Tuesday, 7 December 2010

Revealing the lack of "concensus?"

I finally tracked down an interview on CNN that brings one of the "hide the decline" scientists (Who incidentally is quick to accuse everyone who disagrees with his Man is Causing the Planet to Die view of being in the pay of "Big Oil" while raking in the taxpayers money for their indefensible stance on the leaked emails and other sensational claims for their "models.") up against one of the scientists who disagrees. The sad thing is that the disagree lobby has proof that there is something fishy about the EAU CRU and IPCC claims, but they are being ignored and sidelined by the Greenpeace/Fiends of the Earth controlled "Climate Community."

The claim by the NASA apologist that the "quote 'hide the decline' and 'Nature trick' are taken out of context" is pathetic. I've read the relevant email in full. It is not out of context, it says exactly what they meant. The "Tree Ring Proxies" they had constructed their entire case on, had shown a different trend at an "inconvenient point" and caused the model to show something other than what they were wanting - so the "trick." Simple, exclude the data you don't like and run the model again until it shows what you want to see. Sadly, what no one seems willing to admit is that almost all the "data" they use comes from an ever decreasing number of actual weather monitoring stations, almost all of them in heavily built up areas and therefore subject to background warming from buildings (In one case the exhaust fans from an airconditioning plant for a very large building), tarmac and 'concrete canyons' in which they are located. OK, so they claim they "know" how much extra heat is being measured and compensate for it in their model. Really? How do they do this? With real measurements taken in a more natural setting?

No. They 'calculate' it... Now, I'm no mathematician, but one thing I do know, to make any calculation give an accurate and reliable result, you need all the factors to be accurate measurements - not numbers pulled from thin air...

Worse, they 'interpolate' data to fill in gaps for places they don't have data from directly. So, for a place you may have data showing an upward trend from - say - forty years ago, you average the rise and add this to 'plot' an extension to the graph. This 'extrapolation' of data allows you to fill in the gaps, but it is, at best, a good guess, not fact or 'hard' data which is what you get from actually going out with the instrument and measuring whatever it is. But in the CRU/Greenpeace world it is taken as fact and tweaked until it shows the 'right' trend. Viola! The upward trend continues, even though it may not be doing anything of the sort in reality at the actual location.

There is quite a discrepancy between the actual surface measurement of temperatures and those taken by satellites (and no one is exactly sure what the satellites are actually measuring) so one set shows a "flat line" since 1998 and the other shows anything but a clear picture of either increase or decline. So the answer for the AGW mob is simple - add in anything which can be claimed to show an "increase" and spin it and hype it up - but watch out the skeptics don't get a chance to show just how unreliable your Bristle Cone Pine Tree Ring evidence is. And when it doesn't do what you want it to show - exclude it.

The climate is changing, it has been since the last Ice Age and yes, it is speeding up slightly, but wedon't know whether this is due to western society's emmissions (Which have been reducing steadily since the 1980s) or to something else. Yes, we do need to keep looking, but if you look a little wider than simply trying to destroy western culture with punitive transport policies, taxation and driving industry abroad so we can all go back to subsistence farming and a pre-industrial culture, you find that before the last Ice Age, the climate warmed suddenly and quickly.

Maybe our early ancestors caused that as well... With Greenpeace's lunatic fringe 'science' I'm sure it won't be long before they 'prove' that in an IPCC report.


  1. Here's a mind-blower about the cut in recording stations; take a gander at this graph:
    I did the arithmetic, and that "step change" in trend is 1.9°C!! My conclusion is that this is the number that should be subtracted from all post-1989 "global average temperatures" per IPCC agencies.
    The article containing the graph is at: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/30752

  2. P.S. I LOVE your novels and stories.

  3. Thanks Brian H, watch this space, a new one, "Their Lordships Request ..." will be in print very soon.

    This problem with Extrapolations, Averaging and the lack of ground stations away from the heat sinks of buildings, tarmac and so on is a major problem - but even better is the fact that the CRU "models" don't differentiate between the effect of cloud cover between night and day and the longer effects of interaction between air and water and a few other things...

    Add to those the use of "reconstructions" of temperatures using a range of interesting proxy data and I begin to wonder how many moons orbit the lanet these folk inhabit.