by frog
Food for thought:
We’re killing the oceans.
25 reasons to give a damn about climate change.
And some great photos.
Published in THE GAME by frog on Thu, November 26th, 2009
Tags: general debate
General debate, 26 November, 2009
Published: November 26, 2009
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Mayors ‘frustrated’
Southern Mayors have criticised the Government for what they believe is a backdown on the funding for the southernmost leg of the national cycleway …
the government kept ‘shifting the goal posts’ …
The same issue of funding had marred the other six quick-start trails , which had come in about four or five times their initial cost..
“It is of great concern that there is this major about-turn…
Like or Dislike:
3 
0 (+3)
I see that the Greens want a review on cell-phone towers:
http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/6512428/greens-want-cellphone-tower-review/
“Ms Kedgley believes the Government should play it safe and stop allowing cell towers, antennas and masts to go up next to homes, schools and playcentres”
I’m guessing Sue would also want to include parks and reserves in that list. Essentially that would keep cell phone sites out of residential areas entirely. Given that most of the cell phone users live in these residential areas, this is actually counter-productive. By forcing the cell phone sites further away from the phones using those sites, it forces both the cell phone and the cell phone site to use higher power levels, increasing the exposure to not only the cell phone user but everyone near either the user or the site. It also reduces the opportunities for frequency reuse which could seriously impact the number of simultaneous cell phone calls that can be supported.
How many Green supporters use wifi? Wifi requires radio transmitters in both the computer and the router – not just in a residential area but actually in the residences, possibly only a few feet from other occupants of the house and certainly within a few feet of the computer user. Who uses bluetooth? What about wii?
By all means call for a review but don’t exaggerate the risks, and be careful with using statistics that suggest low levels of radio frequency radiation are hazardous – they may be flawed.
Trevor.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
Toad!
http://www.stuff.co.nz/southland-times/news/3097762/Cane-toad-catches-ride-to-Queenstown
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Further to the Maori Party’s environmental kaupapa -
http://www.thestandard.org.nz/our-word-is-our-bond/
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
@greenfly 9:57 AM
No relation.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Queenstown developer Basil Walker intends to stand against sitting Clutha-Southland MP Bill English as an independent cabndidate at the 2011 general election.
The election could be fought over the issue because the ETS had the potential to sink the country (he said).
Southland Times 26 Nov
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
Let us ban cell-phone towers, cell-phones, wireless connectivity, light-bulbs, monitors and TV’s, the microwave, radon, fire-alarms, the sun, etc., etc., etc.!
Like or Dislike:
4 
1 (+3)
Does Ms Kedgley have a cell-phone, laptop, TV or microwave?
Does she go out in the sun?
Like or Dislike:
3 
6 (-3)
I am distressed to say that I was wrong to think that Jones resigning would help.
What Jones needs to do is have news conference, a very public and open-ended conference at which he answers the accusations and provides context for the content of the e-mail for as long as it takes for people to run out… and be seen to have run out. Repeat questions can get taped answers, but he should also apologize for overreacting to the FOIA attack on his organization’s ability to work. The only good defense now is to go on the offensive.
In the meantime, a better understanding of the smear machinery.
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1389
… and I note that given the winding up that the denialsphere in the US is getting there is a real possibility that some of those loons will take a shot at some of the scientists, and not in the figurative sense.
There are fools, then there are Damned Fools… and then there are denialists.
One actually posted that it did not matter what the science was, he could not accept the need for government to act so intrusively in the economy… it beggars belief that these people can tie their own shoes.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
The way to solve the problem, BJ, is you need everyone on side. You’re not going to do that calling people idiots. McIntyre, whilst you may not agree with him, is clearly no idiot.
What needs to happen is the entire process needs to be opened up. Publish all the data into the public domain and let everyone have a go at it (fund this, if necessary). The internet releases us from traditional confines, such as academia.
I’m sure you’ll agree, this problem is too big too be left in too few hands.
If the IPCC are confident of their analysis, then what is the problem? If the entire process is opened up, then the doubters will have to provide rock-solid proofs, or shut-up.
That is the central issue here. People simply don’t trust closed academic and political process anymore.
Transparency is the key.
Like or Dislike:
3 
6 (-3)
Before anyone rushes to the barricades they might like to read this document which has just been tabled in Parliament. And note were Jim Salinger started compiling the graphs.
Treadgold has been working on this project for some time
and its release in these interesting times is just a remarkable coincidence.
http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/global_warming_nz2.pdf
Like or Dislike:
3 
4 (-1)
McIntyre calls everyone else idiots BP. His history of abuse of scientists who are anywhere near his target (Michael Mann) is almost legendary at this point. McIntyre is the exception to test the rule, and it is a great shame that Mann and He got so hostile. Whoever caused it. His input has been useful and COULD be useful. His many fans are not however, in the same league nor potentially helpful. Nor, I note, is McKittrick.
However, Watt, Plimer, Wishart… and I could go on, are incompetents who dress up garbage and promote it and amplify it ad-nauseum, and I am nauseated. McIntyre’s site is the ONLY contrarian site I have bookmarked and read from.
The publishing of data to the public domain would be ideal, I agree. I note that GISS and others in the US do that. The problem with for CRU is the money aspect of collecting their datasets… (did I note that here?) and their ownership. Funding is the important issue and there are many, many smaller organizations that are reliant on their own governments for grants, who have to publish their own take on their own data as well as sell it to CRU and the IPCC. The agreements to share data are a real restriction.
The IPCC IS confident of the analysis. The scientists are VERY sure… 95% or better. The problem with the openness meme is really just the money as you alluded to, and the distraction some scientists expect. That’s part of the reason for the peer reviews being used as gates. They limit the distractions and allow science to concentrate on the serious research and analysis and questions that are raised.
( I note that despite the criticism raised about the exclusion of this or that in the IPCC report being discussed the contrary science IS raised there… McIntyre and McKitrick and Soon and Baliunas and others. As well as the responses in the literature. In other words, they got to take their best shot and WERE answered, it is just not something the public gets to see.)
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter6.pdf
There is a philosophical POV at work here. Jones likes a tighter gate than Von Storch. As a result I think he’s probably the wrong choice for his position, but he’s the one we’ve got and for him to step down would be admission of wrongdoing for stuff he hasn’t really done. Except for the FOIA mail, which given the volume of requests, something like a hundred from one individual, was at least understandable, even if it was pretty damned stupid.
The difficulty for the Peer Review system is that papers that challenge the existing body of work are now almost certain to be either focused on a small part of it which does not affect the AGW conclusion, merely refining it, or to contain fundamental errors that make it damned hard to pass them through peer review.
Yet given all of that you are correct. It is only really transparent to scientists and not at all accessible to the general public or the press…. and transparency IS the key. So so so… we go to my second suggestion which I had already posted over to RealClimate, which is basically a media funded conference at which the prominent denialists are permitted to make their case and have answers from the likes of Jones and Hansen and Briffa… it takes as long as it takes to air every damned question they can think of so that every one of them can be disposed of publicly. I expect at least 4 days. Getting the format correct would be difficult for something that length. A straight debate doesn’t cut it because the field is so large that no individual has complete knowledge of all the branches. The point of it though, is public airing of every objection, every one of them being sanitized by having its errors exposed to the light.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
Owen
I’ve said before and will say again that I would expect to find changes in NZ temperatures to be more tightly coupled to changes in ocean temperatures in the Southern Ocean, which is to say that we’re a smallish island and local weather is determined by the ocean. Which doesn’t change a lot or quickly. Had I looked at the NIWA data I would have had to wonder myself.
Whatever NIWA is doing and has done needs to be explained by NIWA. Someplace Salinger and/or NIWA has to have a scientific excuse for applying an adjustments to temperatures…but I have to say this looks pretty nasty.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
If it IS as wrong as it appears to be on its face, one has to ask why they’d bother, as it isn’t expected for NZ to have a changeable climate. Changeable WEATHER we should have out the ying-yang, but for our climate to change the whole ocean has to cooperate.
I’ll wait for NIWA’s answer though.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Well the jury is out.
They may have perfectly good explanations.
But the question is why are they so reluctant to provide the base data to people who simply want to check what is going on and gain a better understanding of the process.
Wratt has argued that this has all been explained to the Coalition and is annoyed that they are not satisfied.
But as best we can tell the Coalition has not asked these questions before. Others have and have not been satisfied so Dederkind decided a couple of months ago to analyse the base data compare it to the NIWA graphs (first begun by Salinger while working for the CRU) and then ask how and why the figures were adjusted.
It seems to be working because the Parliamentary question is getting results. But so far for only one station which everyone knew about anyhow.
Like or Dislike:
2 
3 (-1)
Here are some of the possible causes. None being addressed in the pdf. Whether any were actually present in the NZ record and whether they are valid is of course, of interest.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/t3616tj119nmj216/
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Wattsup is covering the NZ climate figures manipulation story.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/uh-oh-raw-data-in-new-zealand-tells-a-different-story-than-the-official-one
Looks like the NIWA staff attended the Phil Jones Upstairs School of Climatology.
A link there says that this is the NIWA building weatherstation? Surely not.
http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main.php?g2_itemId=41286
Like or Dislike:
2 
8 (-6)
One of the most significant was the change from mini-max thermometers to electronic logging of temperatures every hour, which took place around the seventies.
The true mean from the recent instrumentation tends to be a higher temperature than the mid-point of the mini max for reasons which have been explained to me but I cannot remember.
However, it is easy to see that the mid point of the mini max height of children in a class is not the same as the true mean.
There tend to be more real shorties than real tallies in a classroom.
Apparently many of these stations are not adjusted for this difference in instrumentation.
Vineyards now have some of the best ground temperature records on the planet.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
The warming isn’t in the land based mid latitudes, it is largely at the poles, as pointed out before, and I would actually expect that the much taller tower that appears to me to have an anemometer (more resolution would help a lot) in the photo provided, is the weather station.
Someone is being a bit free with their photoanalysis.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Like or Dislike:
2 
14 (-12)
I’d bet heavily on you being correct about the temperature monitoring in the vinyards Owen.
I think we have to wait until we hear the full story, and then we have to decide whether to believe it.
Just something else that looks more suspicious than it is? Or a genuine problem?
We know the planet itself is getting warmer pretty damned fast. You don’t melt off half a polar ice cap with faked data. What is happening here is another question.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Wat
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1942828,00.html?xid=rss-topstories
The number of temperature stations in Antarctica is pretty small of course. It is still too cold there for the surface ice to melt, will be for another 50-60 ppm of CO2… but at the rate we’re going we’ll get there fast enough.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Again with the weasely, bj.
