All Scientists are Sceptics ~Professor Bob Carter

Whenever someone asserts that a scientific question is “settled,” they tell me immediately that they don’t understand the first thing about science. Science is never settled. Dr David Deming

Perhaps the most frustrating aspect of the science of climate change is the lack of any real substance in attempts to justify the hypothesis ~Professor Stewart Franks

A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at: http://thepeoplescube.com/lenin/lenin-s-own-20-monster-quotes-t185.html#sthash.aTrSI3tG.dpuf
A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at: http://thepeoplescube.com/lenin/lenin-s-own-20-monster-quotes-t185.html#sthash.aTrSI3tG.dpuf
A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at: http://thepeoplescube.com/lenin/lenin-s-own-20-monster-quotes-t185.html#sthash.aTrSI3tG.dpuf

Tuesday, 31 December 2013

Trust Peer-review? Not Much!

Cartoons by Josh
Midday published an article headed

Pune techie busts science seminar racket

It appears that a computer scientist and technology entrepreneur from Pune,  India, Dr Navin Kabra, submitted two non-sensical papers and, after "peer review" one was published.
Navin Kabra, who graduated from Indian Institute of Technology-Bombay, and later completed his Ph.D. in computer science from the University of Wisconsin in the United States before returning to India, submitted the two fake papers to the International Conference on Recent Innovations in Engineering, Science &Technology (ICRIEST) which was held in Pune on December 29. The conference was organized by the “Institute of Research and Journals” (IRAJ). 
Both papers were auto-generated using freely-available online software. In fact, one paper has references to the Hindi movie, Sholay, and an entire section contains dialogues from a hit Hollywood film, My Cousin Vinny.
Evidently it normally costs Rs6000 to be published but Dr Kabra negotiated a 50% discount. This paper was "peer reviewed by an 'international jury' of engineers and university professors" and published.
The other paper was accepted by the conference, but not published as he did not pay the publishing fees. That paper even has a nonsensical name, but it completely escaped the international jury.
The title of this accepted but not published paper was:

 "Use of Cloud-Computing and Social Media to Determine Box Office Performance."  

This is obviously a money-making con. It wouldn't happen in the real scientific world of peer-review, would it!

Well, Would it?


Retraction watch has ended a busy 2013 with a post titled 

                                                    

The preamble to this posts tells us
No question, 2013 has been a busy year at Retraction Watch. And no wonder: There have been more than 500 retractions in the scientific literature, according to Thomson Scientific's Web of Knowledge. We've posted roughly that many times, and had more than five million pageviews (thank you!).
Think about it.  500 papers that passed through the peer review process were subsequently retracted.

How good is the peer (or "pal") review process if 500 papers get through it! And what about Cook et al 2013. Somehow that paper survived  peer (pal) review  and yet it has been busted so many times. It was even rebutted by a peer reviewed paper "Climate Consensus and ‘Misinformation’: a Rejoinder to ‘Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change’ Legates et al. (Sci Educ 22:2007–2017, 2013)

The Alarmists and their bed-wetting supporters still cling to "Is it Peer reviewed?" "Where's the peer reviewed paper?" "all Science must be peer reviewed..." etc etc

However this year we have seen
  • 500 peer reviewed papers retracted;
  • A peer reviewed rebuttal of Cook et al's peer reviewed nonsense;
  • Non-sensical "Use of Cloud-Computing and Social Media to Determine Box Office Performance" accepted by supposed peer review;

Do we accept un-peer reviewed science?

Try this:



E = mc2

In 1905, it was OK, Einstein was NOT peer reviewed, but 100 years later,it would be rejected. "Sorry, not peer reviewed. "

What rot!

Monday, 30 December 2013

GLOBAL WARMING SCIENTISTS TRAPPED IN ANTARCTIC ICE (Update)

Zeg Cartoon

"It's Summer and we're runnin' out a' ice." So they sang in the musical "Oklahoma." Perhaps there will be a musical "Antarctica."
A-a-a-a-ntarctica, where the wind comes biting off the ice;
And the frozen ills and associated Chills and
Breaking Icicles off your nose is not Nice!

It's summer in Antarctica and I think Chris Turney would be hoping that his expedition was runnin' out a' ice.

