Ho-hum more climategate chum: sceptics flogging the Climategate dead-horse (again)

Nom, nom, nom: more leaked email chum for sceptics…

[Climategate: for the un-initiated see here]

The denial-o-sphere is all a-titter this morning with the exciting news that the Climategate “whistleblower” has come forward and is making available their vast trove of emails.

To recap: in 2009 a cache of emails stolen from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia were released. Selective parts were cherry picked and turned into a scandal.

Despite the fact that nine seperate (and independent) enquires across the world cleared the scientists of anywrong doing, sceptics continue to point to Climategate as evidence of a massive conspiracy.

Thus, every 12-18 months they seek to revive the scandal by releasing “new emails”, forever feeding the sharks with chum.

In an email now doing the rounds across the climate community on both sides, the individual who claims to have leaked the documents (they refer to themself as FOIA) is now requesting others help shift through some 220,000 emails:

It’s time to tie up loose ends and dispel some of the speculation surrounding the Climategate affair. 

Indeed, it’s singular “I” this time. After certain career developments I can no longer use the papal plural 😉 

If this email seems slightly disjointed it’s probably my linguistic background and the problem of trying to address both the wider audience (I expect this will be partially reproduced sooner or later) and the email recipients (whom I haven’t decided yet on). 

The “all.7z” password is [redacted] 

DO NOT PUBLISH THE PASSWORD. Quote other parts if you like. 

Releasing the encrypted archive was a mere practicality. I didn’t want to keep the emails lying around. 

I prepared CG1 & 2 alone. Even skimming through all 220.000 emails would have taken several more months of work in an increasingly unfavorable environment. 

Dumping them all into the public domain would be the last resort. Majority of the emails are irrelevant, some of them probably sensitive and socially damaging. 

To get the remaining scientifically (or otherwise) relevant emails out, I ask you to pass this on to any motivated and responsible individuals who could volunteer some time to sift through the material for eventual release. 

Filtering\redacting personally sensitive emails doesn’t require special expertise.

I’m not entirely comfortable sending the password around unsolicited, but haven’t got better ideas at the moment. If you feel this makes you seemingly “complicit” in a way you don’t like, don’t take action. 

In other words, a massive cherry picking operation is about to begin that will keep sceptics busy for months.

Of course Anthony Watts and other deniers are all over this, instantly proclaiming the world shattering importance of this latest storm-in-virtual-tea-cup. Watts breathlessly announces that “Climategate 3.0” is here:

A number of climate skeptic bloggers (myself included) have received this message yesterday. While I had planned to defer announcing this until a reasonable scan could be completed, some other bloggers have let the cat out of the bag. I provide this introductory email sent by “FOIA” without editing or comment.

James Delingpole proclaims FOIA is humanity’s savior:

I hope one day that FOIA’s true identity can be revealed so that he can be properly applauded and rewarded for his signal service to mankind. He is a true hero, who deserves to go on the same roll of honour as Norman Borlaug, Julian Simon and Steve McIntyre: people who put truth, integrity and the human race first and ideology second. Unlike the misanthropic greenies who do exactly the opposite.

Move over Jesus, FOIA just knocked you of the saviour pole.

Just a tad bit of hyperbolic James?

Climategate got press coverage, but Climategate 2.0 was ignored by the world (but not by excited sceptic bloggers).

Climategate 3.0 will also quickly pass into obscurity.

It’s like flogging a dead horse and throwing it to the sharks for chum, who then work themselves up into a feeding frenzy.

However with the IPCCs report coming out in 2014 expect to see much more of these tactics.

The war on the IPCC is ramping up once more.

Cooling the planet with fake trend lines: deniers making up cooling trends with cherry picked data all the rage

With temperature records tumbling across Australia the (fake) sceptics are doing their very best to convince themselves and the gullible the planet is cooling.

However it is not enough to simply shout at the top of ones lungs the planet is heading for another ice age: one must produce evidence. And what stunning evidence the climate denial crowd have amassed this past month.

As long as it has an X-Y axis and presents the trend they want, the deniers are happily proclaiming victory over climate science and “mainstream scientists”.

That the evidence is nothing more than cherry picked data massaged to produce made-to-order trends is beside the point. What matters is producing graphs that look “sciencey”.

Some call it fun with statistics: I call it lying. But hey, I have an old-fashioned attachment to reality.

Tamino was the first to pick it up in his post Cherry picking is child’s play:

Anybody can do it.

Fake “skeptics” of global warming do it all the time. One of the latest and most extreme — this one is a real doozy — comes from John Coleman. Of course it’s regurgitated by Anthony Watts

Indeed, anyone can do it, and it seems to be all the rage within the denial-o-sphere at present.

Evidence of this latest sceptic trick?

Today Perth sceptic Jo Nova claimed the planet has been cooling for the past eight years:

The cooling for the last eight years is statistically significant in 4 of the 5 major air temperature datasets. One, UAH, shows a small (statistically insignificant) rise since 2005. And here’s the political point: how many of the policy makers, the media, or the public are even aware of the current trend? Approximately no one. I’ll bet even most skeptics didn’t know it.

