and the usual high winds meant that the heat was blown away / new air off the sea came in. (I’m paraphrasing and elaborating a little on the argument there, but you get the gist).
My hypothesis was that there was, in fact, some urban heat island effect. If this were true, then I would expect more heat island effect on days with little wind than days with lots of wind.
To test that hypothesis, I correlated wind speed and max temp for each day 1961-2004. (Kelburn wind data only available back to 1961). I then looked at the wind speed at 9am, and split the data set into high wind days (> 5m/s) and low wind days (< 5 m/s). I then separately graphed the average max temperature for the high wind days in a month, and the low wind days in the month. For each graph I added a linear trend line for each month.
Note that even a high wind day under my coarse definition would/could have some periods of no wind. So even the high wind days could have some urban heat island effect – to prove my hypothesis it isn't necessary that high wind days show no warming at all, only that they show less warming than low wind days.
For my hypothesis to be true, it should be the case that high wind days show less warming than low wind days. This would indicate that, in fact, the data could be contaminated by urban heat island effect, or perhaps some other effect that is correlated with wind.
So, drumroll please….
Low wind days show an average monthly warming over the period of 0.56 degrees celsius. High wind days show an average monthly warming of 0.06 degrees celsius – or almost no warming at all.
Does this tell us anything? Well, no, because my methods are pretty rough. Caveats are:
– I used Excel's linear regression function on the graphs, and then read the gradient off the graph by eye. So not hugely accurate
– I'm not sure linear regression is the right regression to use – but then it looked to me like the original graph had a linear regression too…..
– Using my method, it should have been the case that every trendline crossed the x-axis midway through. Some didn't, so something is wrong in my analysis
– I arbitrarily selected 5 m/s as a split between high and low wind. It looks to split the days roughly 50/50, but I didn't check exactly. Some months may have very few high wind or low wind days
– There aren't all that many data points in a single weather station. The result could be random luck.
– Conversely, this is the example weather station that NIWA plotted and showed warming in, so I could be successfully calling into question that single station
December 3rd, 2009 at 9:46 pm
“I don’t have a problem with a tax.”
I bloody do have a problem with a new tax. We need less taxes, not another one.
Have you seen your taxes reduced lately? Quite the contrary, the amount paid to the state continues to climb despite all promises made by spineless politicians.
That was the case with the last socialist Labour government, and still is with the neo-socialist National lot. Both are made of the same parasites and bloodsuckers who live at our expense.
December 3rd, 2009 at 9:53 pm
Agree, paying tax for necessary infrastructure (roads, power ect.) within the country is one thing. blindly handing over money to be sent offshore is something else entirely.
December 3rd, 2009 at 9:55 pm
A: Why don’t we put a tax on the color yellow?
B: Why is that?
A: Because the sun is yellow and it causes warming.
B: But yellow is a naturally occurring color on our planet and it doesn’t do any harm.
A: What about ‘yellow fever’ and ‘the yellow peril’? Those were bad things at the time and they have ‘yellow’ in them. And what about Green Lantern’s power ring? It doesn’t work against anything yellow.
B: I don’t think people will buy that.
A: Oh sure they will. And what about butter? It’s yellow and it causes heart disease.
B: We thought that a while back now; it’s changed a couple of times from margarine to butter to margarine. Now butter is OK again.
A: I’m sure we can convince people. All we need are some scientists to give research money to; I’m sure they’ll discover that yellow is bad. And what about the Yellow Pages? I was thumbing through them last week and I got a paper cut! Actually drew blood!
B: Well….
A: There you go! I’m contacting the U.N. We need a committee to handle this. We need every nation involved! We need to burn everything yellow!
B: Well, won’t that release CO2 into the atmosphere?
A: Oh, that’s so last year. No one’s worried about CO2 now. It’s naturally occurring.
From NZ Conservative
December 3rd, 2009 at 10:05 pm
I don’t think that sort of trite nonsense does anything for the debate. Seems nauseatingly immature.
December 3rd, 2009 at 10:09 pm
So does having the world’s leaders meet to discuss what to do about a naturally occurring gas in the atmosphere.
December 3rd, 2009 at 10:34 pm
Bah humbug. Kiwiblog has a limit on comment length it would appear. Trying to incrementally edit this comment to get all my stuff in.
OK, final data.