You make a false claim concerning temperature trends, then link instead to something about ice mass.
As has been mentioned before, a fingerprint for AGW is enhanced polar warming due to the drier air.
The Antarctic exhibits no such fingerprint, no such trend.
Like or Dislike:
2 
11 (-9)
Nope, I didn’t make a false claim Wat and I had to dip out to get my daughter. I was looking for the correct data on Antarctic temps when I had to go because I knew the Grace data was for Ice Mass, not temps. It was simply the most recent datapoint I had for the East Antarctic.
It almost never pays to be responsive, you just call me a weasel anyway.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/01/state-of-antarctica-red-or-blue/
Warmer at the poles overall, as the warming in the West Antarctic is greater than the cooling for the East… and the East IS losing mass, despite the heavier snowfall.
The peninsula is of course warmer again, owing to the ocean circulation.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Ah… what fingerprint is that? The models don’t agree well enough in the Antarctic to call anything there a “fingerprint”.
In other words, who says?
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
What is going on?
Dr Wratt has consistently said that because New Zealand is surrounded by oceans, all the modelling indicates that the temperature impacts of climate change are most likely to be less for New Zealand than for other parts of the globe.
Why then does he have a graph showing greater warming than the global average. Ie: 0.92 versus 0.6
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Like or Dislike:
3 
15 (-12)
got a prius..?
gone vegetarian..?
(patting yrself on the back..?..)
read on..!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Ah, McShane, you’ve done it again.
http://hot-topic.co.nz/nz-sceptics-lie-about-temp-records-try-to-smear-top-scientist/
Like or Dislike:
4 
3 (+1)
phil, or another option –
eat meat, plant a tree.
With your prius scenario there are also other negative considerations, like cost of replacing batteries, disposing of batteries, and especially all the carbon emitted to earn the extra $25,000 to buy a prius over the cost of a similar small car, and it’s replacement batteries.
In reality, they are not very green at all.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BOSH,
http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2009/11/niwas-explanation-raises-major-new-questions.html
Like or Dislike:
3 
9 (-6)
Sad to see Phil Goff descending down into the sewer with the likes of Brash and Peters.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
Wat – the fact that a blogger shown to have little or no credibility when it comes to climate science wants to cast doubt (because that’s all he’s doing) on a pretty much standard methodology for building long term records, says more about him than the methodology.
Like or Dislike:
5 
3 (+2)
wat, did you not read http://hot-topic.co.nz/nz-sceptics-lie-about-temp-records-try-to-smear-top-scientist/ ?
Like or Dislike:
3 
2 (+1)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Like or Dislike:
1 
14 (-13)
Look at the graphs: the airport record, when overlaid on the Kelburn record, matches closely. In other words, they are responding in the same way to the Wellington weather, even though their absolute values are different. That’s one good reason. The second is that theory tells you that Kelburn will be around a degree cooler because of its altitude. So theory and observation match, and you get a robust adjustment.
No mystery involved.
Like or Dislike:
5 
0 (+5)
Owen
I’d be better able to answer you but NIWA is one of those organizations that requires payment for its data products (like the local SST data)… because we do know that the ocean does not warm uniformly or mix perfectly. It would seem as though the desire to extract money from the public for services like this (as advocated by the corporatists), makes us part of the network of national MET services that prevent CRU from distributing datasets more freely, which they are demanding so loudly.
Anyway, the point is that the explanation may well lie in the SST.
Found this
here
…which goes a long way towards an explanation. One does wish that NIWA would pay enough attention to explain the corrections on at least all the major stations and pre-empt questions like this rather than leaving it to us to dig.
Sigh…
Anyway… I think this helps me at least.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
don’t you know how to read a graph, Wat?
It shows a higher rate of warming in the higher Northern Latitudes, and a lower, but still positive, rate of warming in central and Southern latitudes.
It shows a small area around 60 degrees South that has no net warming (but no net cooling either). This is of course the area where you would get the most influence of meltwater from the Antarctic ice sheet (the melting of ice being a process that absorbs a lot of heat with almost no change in temperature)
Like or Dislike:
4 
0 (+4)
YOU asked Me to show Antarctic temperatures. I went out and found some for you. I also showed the mass losses for the Ice.
Now I don’t follow your twisted path of reasoning… having responded to you I just get abused. What problem?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/01/warm-reception-to-antarctic-warming-story/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/02/antarctic-warming-is-robust/
You can fnck off bub. Being polite to you is NOT the action of a reasonable person. ? “baseless claim that the warming is largely polar”?
THANK you for demonstrating that you are an idiot in such clear terms.
Did we have a massive decline in the polar ice cap? Yup. Are we on track for 2010 winding up as the warmest year ever? Yup. In spite of being just through the lowest solar minimum in a hundred years. Did we lose some 10 thousand year old ice? Yup. There is absolutely nobody on the planet except you who would not be agreeing that the bulk of the warming is at the poles. More North than South but…
http://www.klewtv.com/news/59801002.html
… that does NOT change the fact that it is there.
The only excuse I can think of… no actually I can’t think of one. You’ve been had mate. You are buying the con. You believe what our corporate masters want you to believe.
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1389
In the US a reasonable person would ignore you… if you were lucky. No jury would convict if you were not.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
3 
0 (+3)
BOSH
In all fairness to Owen, he posted the NZClimateScience mob story as news, and it was very fresh, and he didn’t actually express much of an opinion about it.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
just disengage bj..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
5 
0 (+5)
Derision is all he deserves.
Like or Dislike:
6 
0 (+6)
The odium Wat, the odium!
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
you know what puzzles me..?..bj..?
you spend so much time and energy here just going round and round in circles with these trolls..
(have you noticed yet that after you compile your evidence..they change tack/the subject..?..)
yet you will not go and use your arguing skills where they would be of most use..
namely..the likes of kiwiblog…
reasons why..?
it isn’t about the mindless trolls there..
it’s about the fact that that forum has the largest readership..
surely that is where your skills would be better (selectively)engaged..?
you could use that time/energy you waste here with the likes of wat/shunda etc etc..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
or…bjchip…let the insistent barbs bounce – cease your feinting and blocking, counter-punching and over-turning and being drawn by the trilling of the trolls and lay out your suggested paths to success for those of us here who don’t need to be constantly re-aligned, reprogrammed to accept that the climate is coming after us.
What do you really think switched-on Greens, greens and greenies should do against the background of the twisted spinning, flat-out, flat-earth denial that surrounds us? Cut us a clear path with your scythe-like mind, bj. You’re wasting it batting off the bats.
They’ll not relent their constant drilling here, but let ‘em flap their leathery wings and squeak their high-pitched squeaks – there’s nothing they dislike more than to be treated as batty.
It’d be a great entertainment to us all, to have your searchlight set to ‘fry’, rather than ‘enlighten’.
Imho.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Fffffarrar is running another anti-green smear (gotta keep feeding his nasties)around Obama’s emissions targets.
This is the kind of comment he gets (for those of us who don’t swim in the swill)
# Swiftman the infidel
November 27th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
Never forget the ‘Greens’ don’t love New Zealand – they hate and despise it. Just look at all the hate spewed on Frogblog.
The ‘Greens’ want to destroy NZ.
(Swiftman posted here recently. We treated him kindly – mfu!)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
also read over there what wat says about greens..
and what shunda says about greens/green-ideas..
and what pentwig says about greens..
they are just ‘playing’ you..
(esp. you..b.j..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Kiwiblog doesn’t attract me because raising the tone there would give DPF the benefit of mindshare (mine). Something I won’t do for Bill Gates and for similar reasons won’t do for DPF… is that wrong?
I want people to come HERE to read, his blog isn’t entertaining for anyone with an IQ measured in triple digits, and I can’t really communicate with people whose IQ is not.
Maybe that’s just an excuse. I’ll think about it. As to what WE should do Greenfly, I think I have been fairly clear about it. To make a difference the Green party has to have political power. That means we have to get people to vote for us in larger numbers.
Which is why we actually need comprehensive (not just environmental) policy statements. (We do have a good suite now)
Which is why we need to work towards social objectives in non-confrontational ways wherever possible. (We have not done this well in the past)
This CAN be a very powerful party. If we want to have anything to say about the future of New Zealand it has to live up to its own potential.
To do that it has to pay SOME attention to the image it projects, which is often something we neglect because we as a party regard that as “fake”… and it certainly can be as almost all the other parties demonstrate.
We should probably talk with the Democrats for Social Credit and try to establish some sort of agreement to bring much of their platform into our economic platform. Possibly merge. This would give their views visibility and give us a few more votes… more importantly they have a fairly well developed economic proposal for getting away from fractional-reserve banking and currency. Talk quietly. Revise quietly.
It can be explained when necessary but the principle message has to be put at the top of every page.
Fractional-Reserve says we have to consume more every day of every year from now to eternity. It is not sustainable. It is not Green. There is another way.
Shifting from Fractional Reserve doesn’t LOOK environmental. Fractional-Reserve is a violation of the laws of physics built into a monetary system. That makes it an environmental disaster underlying every aspect of society.
Decoupling our dollar (and economy) from the rest of the world in a way that automatically imposes a form of “Tobin Tax” on people playing with the currency.
+++++++++++++++++++++
Accept nuclear power within limits. Two forms:
Thorium fueled, accelerator driven reactors that can be used to “burn” plutonium and remove wastes. Vastly easier to manage the waste and inherently safe. Others to be negotiated on their technical merits (cleanliness and limited to peaceful uses).
Nuclear POWERED ships to be permitted. Ships carrying nuclear weapons still banned.
Why we should do this: It has to do with image and practicality. We have to shake people’s image of who we are, and something that fundamental is going to give us some valuable eyeball time. People will look at us again and reconsider the nasty things they’ve been imagining about us.
On a practical note, nobody has a working production Thorium plant or accelerator driven plant. If someone wants to do development here, that is cutting edge technical work for New Zealanders. Jobs. There are only about 10 nuclear powered ships on the planet that are not likely to have Nuclear weapons in their holds. The limitations make it benign when and if it ever comes up.