The ever gullible Andrew Bolt picked up Jo’s claims and promoted it on his blog, yet again proving his blog is Australia’s premier clearing house for the disinformation produced by Australia’s wing-nuts.

Nova produces a series of graphs using data taken from the four major temperature sets from across the globe, including this one utilising HadCRUT4 data:

Never mind that data Nova is using are temperature anomalies relative to a 1961-1990 period: its all about producing the trend she wants. 

How long till the next ice age then? At least the polar bears will be happy.

Of course I looked at that and was curious. 

So, I popped on over to the website of the UK’s Met Office Hadley Centre to download the monthly temperature (HadCRUT4) data to try and reproduce Nova’s graph.

I grabbed the data and ran it through Excel and applied a trend line.

Low and behold similar results:

But my graph lacked something: a trend line pointing to the 2020!

Sure, my trend lines points down – but not at the same angle as Nova’s. You can’t have a real cooling trend without fiddling with the graph a bit more. So I extended the date range to 2020 to produce a graph identical to Nova’s:

Ahem – a “eight year cooling trend”.

However I don’t like downward temperature trends. Being a warmanista I always want to see temperature trends going up.

Or at least according to the cartoon version of climate science the fake sceptics promote. In their mind, scientists are stunned by any slight variations in data. If the trend is not perfectly linear they claim a) the science is suspect or b) scientists are at a loss to explain it (or make both claims at the same time).

So if the fake sceptics are manufacturing cooling trends, I might as well take a leaf from their book and randomly cherry pick data to produce warming trends. Cherry picking is easy – and fun!

How fun? Let’s find out!

I choose to start my graph at 2008:

There you go: back to a warming trend.

Up, down! Weeeeeeee! This is fun!

It’s like geoengineering the planet’s climate: pick a start point and push the trend line up or down. One minute we’re all heading for a Venusian hell world: the next snowball Earth.

Luckily none of this has any real world consequences like misleading the public…  oh wait.

Still, my graph didn’t produce enough of a warming trend for my liking. I need to make it scarier, after all presentation matters.

Thus I turned the trend line into what I affectionately refer to as the “Red Trend Line of Doom”. I also fiddled with the background colour and font:

See how I made the trend line all fiery, a scorching wave of doom propelling us into a Venusian hell. The black background emphasizes the drama of the “OH MY GOD WE’RE GOING TO DIE” spike in global temperatures.

Scared now people?

You may think I’m not being fair, given that Nova’s claim that the world has been cooling for eight years was ripe for ridicule.

So in the interests of fairness I’ve reproduced a custom version of Nova’s graph. I call it “Ice Age Now” in honor of the global cooling trend she has discovered through the magic of Excel trend lines:

Notice how I made elements of the graph blue to signify the cooling trend?  Break out the thermals guys, an ice-age is coming.  

Obviously statistical tricks and fiddling with the presentation of data is a meaningless exercise. As Nova admits:

Cue critics who’ll tell me I’m cherry-picking data…  

Note I’m not suggesting that this shows CO2 doesn’t cause warming, I’m not suggesting this is evidence (yet) that the models are wrong (they’re wrong, but for other reasons), I’m not even saying that the world is definitely cooling. I’m pointing out that if we were entering a cooler phase, this is what it would look like.  

Perhaps the most important thing about these graphs is to juxtapose that claim the world is “still warming” in recent years. If statistical significance is where you hang your hat, the warming trend is not statistically significant, and yet (at the moment anyway) it is statistically significant to say the opposite about the last 8 years in 4 out of 5 datasets. 

But what about the last 4 years of warming – surely that is statistically significant?

How many policy makers or sceptics are aware of the 4 year warming trend?

Some may accuse me of cherry picking, but honestly it’s all in the presentation.

Telling the difference between science and pseudo-science: easier than you think

We could play tricks with statistics all day. Alternatively, we could marvel at the recent work of scientists who reconstructed the temperature for the last 11,500 years:

 

Now that is a trend worth noting.

Philosophers of science often refer to the problem of demarcation, the supposed difficulty in telling the difference between science and pseudo-science:

The demarcation problem in the philosophy of science is about how to distinguish between science and nonscience, and more specifically, between science and pseudoscience. The debate continues after over a century of dialogue among philosophers of science and scientists in various fields, and despite broad agreement on the basics of scientific method. 

Contrast Nova’s eight year statistical tricks with the analysis of 11,500 year of data.

I think the line between science and nonscience is rather clear.

Sea sick Andrew Bolt: now just making stuff up about sea surface temperatures

With the evidence of climate change becoming even more overwhelming, and the majority of public opinion indicating acceptance of its reality (watching one half of Australia burn while the other drowns will have that effect), Andrew Bolt is getting desperate. 

What’s a poor denier boy to do?

Well, you could accept the overwhelming evidence that climate change is real.

Or you can stick your head in bucket and scream “La-la-la-la! Not happening!”

Andrew of course accepts the later course of action.

