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

Friday, 31 July 2015

Humans aren't the main cause of Global Warming; SS debunked AGAIN.

Source

Another debunking of two of UNSkeptical UNScience -SS's- so-called "Myths." This time debunking their #45 and #139
"There's no empirical evidence"There are multiple lines of direct observations that humans are causing global warming.

SS says:
There is empirical evidence that the rising temperatures are being caused by the increased CO2.

There’s no empirical evidence to support AGW

True. For 2 main reasons. Temperature and CO2 are not correlated; example the modern era. From 1959. 20thC. 1659. Longer. Secondly there is growing evidence CO2 increase is not caused by human emissions. See Pettersson’s work, one, two, three and overview. Salby’s work. (see item 139). Quirk’s paper. Knoor and Gloor’s work is summarised here. So even if CO2 causes temperature, for which there is no empirical evidence, there is cogent evidence that the increase in CO2 is not caused by humans. So, not is there no empirical evidence to support AGW, there is empirical evidence against it.


"Murry Salby finds CO2 rise is natural"Multiple lines of evidence make it very clear that the rise in atmospheric CO2 is due to human emissions.

Murry Salby finds CO2 rise is natural


He’s probably right. See items 45, 46, 77.

 Salby’s work on isotopes which the alarmists say prove the increase in CO2 is due to humans in fact shows the opposite. 

As Jo Nova notes : 

Tuesday, 28 July 2015

Sea level rise is decelerating: another SS "Myth" Debunked.

Cartoons by Josh
Another debunking of one of UNSkeptical UNScience -SS's so-called "Myths." This time debunking their #25.

"Sea level rise is exaggerated"A variety of different measurements find steadily rising sea levels over the past century.

Anthony Cox answers:

Sea level rise is exaggerated.  

Plenty of papers show this is the case. 

Houston and Dean is as good as any.
ABSTRACT (bold added) 
HOUSTON, J.R. and DEAN, R.G., 2011. Sea-level acceleration based on U.S. tide gauges and extensions of previous global-gauge analyses. Journal of Coastal Research, 27(3), 409–417. West Palm Beach (Florida), ISSN 0749-0208. Without sea-level acceleration, the 20th-century sea-level trend of 1.7 mm/y would produce a rise of only approximately 0.15 m from 2010 to 2100; therefore, sea-level acceleration is a critical component of projected sea-level rise. To determine this acceleration, we analyze monthly-averaged records for 57 U.S. tide gauges in the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL) data base that have lengths of 60–156 years. Least-squares quadratic analysis of each of the 57 records are performed to quantify accelerations, and 25 gauge records having data spanning from 1930 to 2010 are analyzed. In both cases we obtain small average sea-level decelerations. To compare these results with worldwide data, we extend the analysis of Douglas (1992) by an additional 25 years and analyze revised data of Church and White (2006) from 1930 to 2007 and also obtain small sea-level decelerations similar to those we obtain from U.S. gauge records.


Ablain et al 2009 and Cazenave et al 2008 confirm the slowdown in rate of sea level rise, consistent

Saturday, 25 July 2015

Crook Cook's Identity Fraud

Michael Spencer Graphic

Cartoonist and professional scrawler UNSkeptical UNScience - SS's John Cook has been fraudulently using Luboš Motl's identity.

Luboš Motl is a Czech theoretical physicist by training who was an assistant Professor at Harvard University from 2004 to 2007. His scientific publications are focused on string theory.
Luboš writes a blog called The Reference Frame (TRF).

On TRF, Luboš writes of John Cook:
John Cook is the founder of one of the world's most famous "Sky Is Falling" websites about global warming, SkepticalScience.COM. The name of the web wants to express the point that the climate skeptics shouldn't even be allowed to use the term "skeptics". They only deserve expletives while the "true skeptics" are the champions of panic such as Cook himself. He is a typical example of the alarmist "grassroots movement" who has no relevant education (his top academic achievement is to have been a "former student" – in other words, a dropout) and no significant intelligence but whose persistent activism – in combination with the pathologically corrupt atmosphere in many institutions that favor "a certain kind of views" – has allowed him to become something like an "honorary scientist" and to have earned a huge amount of money, too.

Anthony Watts writes:
If it wasn’t enough that John Cook dresses himself up as a Nazi in his SkS uniform on his forum, now we have him caught in what looks to be identity theft of a well known scientist.  
This isn’t a brush away issue that he can ignore, as Dr. Lubos Motl found out yesterday, John Cook has been using the name of Dr. Lubos Motl to post comments that Dr. Motl has NOT written.
Here is Crook Cook on a forum admitting that he uses the identity of Scientist Luboš:  (click on image to enlarge)

Friday, 24 July 2015

SS Myth: Models can Hindcast. NO - they cannot - Massive Fail!