The statement someone made to me was that Wellington wasn’t subject to urban heat island effects, as it had little urban density, and the usual high winds meant that the heat was blown away / new air off the sea came in. (I’m paraphrasing and elaborating a little on the argument there, but you get the gist).
My hypothesis was that there was, in fact, some urban heat island effect. If this were true, then I would expect more heat island effect on days with little wind than days with lots of wind.
To test that hypothesis, I correlated wind speed and max temp for each day 1961-2004. (Kelburn wind data only available back to 1961). I then looked at the wind speed at 9am, and split the data set into high wind days (> 5m/s) and low wind days (< 5 m/s). I then separately graphed the average max temperature for the high wind days in a month, and the low wind days in the month. For each graph I added a linear trend line for each month.
Note that even a high wind day under my coarse definition would/could have some periods of no wind. So even the high wind days could have some urban heat island effect – to prove my hypothesis it isn’t necessary that high wind days show no warming at all, only that they show less warming than low wind days.
For my hypothesis to be true, it should be the case that high wind days show less warming than low wind days. This would indicate that, in fact, the data could be contaminated by urban heat island effect, or perhaps some other effect that is correlated with wind.
So, drumroll please….
Low wind days show an average monthly warming over the period of 0.56 degrees celsius. High wind days show an average monthly warming of 0.06 degrees celsius – or almost no warming at all.
Does this tell us anything? Well, no, because my methods are pretty rough. Caveats are:
– I used Excel’s linear regression function on the graphs, and then read the gradient off the graph by eye. So not hugely accurate
– I’m not sure linear regression is the right regression to use – but then it looked to me like the original graph had a linear regression too…..
– Using my method, it should have been the case that every trendline crossed the x-axis midway through. Some didn’t, so something is wrong in my analysis
– I arbitrarily selected 5 m/s as a split between high and low wind. It looks to split the days roughly 50/50, but I didn’t check exactly. Some months may have very few high wind or low wind days
– There aren’t all that many data points in a single weather station. The result could be random luck.
– Conversely, this is the example weather station that NIWA plotted and showed warming in, so I could be successfully calling into question that single station
If I have time some point in the future, I may look for a weather station that has more wind data.
(and, yes, this will now be a duplicate comment sometime soon, as I posted it and it probably went into moderation) I posted to hot-topic as well, got a duplicate post there too
December 3rd, 2009 at 10:37 pm
Looks like the political fallout from Climategate that shook the Aussie Liberal Party could be beginning in the British Tory Party
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/david-davis-why-this-ferocious-desire-to-impose-hairshirt-policies-1832213.html
http://playpolitical.typepad.com/uk_conservative/2009/12/peter-lilley-accuses-climate-change-scientists-of-unconscious-conspiracy.html
Lets hope the NZ National Party are next
December 3rd, 2009 at 10:44 pm
– no one can really tell what the consequences of climate change will be ..neither can the climate scientists.
December 3rd, 2009 at 11:01 pm
Falafulu Fisi
Your posts are as offensive as your handle.
Why don’t you delete yourself and come back as a non-racist, kinder, gentler person?
And if you genuinely want to argue the science, just go to Real Climate and argue with Gavin Schmidt.
But maybe you are too much of a Schmuck for that.
December 3rd, 2009 at 11:07 pm
sbk
You are so correct. The scary thing is, and this is part of the reason, I’m sure, that John Key is off to Copenhagen, after he got a word in his ear at GHOGM, is that the consequences are occurring far more quickly than the obviously inaccurate climate change models forecast.
Bloody scientists.
December 4th, 2009 at 12:01 am
Check this link for information on Real Climate’s left wing connections-
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/the_warmist_pr_con_job.html
December 4th, 2009 at 12:21 am
If you think about if logically…
If man-made climate change were true then Hadley wouldn’t have had to hide anything.
What were they afraid of?
Why did they have to ‘fudge’ data? (the words ‘fudge-factor’ actually appear in the REM comments of their computer code.)
Why did they hassle scientific journals to disallow articles of scientists that disagreed with them?
Why did they delete emails when confronted with Freedom Of Information requests?
Why was original climate change data ‘dumped’? (and don’t give me the excuse that there wasn’t enough room when they changed offices).
If they’d followed the scientific method through and shared their data transparently, sure some scientists wouldn’t have agreed anyway – but that’s the job of science: to analyze data, come up with theories which are then proved or disproved.
So if man-made climate change were true, the data would have been shared, other scientists would have examined their workings, replicated their graphs and experiments, and come to the same conclusion – most of them anyway.
The mere fact of all this obfuscation alone proves to me that it isn’t true.
December 4th, 2009 at 5:55 am
Go you good thing:
Climate e-mail hack ‘will impact on Copenhagen summit’
Now that’s a serve.
December 4th, 2009 at 7:07 am
…a serve from the world’s biggest oil producer. From the same article:
“It’s a transparent attempt to discredit the scientific evidence base and sow confusion ahead of the talks in Copenhagen; most of us have seen this all before,” said Malini Mehra, founder and CEO of the Centre for Social Markets in India. “[The Saudis] appear to have regressed to the days when they were out-and-out climate deniers – not surprising for a fossil fuel dependent economy, but not far-sighted and certainly out of step with the rest of the developing world.”
Scientists say the e-mails from the University of East Anglia do not alter the picture of man-made warming.
Meanwhile, India has set a target for curbing the rise in its CO2 emissions. Environment minister Jairam Ramesh pledged to cut India’s emissions intensity – the amount of greenhouse gases produced for every unit of GDP – by 20-25% by 2020, “if we get support from the international community”.
A spokeswoman for the European Commission said that with or without the CRU hack, evidence for man-made climate change was “irrefutable”. “The world’s leading scientists overwhelmingly agree that what we’re experiencing is not down to natural variation in the climate over time, but due to human activities,” she said.
But
Meanwhile another leading US climate scientist, Nasa’s James Hansen, has said it would be better if the Copenhagen summit failed. In an interview with The Guardian, Dr Hansen said that any agreement likely to emerge from the meeting would be so flawed that it would be better to start again.
“I would rather it not happen if people accept that as being the right track, because it’s a disaster track,” he told the newspaper.
December 4th, 2009 at 7:26 am
PaulL, could you send me your spreadsheet, I’d love to have a look.
cra84@student.cpit.ac.nz
December 4th, 2009 at 7:27 am
Pete..i dont deny climate change,most rational people dont..but as a model AGW is seriously flawed…..and i not prepared to mortgage my grandkids future on that.
December 4th, 2009 at 7:34 am
Are you prepared to risk your grandkids future by not doing anything? It’s a big call on so much uncertainty, either way. But I tend a bit towards the “I’m not as rich but the place may no be as stuffed” line. But money isn’t my god.
December 4th, 2009 at 7:40 am
Money might not be your god, but it’ll be pretty hard to live when the government takes most of it.
December 4th, 2009 at 7:48 am
What I don’t get about you Pete is why you think Government technocrats can do anything about it even if the “worst case” scenarios are coming true – which they are not.
December 4th, 2009 at 7:53 am
I haven’t said I think Government technocrats can do anything about it, in fact I have expressed doubts about whether they can. I have doubts about whether anything can do done, or needs to be done.
We have no idea if the “worst case” or even moderately bad case scenarios will come true in the future. We only know that some things seem to be changing and we may be partly responsible.
Just because I question those who say that nothings happening and we should do nothing it doesn’t mean I believe in the everything that is opposite to that.
December 4th, 2009 at 8:12 am
“Are you prepared to risk your grandkids future by not doing anything?”
Fucken ridiculous. You socialists with your profligate spending of money you don’t possess have done more to put their future at risk than anybody.
“It’s a big call on so much uncertainty, either way.”
Its not any kind of big call. The only uncertainty is the true extent of the lies and propaganda.
BTW, here’s an excellent shoot down of your damn “Precautionary principle”, a concept that can be applied with virtually no fact based threshold and can therefore be used as a means to justify any socialist idiocy.
http://www.heartland.org/publications/environment%20climate/article/902/Liberal_academic_shoots_down_Precautionary_Principle.html
December 4th, 2009 at 8:28 am
For fucks sake Pete George – if the climate is as sensitive to human influence as the screechers claim (and it is not) then any attempt to mitigate human influence is just as likely to have a negative effect on the bulk of the human population as a beneficial one.
And the only way to eliminate whatever effect people have on the future of the climate is to eliminate people – which would be utterly moronic.