In his most recent cut-and-paste attack on Tim Flannery, Bolt makes the startling claim that sea surface temperatures have not risen.

How does Andrew prove this startling scientific truth?

Bolt cites his favorite denier of both climate change and evolution – Dr. Roy Spencer – to argue the globe is not warming.

Spencer produces the following graph on his blog:

By golly no warming claims Andrew!

Gosh dang it, I mean even the graphs from the Bureau of Meteorology show no warming!

SST data from BOM

Well look at that – no warming trend!

Take that warmists!

Huzzah! Global warming is falsified!

Oh wait…

What’s that.

You want some more SST data Andrew?

You want the whole BOM graph?

You want SST data since 1950 huh?

Zing Andrew – a warming trend.

Scientists do science. They go into the real world and, collect data. Form a hypothesis. Test it. Publish their research.

Climate change scep… I mean deniers, fiddle with the X-Y axis of Excel generated graphs.

Andrew: liar, liar, the sea is on fire.

Conspiracy is not a dirty word

When the Galilee Movement recently named international banking cabals as the chief backers of so-called climate change ‘science’, a predictable brouhaha ensued on social media.

True believers of so-called climate change leapt on the statement as proof that deniers were simply conspiracy theory ‘nutters’, ranting on the fringes through their own online blogs.

But is this a true caricature? What do the groups themselves say?

Like most mainstream deniers, the Galilee Movement baulks at the ‘C’ word. A spokesman, Ptolemy Roberts, said: “Conspiracy? Look, people are waking up to this. That’s all the proof you need. You want to talk about universal truth? The only universal truth is what can be measured through blog traffic stats. Show me an angry, ageing mob and I’ll show you a group of people with stunning insight – and plenty of spare time to post anonymous blog comments.”

Australian climate denier blogger, Nova Cane (an alias) has lots, plenty, stacks, heaps and oodles to say on the issue of conspiracies:

“Banking cabals and global government is not a conspiracy theory. It’s not a conspiracy theory if it’s true.”

“People don’t really understand the difference between a regular conspiracy theory and a real theory. A real theory simply outlines the complex collusion that takes place across most of our public institutions.”

“It’s obvious that these collusions between bankers, so-called scientists, the mainstream media and the UN are long-standing and wide-ranging but are kept secret from the public.”

“They have carefully indoctrinated important individuals and used sect-like behaviour to maintain their secrecy. But to call that a conspiracy theory is just shooting the messenger.”

Nova Cane believes that the so-called scientific consensus is easy to explain without any need for a conspiracy theory: “Any fool can see that so-called climate scientists are on the payroll of the big banking families, who are in league with environmentalists and communists to destroy personal liberty, crush national sovereignty, and send us all back to the Stone Age.”

“If people want to read that as conspiratorial thinking, then clearly they have been brainwashed so badly that they can’t see what is all around them. And no, I don’t mean chemtrails, I am not a complete loony.”

“These are fake studies using fake data from fake academics using fake government money. Trust me: unless you can find an academic with no formal training in their chosen subject, being paid in gold bullion, then you should be really circumspect about what they are telling you. That’s just good ole common sense.”

Andrew “Angry” Anthill, owner of the blog Australian Sceptic Psychosis: Just Don’t Tell Me What I Don’t Want To Hear, also rejects any notion that climate deniers are conspiracy theorists. To explain the so-called mainstream so-called consensus on so-called climate change, he believes the truth is much less complex than your typical conspiracy theory.

“Life is a little like the opening and closing credits from the classic sitcom Get Smart,” says Anthill.

“It’s all about Gates – most of them secret. Modern climate change activism, across academia, government institutions and NGOs is no different. It’s one hidden door after another, and you need to be not only exceptionally clever but also to possess a very special esoteric insight to detect and navigate these Gates. They go up and down and through the society we live in.”

So far, he says, skeptics have uncovered only a few of the non-conspiratorial-but-organisationally-complex-and-hidden gate systems.

• ClimateGate
• MannGate
• ArcticGate
• HimalayaGate
• ThermometerGate
• GleickGate
• LewGate
• NiwaGate

But Anthill is so convinced that Freedom of Information (FOI) requests will eventually unlock the full enormity of this maze of gates – as detected by his sixth sense in the so-called climate change community – that he has vowed to pursue Australian academics “to their very last Outlook Mailbox sub-folder, if needs be”.

“Most institutions release so-called official statements, reports and data and expect us to believe all that stuff. My radar tells me that only by trawling through the personal correspondence of academics is the appalling truth likely to be found.

“Believe me, I would dearly love to trawl through personal correspondence – it’s amazing how meaning can be changed through the appropriate application of semantics. All one needs is a critical mass of words.”

Deniers with a penchant for FOI shrug off critics who dismiss their efforts as a frivolous waste of taxpayers’ money. As one prominent NGO campaigner, who did not want to be named, put it: “We’ll only truly know how much this has all cost when these guys FOI’s the institutions they have FOI’d to determine just how much public money is spent on their FOIs.”