When we should do this: After we’ve been through all our positions and are ready for what has to be a frontal assault on the mindset of the media.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
We’ve had a long discussion about how to pay out per-child benefits both as part of WFF and as part of the dole. Go ahead and change a couple of words in our policy to make it less a matter of giving money and more a matter of extending support throughout. This robs the right of the meme that we are funding poverty and creating a dependent class. It is actually more fair in any case.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Examine the Swedish methods of providing voucher-based school funding. If they can be applied to NZ and to what extent. If not applicable then don’t, but give it a good hard look in public. Being able to rationalize this would be another “shock” to apply to the public nervous systems.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Push the truth that there is a conspiracy on the right. There is ample evidence. I am extremely impressed with the work noted here Develop this and make the point strongly when people make the claim that the scientists are in collusion with the left.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Strangely there is little more we can do on climate science itself. That there is a denial industry out there and it is well funded and vocal and ready to tell any lie it thinks it can get away with is clear enough.
People don’t believe them because they understand what is happening and think about it, or because their science is more convincing. They believe because to believe us means that all of us are guilty of damaging the planet and that there are some payments coming due. They are thinking with their gut and their guilt.
It is emotional. Which is why so much of the language is intemperate.
It may also be that Owen is on to something when he calls it tribal.
It is predicated partially on the problem solution being government intervention into our lives on a large scale and trust in government is a commodity in short supply. I know I don’t trust these guys.
I don’t know a way to change any of these things.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Emphasize adaptive preparations for the coming changes in climate.
State support for “seed industry” installations that would give us at least enough expertise and capacity to bootstrap those industries if access to external resources like ball-bearings, gearboxes, electric motors, generators, microchips, circuitboards, disk drives, pharmaceuticals … long list… coffee and chocolate were cut off.
State support for full production of Wind Turbines (all parts of the turbine) here.
State support for electric cars… talk to this guy
Note that state support may take many forms and need not impose large costs on us, just marginal costs with countervailing benefits. The free market is NOT the best model for everything.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Don’t be so hard on the need for roads. Many of our routes run along the beaches with this result being achieved even without sea level rise.
Trains are preferred but we need more electrification and straighter track would be useful… and way too much track is within a couple of meters of mean high water.
————-
OK… I have said enough… again. That’s just a starting point. It would need refinement and some strategic thinking through which of these points would work and which would backfire because I forgot about some detail, but it ALL comes from having people believe our message is best for them and voting for us. Right now that amounts to about 8% of the population. I’d want a ’1′ in front of that 8 as a minimum position after the next election. That can ONLY happen if public opinion gets a jolt.
It also requires us to take it to the media hard. When they lie about us, because they do that out of habit, we have to call them on it and make it clear through other media that they have been lying. Aggressively. HERE is where that confrontational urge should find expression. Look to Winston Peters for the example… just don’t play silly games with finance as he did. It only works if you actually ARE honest (as he discovered).
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
4 
0 (+4)
OK guys.. you want me to not be nice to certain people based on their behaviour somewhere else… or to go over to kiwiblog and beat people up there. I don’t think this is a good idea. People get respect by giving it… and I can’t help but being what I am wherever I am… which means that if I go there I will NOT be here very damned much, and I will not be able to prevent there being an improvement in the atmosphere on Kiwiblog.
Which will make it more attractive to people and DPF remains a person whose opinions I find generally vile and inherently despicable.
Are you all SURE you want to do this??
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I guess what I have to do is monitor his blog and call people on it here, much as you do Phil. The issue for me is that I have to refrain from responding there. Not easy for me when I see cr@p being posted.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BJ,
The several of the links you have provided do not work.
Though I do not agree with their understanding of the nature of money, I do think that a merger with social credit would be a good idea. If only we could get the survival aspect put where it should be.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Stay away from Fartblog BjChip!!!
It will only weaken your spirit and eventually disgust you!
The Climate Change debate isn’t won through engaging with the extreme ends of the debate. Really, do you care if wat clings to his beliefs? I certainly couldn’t give a toss! Aim for the reasonable ground, build your support there and don’t be pulled off your line by the seemingly well researched but in fact misinformed. As I’ve claimed before, they are your Archilles heels (well, heels anyway).
Phil – you had a period where Fartbloggers lessened their vitriol long enough for you to gain some ground, but that’s lost now (RIP) and your efforts there are wasted, I believe. Yours was a valiant effort, but a good fighter always assesses the condition of the battle ground before engaging and Fartblog is kneck-deep slime. No place for a victory.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
bjchip
Yep. Where do I sign up? The GaGa Splinter Group underground bunker? I’m sure you’ve seen it before, but I just love quoting Bartlett’s one liner synopsis: “The greatest short coming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function”
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
also..what is important to do at kiwiblog..
is to ‘call’ them on the lies/bullshit..
some from farrar..but mainly from the commenters..
(again..and not for them..but for that large/silent reading audience..
go harvest..!..bj..!..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I wouldn’t wish that lot on anyone, bj. Do it if you want, not because we say so.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
nah..fly there is bugger all using that rip..
and i am glad those who are..are..
because all they do is spew slime..
so..once again..that big body of silent readers are now afforded a less cloudy/vitriol-laced environment..
and..as one of the righties noted today..
(referring to the fact they all still talk about me..but more importantly..their (now) silence..)
‘who exactly has won this battle..?’
so..i still figure what i do there is worthwhile..
(c.f..large/silent reading audience..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I prefer a guerilla type war over there. Waiting . . . waiting and then popping up with something outrageous and thus getting some traction on a particular subject. The 911-Truthers windup has been an endless source of distraction and merriment. There is just no way the sewer can be engaged in a discussion that questions their given assumptions about . . . well, anything really. And they all seem really proud of it and gain kudos from their grunting compatriots for defending the cause in the face of all reason. No, not reason, but humour is the key.
I try to take my lead from Mr Greenfly and his use of the art of humour – you’ll all note that ‘fly was quickly silenced under dodgy circumstances which proves how effective he was being. Taking the piss out of these people, in a gentle manner of course, is by far the best way to get the message across. Alas, it is also about the hardest to learn.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BLiP – Your GaGa Utility Belt and Zoot-Suit is in the mail.
(Naturally, you’ll disavow any knowledge etc..)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
You need to realise that people visiting the Green Party web site will not necessarily believe in Climate Change or may be looking to find evidence to help convince others. The problem is all the propoganda you are up against, so you need to have answers and they need to be easily findable, such as a page linked off here:
http://www.greens.org.nz/climatechange
rather than buried in frogblog here:
http://blog.greens.org.nz/2009/09/18/climate-change-answers-to-every-question-you-ever-had
(No disrespect to frog intended.)
It also needs to be kept up to date.
BJ and others have done good work providing answers – don’t lose them (both the answers and the people!).
Trevor.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
OK, first a correction to your post.
The US increase of 15.8% from 1990 ->2005 isn’t 17% and if you take 17% of the 2005 value it is more like 20% of the 1990 value in terms of reductions, meaning that the net reduction will be below the 1990 value by about 4% of the 1990 value. It isn’t the complete wash you claim… not great, but it beats the zip.squat that we have gotten from previous US Administrations ( none of which have done real well since this was first raised as an issue).
It isn’t adequate but it is a start. They have to do 3x better for us to expect it to actually make a difference. That means cutting their 2005 emissions in half.
If they had taken Kyoto seriously in the Clinton and Bush administrations, the target would be far easier to hit. In that respect we copied them.
As for comparing NZ to the USA to reckon climate change commitments, perhaps you’d do better to compare us to a country or region that HAS actually done something about its climate footprint to reckon where in the pack we are.
Oh yeah, your ambition is for us to be like the USA, isn’t it. One little problem. They’re bankrupt. They didn’t even have to have a carbon policy to do that, the bankers did it to them and now the bankers are getting paid off for it.
I LOVE watching
capitalismcorporatism at work.“The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them.” – Lenin
Try comparing us with an actual leader next time DPF. Germany or France or Denmark perhaps. Is comparing us with the world’s worst actually a good thing?
———————————–
The Greens didn’t set the US goals and are not really pleased with them… we are simply glad to see SOME goals being set. The point to the goals we have isn’t that it is about how much the goals hurt. It is about how much the planet can stand to have emitted. Period. Any lesser targets will fail, and the targets currently on offer will fail badly.
The EU set stronger targets. We should have set stronger targets, at least matching the EU. Conditional is OK, but giving other countries a precedent would have put more pressure on and given our kids a chance.
Feel free to borrow from the future. YOU won’t be around.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
4 
0 (+4)
Darn!
Nuclear powered ships.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_powered_icebreaker#Russian_nuclear_icebreakers
Roads next to the ocean.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/paekakariki/news/article.cfm?l_id=500567&objectid=10523146
Electric Cars.
http://www.betterplace.com/
Disinformation campaign
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1389
I probably missed a closing angle bracket when I was doing them.
Sorry all.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them.” – Lenin
Ha, I’ll bet the kiwitrolls loved that one.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
you go tiger..!
(feels good..!..eh..?)
i find writing with an (anatomically difficult) curled/smiling-lip helps..
but..whatever works..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
did you post that at kiwiblog..?..bj..?
i can’t find it..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I used to make a point of commenting directly to DPF when he posted something on climate science or policy, but I gave up a long time ago. He feeds his readership, and ignores facts – unless of course he has a version of reality he’s trying to push.
Life’s too short, basically.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Perhaps the Blog has reached its level of value to society and may even start to diminish in its significance to reasoned debate. It seems that most blogs now have their devoted folowers and occasional dissenters with each party rarely engaging in a constructive two-way debate, but preferring to bombard the opposition with opinions and one-liners.
The concern is that blogs may be a fair reflection of reality, in which case intolerance, selfishness and greed (to name just a few of the vices) abound and one can be justified in both despairing for the planet and being misanthropic.
But perhaps blogs perform the all important task of providing the platform for us to ‘vent our spleen’ at what we perceive to be societal injustices. As such the blog may be employing a most useful function.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Phil
What I did was point at THIS blog, and observe that people talking about Greens there couldn’t be liars, that they would have to know the truth in order to lie.
The point is (for me) that I want the traffic here. I don’t want to make their blog any better. It may not be perfectly effective, but DPF will have fnck-all luck with deleting my posts here, even though he exercises absolute power over there.
Which means that, among other things, that contrast can be drawn.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
There are some online lectures (one would do well to actually have the textbook I am sure) to go right through the basics of Climate Science.
http://geoflop.uchicago.edu/forecast/docs/lectures.html
I haven’t tried any of them yet. It might be useful. Particularly for those who genuinely need to learn more about it.
This of course, leaves the ones who NEED to know more about it, completely in the dark. Given that they like it that way, there is no real good way to bring light into the place they have their heads stuck.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.com/
…we’d probably best be thinking hard about how we cope with the higher water levels.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
3 
0 (+3)
Sir Double Dipton raises hackles!
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/politics/3104978/Bill-Englishs-convoy-flouts-law
Give us a wave, your Majesty!
Is Bill’s arrogance permanent?
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Key – sticking out like … a sore thumb (polite version)
‘Ms Fitzsimons noted that leaders attend international negotiations when they have something to offer on behalf of their country, and send their juniors to front when they want to say ‘no’.
That’s well said, Jeanette!
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
I’m with the Phil here BJ – these are Trolls trying to wear you down – don’t co-operate please!
Why go to KiwiBog – no one else does…..much.
Fly; Bind the Double Dipton in Latex and send him North – the last crash test Dummy has become Mayor and no one can say a darned thing!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Mark – Bill’s sense of priviledge has gone to his head.
At least we can be assured that this won’t happen with Rodney ‘Nothing between Scalp and Sky’ Hide.
I’m presently out of latex – used it all on BLiP’s suit.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“…we’d probably best be thinking hard about how we cope with the higher water levels.”
Are any of our local councils thinking ahead with respect to rising sea levels? Or are they still approving beachfront developments?
Trevor.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Bucolic Old Henry
Seems you are the one smearing reputations.
Here is my response to bjchip’s concern that Dedekind’s finding looked bad:
“Well the jury is out.
They may have perfectly good explanations.
But the question is why are they so reluctant to provide the base data to people who simply want to check what is going on and gain a better understanding of the process.
Wratt has argued that this has all been explained to the Coalition and is annoyed that they are not satisfied.
But as best we can tell the Coalition has not asked these questions before. Others have and have not been satisfied so Dederkind decided a couple of months ago to analyse the base data compare it to the NIWA graphs (first begun by Salinger while working for the CRU) and then ask how and why the figures were adjusted.
It seems to be working because the Parliamentary question is getting results. But so far for only one station which everyone knew about anyhow.”
bjchip and I then had a civilised discussion on the many and diverse reasons adjustments could be needed.
The question asked by Dederkind would be a perfectly legitimate question of a paper during peer review.
What worries me is that one reason for not releasing data is that it is privately owned or funded. This should simply not be allowed with such science which if funded out of the public purse because it is in the public interest.
Anyhow I suspect it is an outsiders’ excuse because as soon as Nick Smith asked for an explanation Wratt gave him and explanation for one site. However, it still a summary and I suspect a scientist would still be wanting more to be able to really check the process as well as the numbers.
The switch from mini-max thermometers to modern electronical logging enters massive error terms into these graphs and the error terms are larger than any increase or decrease being “measured”. That is also a worry.
In my many years analysing high tech projects for venture capital investments I soon learned the importance of the error term. Essentially – no error terms; no legitimate science.
LIke those 399 Aucklanders who die prematurely of vehicle exhaust pollution each year. Where can I find their names?
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
Fly; Gaga’s First – that’s an A-OK – besides the Tests are more real without Latex.
It could all be contextual you know – spotty kid from the bush sees Baubles etc etc. Joins National Party (de riguer in the back blocks).
Delusions of Grandeur – annex the Sudetenland and March into Poland!
Someone told me Rodney’s developing a cruel streak – most of them do @ 17 years old. I’m getting him a Viking hat from the $2 shop for Christmas. (more baubles)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
PS; Owen – those Deaths have been attributed to smoking etc etc etc.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Owen
I noted the user-pays thing. I don’t know which government brought it in but it is (I think) based on government policy and the public-private nature of the organization. It has to recover costs. Not sure NIWA itself can do anything about it but it is for darned sure that when the government says jump their only question can be “how high”. The fact that the demand for openness conflicts with the desire to make things pay for themselves is amusing. However we are apparently part of the problem for CRU.
The thing is that only one example was required to falsify the paper’s claim that there were no reasons to adjust. That’s the scientific way of looking at it.
The transparent way would be to do the same for all the major stations and to basically recheck ALL the corrections to be sure they are valid. Publicly.
I note that looking at this example clarifies the questions around the station count that Harry documented in the purloined letters. Three separate stations, co-located at different times… but there is really only one.
What is clear though is that whatever was done, the likely delta between the best possible corrections and the ones we’re stuck with because calibration wasn’t done at the time things were changed, will very likely be “in the noise” of the dataset.
Not saying there can’t be some bias… just that it would have to be pretty small.
We’ll stay civilized thanks. I’m good with that.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Mark – and one for his girl!
(He seems to me the kind of guy who would go for the matching jumpers thing)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I assumed he was dressed by his Mum.
One pinstripe (old) and a mustard jacket
What we used to call Karitane Yellow actually.
Cricket’s getting absorbing,
Chris Martin got a Run!
It’s us v the Muslims mate
A microcosmic setllement between the Tribes
For the greater good of Cricket
If we win – Bill will have a Victory Parade!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
MARK
I wrote a critique of that report and it was about vehicle exhausts.
IT fodused on respiratory disease caused by vehicle exhausts. It was a joint report by the Ministry of Health, NIWA for the Ministry of Transport.
It was a disgrace. Almost as bad as the ARC report on Contaminated soils.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I am not in the slightest bit interested in your views on temperature recording methods.
Do you stand by the NZ CSC’s release of a fatally flawed document?
Do you stand by the use of that to smear respected scientists?
From the NZ CSC press release:
NIWA has adjusted the earliest temperature readings downwards by up to 1.3°C, which has the effect of introducing a false ‘warming’ as the graph then ‘climbs’ to the present day. It’s a disgrace. So far, neither Dr Salinger nor NIWA has revealed why they did this,” said Mr Treadgold
The NZ CSC were supplied with station change information for Wellington in 2006, and the process for linking series explained. There is also a lot in the literature covering those techniques.
From the “report”:
The shocking truth is that the oldest readings have been cranked way down and later readings artificially lifted to give a false impression of warming, as documented below. There is nothing in the station histories to warrant these adjustments and to date Dr Salinger and NIWA have not revealed why they did this.
This is a straightforward lie in two respects. One, the NZ CSC knew that station adjustments were necessary and had been made, and the process for one series had been explained. No hiding of anything. Second, “nothing in the station histories to warrant these adjustments” is also wrong, given the explanations the NZ CSC had in 2006.
Proceeding to lump all the records together and produce a graph is nonsensical in the circumstances. To then use it to imply that Salinger and NIWA have manipulated the data to create warming is an outright smear.
If you stand by that lot, then you deserve all the derision you will get.
Regards
Like or Dislike:
3 
0 (+3)
Mark – he’s had his hair done ‘specially!
(must be confident of a win!)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
He still spotty Bill the Boxer to me Fly….where can we get out air tickets? – Bill and Rodney must accompany us as Mascots on a RTW Quango.
Round out their Education nicely eh?
C’Mon John – don’t tell us you wouldn’t love to lose those two for a Year – t’would be a Bonus for the Nation.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Owen – never be surprised at the innefficiency and waste of Government – if I read you right that is….ime it is endemic and systemic.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
John’s gone coy – and awol, startled by the Developments from Carbonhagen and to make matters worse, Jeanette’s taken his seat at Obama’s table and he’d have to stand at the back with the other fast-followers, looking sheepish. Nick’ll be there though, so twisted he’d better steer clear of the pretzel bowl and he’ll be squeakin’ out our story – (hope he’s wearing his brickbat-repellent suit! I’m working on one for him now – it’ll be Blue and spun from Toffee).
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
BOSH,
I understand that, but the point being made was that an airport will likely be significantly warmer than a rural site, because it is a heat island with all that concrete and all those engines etc. Hence, the difference in temperature between Wgtn airport and Kelburn consisted of two very different components: altitude and the heat-island effect. It would be quite wrong to take that total difference and use it as a calibration offset, because that other site is not an airport. Yet that is what they appear to have done: yes they legitimately added a positive offset to account for the altitude; but they may have also added a warming signal into the data by not accounting for the fact that Kelburn is not an airport. Maybe they did something smarter, maybe they didn’t. We don’t know. But after Climategate, everyone has to show their workings. And who can have much confidence in an organisation that sticks a weather station on its hot roof near to air-conditioning fans for chrissake?
kahikatea,
- “It shows a small area around 60 degrees South that has no net warming (but no net cooling either). This is of course the area where you would get the most influence of meltwater from the Antarctic ice sheet (the melting of ice being a process that absorbs a lot of heat with almost no change in temperature)”
A fixed amount of heat would disappear in that way; dissipated in a certain amount of melting. And then the melting would stop as the temperature drops again. We’re not talking about such a one-off heating event, we’re talking about a continuous process which must show up as warmer air temperatures. Yet we see no such thing. In any case, why would the same effect not be seen in the Arctic?
bj,
- “YOU asked Me to show Antarctic temperatures. I went out and found some for you.”
No you didn’t. What you found are invented numbers, not temperatures; invented numbers which even other alarmists find risible.
- “There is absolutely nobody on the planet except you who would not be agreeing that the bulk of the warming is at the poles.”
Me and kahikatea, you mean.
And NASA. Remember, it was you who cited that NASA chart showing clear cooling in the Antarctic and that recent warming is mostly a Northern hemisphere phenomenon.
Or, as your charlatan chums at realcensorship said: “…a cold Antarctica is just what calculations predict… and have predicted for the past quarter century…Bottom line: A cold Antarctica and Southern Ocean do not contradict our models of global warming. For a long time the models have predicted just that.”
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/02/antarctica-is-cold/
Of course, that was shortly before they conjured-up some numbers out of thin air purporting to have discovered the elusive Antarctic warming; well aware that the cooling there contradicted the theory they were selling. And so they turned on a dime.
As with the fraudulent Hockeystick, which was said to have been “proved” by climate models, so it is with Antarctic temperatures: it seems there is no climate pattern whatsoever which is not in agreement with the models. That should tell you something about the garbage-in garbage-out models, and about the people who rely on them.
And didn’t your IPCC state that “Observational studies have presented evidence of pronounced warming over the Antarctic Peninsula, but little change over the rest of the continent during the last half of the 20th century”? (hence your weasely references to the Antarctic Peninsula all the time.)
So that’s me, kahikatea, NASA and the IPCC.
If you choose to cite fabricated numbers as your evidence that “the bulk of the warming is at the poles”, in preference to multiple real-world studies showing the opposite, then we can safely dismiss your argument, and safely confirm our opinion of your integrity.
