Tuesday, November 16, 2010

Retired meteorologist Martin Hertzberg [ruthhertzberg@msn.com] has been writing to the NYT again

Since they won't publish it, I will. I think you will see WHY they won't publish it!

The article by Justin Gillis on "rising seas" again demonstrated that the Times continues to display scientific malfeasance as an enabler of the "global warming hoax".

A single measurement of a water temperature of 40 F in one fjord in Greenland is utterly meaningless. Citing and emphasizing that one data point is typical of your regurgitation of anecdotal fear-mongering clap trap.

Not a single person quoted in the article is qualified to talk authoritatively about changes in sea level. The attached article is an authoritative review of the question that relies on knowledgeable scientist, none of whom Gillis bothered to check with.

The Gillis article is typical of your slip-shod and disgraceful approach to the issue. You keep failing miserably to exercise due diligence as you ignore the totality of the data available.

Received by email. The NYT rubbish referred to is here. The scholarly article Hertzberg refers to is here

Debunking the debunkers

There have been many scientific papers (peer-reviewed and published) dealing with the real climate, and not the worship of global warming theory. Skeptics have collated such papers and used the collation as refutation of the claim that all real scientists support global warming. In reply, Warmists have tried to debunk the work of the non-believers. So now there are many additions to the list: Replies debunking the would-be debunkers -- as outlined below

The Climate Science blog published a reminder today of the list of papers which have been collated at Popular Technology:

These are papers which do not pursue alarm about CO2. They support a sceptical view of that alarm, as befits scientists of integrity. One day, our school and college textbooks will given them the prominence they deserve, but a lot of troubled and turbulent political water will have to pass under the bridge before that day arrives - such is the sorry state of modern climate science (and of modern politics).

The list has been edited and updated, and now includes a section of responses to criticisms of the earlier lists:

'The following papers support skepticism of AGW or the negative environmental or economic effects of AGW. Addendums, comments, corrections, erratum, replies, responses and submitted papers are not included in the peer-reviewed paper count. These are included as references in defense of various papers. There are many more listings than just the 800 counted papers. This list will be updated and corrected as necessary.

Criticisms: All criticisms of this list have been refuted or a change made to correct the issue. Please see the notes following the list for defenses of common criticisms. I make every attempt to defend the list where possible, in many cases my comments correcting the misinformation stated about the list are deleted and I am blocked from replying. Please email me if you have any questions or need me to address something, populartechnology (at) gmail (dot) com.'

Their rebuttals of criticisms:

'Failed attempts at "debunking" this list include:

- Lying about the paper counting method used. (Addendums, Comments, Corrections, Erratum, Replies, Responses and Submitted papers are not counted. These are included as references in defense of various papers. There are many more listings than just the 800 papers. If they were counted the paper count would be +50 papers.)

- Lying about the list being debunked because certain papers on the list do not "refute" AGW theory. (All papers support either skepticism of AGW or the negative environmental or economic effects of AGW.)

- Lying about peer-reviewed journals not being peer-reviewed. (Every journal listed is peer-reviewed.)

- Lying about the inclusion of a paper on this list as a representation of the personal position of it's author in regards to AGW theory. (It is explicitly stated in the disclaimer that "The inclusion of a paper in this list does not imply a specific personal position to any of the authors".)

- Lying about all climate related papers not on this list endorsing AGW theory. (There are thousands of climate related papers but only a small percentage of these explicitly endorse AGW theory.)

- Lying that certain paper's age make them "outdated". (The age of any scientific paper is irrelevant. Using this logic all of science would become irrelevant after a certain amount of time, which is obviously ridiculous. This would mean dismissing Svante Arrhenius's 1896 paper "On the influence of carbonic acid in the air upon the temperature of the ground" and the basis for greenhouse theory. There are over 650 papers published since 2000 on the list.)

- Lying that Blog posts, Wiki pages and YouTube videos "refute" peer-reviewed papers. (That is not how peer-reviewed papers are challenged. Any valid criticisms would follow the established peer-review process of submitting a comment for publication in the same journal, which allows the author of the original paper a chance to publish a rebuttal in defense of their paper.)

- Lying that broken links somehow invalidate the list. (Anyone with an elementary knowledge of the Internet knows that links can break at any time for a myriad of reasons. All broken links are fixed when notified or found. Regardless the full citation is provided so there is no excuse about not being able to locate the paper.)