Anthill, for one, is having none of that: “I am saving the Australian taxpayer millions of dollars, maybe even billions. If we nip the activities of these nefarious academics in the bud, then the downstream flow-on of avoiding their devious follies will be well worth it.”

Asked if avoiding future risk was a little like applying a precautionary principle to mitigate current practices that could otherwise lead to highly probable and dangerous consequences, Anthill replied: “I don’t know what any of those terms mean, in the context that you have just stated them. Without a truckload of your personal correspondence to read through, I really can’t construct my own meaning around what you have just said and put myself in a position to inform the world what you really meant.”

“To be on the safe side, I have decided to FOI all Australian academics for personal correspondence that mentions my name.

“You know, when I first started submitting FOI requests the feeling of power that came from it was almost instantaneous. I could literally see, in my mind’s eye, academics in their old tweed jackets reading them with trembling hands.

“But then, my trusty sixth sense came into play, and shadowy doubts started to creep in. I mean, what if they were simply being perfunctorily dealt with by so-called university administrators? Well, this FOI will get to the bottom of just how much they talk about me.”

But NGOs campaigners admit privately that they have their own weapons: “Obviously we haven’t read any emails from prominent climate deniers,”

says one who did not want to be named. “We would FOI them if we thought it would be worthwhile, but we simply can’t imagine that the few who actually are academics have anything more worthwhile to say in private than they do in public.

“Anyhow, who needs e-mails? Most of their junk is spewed out onto their own blogs and comment sections: our lawyers are actually amazed.

And all you need to do is WebCite it . . . our people have been very busy with that.”

Watts explains why Lewandowsky paper on conspiracy theories is wrong: its a conspiracy between John Cook and the Prof

Gold plated bulls*t from Watts

Readers – I stand in awe at the complete lack of self-awareness of Anthony Watts and his merry crew of “sceptic” readers.

A wonderful post went up on “Watts up with that?” revealing the vast left-wing-academic conspiracy behind the NASA paper by Lewandowsky et.al.

Not content with the very public embarrassment of:

• claiming that no sceptic blogs were contacted to participate in the survey for the NASA paper
• only to have egg on their faces when it was revealed sceptic blogs had been contacted (see here for the lulz)
• proving the point of the paper by engaging in an orgy of rage and conspiracy making…

…sceptic bloggers are now engaged in cascading episodes of jumping to conclusions.

These “sceptics” are behaving exactly as predicted – exactly as predicted.

Every one outside the sceptic bubble could see it playing out like this: in fact the way Watts et.al are behaving is fitting the criteria for conspiracy ideation.  

And it is hilarious.

Case in point – see Watts indulge in a text-book example of pattern seeking behaviour by cherry picking some “facts” about John Cook (of Skeptical Science) as an administrator for several websites:

There’s a lot that has been going on behind the scenes with the Dr. Stephan Lewandowsky “moon landing paper” affair. It turns out that Dr. Lewandowsky is part of a larger association that I dub the Cook-Lewandowsky Social-Internet Link.

Dum, dum, dum!

Watts then goes on to cherry pick random quotes from a variety places to “prove” the Lewandowsky-Cook-Hive-Mind-New-World-Order-Conspiracy.

Anyway, go over to Shaping Tomorrow’s world for some sanity, in which the authors of the NASA paper discuss their methodology:

Perhaps unsurprisingly, after various unfounded accusations against us have collapsed into smithereens, critics of our work have now set their sights on the data. It has been alleged that the responses to our survey were somehow “scammed,” thereby compromising our conclusions.

Unlike the earlier baseless accusations, there is some merit in casting a critical eye on our data. Science is skepticism and our data must not be exempt from scrutiny.

As it turns out, our results withstand skeptical scrutiny. We will explain why in a series of posts that take up substantive issues that have been raised in the blogosphere in turn.

Back to the Watts post – most precious of all is the comments which provide further text-book examples of conspiracy ideation.

Here’s some choice quotes:

tallbloke says:
September 12, 2012 at 2:54 pm

I wonder how much (if any) of the grant money awarded to Lewd Lew might have found its way into funds supporting Cook’s activities. I see a UWA investigation on the horizon.

Ah, the onanistic fantasy of all deniers – that somehow university admin people will rush in and correct the behaviour of naughty professors.

Then there is standard conspiracy theorising:

ocker says:
September 12, 2012 at 3:35 pm

It is all simpler than one might think. In AU, left wing governments supply “grants” and funding to left wing academics and “news” outlets. Right wing governments provide fewer “grants”. The market rules. If you wish to be funded by the government purse then you provide left wing propaganda.

I’m not sure how that makes sense, but to the poster it is axiomatic that left-wing governments give grants to left-wing academics. Wait a minute didn’t the Howard (conservative) government continue to fund the CSIRO and universities? Ah logic, how badly you can be twisted in the hands of a conspiracy theorist.

Science is left-wing propaganda. Indeed.