December 4th, 2009 at 8:48 am
It’s not socialism Red, it’s more like insurance. The problem with the insurance is that is a hard sell on the population – protecting against something that may happen but maybe not until after we are dead.
It’s ridiculous to claim it’s all lies and propaganda, there are too many people, too many studies, too many governments to all be in synch.
This is a very broad and complex issue. There seems to be too much focus on CRU being the pin on which it all hinges, on a ten year old hockey stick, on computer models. Alongside that are a lot of recordings of nature (also often very complex and difficult to be definitive) – ice caps, glaciers, frost lines, migration habits, season creep, habitat creep (towards the poles) etc etc. Nature doesn’t lie. I also notice less frosts here in the winter, spring possibly a bit earlier. It may be that some or all of this is coincidental, but the weight of evidence is growing much faster than a few hiccups in research are being found.
How are you certain of that Andrei?
It is difficult to comprehend all this on a world scale and easier just to pretend we don’t change anything. But I keep coming back to a simplistic thing – if I dig up some coal and burn it it has an effect, it releases stored energy, so it must change something, it warms on a very small scale. Multiply this by the number of people doing the equivalent. Note how warm your radiator gets and your exhaust gets and multiply that by the number of cars. So it is feasible to me that we could have an effect.
December 4th, 2009 at 9:00 am
“It may be that some or all of this is coincidental, but the weight of evidence is growing much faster than a few hiccups in research are being found.”
Bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit. It is the lack of evidence that is bringing these self serving charlatans undone.
December 4th, 2009 at 9:16 am
Pete George everything we do has an effect the problem is we have no knowledge whatsoever of what the long term effect will be because the future is hidden from us. This is described elegantly in Chaos theory by the BUTTERFLY EFFECT
You know my friend the chattering class will congregate in Copenhagen talk a lot of blather discussing hypothetical scenarios of the future state of global climate systems which none of them understand because the bulk of these people are functionally innumerate anyway, as you clearly are, while in reality something entirely different will develop.
The future is unpredictable mate for all we know Wyoming could blow up tomorrow, its a possibility and if that were to happen its a whole new ball game.
Predictions that the average temperature will be 2-6C warmer are ridiculous – they may by chance turn out to be right but they are not founded on hard science. And even if they do come to pass who is to say that overall a warmer world will not be beneficial to humanity overall.
What will be will be and nobody, group or individual can alter that very much.
December 4th, 2009 at 9:25 am
Generally I agree with this, although if the average sea level were to rise a metre or so that would presumably be mostly negative – but not necessarily all negative, for example those owning higher ground may benefit from increased value.
And I’m aware of the possibility of unforeseen and unintended consequences, especially in complex systems. Two examples – the ozone hole may have mitigated antarctic warming, and pollution particles can block the sun and mitigate warming, so if we reduce pollution we could warm more.
December 4th, 2009 at 9:27 am
So while Phil Jones steps aside, Stuff tells us that a whole new generation are being indoctrinated to take his place.
I’m sure young Connor Smith is being told what the ‘truth’ is here, and I’m sure he’s being told exactly what to say. As are thousands of other young minds. Tragic.
December 4th, 2009 at 10:11 am
getstaffed 9:27 am,
“Kids hang their hopes on climate change”
Let the brainwashing begin … or is that ‘continue’?
… and they say the children are our future.
I guess that’s what the parents of Hitler Youth said too – just before they dobbed them in to the authorities.
In our ‘brave new world’ I wonder if ‘Green Youth’ will be the latest incarnation of the ‘enlightenment’ and promote the socialist/green doctrine of the new global state?
Is the writing on the wall in this regard?
I think it is.
December 4th, 2009 at 10:17 am
According to thermodynamics, entropy is a measure of how much of the energy of a system is potentially available to do work and how much of it is potentially manifest as heat. Therefore, since the earth is warming there must be too much energy available to manifest as heat, thus not enough of the energy is available to do work. So to stop the warming we need more energy put to work and less will manifest as heat.
Therefore it would seem the appropriate course of action would actually be to send lazy dole bludgers to labour camps (he he the irony) until the IPCC let us know the earth is cooling.
December 4th, 2009 at 10:32 am
Leonidas: sent.
December 4th, 2009 at 10:33 am
“The Netherlands is afire today over a Dutch study concluding Mount Kilimanjaro’s snow melt — used as a symbol of AGW by Al Gore — is entirely natural.” (Pajamas Media Blog)
This is being reported by the MSM and this ” Academy voters Roger L. Simon and Lionel Chetwynd call on the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences to rescind Al Gore’s award.”
December 4th, 2009 at 10:54 am
Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud, and Deception to Keep You Misinformed by Christopher C. Horner
December 4th, 2009 at 11:00 am
“As are thousands of other young minds. Tragic.”
This, the sinister and evil indoctrination of innocent unknowing children, is always the clearest indicator of the left’s lack of argument and their complete intellectual and moral bankruptcy.
December 4th, 2009 at 11:54 am
getstaffed 10:54 am,
So I guess those mentioned above; the unrighteous, are unlikely to be among the heavenly population.
There is a day of reckoning for these idolators, thieves, covetous, and extortioners – if not in this life, then certainly in the next!
December 4th, 2009 at 12:10 pm
getstaffed 10:54 am,
Following is the first review of the above book at Amazon – it’s worth a read:
December 4th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
Ms Hansen said…
And if you genuinely want to argue the science, just go to Real Climate and argue with Gavin Schmidt.
Ms Hansen, I will summarize what I have posted before on the net and other blogs, since perhaps you think that Gavin Schmidt et al from RealClimate are scientists. Prof Schmidt is a mathematician and not a physicist , ie, mathematics PhD . Besides, I already grabbed his balls with the following question that I posed over there.
Now, you can see a message of mine here (message #102) at RealClimate from 2007. Your warmist Lord Prof. Gavin Schmidt, didn’t know/understand the question I asked him there on that thread. He replied that he will answer but he evaded. Actually, he didn’t know anything about feed-back control/state-space and system identification theory. The problem he criticized is a feedback control and state-space theory issue. Since he didn’t know, he tried to portrayed it as a statistical issue (confidence test), while in fact it was not. Anyway, feed-back control theory is a complex field (domain of engineers and not climate scientists). This is exactly why I said that Hansen’s knowledge of control modelling is basic. He doesn’t understand feedback theory to a great depth and for you to take his credential blindly and regard as someone knowledgeable in feed-back modelling is naive of you.
I was banned from RealClimate and I have never been back there. They (RealClimate) thought they know everything, but I consistently frustrated the team there, when I brought up numerical counter examples that clash directly with their preconceived idea. I exposed their so called expert knowledge. Most of my posts over there were withheld/deleted and not published. I don’t like to debate in a heavily moderated forum like that, where they selectively published posts they understand and withheld ones that they don’t know.
Ms Hansen said…
Why don’t you delete yourself and come back as a non-racist, kinder, gentler person?
Ms Hansen, where have I raised the issue about race here. Did you just make that up? Your issue with me is about the depth of knowledge that that I have presented in my arguments here, and lets be clear on that. Don’t twist it around and say that I was nasty. I reacted to Phil U for the same reason. Instead of him admitting that his wee brain didn’t understand a thing about the physics I was arguing about, he proposed to award me a prize for consistently using proper physics terms. What shall I do? Use Tongan words instead of proper physics ones?
Here is an advice for the likes of you and Phil U. If you don’t understand the issue currently on debate (be it AGW or whatever), then disengage yourself. Don’t crybaby when someone like me & others use the proper scientific jargons in order to relay the message in the debate and at the same time, you keep engaging in the debated.
If you feel that you’re not up to it, then just don’t get involve, but I noted that you don’t do that. You get engaged in the debate and calling everyone that disagrees with the IPCC a denier. Now, do you see what I mean here? I hope you do.
December 4th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
Paradigm, how about if I admit that the authors didn’t make a good argument there regarding the 2nd law of thermodynamics?
They presented various points apart from their 2nd law of thermodynamics argument. So, the paper doesn’t collapse because of their poor 2nd law poor argument.
Now, can we move on? Can you then now present some explanations for the 4 questions I posed to you yesterday?
PS : I have had publications in the past in the domain of solid-state physics & lasers , photonics and opto-electronics. I also hold 4 patents (with previous employer) in the photonics technology domain. I am not an academic as you thought. I am an industry consultant specializing in scientific computing, ie, anything number-crunching is me, from digital signal processing, feedback control system design, machine/artificial intelligence, economics/finance, physics, statistics, mathematics, non-linear dynamics and so forth.