Here’s a nice piece about lies, damned lies and AGW statistics:
“CRU calls the 1961-1990 the “normal” period and the average temperature of this period it calls the “normal.” It subtracts the normal from each monthly average and calls these the monthly “anomalies.” A positive anomaly means a temperature was warmer than CRU’s normal period…The decision to consider the 1961-1990 period as ‘normal’ was CRUs. Had CRU chosen a different period under consideration, the IPCC graph would have shown less warming, as discussed in one of the Climategate emails, from David Parker of the UK meteorological office. In it, Parker advised Jones not to select a different period, saying “anomalies will seem less positive than before if we change to newer normals, so the impression of global warming will be muted.” That’s hardly a compelling scientific justification!”
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/11/26/skewed-science.aspx
What a fraud.
Like or Dislike:
1 
7 (-6)
Oh! Dee …ummmm.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
T’wat do we owe the displeasure of his tirades?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The techniques for building long term temperature (and other) climate records are many and various. NIWA’s provided one example, but there are plenty more in use, described in the literature. Of course, if you are not familiar with that literature, you may not appreciate the extent to which this stuff has been studied and the sophistication of the techniques used to build reliable long term series.
To insist that “after Climategate, everyone has to show their workings” is to suggest that the scientific agenda is set by thieves, and worse, is a direct slur on the integrities of the NZ scientists working in the field. Treadgold’s “report” was the worst sort of propaganda, and those supporting it or using it to smear the reputations of scientists are worthy only of my contempt.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0 (+3)
Your criticism is, as expectable by now, meaningless.
With respect to Antarctica… I said warming is at the poles, it is. More at one than at the other, but the data on line at GISS isn’t the same as the more recent work and yet it still shows warming.
You expect Climate Science to get one answer and then stop looking? The scientists think that there isn’t going to be much warming, but they know they don’t have much data and KEEP looking.
From the Copenhagen Diagnosis. Page 35
http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.org/
You are picking at nits and grasping at straws. The planet is warming and it is mostly found at the poles. You’d have made better practice if you’d gone for ocean heat-content being more important than the changes at the poles, because I might have conceded that, except that it is also rising.
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/05/levitus-et-al-2009-ocean-heat-content.html
However, the poles get warmer. You can sputter and fume all you like. The warming I pointed to IN THE FIRST PLACE is more than adequate to back my statement as North has larger change than South. West Antarctica is enough warmer to overcome East in the later data, and the only one to call it risible is you.
Moreover, I just reread the statement Kahikatea made. You are making up stories about what people say even within the same blog thread. So we can tell exactly what sort of truth standards you adhere to just by looking. Thanks again for this demonstration of fundamental trustworthiness.
I suggest you read more thoroughly of the opinion of Dr Trenberth because taking his comments out of context (Like all good deniers are trained to do from birth apparently) isn’t informative of anything but your own opinion. Which you can keep, nobody here wants it.
Finally if you examine the original NASA map it has stuff all data at the pole.
Which is to say that you are blowing smoke. All to avoid having to admit that the Urban Heat Island effect on the climate records, is not backed by science.
http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1175%2FJCLI3730.1
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/07/no-man-is-an-urban-heat-island/
http://www.skepticalscience.com/urban-heat-island-effect.htm
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/wmo/ccl/rural-urban.pdf
So the problem is, there is warming, it is mostly at the poles and there is stuff-all effect from the heat-island effects. Anyway.
Now if you don’t mind, I do have a life. Your incessant nonsense and incompetence to actually research a blessed thing (except to try to catch me making some small error) on your own is quite perverse. You aren’t really doing very well Wat.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
4 
0 (+4)
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/11/les-chevaliers-de-lordre-de-la-terre-plate-part-i-allgre-and-courtillot/
Is there an error filled paper on ever published that you have not pointed us to through your blog search function Wat? It is sort of a negative indicator. We see something you are citing and we know automatically that it will be shredded by the science.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
5 
0 (+5)
http://throbgoblins.blogspot.com/2009/11/climate-slamdown.html
Like or Dislike:
4 
0 (+4)
That lucky sartorial Nick eh?
A Brandy Quango – bit of lip service……..easy
China has said they’ll be in it – and the US
Kinda makes your backyard Kiwi GW Denyer look sort of sheltered and simple doesn’t it?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
bj,
- “Should I point out that “newer” normals means that the baseline temperature would necessarily be higher? That IS all that is being said here.”
Exactly. By choosing one period as “normal”, rather than another, they can invent a supposed anomaly with higher numbers than would otherwise be the case. It’s an entirely artificial propaganda device with no scientific merit or justification whatsoever.
And please give it up about the Antarctic. You’re making baby Jesus cry. Your contortions and distortions are becoming excruciating: you post a NASA chart to make one point, then ditch it and flatly contradict it when making another. When you are contradicting your own evidence and your own precious IPCC just to win a point it is probably time to reassess.
Remember, everyone can see for themselves that the chart shows primarily Northern hemisphere warming, no matter how much you deny it. And we can all use Google, so we can see your highly-selective choice of studies.
“Several scientific sources have reported that there is a cooling trend observed in the interior of the continent for the last two decades of the 20th century, while the Antarctic Peninsula shows a warming trend.
Doran et al. (2002) find that “Although previous reports suggest slight recent continental warming our spatial analysis of Antarctic meteorological data demonstrates a net cooling on the Antarctic continent between 1966 and 2000, particularly during summer and autumn. The McMurdo Dry Valleys have cooled by 0.7 °C per decade between 1986 and 2000, with similar pronounced seasonal trends… Continental Antarctic cooling, especially the seasonality of cooling, poses challenges to models of climate and ecosystem change”.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctica_cooling_controversy
And as we have seen, even realcensorship conceded this point (embraced it, even): until they got round to manufacturing some contrary data that is.
And I think we have already established that your reactionary linking to supposed rebuttals at realcensorship proves only your willing credulity, given that they censor comments which contradict them.
Now, I had actually linked to that National Post page for the quotation I gave, showing the CRU’s arbitrary and self-serving definition of a “normal” temperature: not for the Courtillot and Jean-Louis Le Mouël study. But I couldn’t help noticing that much of realcensorship’s supposed refutation of their work was because it contradicts the work of Phil Jones et al – “Ignoring the numerous independent studies of the instrumental record of the past century, he says the Phil Jones analysis of this data has been “put seriously in doubt”"
How prescient!
Or this – “but in the end what Le Mouël is making a big noise about is his claim that the yellow curve fit describes the data better than Phil Jones’ curve.”
Or “Remember the graph of European temperature in Ma vérité which was supposed to put Phil Jones’ analysis of the instrumental record “seriously in doubt?”"
Now, since it is the Phil Jones et al who have been disgraced for manipulating data, I’m not convinced that this realcensorship “rebuttal” – which basically says that this study doesn’t match their own corrupt and manipulated data – has much merit. Are you?
As for your assertion that there is effectively no urban heat island effect, it doesn’t even pass the smell test does it. You are arguing that a concrete jungle like New York – with endless acres of concrete, millions of airconditioners, and tens of thousands of cars etc – has no temperature differences to the countryside. Does that really seem plausible to you? Really? Sheesh.
BOSH,
- ““Heat islands” can only exist where there’s a lack of wind… ”
Clearly the wind has a large effect. Sometimes. But it seems fanciful to suppose that concrete aprons and jet engines don’t. It is an empirical question. It can’t be assumed; not when we’re talking about fractions of a degree as evidence.
- “To insist that “after Climategate, everyone has to show their workings” is to suggest that the scientific agenda is set by thieves, and worse, is a direct slur on the integrities of the NZ scientists working in the field.”
Until last week you could have said the same thing about certain famous scientists at prestigious organisations at the very centre of the debate. Their disgrace means that the competence and integrity of others can no longer be assumed. That’s just the way it is.
Also, scientist Willis Eschenbach wrote the following explaining why climate science in particular needs to show all the workings: “Part of the difficulty with climate science is that, unlike all other physical sciences, it does not study things — instead it studies averages.
This is because climate by definition is the average of weather over a suitably long period of time (typically taken as a minimum of 30 years).
As a result, much of the study that goes on, and the papers that are written, deal almost exclusively with mathematics and statistics. This is the reason that access to the computer codes is so critical.
It’s simple in the physical sciences to describe an experiment, e.g. “I took three grams of carbon and subjected them to a pressure of 50,000KPa and a temperature of 500C. Unfortunately, the experiment did not succeed, I could not replace the diamond I had lost from my wife’s wedding ring.” Anyone can reproduce that experiment (and get the same results).
But when you say “I took the raw temperature data, variance-adjusted it, averaged it, gridded it, area-adjusted it, extrapolated results to data-free areas within 250 km, and made a global temperature record”, that’s far from enough information. In order to determine what was done, we need far more detailed information in climate science, because in general we are describing intricate mathematical operations. These are often very hard to describe clearly in spoken or written language.
And even a crystal-clear description is not enough. Despite what he says he has done, if the scientist has inadvertently used an improper procedure (e.g. the uncentered principal components analysis used in Mann’s Hockeystick), we’ll never be able to determine that the answer is demonstrably wrong unless we have the actual code that he used. Otherwise, we could spend years trying to guess where he went wrong, but we would never be able to show that he went wrong as science demands.
This is why the insistence of scientists that their computer codes are sacrosanct private secret documents best kept under Hermetic seal in a clandestine vault is lethal to good science. Without the codes, we can’t tell if what has been done is correct and free from hidden mathematical error. Of course, this may be unconnected with the reason that Jones et. al are hiding their codes …
Given that climate science is not the study of things but of the averages of things, and that as a result math and statistics are central to climate science, the findings of the Wegman Report are now seen to be even more insightful, trenchant, and valid. They said:
It is important to note the isolation of the paleoclimate community; even though they rely heavily on statistical methods they do not seem to be interacting with the statistical community. Additionally, we judge that the sharing of research materials, data and results was haphazardly and grudgingly done. In this case we judge that there was too much reliance on peer review, which was not necessarily independent. Moreover, the work has been sufficiently politicized that this community can hardly reassess their public positions without losing credibility. Overall, our committee believes that Mann’s assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by his analysis.“
Like or Dislike:
1 
8 (-7)
BJChip
AS you realise, I am a fence sitter on GW-not persuaded either way yet.
But to go on kiwiblog is not for you.
On frogblog you give reasoned and researched queries/discussion/debate
with eloquence and respect.
On kiwiblog you would not get that respect but rather treated with derision and probably much worse.
I am sure you are man enough to take it, but when I see all the energy and time you spend here that talent would abused over there.
You achieve more on here in my opinion.
Regards
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
On the other hand Philu is fair game.
Even greenfly valiantly tried but….. sorry to say lost.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Lost pentwig, lost!!! You jest! Valiant? Thank you good sir!