This is my favorite – the poster that tells people not to send their children to Australia:

Elizabeth says:
September 12, 2012 at 4:03 pm

Australia would be much better off if they let Asia just take it over. They are overgoverned, overrated, stuffy, overpoliced, controlled by politically correct minorities,full of themselves and their education system is now third world rated. Examples Gergis paper fiasco, Flannery, carbon tax now all this stuff with good ol Lew…its endless. Don’t send your children there to study my advice…

Australia, beautiful one day – North Korea the next.

Gina’s address to the nation: with special captions! (click image)

South Africa, August 12 2012, 34 miners shot dead in “self defence” by security forces:

South African president Jacob Zuma has announced an official probe into the deaths, which he said were shocking and unacceptable.

“The militant group stormed toward the police, firing shots and wielding dangerous weapons,” Riah Phiyega told a news conference on Friday.

“Police retreated systematically and were forced to utilise maximum force to defend themselves. The total death (toll) of the protesters currently stands at 34, with more than 78 injured.”

So far 259 people have been arrested on various charges stemming from the clash on Thursday at the platinum mine run by London-listed Lonmin, she said.

Lewandowsky et.al versus the “We’re not conspiracy theorists but…” brigade (part 1)

Latest scandal to rock sceptic blogs brings out their best…

Without doubt the phrase “Here we go again…” comes to mind as the latest scandal de jour rocks the climate sceptic community on the interwebz.

Around the globe, grumpy sceptics have grabbed mugs of warm coco and thrown on their favorite terry-towel dressing gowns in an orgy of sugar fuelled rage, posting voluminous comments on nearly every sceptic and warmists blog a basic Google search can yield.

In a show of solidarity and commitment to the cause of climate scepticism many of them have stayed up well past bed time, missing their favorite reruns of 1970s classic Brit-TV. Yep, they’ve given up watching special screenings of The Two Ronnie’s for a much more important cause.

And the cause of this online militarism?

The recent paper by Lewandowsky et.al titled NASA faked the moon landing – Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax (full text) showing a link between conspiracy ideation and climate scepticism.

Without doubt this was bound to stir the demons of denial: especially when the paper started getting traction in the mainstream media.

The denial machine is hyper-sensitive to any and all forms of criticism. Dare to suggest that they are in error and sceptic bloggers and a swarm of angry, cantankerous wanna-be science experts will go into default attack mode. The entire movement is built on the perception they are a credible alternative to the world’s scientists: start to question that carefully cultivated veneer of false authority and expect them to go-in-hard.

This is exactly what they have done in response to the NASA paper.

This is exactly what every one expected.

I mean, is the only position of the denial community a reflexive and angry defensiveness?

No?

It’s a bit like that old guy sitting on the front porch, yelling at “Those damn kids!” to “Get the hell of my lawn!”

…and then drawing a 12 gauge pump-action shotgun and loose off a few shots for good measure.

Not only is it an overreaction, but disproportionate to the perceived slight.

WtD predictions on reaction to NASA paper

Now recall I made three tongue-in-cheek predictions as to how the denial machine would respond:

• Prediction 1: expect the usual collection of climate sceptics to claim they’re not conspiracy theorists, and that scientists are involved in an orchestrated campaign to exclude them from the debate and smear their good names
• Prediction 2: the sceptics and deniers will reject the research, cherry pick its arguments and refute it with their own amateur analysis – just like climate science
• Prediction 3: I expect the likes of conspiracy theorist and climate sceptic Jo Nova to go ballistic, calling the research “witchcraft” or some such nonsense and a form of ad hominem attack.

So how’d they stack up?

Prediction 1 confirmed: we’re not conspiracy theorists! But it’s a conspiracy!

Just go here to see confirmation of that fact with deniers complaining about being called conspiracy theorists while proposing conspiracy theories to explain away Lewandowsky’s research.

I suspected that the comments section of which ever blog or media site feartuing the paper would be flooded with comments not only dismissive of the research, but claim it was part of an orchestrated campaign to besmirch the good name of climate sceptics:

“There is only one answer to the question – who profits most from what is looking every day more like a scam. Those who oppose the theory or those who support it…………cui bono……..always the answer to those questions which produce two sides in which there can never be agreement. So far there is clear indication that many politicians have personal financial interests in keeping the ‘debate’ going for as long as possible. Cui Bono………..”

The blogger over at Australian Climate Madness sees it as all part of a greater plot:

“I think they dreamed up their dramatic headline conclusion of “climate sceptics are nutters” and worked back from there.

Once they got headline exposure in a couple of major newspapers, their mission was accomplished…”

Mwah ha ha!

Foolish climate sceptics, you have no idea how much control we have over the worlds academies and media! And banks. And the UN. And the world’s military. And every government on the planet. They are all in our pockets, acting out our orders…

As the average conspiracy theorists likes to say: nothing is as it seems, all will be revealed…

Prediction 2 confirmed: they will reject the research, cherry pick its arguments

Throw the sceptic movement a piece of empirical research, and they will switch to motivated reasoning mode and search for the smallest of errors.

Bishop Hill and Jo Nova are leading that change, being cheered on by Anthony Watts.