Professor Chris Turney is a leader of the Australian Antarctic Expedition 2013-14.
He is an Australian Research Council (ARC) Laureate Fellow and Professor of Climate Change at the University of New South Wales. Working in both the Antarctic and Arctic, Chris is extending historic records of change in the polar regions back to 130,000 years ago to help better understand the future.
The scale of Antarctica and the Southern Ocean is staggering. Over 98% of the continent is submerged by three large ice sheets that drown the underlying topography. The Australasian sector is dominated by the East Antarctic Ice Sheet, the largest of three ice sheets that contains enough freshwater to raise the world’s sea level by some 52 metres. Until recently it was thought this ice sheet was stable, sitting on the continental crust above today’s sea level. However there is an increasing body of evidence, including by the AAE members, that have identified parts of the East Antarctic which are highly susceptible to melting and collapse from ocean warming.
Chris Turney, “climate scientist” has “set up a carbon refining company called Carbonscape which has developed technology to fix carbon from the atmosphere and make a host of green bi-products, helping reduce greenhouse gas levels.” (link)

NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT According to Chris Turney, leader of the expedition trapped in the ice off the coast of Antarctica, the expanding sea ice has been caused by global warming.

He obviously has not bothered checking the facts. (See LINK)



The MV Akademik Shokalskiy is trapped in the ice at sea off Antarctica Photo: Andrew Peacock/Getty Images
Hopes Raised temporarily:



Oh, if only Nature were listening, perhaps they wouldn't be trapped in ice.

Antarctic Sea Ice
The Chinese Ice-breaker, weighing in at 21,025 tons  got stuck in ice; Aussie's Aurora Australis a flyweight weighing in at 8,158 tons is coming to the rescue to save alarmists scientist.

View from the bridge: Aurora Australis

Nicky Phillips, Science Editor of the Sydney Morning Herald is aboard the Aurora Australis:
At its thickest, multi-year ice can reach about 3.5 metres in depth. 
We're about to give some of the pack "a bash and see how it goes", says Aurora captain Murray Doyle. 
The temperature is about minus 1.6 degrees, but the wind is about 30 knots so the wind chill makes it feel a fair bit colder. 
A small crowd of passengers has started to gather on the bridge. After five days sailing, everyone is keen to see some serious ice-breaking. 
Grant Hose, a scientist on board the Aurora, set his alarm for 6am. 
"I wanted to watch us begin to break through the ice," he said. "There's an air of excitment on the bridge. But we are moving pretty slowly so it could be a long day." 
While the ice cakes - flat pieces of ice less than 20 metres across - and ice floes - ice more than 20 metres across - are tightly packed, so far we've been able to navigate around them without too much trouble.
The Australis could sing:
"It's summer and we're running into ice." 
UPDATE:  TOO MUCH ICE (from Nicky Phillips)

The Aurora Australis has abandoned its first attempt to cut through the ice surrounding the stranded Akademik Shokalskiy in Antarctica after moving just two nautical miles.

About 6am, the Aurora's captain, Murray Doyle, began to manoeuvre the icebreaker through thick wedges of consolidated sea ice.

But by 9am [midday Sydney time], the master made the call to turn the ship around and move back into open water.
“The ice became too thick for us to penetrate. Some of the floes are up to two metres of ice with a metre of snow on top and very compact. 
“There was just nowhere for us to go."




Sunday, 29 December 2013

Climate Council (or Should that be Climate CON-cil?) - 5 Myths.


by Geoff Brown and Anthony Cox

Cartoons by Josh

The Climate Council, (or Should that be Climate CON-cil?) true to their nature have published a fairy tale called Mythbusting Guide for Christmas BBQs.  There is hardly a sentence in their release which is true.

Let’s look at their five "myths." (Should that be misses....Do they have a lisp?)

1: The Climate Isn't Getting Warmer, we still have cold weather:

The Climate Council erroneously writes:: 
The Earth has warmed strongly over the past half-century and continues to warm. 
Did the earth warm over the last half century? Well, yes and no. Let's define the last half century, say 1963 to 2013. And the record shows that 1963 to around 1975 was a cooling period followed by 1975-98 warming followed by a cooling period from 1998 to 2013.

Using the (UN)Skeptical Science trend calculator and the RSS satellite data there is a warming trend from 1979 to 1997 of 0.071ºC per decade and from 1998 to 2013 a cooling trend of 0.052ºC per decade.







At the beginning of this 50 years period, Scientists were worried that Antarctic ice would cause a new ice age (Link – Real  Science)



So 1963 to 1975 Cooling; 1998 to 2013 Cooling; 1975 to 1997 warming: 25 years cooling and only  22 years warming.  Therefore the Climate Council’s 
The Earth has warmed strongly over the past half-century and continues to warm.
is totally busted.

Then they continue with their lies:
The Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets are losing mass
Arctic sea ice has continued to decrease  
They must know that these are lies.

Greenland

Arctic and Antarctic

And these prevaricators were paid propagandists for the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd government? They should hand the money back!

2: Climate Change isn't caused by humans, it has always happened. 