Bjchip and Bucolic Sir Henry – you’re greatly admired here.
‘Hopenhagen’!! Pure gold! (or water, worth more!)
wat! Odious!
Mark – peotry! Criptic! I’ll say!
Phil fights dirty! You beauty! Eat ‘em alive!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Wot sez “Clearly the wind has a large effect. Sometimes.”
Clearly not a Wellingtonian.
Their disgrace means that the competence and integrity of others can no longer be assumed.
This is, to coin a phrase, complete bollocks. Only in the strange alternate universe occupied by the coordinated frothing of the far right is such a statement credible.
You’ve been played for a sucker. You’re just running the attack lines scripted for you by a highly successful PR campaign that’s been running for 20 years and longer. I expect you won’t read this link, or be able to provide a reasoned rebuttal (for how do you rebut the truth), but here’s what’s going on: Jeff Masters on manufacturing doubt.
So Wat, do you think there is a vast global conspiracy to create the impression of warming where none exists?
As for your quote from Eschenbach, why not do your own thinking and arguing? Or are you only capable of working to someone else’s script?
Count me unimpressed.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
and we could not find the best blog without Fly; –
ok fave NZ Poetry….
Last seen being read by a newly unemployed Winston Peters in a Railway Station….he was a little more digestable from some of the Current Mob.
Say – whjat an amazingly good Team the Greens have….they’ll need some new Menbers in 2011.
BJ would get my Vote.
We need Engineers in Government.
Plenty Lawyers, Teachers and Doctors – and Mavericks
who stand tall like Bunky Hide.
(or is it Hyde?)
but the verse was from Denis Glover
“and i was a fool leaving good land to moulder
the fences sagging,
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
English is standing in as Prime Minister, but his back is so sore, he can’t attend Parliament or walk 6 minutes to the hairdressers!
This is a sorry state for the country to be in – our leaders are absent .. or crippled!
Don’t. You. Think.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BOSH,
Wow. I’m actually embarrassed for you.
Like or Dislike:
0 
6 (-6)
Wot: Wow. I’m actually embarrassed for you.
Ah yes, the reasoned reply. Didn’t read the link, did you?
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
bj,
What a surprise, it’s one of Jones’s fabrications which “disproves” the urban heat island effect:
“The first paper has been the major evidence presented by Jones in all of the IPCC reports to dismiss the influence of urban change on the temperature measurements, and also has been used as an excuse for the failure to mention most of the unequivocal evidence that such urban effects exist. The paper was even dragged out again for the 2007 IPCC report.”
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/vincent-gray-on-climategate-there-was-proof-of-fraud-all-along-pjm-exclusive/
One of the commentators has added the following link, showing how even a child can easily demonstrate the existence of a powerful UHI influence:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcsvaCPYgcI
Ergo, there is a significant false warming signal in the temperature history of the 20th century.
Like or Dislike:
0 
8 (-8)
One Wat Lightbulb
Ooops! The the first strand in the red cloak that is the grand socialist conspiracy has been plucked, and so begins the unravelling of us all. Its game over, lads, and let me tell you: The Ten Horned Beast is going to be well pissed off with this news, I can tell you. Who’d've thunk it – millions of hours of work by thousands of scientists from all disciplines consigned to the trash bin of the Universe because of a silly mistake picked up by a child!!
I blame myself. I saw the writing on the wall a year ago, but was blinded. Let the wailing and the gnashing of teeth commence.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
Exactly. By choosing one period as “normal”, rather than another, they can invent a supposed anomaly with higher numbers than would otherwise be the case. It’s an entirely artificial propaganda device with no scientific merit or justification whatsoever.
If you read it you would have noticed that he was arguing that CHANGING the value once established would result in a different perception. What reason do you have for wanting it changed mate? Propaganda? Do you honestly think it was initially established where it is to make later years look bad?
Given that it was selected back before 1990? Sell your load somewhere else please. That wasn’t prescient. Someone is shameless. You are just working every possible talking point. Without regard for sanity.
Fnck off Wat. You don’t know what you are doing here, and in fact NOBODY could possibly imagine what you take as factual in your pursuit of the holy grail. “It cannot be the carbon”
Except that it is.
“Now, since it is the Phil Jones et al who have been disgraced for manipulating data,”
No he hasn’t been disgraced for manipulating data.
His attitude towards certain people sucks, and he hates people who treat the FOIA as a way to prevent him from getting on with his work, and I think he’s too closed by half for the job he actually needs to be doing there, but there isn’t any evidence in that load of purloined mail about manipulating data. If that is the worst he’s done in 15 years of mail, I have to say “is that all you’ve got”?
No Urban Heat Island effect on the global climate records mate, which it doesn’t. That it has an effect on local microclimate is not at all in doubt. You persist in selective quotations. Do you ever read any sentence to its concluding punctuation? I brought up the poles because you seemed to think that adjustments to the NZ climate data could somehow be contributing to the global warming signal.
I note that that was BEFORE we had the information that completely falsified the NZ Climate Science Coalition paper. In short, that THEY LIED. You have a very selective memory Wat. It is too one sided to be a random effect. You have to be lying to yourself to start with. Dr Jones, who is not shown to have lied in any interpretation of the actual record, is a liar, the NZCSC must be telling the truth. Right.
Did you think we would not notice?
As for the Antarctic you fail utterly to retain the notion that science is about gathering more and more information and improving one’s knowledge. I repudiated nothing… where did you get that? …and if you want to call it one pole and not the other now YOU can have that if you like. It is of a certainty not (as I pointed out correctly) in the mid-latitudes where all those lovely cities are.
Selective studies it is now? YOU said the warming wasn’t at the poles because that is VERY inconvenient for your theory that the UHI is affecting the warming signal. Which was amply refuted with the map but you wanted temperatures for the Antarctic which I obliged.
Now you are trying to make out that I am wrong because I should have only said ONE pole? As though this helps your point? As though I actually care that the Antarctic is staying largely the same or warming slightly or warming a lot in West Antarctica? Or only on the peninsula? None of those are material to the fact that YOU are wrong about whether an UHI or the non-existent fraud at NIWA can affect it.
Finally, you mistake my reasons for answering you once again. I do not give a flying fnck about you Wat. I am concerned about the innocent people your diseased misunderstanding might corrupt.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Please note that I have repeatedly promoted the open model.. along the lines of this rather wise person’s notion of how to deal with the denial industry.
http://climateprogress.org/2009/11/27/%C2%AD-climategate-judith-curry-open-letter-to-graduate-students-young-scientists-climate-research-hacked-cru-emails/
However, I note Easterbrooks caution in the 3rd comment about the people we know are lying to us because it is their job to do so:
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1389
I also point out that except for CRU, most of the material is already online and has been for quite some time. GISSTEMP data has been available and, wonder of wonders, they do seem to be getting the same answers as CRU, and it matches up with satellite observations as well… gol durn it, mebbe there is something to this Global Warming thing after all…
Just to make it easier us the people who have been providing context around the e-mails have also provided this:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/
-gathering together links to the online data and code. Fill your boots. Find those errors and distortions. I am quite happy to have the science improved through open-source.
Moreover, CRU seems to be changing its tune if I read this correctly.
http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2009/nov/homepagenews/CRUupdate
…by which I reckon that Dr Jones has had an arm twisted to the breaking point. Which is probably a good thing. His philosophy is close up and don’t let others into the sacred domain and that is the wrong philosophy for what we are doing. See the Judith Curry link at the top of this comment.
In any case I suspect that this means that NIWA and/or the NZ government will soon be in receipt of a request to ensure that our data is not locking the CRU.
This means that we may have a role to play in making sure that NIWA data (which IS currently available for money only) is released more freely. Certainly it is a point we can raise in Parliament. This may cost NZ a small amount of income in terms of people who refine the CRU version of our data into competing products. NIWA would need terms that allow it to maintain its budget which means that we’d have to kick in a few bucks.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
5 
0 (+5)
What a surprise, you and your broken record still cannot tell the difference between the record for the planet as a whole, which has repeatedly been shown not to be significantly affected by the UHI, and which is now measured by satellites, and the data for stations in the USA.
Your credibility check just bounced… again.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
3 
0 (+3)
bj,
- “If that is the worst he’s done in 15 years of mail, I have to say “is that all you’ve got”? ”
So manipulating data to “hide the decline”, refusing to reveal the data and processing methods used to generate his results, manipulating the peer-review process to suppress all contradictory evidence and to get only alarmist papers approved (and then to dismiss all contradictory evidence out of hand because it hasn’t been accepted by their rigged peer-review process), telling colleagues to delete all emails relating to a Freedon of Information request relating to the IPCC fourth report (a criminal act) and threatening to delete scientific data rather than provide it under the Freedom of Information Act; and your response is “is that all you’ve got.”
Wow. Just, wow.
This is acceptable science to you?
Wow.
And don’t forget, this is what’s left after he’s deliberately deleted a whole bunch of other emails. This is the stuff he didn’t see fit to delete! And all you say is “is that all you’ve got”?
- “I am concerned about the innocent people your diseased misunderstanding might corrupt.”
Just so long as you don’t try lecturing them on ethics or integrity, bj.
- “No Urban Heat Island effect on the global climate records mate, which it doesn’t. That it has an effect on local microclimate is not at all in doubt.”
Er, the historical global climate record is constructed from lots and lots of local records. It makes no sense whatsoever to say that the local records are affected by the urban heat island effect but the compilation of all those results isn’t.
And incidentally, it is precisely because the UHI effect “has an effect on local microclimate” that NIWA should have examined whether an adjustment should have been made when applying airport numbers to a rural area (maybe they did, maybe they didn’t; we don’t know. What we do know is that these are the people that stuck a weather station on their roof. On their roof, bj! There are standards for the siting of these things.)
As we have seen, it is child’s play to demonstrate the very significant UHI effect. It is largely the fraudulent work of that charlatan Jones that is the justification for ignoring it. When the subject is re-examined – which it certainly now will be – there can be no doubt that a significant re-adjustment will need to be made.
- “As for the Antarctic you fail utterly to retain the notion that science is about gathering more and more information and improving one’s knowledge.”
That’s true. But you misunderstand what you are saying.
Science develops by disproving false ideas that were previously held. However, in this case nothing has been disproved: the studies demonstrating cooling are as valid now as they ever were.