The comments fields on these blogs are filled with the exact same misinformed reasoning and misinformation that accompanies most of the discussion on these sites.

Yawn.

However, they’ve also started a campaign of FOI requests and other tactics straight form the “lets-harass-the-scientists” play book (I’ll explore in next post).

Prediction 3 half confirmed: I expect the likes of conspiracy theorist and climate sceptic Jo Nova to go ballistic

Well I have so say I was a little disappointed with Jo.

I had the popcorn out and was waiting for some classic Nova/Evans “OMG it’s the international bankers coming to get my money arrrrrgh! Where’s my gold? Under the bed!?!?!?!”

I’d built my expectations on the last time Jo responded to research produced in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, one of the world’s foremost scientific journals. In her fury she redesigned the front cover of the journal:

 

Which I thought was just adorable.

The whole “It’s evil! Evil!” and “It burns! It burns!” shtick gave me a good giggle. I have sooooo many favorite Nova quotes, but the text that accompanied the above image is amongst her hyperbolic best:

Shame on you Schneider, traitor to science. Shame on the NAS editors who allowed this pathetic excuse for research into their publications. And shame on any member of the NAS who doesn’t shout in protest at this denigration of the good name that took decades to build.

R.I. P. The Scientific Method. Hello totalitarian government, where money buys you authority and authority passes for reason.

As predicted, Jo commented on the NASA paper.

But I was really hoping for some “Nova Gold” with claims about tyrannical government, bankers, the “death of civilisation as we know it” and all the chum she normally throws out to her readers.

Much more muted than I expected:

This could be the worst paper I have seen — an ad hom argument taken to its absurd extreme, rebadged as “science”.

Actually, anything that smacks of genuine scholarship, Jo will refer to as “the worst I’ve ever seen”… so as one can imagine, the list of what Nova doesn’t like is rather long.

Standard Nova reply, but hey – I’m still watching and waiting for the lulz. 

————————————————————————————————- 

Disclaimer: I was never formally asked to participate in the survey; however I did come across the survey on other blogs and directed readers of WtD to the survey if they were interested. As the comments section attests there is a large number of climate sceptics and “warmists” commenting here.

Coming up in the next post: how the sceptic movement resorts to claims of fraud, misuse of Freedom of Information Requests (FOI) and other bullying tactics…

Deniers hit record low on sea ice: Anthony Watts lies; Marc Morano qualifies as the Iraqi Information Minister of climate denial

One swallow does not make a spring.

Nor does one record low for Arctic ice signify the immediate and imminent end of the world.

So then, why has the announcement by the National Snow and Ice Data Centre (NSIDC) on the new record low for the Arctic sea ice got many talking, tweeting and blogging?

The death spiral of the Arctic is but one data point. As an isolated phenomenon it is concerning – what is important is that this is part of an emerging pattern that matches scientific predictions made decades ago.

This is why so many are focussed on the issue, and why the denial machine is in state of utter conniption (see below).

To put it bluntly: scientists said this shit would happen.

The shit appears to be happening.

QED: this shit is real.

Indeed, the shit is not merely hitting the fan, its knocking the fan from the ceiling and ploughing right on through into the stratosphere.

Climate change is generating fast-moving-super-powered shit and we’re standing between it and what ever trajectory it’s on.

As the kids like to say: “This shit just got real…“

The record low for Arctic sea ice merely confirms our understanding of the multiple impacts of climate change: how it is now manifesting in extreme weather events; the Greenland ice sheet melt; rising sea and land temperatures; all of which paint a picture.

Its takes a very focussed mind to ignore all of the above, and dismiss this concerning event.

Thus the concern trolls who say “Look, maybe climate change is a problem but in regard to this issue there’s been only 33 years of satellite data” are no better than the outright deniers.

Yes – we understand it is only one data point. And if this was an isolated event we’d be saying “Interesting, perhaps we should look into this phenomenon, eh?”

But focussing on the fact we have a “mere” thirty years of satellite data is no different from saying we have only a century-and-a-half of temperature records from actual instruments.

Step back: look at the big picture.

Falling down: the denial continues, but from a distance its revealing

To those who think “Surely at this point, even the most hard-core “sceptics” have to accept the data?” the answer is a definitive “No, they won’t”.

For an example of this look no further than Anthony Watts (Watts up with that?) and Marc Morano (Climate Depot).

These men have spent a considerable portion of their adult lives – and I might add built public profiles – denying the science and undermining public trust in scientists.

Expecting them to repudiate their life’s work in response to mere facts, scientific data and the overwhelming consensus of experts is a naive hope.

Anthony Watts – after rousing himself from bed after a hard night poring over temperature data downloaded from public sources – gets straight to the task of convincing himself there is nothing to worry about:

No matter what though, its all just quibbling over just a little more than 30 years of satellite data, and it is important to remember that. It is also important to remember that MASIE wasn’t around during the last record low in 2007, and IMS was just barely out of beta test from 2006. As measurement systems improve, we should include them in the discussion

Yes, because high school graduate Watts has picked up something NASA and the NISDC have overlooked: Mr. Watts, the Nobel Committee will be knocking on your door soon.

