Beginning what I hope will be a weekly roundup of climate catastrophy failarity, here’s a roundup of what caught my eye in the last week… (with thanks to the Daily Bayonet for the format idea )…

In this week’s review, ABC news claims it’s colder because it’s getting warmer, Hansen goes apeshit, a climate alarmist gets all hot and bothered over Mother Earth’s mountainous peaks, Trenberth goes apeshit, Grist is insane, other hippies go apeshit AND insane, the world isn’t as doomed as the doomsayers keep saying it is, and in blatant copying of the Daily Bayonet, I even present a Global Hottie   Hoping the good ol’ DB won’t sue me

So let’s begin the failarity…

Continue Reading

(update 2011-07-29 : lol after all this time I didn’t realise I’d gotten Piers’ name wrong – typing “Morgan” instead of “Corbyn” – I have corrected that now.)

Piers Corbyn of Weatherwatch voices his disgust with the bullshit – in his words – of the Human-caused Global Warming alarmists. I have a full transcript below the video…

“The idea that this cooling is triggered somehow by warming, is complete nonsense. It’s fiction and lies created by the Global Warming lobby.”

“Look, these are the SAME people who told us “snow would become a thing of the past in Europe”, we’d have ongoing, hotter and hotter, summers. Ongoing warmer and warmer, winters.”

“That has not happened – all their predictions have failed, absolutely! ALL of them! ALL their predictions! That all these cataclysmic warming events and so on, would happen in this decade, which we’re just ending – it didn’t work, none of it worked.”

“So now they’re jumping up and down, like a … well a failed cult, whose predictions have not come through. And they’re just saying, “warming is cooling”.”

“It’s nonsense, complete utter nonsense. And it is a travesty of science, than anybody purporting to be a scientist, pops up with some pseudo-scientific drivel, to say, that this-or-that effect somewhere, might be caused by, somewhere, somehow, some indirect warming, which you can’t actually see. It’s bullshit.”

“Now, in terms of their actual estimates of world temperatures, those are also as far as I’m concerned, are fraud.”

“They have to explain, why it is, that their own data show an astounding correlation – an inverse correlation – between the number of stations they use, and the temperatures. Reduce the number of stations, and you get higher temperatures. it suggests to me they are choosing the stations.”

“I would like to know the temperatures they have recorded in the 62% of stations they have removed.”

“Now, I suspect they’ve closed them down completely, so they’ve got nothing to say – I suspect that is the case.”

“Look these are the people who lied about data in the past, they make ridiculous forecasts that don’t work, they even lie about their forecasts – like the Met Office claims that they both said that December or winter in Britain was going to be cold, AND said it was going to be mild, on their website!”

“They can’t have it both ways. After the event – whichever happened they would just say that was the real forecast ‘coz the other was a mistake or something – this is BULLSHIT, these people cannot be trusted with ANYTHING!”
——————————————————————
Strong words indeed – and I agree completely with what he is saying.

Seriously, if you’re going to throw mud around accusing people of plagiarism in some vain attempt at somehow negating their report, perhaps you should not do something similar yourself.

That is all.

Whoa!

I had to double-take when I first saw the headline “Climate shifts ‘not to blame’ for African civil wars”!!!

The study refutes previous claims that wars in Africa were all due to drought and prolonged heatwaves allegedly caused by a trace gas essential for life on this planet.

This new study basically says “hold your horses there Tonto!”.

Another slap in the face for hippy alarmistas – and reported by the BBC too! Oh how that makes me smile.

Now that there’s been time to digest the information which was leaked from the CRU, attention does now seem to be focused not just on the emails – which are damning in themselves, but also to the code used to generate the temperature data for the climate models, and the comments in the HARRY_READ_ME.txt file. Along the way, I’ll try my best to explain any acronyms or shorthand we encounter, in laymans terms and plain speaking (I’m a plain English guy meself).

So,  to the README.

And, oh boy! What a story THAT tells in itself!

You may be pondering the meaning of this blog entry’s title. Read on and all will become clear.