Another in our series debunking UNSkeptical UNScience's so-called Myths of Global Warming. This post debunks their "Myth" No 6.

"Models are unreliable"Models successfully reproduce temperatures since 1900 globally, by land, in the air and the ocean.

And their explanation:
Climate models have to be tested to find out if they work. We can’t wait for 30 years to see if a model is any good or not; models are tested against the past, against what we know happened. If a model can correctly predict trends from a starting point somewhere in the past, we could expect it to predict with reasonable certainty what might happen in the future.
Donald C. Morton on Dr Judith Curry's site writes:
The Validation of Climate Models 
How do we know that the models representing global or regional climate are sufficiently reliable for predictions of future conditions? First they must reproduce existing observations, a test current models are failing as the global temperatures remain nearly constant. Initiatives such as the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project 5 (CMIP5) can be useful but do not test basic assumptions such as linearity and feedback common to most models. Matching available past and present observations is a necessary condition, but never can validate a model because incorrect assumptions also could fit past data, particularly when there are many adjustable parameters. One incorrect parameter could compensate for another incorrect one. 
Again, from the SS explanation:

Thursday, 23 July 2015

John Cook and his UQ Delusions


Self-confessed cartoonist and professional scrawler John Cook has come up with more tripe. One can only hope that he doesn't use any of this in his course at Uni of Qld's Denial 101X.

The course is titled "Making sense of climate denial." Does anyone deny climate?

The 5 telltale techniques of climate change denial

Climate has always changed. Would anyone deny climate change?

An examination of his 5 "Telltale Techniques.

1. Fake experts

This is Headed Fake Experts but is really about the fake 97% consensus. Of course, Scientific Consensus is an oxymoron.

Cook leaps into fiction right from the start mentioning Doran's Examining the Scientific Consensuson Climate Change (The Mythical 97% consensus)

Barry Woods writes that participants wrote, taken from the appendi of the MSc thesis:
“..scientific issues cannot be decided by a vote of scientists. A consensus is not, at any given time, a good predictor of where the truth actually resides..”
“..The “hockey stick” graph that the IPCC so touted has, it is my understanding, been debunked as junk science..” 
“..I’m not sure what you are trying to prove, but you will undoubtably be able to prove your pre-existing opinion with this survey! I’m sorry I even started it!..” (Doran/Zimmerman feedback)  
“..and I do not think that a consensus has anything to do with whether a hypothesis is correct. Check out the history of science…you will find that scientific discovery is generally made by ignoring the ‘consensus..’” (Doran/Zimmerman feedback 
..Science is not based on votes or consensus. Irrelevant question. Besides, which scientists do you regard as relevant?..” (Zimmerman feedback)
Read more HERE - http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/what-else-did-the-97-of-scientists-say/ 

Cook's next link:  Andregg et al's Expert Credibility in Climate Change.  Even the title of this paper is flawed and after reading the abstract it should be titled Expert Credibility in Anthropogenic Climate Change.

The paper has been debunked several time; eg Science Bits:
I recently stumbled upon one of the most meaningless papers I have ever seen, it is called "Expert credibility in climate change" by Anderegg, Prall, Harold and Schneider. The paper "proves" that the scientists advocating an anthropogenic greenhouse warming (AGW) are statistically more credible than the "unconvinced". Their main goal is to convince people that they should join the AGW bandwagon simply because it is allegedly more credible.  
In essence, the authors show that the AGW protagonists have more published papers in climate journals and more citations. The authors then carry on with an elaborate statistical analysis showing how statistically significant the results are. The first thing that popped into my mind is the story about a statistician who proved that 87.54% of all statistical research is meaningless... 
See more debunking by Doug L Hoffman, Anthony Watts.

Next Cook links to....surprise!!!  his own much derided paper. Another peer reviewed paper by Legates et al found that Cook's sloppy work created 97.1% but the actual per centage was found, from his own material, reduced that 97.1% to a very tiny 0.3%. Why does Mr Cook invite derision?

2. Logical fallacies

First sentence:
The reason why there's a 97% consensus is because....
Cookie, there is no consensus.
The most common fallacious argument is that current climate change must be natural because climate has changed naturally in the past.
But, the Shrill's most common fallacious argument is that man's emissions of vital-to-life CO2 is causing catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. The three legged chair falls over if one of the legs is broken.