No really Anthony – I promise, like soon.

You know, I could debunk what is merely a very public example of cognitive dissonance – but why? Tamino does it here – clearly he has a stronger stomach than I do.

But I will note Watts uses “Aspect two” of my Six Aspects of Denial:

Question the motives and integrity of scientists – This is the favourite tactic of the climate change denial movement. They claim the scientists are engaged in fraud, or are being pressured by governments to make up the results…

Such tactics can clearly be seen in Watts post:

“Note that we don’t see media pronouncements from NOAA’s NATICE center like “death spiral” and “the Arctic is screaming” like we get from its activist director, Mark Serreze. So I’d tend to take NSIDC’s number with a grain of salt, particularly since they have not actively embraced the new IMS system when it comes to reporting totals. Clearly NSDIC knows the value of the media attention when they announce new lows, and director Serreze clearly knows how to make hay from it.”

Yes – the NSIDC and its “activist” director are clearly a pack of media whores hungry for fame.

In fact, I’d suggest Serreze is the Lady Ga Ga of the scientific world, engaging in publicity stunts in order foster celebrity status.

Expect Serreze to be adorning a “meat dress” at the next Warmist Convention…

But for the throwing of chum, spinning of facts and sheer chutzpah of denying reality the award surely goes to Marc Morano of Climate Depot

Here is a man who has done more to sway public opinion against the science.

Today he goes into overdrive in an attempt to not merely wave away concern, but shout down doubt:.

Irony free would you believe…

Yes, Climate Depot will explain it all away for you….

Even a cursory glance today’s Climate Depot reveals the sheer desperation of Morano.

His repeated “It’s not happening, it’s not real, it’s not happening, it’s not real!” show cases not merely special pleading, but dissembling on an epic scale.

So clearly at odds with reality is Morano’s public statements he must qualify the climate deniers equivalent of Iraqi Information Minister Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf.

Morano is – quite literally – falling down in a very public way.

Monckton questions Obama’s status as President: states there is enough to cast doubt on POTUS place of birth

Monckton now believes there is “compelling evidence” to cast doubt on where Obama was born. No, really he does…

If further evidence is needed to support to the contention that many climate sceptics have embraced a cluster of conspiracy theories, look no further than Lord Christopher Monckton.

The prominent climate sceptic – who has been feted by figures such as Gina Rinehart, Andrew Bolt, Alan Jones and Australia’s climate change “sceptics” – now claims the birth certificate on the White House is a forgery (which many of us know, he has been for some time).

Monckton has been spending time in Hawaii “investigating” Obama’s birth certificate and detailing the results of his investigation in a series of ongoing interviews with Alex Jones, host of InfoWars.

Jones is known for his  support for New World Order conspiracy theories and that the U.S. government was behind the 9/11 attacks:

Six weeks later, on the day the Twin Towers fell, Jones began his broadcast by declaring that, as he had predicted, the Bush administration had taken part in a staged terror attack. “I’ll tell you the bottom line,” Jones said. “98 percent chance this was a government-orchestrated controlled bombing.”

Monckton’s claims: yes, he really is a Birther

On a recent InforWars show (8 June 2012) Monckton makes some incredible claims. The segment goes for over 2 hours, but Monckton’s discussion of Obama’s birth certificate begins at 1:33:40 onward:

Here are some direct quotes:

Alex Jones: “…what’s the latest you’ve got breaking from Hawaii?”

Monckton: “Well its very clear now… that somebody in the Hawaiian Health Department knew the document that now appears on the White Hose website is a forgery… it is clear it is a forgery…” 

He then goes onto say:

“…there must be an opening up of the official record of Mr Obama’s birth to independent forensic scrutiny… there is now sufficient doubt as to where he was born…”

See also here on the InfoWars site.

Monckton paper that questions the President’s legitimacy: end results of his “investigation”

The end result of Monckton’s investigation is a paper titled “Is the President the President? A Hereditary Peers’ Briefing Paper“.

He even uses that logo that his own variation of the House of Lords logo which potentially breaks copyright:

In the paper Monckton outlines an incredible theory the that birth certificate on the White House web site is a forgery.

Citing the work of “bither” Sheriff Joseph Arpaio of Arizona,  Monckton goes at great pains to demonstrate “anomalies” with the birth certificate.

From there he questions the legitimacy of Obama as President of the United States.

Monckton even links his climate change scepticism to his support of “birther” claims:

Does the issue matter? An eminent constitutional lawyer has given advice that it does. He says: “We amend the Constitution, or we abide by it.” Judge Parker of the Alabama Supreme Court in the McInnish case also considers the issue important, in that it raises “serious questions about the authenticity of both the ‘short form’ and the ‘long form’ birth certificates”. Mr. Obama’s legitimacy is now materially in doubt. Though his political supporters dismiss questioners of his birth certificate as “birthers”, much as they brand questioners of Man’s influence on the weather as “deniers” or questioners of the European Union as “xenophobes”, the subject will move up the political agenda in the coming months, notwithstanding the studied indifference of the media and of both parties to it.