Well, that's both true and not-true. Climate change HAS always happened. Man has contributed, for example, by the Urban Heat Island effect.  However, the human contribution is insignificant.

Image: NASA

The mendacious Climate Council write:
Scientists are more certain than ever that the warming of climate since 1950 has been caused primarily by human activities. 
Are the Climate Council deniers?  Are they just thumping the table? (link)

3: It's only a few degrees of warming, it can't be that bad.

Although the Climate Council try to scare us re warming; In fact, warm is better than cold.  
In a review article published in the Southern Medical Journal, Keatinge and Donaldson (2004) of Queen Mary's School of Medicine and Dentistry at the University of London begin the main body of their text with a clear declaration of the relative dangers of heat and cold when it comes to human mortality: "cold-related deaths are far more numerous than heat-related deaths in the United States, Europe, and almost all countries outside the tropics, and almost all of them are due to common illnesses that are increased by cold." (Link)

4: We’ve always had extreme weather,  it’s not influenced by (man-made) climate change.

The Climate Council states that: 
All extreme weather events are now being influenced by climate change 
                                                                                                                                         
Bjørn Lomborg, an adjunct professor at the Copenhagen Business School writes (LINK)
One of the most persistent claims in the climate debate is that global warming leads to more extreme weather. Green groups and even such respectable outlets as Scientific American declare that “extreme weather is a product of climate change.”
 Yet this is not supported by science. “General statements about extremes are almost nowhere to be found in the literaturebut seem to abound in the popular media,” climate scientist Gavin Schmidt of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies said last month. “It’s this popular perception that global warming means all extremes have to increase all the time, even though if anyone thinks about that for 10 seconds they realize that’s nonsense.”
Are extreme weather events getting worse? Well, no!           

Not according to  Kundzewicz et al. (2005) (via Roger Pielke Jr)
Observations to date provide no conclusive and general proof as to how climate change affects flood behaviour.

Not according to Anthony Watts:


Why it seems that severe weather is “getting worse” when the data shows otherwise – a historical perspective



5 The Science is settled

The Climate Council say
The Science is settled. There is no confusion or debate in the scientific community about the reality of climate change 

There is no confusion? This statement is full of confusion. Science and settled is a scientific oxymoron. 

Is there a reality of climate change? Of Course. Climate has always changed since the beginning of time.

By climate change, the Climate Council probably means catastrophic man-made global warming (CAGW). Well,  there definitely is debate in the scientific community about the reality of CAGW.

Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science (CCR-II is an independent, comprehensive, and authoritative report on the current state of climate science. It is the fourth in a series of scholarly reports produced by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), an international network of climate scientists sponsored by three nonprofit organizations: Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP), and The Heartland Institute. Whereas the reports of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warn of a dangerous human effect on climate, NIPCC concludes the human effect is likely to be small relative to natural variability, and whatever small warming is likely to occur will produce benefits as well as costs. (LINK)

NIPCC Report

Why do the Climate Council continually issue false information

Because, if they reported the truth, they would be out of a job.

Saturday, 28 December 2013

Sun is the main driver of climate change, not carbon dioxide.

Friends of Science:

As ice storms put much of Ontario into the cold and dark for Christmas, Friends of Science are citing a recent report by Dr. Madhav Khandekar that indicates cold weather extremes are on the rise; this trend is under reported in the media, and virtually unnoticed by climate researchers at the IPCC. Friends of Science say the sun is the main driver of climate change, not carbon dioxide, and that solar cycles are exhibiting abnormal patterns.  
Recent extreme storms and ice storms in eastern Canada reflect climate trends under reported in the media, say Friends of Science. Peer-reviewed studies by solar scientists indicate a 'solar hibernation' may be imminent according to a recent report by Dr. Mahdav Khandekar.
Over the past six years, extreme cold weather in central and eastern Europe, India and South America has led to the deaths of hundreds of people, Khandekar reports debunking the claims of global warming causing extreme weather like Typhoon Haiyan, in a report published Nov. 27, 2013 by the Global Warming Policy Foundation. Sadly, the IPCC scientists have not even mentioned this trend in their recent reports.
For More, see Friends of Science Press release - LINK

About
Friends of Science have spent a decade reviewing a broad spectrum of literature on climate change and have concluded the sun is the main driver of climate change, not carbon dioxide (CO2). The core group of the Friends of Science is made up of retired earth and atmospheric scientists.

Ice storm power outages Progress 'encouraging' in Ontario Canada:


Published on Dec 23, 2013
Although officials cited progress with outages in some areas of the country, hundreds of thousands of people in Central and Eastern Canada may spend Christmas in the dark as emergency crews struggle to restore power.

Friday, 27 December 2013

Climate Alarmism is alive and Well and thumping the table.