By contrast, Jones et al have been exposed as liars and charlatans. It is their work which has been rendered worthless by the progress of science, and which must now be tossed out and entirely re-worked.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year_last=2009&month_last=10&sat=4&sst=1&type=anoms&mean_gen=1112&year1=2005&year2=2009&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=1200&pol=reg
And don’t forget that the IPCC is up to its neck in this deceit. Just one snippet:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHI2GfbfrYw
Like or Dislike:
0 
9 (-9)
Wot sez: By contrast, Jones et al have been exposed as liars and charlatans.
There is only one liar and charlatan in this thread, and that’s you, Wat. You are a contemptible little worm, prepared to smear, lie and libel in support of your warped political views. The tactics of the morally corrupt, operating to a strategy set by skilled propagandists in the USA.
You are not worthy of engagement or acknowledgement.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Since
“hide the decline” was already explained.
“manipulating the peer review process” was already addressed
“to get only alarmist papers approved” does not conform to the actual facts
“delete all emails relating to a Freedon of Information request” was addressed (note that there was not in fact, an FOI request relating to them at the time)
“threatening to delete scientific data rather than provide it under the Freedom of Information Act;” was addressed ( and no data was deleted)
…and these were private opinions and conversations….
this is what’s left after he’s deliberately deleted a whole bunch of other emails.
…and I trust you have proof that it isn’t merely what is worst after someone filtered out 10 times as many innocuous science related e-mails that were not sufficiently understood.
I thought not.
I may not like his style but it was “acceptable” science. Not good IMHO, and you really OUGHT to read what I think of it, but acceptable, no lies, and he is not shown to be a charlatan. If this is the worst you have, you have nothing.
Your post does not even merit THIS response Wat. You simply don’t have the civility to speak the truth, much less read other peoples opinion before telling them what it is.
Fnck off.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
3 
0 (+3)
bjchip
I am afraid many or our research organisations do not deserve the benefit of the doubt. The measuring station on top of the roof is probably does as serious as the pipe they used to hang out their window to measure vehicle pollution in Auckland. I used to have a photo of it in my computer (before an early hard drive crash) which showed this data collection pipe dangling down by the traffice lights as the intersection of Mountain Rd and Kyhber Pass.
Anhow, I wrote a study which I summarised in a column in NBR in 2008 and neither NIWA nor the ARC every challenged what I said. Note even a letter. The ARC was equally culpable in their claims of contaminated soils. You can read my full report on contaminated soils here.
http://www.rmastudies.org.nz/issues/49-pollution-soil-water-air/72-contaminated-soils-comparative-risks-there-are-no-health-risks-at-the-bottom-of-your-garden
Proper research has reduced the claimed number from 5,000 to six.
And you can read the NBR column here:
http://www.rmastudies.org.nz/issues/49-pollution-soil-water-air/140-why-does-the-arc-employ-analysts
One of my recommendations on how to avoid generating more of the junk science of the kind in Comtaminated Soils etc was:
8.3 Neutral analysis.
One of the greatest inventions of the twentieth century was the double-blind medical trial.
In such a trial, neither those who are the patients in the trial, nor those who administer the
treatments, know which are the genuine drugs and which are the sugar pills.
Unfortunately, so many scientists now depend on patronage, from either the public or private
sector, their science all to often reflects the bias of the patrons who supply the funding.
There is a strong case for keeping the source of the funding secret from the researcher. An
alternative is to have the costs of any research project shared between groups with opposite
interests. For example a study of the pollution of water ways could be funded by the MfE, the
Ministry for Economic Development, Fonterra, and the Royal Forest and Bird Society. Or
each organization could fund four different scientists to carry out the same research.
Justice must be blind and evenly balanced. And so should research. Hence funding should be
blind, balanced or both.
Like or Dislike:
0 
4 (-4)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Like or Dislike:
0 
10 (-10)
Nice to see you’re back, Owen. Now how about you answer my questions?
Do you stand by the NZ CSC’s release of a fatally flawed document?
Do you stand by the use of that to smear respected scientists?
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Praying mantis – prey.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“According to RealClimate there was always a divergence issue in Briffa’s data which is why he recommends against its use post 1960…
I note however, that the data being replaced was being replaced with the instrumental record “real data”. So telling the truth is being regarded as a lie… which is exactly what the denialsphere wants to achieve. “
Fnck off a55hole. I want to know what the temperature was, not when the proxy diverged.
Someone deleted some e-mail 14 months ago and doesn’t remember it… sh!t, I delete several megabytes every 6 months and I don’t run a research organization. If he didn’t remember that event 14 months earlier, and it is a pretty trivial thing to clean up the mail, then it wouldn’t be a lie would it? Do you remember what you did with your e-mail last year Wat? All of it?
Tou don’t actually pay attention. I posted above, the link to the data that has been available for a long time at GISS and NOAA etc. I posted the statement from CRU that said that they would be trying to get releases from all the contributing national MET services… like NIWA.
You disgust me Wat. Your attitude is despicable. YOU want to score stupid points rather than know the truth about what the climate is doing. You have some notion that lying is OK if it is some loon who is smearing NIWA with information distortions for which he has been TOLD the truth, but if someone forgets deleting mail over a year earlier we can’t trust him.
…and you went back to the fncking hockeystick. I;ll take Briffa’s version over yours or McIntyre’s thanks.
I have no more to say to you.
Like or Dislike:
4 
0 (+4)
Peeeeeeeeeuuuuuuuuuuwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww!
(the odium!)
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Holy moly!
Again, independent examination of the “evidence” of the alarmist clique shows what a complete crock it is. And again, it’s only thanks to the leaked emails that we get to see it.
Here, another independent scientist tries to replicate the scary IPCC climate history charts and finds that they have no resemblance whatsoever to the actual data (and have also been incompetently compiled to include major cities, despite the claim that “Major inner cities are excluded” because of the acknowledged urban heat island effect: and yes, it took a Freedom of Information request to get just that detail). These crooks were presented here with hard evidence that their charts did not match the data, yet they just ignored it and carried-on lying through their teeth. Read it and weep:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/29/when-results-go-bad/#more-13373
As the scientist points out, when you look at the actual climate data rather than the fabricated IPCC charts “the often mentioned correlation between temperature and CO2 is not convincing. If there is a factor explaining a major part of changes in the temperature, it is solar irradiation. There are numerous studies demonstrating this correlation but papers are not accepted by IPCC. Most likely, any reduction of CO2 release will have no effect whatsoever on the temperature (independent of how expensive)…I am often asked about why I don’t publish about my views. I have. Just one example of among 100 other I could select is: Karlen, W., 2001: Global temperature forces by solar irradiation and greenhouse gases? Ambio 30(6): 349-350.
Let’s repeat that: “There are numerous studies demonstrating this [solar] correlation but papers are not accepted by IPCC.” And we know why.
bj,
“Fnck off a55hole. I want to know what the temperature was, not when the proxy diverged.”
Well you see, bj, if the proxy diverged from intrumental data when it became available, then clearly it is not a valid temperature proxy, is it?
Put another way, if the proxy is not valid after 1960, why on earth would you think it is valid before? Do you understand?
As for “hiding the decline”
“Even in their Nov 24, 2009 statement, the University of East Anglia failed to come clean about the amount of decline that was hidden. The graphic in their statement continued to “hide the decline” in the Briffa reconstruction by deleting adverse results in the last part of the 20th century. This is what Gavin Schmidt characterizes as a “good thing to do”.
http://camirror.wordpress.com/2009/11/29/still-hiding-the-decline/#more-138
The chart at that page shows the inconvenient truth that was simply left off of the chart.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
if the proxy diverged from intrumental data when it became available, then clearly it is not a valid temperature proxy, is it?
So now we didn’t have thermometers before 1960? What planet do you actually come from Wat? Are you trying to Venusform Earth?
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Prof. Don Easterbrook: “Legitimate scientists do not doctor data, delete data they don’t like, hide data they don’t want seen, hijack the peer review process, personally attack other scientists whose views differ from theirs, send fraudulent data to the IPCC that is used to perpetuate the greatest hoax in the history of science, provide false data to further legislation on climate change that will result in huge profits for corrupt lobbyists and politicians, and tell outright lies about scientific data.”
You know, he’s got a point.
Like or Dislike:
0 
2 (-2)
bjchip,
- “So now we didn’t have thermometers before 1960? What planet do you actually come from Wat? Are you trying to Venusform Earth?”
Er, that’s why it’s a dishonest “trick” bj: because they didn’t switch from proxy data to actual recorded temperatures as soon as it became available: nor did they continue using the proxy data for its entire duration. Rather, they switched at the entirely arbitrary point of the 1960s and they did that for one reason and one reason only – because at that point the proxy data showed a strong decline.
Like or Dislike:
0 
2 (-2)
Solar correlation?
Right.
It isn’t like it hasn’t been part of the act, it just has a supporting, not a leading role in this play.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/03/solar-variability-statistics-vs-physics-2nd-round/
http://www.realclimate.org/wp-content/uploads/PETERLAUT-ANALYSIS-CLIMATE-CHANGE-CPN.pdf
It seems to me that noticing a problem, documenting it and investigating it, using proxies that are working properly in their range, and USING THE ACTUAL TEMPERATURES TO TELL YOU WHAT THE TEMPERATURE IS when you have them, makes a lot of sense.
Calling it a lie is quite clearly an attempt to get people to believe that the actual temperatures are not as important as the fact that there are issues with a particular proxy.
Why don’t people pay attention to the divergence!? Why do they think ill of people who try to change the subject like this?
Because you are polluting the stream of information. We don’t like people who pollute our streams.
What most of us accept, is that until we know what the cause of the divergence is, we can’t fully trust the proxies that diverge in this manner until we discover the cause. The proxies agree with unaffected proxies and the temperature record in the time period that is available before 1960, but if you are concerned about it, leave it (the study) out. Briffa himself will tell you this and is on record to that effect.
What it doesn’t mean is that AGW is broken.
All it means is that this remains a work in progress.
I’m going to stick to shorter answers. It is a work week now. I don’t have that much time for foolishness.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
It wasn’t “entirely arbitrary” it is the point at which the proxy divergence started. Well known. Well documented. A point of study which continues.
If you change the point in the series to the time when they started to have temperatures, the shape of the curve does not change.
I fail to see how this is dishonest in a cover graph for the WMO which is not interested in the source, or the science behind it, merely the indicative temperatures. It is not like they are making any claim about anything but temperatures either…. and it doesn’t make any great difference WHAT proxy you use for the earlier sequence, the shape is fuzzy and the results are the same.
Briffa himself has allowed that there was a WMP and it might have reached temperatures similar to those in the last couple of decades. When we exceed or exceeded it we aren’t going to actually know, the data is not that good.