At the end of the paper Monckton launches into a rhetorical flight of fancy that leaves little doubt that the man is a fantasist:

The implications of this affair for Her Majesty’s Government are considerable. The apparent forgeries, with the failure of Mr. Obama and of the State of Hawaii to ensure access to the original long-form birth certificate of which the document on the White House website is said to be a copy, have cast legitimate and growing doubt upon Mr. Obama’s fitness to hold office. His hostility to the United Kingdom, evidenced by his removal of the bust of Churchill from the White House, may have been somewhat assuaged by his relationship with the present UK Prime Minister: however, almost any other foreseeable candidate for his office would be less inimical to the United Kingdom.

If any successful moves are made against Mr. Obama or his key supporters, whether via ballot challenges in the civil courts, or via the exercise of Brady rights by a defendant accused of a crime signed into law by Mr. Obama, or via a disqualification from office under the 25th Amendment to the Constitution, a dislocation considerably more severe than the fall of Nixon may be anticipated, leaving the free world leaderless at a time of great financial uncertainty. Therefore the issue, peripheral though it may at first seem, is not only of central importance to the United States, whose Constitution may have been flouted and circumvented in a material respect, but is also potentially of great consequence to Britain and to the West.

Apparently Obama has a hatred for the United Kingdom, evident from removing a bust of Churchill. Monckton also believes the fate of “the west” is in the balance.

There can be little doubt this provides support to the the recent research by Lewandowsky et.al.

News Ltd, you’re a disgrace: Bolt claims PM is “playing the sexism” card

A failure to learn from one’s mistakes is a failure of ethics

Yesterday the Prime Minister Julia Gillard gave a masterful performance in front of the media, tackling head on every question and incidence of innuendo about her past generated by the likes of Larry Pickering and The Australian.

So appalling was The Australian’s behaviour they were forced to make two apologies through gritted teeth.

But today, News Ltd has decided it was all the PMs fault – really if only “she had answered the questions“.

No pause to reflect on their actions – no reflection on journalistic ethics.

It’s right back to the smear campaign, albeit with a different twist.

Their line of attack?

It’s all “Julia’s” fault.

She has broken trust in not answering the smear campaign of Mitchell’s merry band of hacks.

The putting aside of ethics, their cluelessness and the sheer intellectual bankruptcy of Chris Mitchell and his “journalists” (and I use the term every so loosely) at that “newspaper” (actually it’s not a newspaper, it’s a piece of agitprop) is beyond belief.

Indeed, the campaign of hate has gone beyond sanity – beyond any conventional sense of decency.

These men – all white, conservative, affluent and in positions of power – are filled with a rage, hatred and a world view at odds with community standards.

Further evidence of this rage – a blog piece from resident climate change denier and bully boy Andrew Bolt who argues it was “clever” to make The Australian “look like the bully”:

It was masterly how she made the most insignificant error in a minor colour story in The Australian seem a massive error which discredited weeks and many pages of meticulously accurate coverage.

It was terrific how she made out the controversy started with the utterly scurrilous blog of Larry Pickering, with a base media just recycling his smelly wares, when serious journalists, politicians, lawyers and unionists have raised serious questions about this for a long time.

It was effective, albeit a little desperate, to play the sexism card, portraying the criticism of her as misogynist and sexist – and then to play the woman betrayed. Sensational, and you can see how that will dovetail into an attack on Tony Abbott.

Again, it was clever tactically to make The Australian a villain, to fit in with the wicked Murdoch media narrative to rally the Left. Never mind that 2UE, 3AW, the Financial Review and, belatedly, Sydney Morning Herald were also demanding answers from her.

And it was a masterstroke to spring the press conference on journalists who thought they were there for an announcement on the new refugee intake, and then stand there until the questions from the largely unprepared petered out in the only opportunity Gillard says she’ll ever give them.

I salute John McTernan, Gillard media director. A masterpiece.

The ugliness of the perpetrator blaming the victim shows not only a lack of empathy, but a failure of journalistic ethics.

Bolt then lets the gaggle of misogynistic forum posters sink the boot in further: I hope every student of journalism reads this blog post and studies it as an example of character asassination.

That’s right Andrew – when women “play” the sexism card it is for personal advantage – men are the poor victims.

Poor Andrew.

Poor misunderstood hacks at The Australian – see, they’re really just honest, plain speaking truth tellers picked upon by lefties, greens, women, refugee advocates, scientists, academics and anyone with a sense of right and wrong.

Can’t people see the men of News Ltd are simply hard-working chaps, who make the occasional mistake?

Are there not women who work at News Ltd?

What do they make of this overt and ugly sexism?

There are two words for such behaviour: cowardly and immoral.

I’m not the biggest fan of the current Labor government – I take issue with many of their policies, lack of vision and continued support for the fossil fuel lobby.

Indeed I’ve been harsh in my criticism at times.

But there comes a time when one has to put politics aside and act with integrity.

News Ltd, you’re a disgrace.