Ezra Levant interviews the Climate Science Coalition's Tom Harris.

Ezra asks: "If we should be panicking about global warming,  why hasn’t there been any global warming since 1998?"

Tom replied: "........the computer models are all off, ….Professor Howard Hayden (Professor of Physics Emeritus)  from the University of Connecticut pointed out something very interesting, that, as their models have gone farther and farther from the actual data, in other words, as their mistake has increased in all the five assessment reports, their confidence has increased. (see graph.)

Ezra: "That’s a psychological trait; that’s called denial."

Law School Advice:
If the facts are on your side, you pound the facts….if the facts are not on your side, you pound the table. 
The UN is pounding the table.


Interesting fact from Tom: "A Billion dollars a day is going into the climate scare now!"


Thursday, 26 December 2013

Holy Cow! Another Global Warming Myth busted.

The word “Sustainability” has been hijacked with definitions developed by groups pushing various agendas including being used extensively to promote the Agenda 21 agenda to a point that we need to be wary of the use of the word.


Having said that, here is a pre-Christmas story from 


Cows’ Role in Global Warming Overlooked in Climate Talks
Cattle and other ruminants are probably the biggest human-related source of methane, a gas adding to global warming, and climate negotiators have paid too little attention to livestock, a team of researchers said. 
Cows, sheep, goats and buffalo produce “copious amounts” of methane in their digestive systems, Oregon State University wrote in an online press release, citing analysis published in the journal Nature Climate Change today. One of the most effective ways to cut the gas would be to reduce the global population of ruminant livestock, the university said.
Yet there is a multitude (or should I say a stampede?) of information contradicting this. Googling "cattle carbon neutral" brings around a quarter million hits. E.G:-

US Grasslands Carbon Neutral: (The Land)
Cattle grazing systems on native grassland in the northern United States are reducing greenhouse gases, a new study reports. 
The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) researchers set out to get a local perspective on European conclusions that managed grasslands are greenhouse gas sinks—(although when methane and nitrous oxide emissions were taken into account, the greenhouse gas balance in the European sites was closer to neutral). 
The USDA study, reported this week in the Journal of Environmental Quality, came to a mixed conclusion. 
It confirmed that in the North Dakota study area, all grazing treatments sequestered significant quantities of carbon and minor quantities of atmospheric methane.


Climate breakthrough: cattle carbon neutral: (Qld Country Life)

A NEW report which shows that Queensland's cattle grazing industry is already all but carbon neutral and could provide a solution in addressing the State's overall carbon liability has been buried by the Bligh Government. 
It is understood the release of the 30-page report prepared by Queensland Primary Industries and Fisheries has been derailed by Greg Withers, the Director-General of the Queensland Government's Department of Climate Change and Premier Anna Bligh's husband. 
The report, which examines the carbon footprint of the beef industry and the impact of vegetation clearing bans, has been peer reviewed by a number of the nation's top scientists, including the CSIRO's Dr Ed Charmley, QUT's Dr Peter Grace, and Meat and Livestock Australia's Beverly Henry. 
The authors of the report - titled Net Carbon Position of the Queensland Beef Industry - are respected QPIF scientists Dr Steven Bray and Dr Jacqui Wilcocks.
Ruminants not Kyoto villains  (link: pdf)


A Paper by Dr Gerrit van der Lingen published by the NZ Climate Science Coalition  (NZCSC) explains why emissions of methane from cattle and sheep should not be part of any emissions trading system in New Zealand. (Link)
The New Zealand Government signed the Kyoto protocol on 22 May 1998 and
ratified it on 19 December 2002. 
Perhaps there was some justification in 2002 before the bottom fell out of the falsified AGW hypothesis. (See also UK Met Office, Jo Nova)
All plants, including grass, require carbon dioxide to grow. Grass is eaten by
ruminants and the carbon in it is used for the growth of the animal and for milk and
wool production. A small part of the carbon from the grass is used to make methane
through enteric fermentation. This methane is emitted by the animals into the
atmosphere. It stays in the atmosphere for only about 10 years, after which it
changes back to carbon dioxide, which in turn is being absorbed by the grass, which
in turn is eaten by the animals, etc. It is basically a closed loop. However, some of
the carbon is incorporated by the animals into skin, wool, meat and bones. Some of
those are subsequently turned into durable animal-based commodities, such as
woollen garments, leather products, even bone carvings. As long as such products
are not incinerated, the carbon stays locked up. It is being sequestered.  
Consequently, ruminants act as carbon sinks. There is therefore no justification to
include ruminant methane emissions in the Kyoto Protocol obligations.

Do the Alarmists check both sides of the debate or just go ahead and publish already busted alarm stories?