Source


CO2 Three legged chair:

  1. Rise in Global Temperature always precedes rise in atmospheric CO2;
  2. This century CO2  continues to rise while temperature has plateaued and is falling;
  3. IPCC reports do not examine natural changes to climate

3. Impossible expectations

While many lines of evidence inform our understanding of climate change, another source of understanding are climate models. These are computer simulations built from the fundamental laws of physics, and they have made many accurate predictions since the 1970s. Climate models have successfully predicted the loss of Arctic sea ice, sea level rise and the geographic pattern of global warming.

Please, there has been a 20 year plateau in global warming. The models didn't pick that.

Anthony Cox, in full sarc mode,  wrote in answer to Cook's SS "Myths:"

6 Models are unreliable. Completely and utterly. Even Gavin Schmidt thinks so.

Look at how the models have been betrayed  by real world data:

4. Cherry-picking

Signs of global warming have been observed all over our planet. Ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica are losing hundreds of billions of tons of ice every year. Global sea level is rising.  Global sea level is rising. 

Mr Cook, if YOU want to cherry pick, why not pick factual cherries instead of creating fictional comic world cherries.

Ice sheets in Greenland losing hundreds of billions of tons of ice every year. 


I hope, before you start your Uni of Qld course, you will correct this whopper.


Greenland's current ice sheet growth is above average according to the Danish Meteorological Institute
Antarctica losing hundreds of billions of tons of ice every year

NSIDC
reports 

 Antarctic ice hits a new high

We know that the West Antarctic Peninsula, which juts northward from Antarctica - Hope Bay, at 63°23′S 057°00′W, is near the northern extremity of the peninsula, Prime Head, at 63º13'S, outside the Antarctic Circle.

The Antarctic Peninsula – a mountainous region extending northwards towards South America – is warming much faster than the rest of Antarctica. Temperatures have risen by up to 3ºC since the 1950s however a paper by Professor Don Easterbrook - Professor Emeritus of Geology at Western Washington University  explains why there is no need to worry:

‘UNSTOPPABLE COLLAPSE’ OF THE WEST ANTARCTIC ICE SHEET IS NOT HAPPENING


CONCLUSIONS
The evidence above shows that:  The West Antarctic ice sheet is NOT collapsing, the retreat of these small glaciers is NOT caused by global warming, and sea level is NOT going to rise 10 feet.
Even the Arctic Ice is returning to pre 1980 levels. 

AND Now - Cookster's Last Stand:

5. Conspiracy theory

The global surface temperature record is constructed by teams across the world, each compiling their own independent record. These different efforts, each using their own methods, paint a consistent picture of global warming. Climate science deniers reject this coherent evidence with conspiracy theories.

DR Jennifer: Homogenised - no Wind, No Rain.

Yep!  And if the data doesn't fit the theory,  "homogenise the data."   See from Jo Nova: here and here; Dr Jennifer Marohasy - here, here, here and I could add Real Science, NotalotofPeople etc etc...or put the Weather Stations where they shouldn't be, or just cheat!


The University of Queensland should have a critical look at the cartoonist Cook- now called 
Climate Communication Fellow for the Global Change Institute at the University
This blog doesn't like to spend much time on ad hominems, preferring to rebut BS ( bad science ) with real science. However, why does the University of Queensland continue to support this self-confessed professional scrawler, with his much derided "97.1% consensus" paper and his debunked "SS Climate Myths"

Surely it also drags down the reputation of the University.





Al Gore sings Al Jolson


Al Gore Sings Jolson:


I’ve been hoaxing you a long time
I never thought so fooled you’d be,
Yet I made you feel the warming was real
Billionaire I wanna be.

The tills are ringing now,  it’s boom time
Send all your money to me
I made you feel, the warming was real
Billionaire I wanna be.

Chorus

Money - - how I love ya, how I love ya 
My wads of money.
I’ll scare the world to be among the rich with I-P-C-C-Even
Though my money’s growing for me
Plateauing heat goes down so now let me
Tell folks that heat will increase more and more
As I spruik about that carbon war.

Jolson sings Swanee


I've been away from you along time
I never thought I'd miss 'ya so
Somehow I feel, your love is real
Near you I wanna be.

The Birds are singing it is songtime
The banjos strumming soft and low
I know that you yearn for me to 

swanee you're calling me

Chorus


Swanee - how I love ya, how I love ya 
My dear old swanee. 
I'd give the world to be among the folks in D-I-X-I-E-ven though my mammy's waiting for me,
praying for me down by the swannee. 
The folks up north will see me no more
when I get to that swnee shore.

¶ Spruik (ˈspruːɪk) vb  (intrAustral to speak in public (used esp of a showman or salesman)