December 4th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
Falafulu
As you advised me the other day, it’s not worth engaging with the entity known as Luc Hansen. He does not understand any of this and simply pulls out anything vaguely resembling appeals-to-authority. Given the number of commentators on this blog who have been reading RealClimate for several years – including those pro-AGW like Andrew W, and those who are anti-AGW – it’s been quite funny watching poor old Luc orgasmically discovering Gavin and co. in the just the last couple of weeks.
Apart from that you also have to be a bit gentle on Luc because – as the prototypical cringing, apologetic, white, urban, leftwing male – he’s really more used to patting “People of Colour” on the head, sympathising with their victimhood, telling him that he’s awfully sorry for European patriarchal society, and that government will take complete care of them.
Having to deal with sophisticated, scientific arguments from you is all a bit overwhelming for the poor sod, hence the knee-jerk squawks of “racist, racist”. You’re lucky he did not go with a “back-on-the-porch” jibe.
December 4th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
RealClimate is owned and funded by the Environmental Media Services, which is a radical left wing political lobby group who make money off AGW. The site is run by Gavin Schmidt and Mike Mann, both conspirators in the leaked emails. Schmidt’s boss is James Hansen, who is Gore’s main advisor.
December 4th, 2009 at 7:56 pm
Falafulufisi, I am continuing the discussion in the general debate as this thread is becoming old.
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2009/12/general_debate_4_december_2009.html#comment-639360
December 4th, 2009 at 10:27 pm
Random observations that may or may not be linked.
DPF supports a carbon tax. Presumably this is linked into a system of carbon trading, a system designed by Ken Lay.
Do we really want a system foisted upon us that was designed by the bloke who ran ENRON?
NIWA need climate change. How else is the NIWA head going to continue justifying having the tax payer pay for the extra car parking bay so he can make sure his Porsche does not suffer the risk of another car being parked to close to it.
Why did NZ include agriculture in its Kyoto obligations when no other country did?
Remind me again which clown signed us up for Kyoto?
December 4th, 2009 at 10:52 pm
andrei – Yes, but there are groups of powerful nutters who want to ‘cull’ human population levels. Example –
Paul Ehrlich is John and Anne Hodren’s long-time mentor. John Hodren is Obama’s top science czar.
December 4th, 2009 at 10:58 pm
.. correction: Paul & Anne Ehrlich are John Hodren’s long-time mentors.
December 4th, 2009 at 11:12 pm
Falafulu Fisis
I think you are indeed full of it.
You, getstaffed, Tom Hunter, fletch et al, are all Wishart-style cranks; pseudo scientists, the equivalent of bush lawyers.
I would back the lifetime achievements of James Hansen against the mottled crew I have just named any day.
By the way, Obama does not appoint czars, that is a Fox Newsless fabrication.
Enjoy your mosh pit boys, but the rest of us have a planet fit for human habitation to save.
December 5th, 2009 at 1:39 am
“Enjoy your mosh pit boys, but the rest of us have a planet fit for human habitation to save.”
Sounds as if we may at last be free of this ranting raving evangelistic leftist loon.
Well done boys and girls.
December 5th, 2009 at 9:16 am
Ms Hansen said…
I think you are indeed full of it.
Geez Ms Hansen, do you despise someone that has full of knowledge? I know why. It is because there is a lack of neuron activity in your brain. It is typical of those like you. When you can’t confront an opponent on a debate about an issue that you’re clueless to, then of course you resort to calling that person , full of it or as in the case of Phil U, suggesting that I get an award for being knowledgeable.
How about I suggest that you and Phil U, should rent a room together, huh? Don’t worry, Phil U, is good in suggesting to rent a room with someone that he agrees with and you certainly fit that criteria.
December 5th, 2009 at 9:24 am
Holdren actually co-authored one of their dispicable forced sterilization papers. You can see why Obama likes the guy so much.
December 5th, 2009 at 12:03 pm
No substance, so [attempted] insults instead. For a bright fellow that looks more than a little desperate Luc. If you’d care to refute documented quotes and public-domain associations (a la Ehrlich, Hodren & Obama) then go right ahead. Or just hiss and spit, which seems to be your fallback position. Sad.