You keep on claiming dishonesty on the part of honest people. You’ve been shown a number of lies that you don’t appear to mind at all, coming from the denialsphere.
I’m never going to be able to talk with you the way I do with any of the other “deniers” who come here. You just believe whatever is the latest WUWT story and come running here with some exclamation about how damning it all is.
This is what is happening. Happening now. Maybe we need to stop listening to Watt’s spin and Wat’s spin and look at the real stuff.
http://www.ccrc.unsw.edu.au/Copenhagen/Copenhagen_Diagnosis_HIGH.pdf
If we don’t, we’re stuffed.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Since numerous papers supporting solar correlation have been suppressed (and suppressed by the very people who fabricated false climate histories which were used as the contradictory evidence!) this is clearly a subject that is going to be revisited as the various investigations around the world start to shine a light on the fraud.
- “It seems to me that noticing a problem, documenting it and investigating it, using proxies that are working properly in their range, and USING THE ACTUAL TEMPERATURES TO TELL YOU WHAT THE TEMPERATURE IS when you have them, makes a lot of sense.”
But they did nothing of the sort.
They didn’t “USE THE ACTUAL TEMPERATURES” as they became available. They continued with the proxy data right up to the 1960s and only then switched to actual instrument readings for the simple reason that after that point the proxy data showed a sharp decline that they wanted to conceal: hence “hide the decline.”
McIntyre, a reviewer, told them that they shouldn’t do this because the divergence is obviously a very serious issue. He told them not to truncate the inconvenient data. But they ignored it and still got to call their work “peer reviewed.”
By all means they could have overlayed all the instrumental data onto the chart as well as showing the entire proxy record. If the proxies were valid we would have seen how their data closely matched the actual intrumental data. But it doesn’t, so we would instead have seen the enormous divergence and pointed out that it completely invalidates their contention that they are using valid temperature proxies for their hockeysticks. Obviously such a chart would have been devastating to the alarmists.
So instead, they cynically switched from one to the other so that the sharp decline was cut from the chart. Instead of an honest and complete chart which called into question the entire basis of their alarmist claims, we were left with another hockeystick.
- “What it doesn’t mean is that AGW is broken. ”
What it means is that the people who concocted that chart are forgers and crooks.
Like or Dislike:
0 
2 (-2)
What it means is that the people who concocted that chart are forgers and crooks.
For showing the temperature correctly?
That’s a really difficult case to make.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
bj,
Perhaps you should re-read and try to understand what was done. I think everyone else grasps it.
Mann himself wrote at realcensorship: “No researchers in this field have ever, to our knowledge, “grafted the thermometer record onto” any reconstruction. It is somewhat disappointing to find this specious claim (which we usually find originating from industry-funded climate disinformation websites) appearing in this forum.”
Of course, that’s precisely what was done in order to “hide the decline.”
In any other profession or business they would have been prosecuted for fraud.
These guys make Enron look like sticklers for truth and accuracy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
I DID look at what was done ( I won’t defend Mann. I never do. )
However, what was done was to create a CORRECT (within the bounds of error) temperature record.
Now you can argue until you turn blue, but there is no way to construe that as a lie without seriously twisting what is true.
If it were intended to represent that the proxies involved were correct through the period of the divergence, THEN it would be false, a lie, all of the above.
That is not what was done.
The purpose of the graph was to present paleo temperatures for the background information for the WMO. The only requirement of the graph was that it be correct… and preferably not confusing. Not peer reviewed science, just a minor product.
All that was claimed in respect to it was that it represented the temperature for the past however long it was. Which it does.
I see no valid reason to regard this as fraud.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The crooks themselves talk of using a “trick” to “hide the decline.”
There is no scientific basis whatsoever for the abrupt switch from charting proxy data to charting instrumental data right at that time. It was done specifically and solely to “hide the decline” and, by censoring contradictory data, enable them to fabricate a hockeystick.
1) Had they shown the continued proxy data we would all have seen the significant decline in recent temperatures, which contradicts their theory.
2) Had they included the intrument data when it became available, in addition to the continued proxy data, we would have seen how the supposed temperature proxy totally fails to match the actual climate record (which invalidates the entire case they are presenting), in addition to seeing that decline in the proxy trend.
But they did neither of these things.
They used supposed proxy data up until the point where it began contradicting their position, then censored the rest and switched to instrumental data. Result: hockeystick.
They were told at the time to acknowledge this divergence between the intrumental and proxy climate records, because it is obviously a major issue. Yet they ignored it because they were producing propaganda, not science.
Like or Dislike:
0 
2 (-2)
Excuse me Wat.. They reported the temperature. They knew that the tail of the proxy was wrong. You are reaching for the that hockeystick thing again. We’ve been careful to avoid it so far.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v391/n6668/abs/391678a0.html
They didn’t hide the divergence Wat. They ADVERTISED it.
Moreover, a caution appears in the original paper by Briffa. I daresay that the man is telling you not to use the data past 1960.
Why do you insist on doing what you’ve been told NOT to do. Because McIntyre thinks it is a good idea? McIntyre isn’t interested in the temperature at all, he’s interested in scoring points.
Do you also want to see every rejected piece of science and busted data collection as well as the ones that actually have papers published about them?
Science is about finding the truth, it has nothing to do with publishing stuff that doesn’t work for the morbidly curious. The peer review process exists to improve the signal to noise ratio. It works pretty well. People have to publish papers which have meaningful results and they have to be honest about the results they get. Briffa did exactly that with respect to the divergence.
So when making use of the temperature data, the choice of 1960 wasn’t “arbitrary” it was determined by the science telling you not to use anything after that.
Science is also about finding answers to questions that come up in the process, and that is exactly what Briffa et.al. are about doing by publishing about the divergence itself.
Hiding NOTHING with respect to that dataset.
However, since they are simply reporting temperature in this case, for the WMO, not trying to extend their series beyond its known limits, there is no reason not to provide the temperature data they know is correct and there is no reason to provide information they know is NOT correct.
This wasn’t about Briffa’s data. It was about the temperature.
Period.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Just for the record Bucolic Old Henry and some others seem to assume that the Climate Science Coalition is something more than a loose coalition of individuals. It is not an incorporated society and has no board of directors or anything like that. The first I knew of the work by Denekind was when I read the press release.
This latest release makes the position more clear. Denekind and Treadgold are members or another group called the Climate Conversation Group. It is a free country and I cannot be held responsible for the way other people express their opinions – just as I cannot be held responsible for the rudeness and offensive behaviour of Bucolic Old Henry just because we both post entries on this blog. Anyhow – read on for a clearer understanding. And I don’t blame the Green Party for anything silly or offensive anyone says on this blog. Or I try my best to make and understand the distinction. Just notice that Treadgold is from the Group – not the coalition.
“Hokitika weather station adjustments cast doubt on NIWA methods
Following the dramatic release of a revealing comparison between two
sets of NIWA temperature records in a research project by members of the
Climate Conversation Group and the New Zealand Climate Science
Coalition, the researchers now show their methods.
Spokesman for the group, Richard Treadgold, said that this first
“Supplementary Information” paper shows how an examination of the
Hokitika station casts strong doubt on NIWA’s description last week of
adjustments they made to the Wellington record.
“In the case of Wellington, NIWA decided that the 0.8ºC drop between
Thorndon and Kelburn was justified because of the height difference and
the relationship, based purely on similar height, between Thorndon and
Wellington Airport.
“However, as many people have pointed out, you can’t make that
assumption. Here we have a station almost at sea level (Hokitika South)
reading (during the overlap period in the 1960s) on average 0.3ºC colder
than the other one that’s 120 feet (39 metres) higher up (Hokitika
Aero). So the altitude reasoning doesn’t always work.
Until NIWA release their actual adjustments, we’re speculating, since
there could be valid reasons for all this. But it does look very strange
at the moment,” said Mr Treadgold.
The full story is posted at the Climate Conversation Group web site, at
http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2009/11/30/supplementary-information-hokitika/
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
A lot of words, but still no answer to my questions:
My rudeness and offensive behaviour? In holding you to account for a “report” that came from your group and has been defended in a press release by Terry Dunleavy? What’s offensive is that you seem to think you and your fellow travellers can lie and smear respected scientists with no comeback.
You are, sir, a hypocrite and charlatan, and your views therefore unworthy of respect.
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
Sir Henry – you have him rattled, to the point where he’s hoping you’ll just go away! .
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
“You are, sir, a hypocrite and charlatan, and your views therefore unworthy of respect. ”
Look who’s talking!!
Pot meet kettle.
Like or Dislike:
1 
3 (-2)
Point proven.
Seems you cannot even read.
Like or Dislike:
0 
6 (-6)
If you read the second release you might see that I have had some influence on the content in favour of civilised discourse. Something which I enjoy on this blog and which your presence does not enhance.
Like or Dislike:
0 
3 (-3)
Like or Dislike:
3 
0 (+3)
As for civilised discourse: I am not the one acquiescing in lies and smears.
That stuff has gone round the world, pushed by your little denial propaganda team. And you have the effrontery to call me uncivilised.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1 (+2)
Shunda! You’ve saddled-up a wheezing hack to ride into the sunset!
Suits you right!
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
Yep, I liked it too greenfly: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sbv6oeY8PTc
But Steve Tyler, somehow, is still alive!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Gareth, you are just a nasty person, your main argument is based in your constant move to dismiss and your nasty arrogant tone. Since when has mocking and ridicule been a productive element of a “civilised person”. YOU should be ashamed of YOURself.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
Both have points Shunda but one can only hope that they will settle down to some sort of civilized disagreement. I really hate to see them going back and forth like this… it seems so… unnecessary.
It behooves us to not take sides and to mosey out of the line of fire… whistling casually and looking in no direction in particular.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
@bjchip November 26, 2009 at 1:58 PM:
I see Phil Jones has stood down as director of the CRU pending an investigation into allegations against him.
A responsible and sensible thing to do in the circumstances.
Just a pity the cranks can’t be as responsible and sensible, but most of them have nothing to stand down from because they are not scientists. Of the few who are, Chris de Freitas, get the hint?
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
I think it is probably a good move.
I am concerned that it may be seized on by some as evidence that he did worse things than are actually in evidence, but it will help I think and I would hope that the investigation is thorough and open.
Remains to be seen, and probably won’t matter.
If he is cleared of anything the denialsphere has claimed they will shout “cover-up”.
I personally don’t expect him to return soon as he is really NOT the right person for that job. Just come back long enough to decide to resign without the stigma… perhaps.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)