First of all, “GI”. Garbage In, as in, let’s look at what happens to the CRU data…

FOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\mann\oldprog\maps12.pro
FOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\mann\oldprog\maps15.pro
FOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\mann\oldprog\maps24.pro
; Plots 24 yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD reconstructions
; of growing season temperatures. Uses "corrected" MXD - but shouldn't usually
; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures.

“Artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperature” – hrm.

MXD means “Maximum Latewood Density” – it’s from Dendroclimatology, whch purports to be the science of finding out climate history by looking at tree ring thickness – the theory goes that wider  rings mean that the tree being studied grew in conditions which favoured growth – narrower rings mean that the tree struggled with unfavourable conditions.

In other words, “wide rings = warm climate , narrow rings = colder climate”; you turn the tree into a Treemometer – so the theory goes.

There are problems.

Basically there’s a big problem, in fact, and it’s called the Divergence Problem – and that’s so called due to an Inconvenient Thermometer Record, the result of which is that from around the 1950′s onwards, treemometer “readings” differ from the thermometer readings! So with this in mind, go back and look at the comment again.

Related snippets…

• FOIA\documents\harris-tree\recon_esper.pro
  ; Computes regressions on full, high and low pass Esper et al. (2002) series,
; anomalies against full NH temperatures and other series.
; CALIBRATES IT AGAINST THE LAND-ONLY TEMPERATURES NORTH OF 20 N
;
; Specify period over which to compute the regressions (stop in 1960 to avoid
; the decline
• FOIA\documents\harris-tree\calibrate_nhrecon.pro
  ;
; Specify period over which to compute the regressions (stop in 1960 to avoid
; the decline that affects tree-ring density records)
;
• FOIA\documents\harris-tree\recon1.pro
  FOIA\documents\harris-tree\recon2.proFOIA\documents\harris-tree\recon_jones.pro
  ;
; Specify period over which to compute the regressions (stop in 1940 to avoid
; the decline
;

Now, the word decline… intriguing, isn’t it. Others in the blogosphere are wondering if “decline” means “decline in world temperatures”, and I’m thinking the same thing.

FOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\mann\mxdgrid2ascii.pro
printf,1,’Osborn et al. (2004) gridded reconstruction of warm-season’
printf,1,’(April-September) temperature anomalies (from the 1961-1990 mean).’
printf,1,’Reconstruction is based on tree-ring density records.’
printf,1
printf,1,’NOTE: recent decline in tree-ring density has been ARTIFICIALLY’
printf,1,’REMOVED to facilitate calibration. THEREFORE, post-1960 values’
printf,1,’will be much closer to observed temperatures then they should be,’
printf,1,’which will incorrectly imply the reconstruction is more skilful’
printf,1,’than it actually is. See Osborn et al. (2004).’

But no, actually, decline means decline in tree ring density! Remember what I explained earlier – the wider the tree ring, the more favourable the growth conditions for the tree was, (i.e. “warmer”) – so it looks like from the comments that CRU had to “reprocess” the tree-ring density data because the treemometers were saying “it was cold so we didn’t grow as much”. Now why would they do such a thing, I wonder… it couldn’t possibly be to tell fibs about the global climate, could it?

It gets worse…

FOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\briffa_sep98_d.pro
;mknormal,yyy,timey,refperiod=[1881,1940]
;
; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
;
yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$
2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor

What’s basically happening here, is that they are “fudging” the figures even more to look like global warming is worse than it actually is.

I could go on. There are many more examples of this, and I’m sure there will be much more revelations about the code and how the comments relate to it, in the days, weeks and months – nay years? – to come.

While I was authoring this article, I spotted a related one over at Steve McIntyre’s Climate Audit site, entitled New!! Data from the Decline, which demonstrates exactly what hiding the decline is all about. You should read that with this article in mind.

Here’s his graph, showing the “decline data” which the climate scientists were trying to hide…

The MXD data as graphed by Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit

And so we come to the end of my acronym, GIAGWO:

Garbage In Anthropogenic Global Warming Out.

GIAGWO! I’ll leave it up to you to decide how that’s pronounced