- Lying that since some of the papers are mutually exclusive the list is falsified. (The purpose of the list is to provide a resource for the skeptical arguments being made in peer-reviewed journals and to demonstrate the existence of these papers. It is not supposed to be a single argument but rather a resource for all of them.)'

Link to the list here


Deutsche Bank's Green Politics

David Henderson

In relation to climate change issues, two recent initiatives on the part of the Deutsche Bank Group give grounds for concern.

(1) In September, the Bank's 'Climate Change Advisors' issued a document entitled Climate Change: Addressing the Major Skeptic Arguments: it was authored by three climate scientists at Columbia University. In an editorial introduction, the Bank's Global Head of Climate Change Investment Research describes it as "a balanced, detailed and expert assessment of the scientific case for climate change that will help investors navigate these extremely complex issues".

The document's claims to accuracy as a navigational guide were promptly put in question by Ross McKitrick, one of the 'skeptics' supposedly disposed of within it. McKitrick's paper, entitled Response to Misinformation from Deutsche Bank, is dated 12 September. It identifies and spells out an array of errors and misrepresentations.

In response, the authors of the document have now put out a new text which supersedes the original. In this new version they have added a three-page Response to McKitrick where they admit to a few 'mischaracterizations' and offer amended versions of three sentences that they acknowledge to have been misleading. However, the original wording of these faulty sentences remains unchanged and unfootnoted in an unaltered main text: McKitrick has described this behaviour as 'unsporting', while others might characterise it as unprofessional.

In a second piece, dated 8 November, McKitrick has responded to the revised report. In this paper he extends and reinforces his critique. Viewed together, his twin presentations appear as unanswerable. As a guide to investors, or indeed for any other purpose, the document is worthless.

It would be interesting to know whether the Deutsche Bank officials who sponsored and approved this deeply flawed initiative took the precaution of submitting a draft for expert review to persons not already firmly convinced that the 'skeptics' have been refuted.

Looking at the list, it would seem that no such person is to be found among the eminent individuals who make up the Deutsche Bank's Climate Advisory Board: all appear as people who are (to quote a nice phrase from Clive Crook) 'precommitted to the urgency of the climate cause'. A more representative Board, spanning a wider range of opinions. might have taken more trouble to ensure that any published work issued under its auspices would measure up to professional standards.

(2) In the recent Californian elections, voters were invited to accept or reject Proposition 23, which would have placed strict constraints on the state government's plans to introduce further curbs on CO2 emissions. A few days before the vote, a Financial Times report noted that:

'Sixty-eight big investors, managing $415bn in assets, have united to urge Californians to vote against efforts to roll back the state's carbon legislation ... Signatories include ... Deutsche Bank Climate Advisers ...'

If this report is correct, it would seem that its Climate Advisory Board took a strong position on the Bank's behalf on a controversial political matter.

As its website confirms, Deutsche Bank is fully is committed to Corporate Social Responsibility. How far its current handling of climate change issues can be judged to be responsible is open to debate.

SOURCE (See the original for links)

Phil Jones rehabilitated?

There has just appeared in "Nature" magazine a large and sympathetic article about climate-crook Phil Jones. It accepts all his assertions at face value. Below is one blogger's comment on the matter

In 2008, in an message titled “IPCC and FOI“, Phil Jones asked Michael Mann to delete emails he might have gotten from Kieth Briffa, assuring him that Briffa would delete such emails as well. He said ’they’ was going to get in touch with Caspar Ammann asking him to delete emails too. Responding to Jones, Michael Mann replied sphinx-like, that he would get in touch with Eugene Wahl about the matter.

Four scientists – Kieth Briffa, Michael Mann, Caspar Ammann, Eugene Wahl – all being set into motion by Phil Jones, deleting emails relating to the IPCC fourth assessment report – this is the picture we get, from one the emails in Climategate. The alleged email exchange is below:
From: Michael Mann mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
To: Phil Jones p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: IPCC & FOI
Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 08:12:02 -0400
Reply-to: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Hi Phil,
laughable that CA would claim to have discovered the problem. They would have run off to the Wall Street Journal for an exclusive were that to have been true.
I'll contact Gene about this ASAP. His new email is: generwahl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
talk to you later,


Phil Jones wrote:

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He's not in at the moment - minor family crisis.

Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don't have his new email address.

We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!


Now, a year after these series of exchanges were made public by Climategate, Jones, we are informed by Nature magazine, deleted the emails from just “bravado”.
“We just thought if they’re going to ask for more, we might as well not have them”

Apparently Jones deleted these emails, to “simplify his life”, by “not having them”, if they were requested by people “in the future”. Mindblowing.

The Nature article potrays Jones’ story through Climategate year One. He is shown as a sensitive man, sucked into a vortex of reactive maneuvers, outwitting critics, bloggers and sceptics, deleting emails in the process. As much as one hopes for more transparency and data openness, one hopes Jones finds the right rationalizations to put his mind at rest first. Meanwhile the skeptics are not going to get anything in the near future, it seems.

Here is an interesting bit of “search-box” investigation you can perform. Look for the words ‘denier’ or ’fossil-fuel’ in the article – you might just be surprised by the results.


Great News! Sarkozy Kills French Super Environment Ministry "Medad"

French President Nicolas Sarkozy has pulled the plug on the French prestige project, a super ministry of environment, dubbed "Medad" (Minist┼áre du D‚veloppement durable). This piece of good news is brought to us by German warmist website klimaretter.de here in a piece written by Susanne G”tze in Paris.

Gone with Medad are its former director Jean-Louis Borloo, and with him, the last hope for a real breakthrough in environmental and climate policy in France. As a result, no one believes the CO2 tax, once promised by Sarkozy 2 years ago, has any chance today. Good riddance.

Klimaretter writes:

"For three years, the super ministry "Medad" was in charge of sustainable development, environmental protection, energy and raw materials, as well as industry safety, transport, agriculture, urban planning and even the oceans. Sarkozy and his Premier Fillon have removed the Ministry's hard functions and have even ushered in a paradigm shift: the Ministry for Environmental Protection, Oceans and Sustainable Development and Energy will be transformed to only a Department of Environment, Sustainable Development, Traffic and Housing."

The all important sector of energy has been brought back under the control of the Economics Ministry. In summary, Medad was a bureaucratic monstrosity that would have regulated everything. Sarkozy killed it. The omnipotent ministry that treehuggers had been salivating over for the last 3 years has been reduced to a boring second-tier government department.

Free enterprise and liberty-loving citizens can all breath a sigh of relief.

Meanwhile, environmental organisations like Friends of the Earth and the Germany-based BUND howled in protest. As klimaretter blog site reports: "Sarkozy's once promised green revolution now seems to be over." RIP!


The Copenhagen emissions gap

Peter Foster

Actual carbon dioxide emissions will be far above what the IPCC wants

Long-range economic projections are usually useless, but this week's World Energy Outlook from the International Energy Agency is immediately revealing. It emphasizes the massive failure of the United Nations-based climate agenda to stampede nations into suicidal commitments to slash growth and curtail freedom in order to make the world safe for bureaucracy.

Not that you will find any politicians acknowledging that. Nor is it that the IEA isn't on board with the climate agenda (after all, it's a global bureaucracy), it's just that its forecast can't possibly hide that emissions are set to climb to a level that alarmists tell us will lead to climate apocalypse.

The IEA confirms why radical green NGOs were so apoplectic about this year's Copenhagen Accord. It did little except embody vague non-binding commitments to reduce emissions, crank up subsidies to alternative energy, and ship yet more cash to keep poor countries dependent. Even if developed countries did live up to their Copenhagen commitments, which the IEA dubs the "New Policies Scenario" (and doubts), primary fuel demand will still climb by a third by 2035, and fossil fuel will still be king.

The IEA's projections thus render farcical the solemn commitments by global politicians to slash emissions by 80% by 2050, relying on the fact that they'll all be safely dead, or that the private sector will have developed some unforeseen wonder technology by then.

It is also within this context that should be seen the G20's bold statement this week that: "We reaffirm our resolute commitment to fight climate change.. We will spare no effort to reach a balanced and successful outcome in Cancun" (next month's latest mega climate conference). Somebody at the G20 forgot to check with the World Energy Outlook report, which turns the G20 commitment into so much (additional) posturing and hypocrisy, which, fortunately, is going nowhere.



For more postings from me, see DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here. For readers in China or for times when blogger.com is playing up, there are mirrors of this site here and here


No comments: