Whenever someone asserts that a scientific question is “settled,” they tell me immediately that they don’t understand the first thing about science. Science is never settled. Dr David Deming
Perhaps the most frustrating aspect of the science of climate change is the lack of any real substance in attempts to justify the hypothesis ~Professor Stewart Franks
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at: http://thepeoplescube.com/lenin/lenin-s-own-20-monster-quotes-t185.html#sthash.aTrSI3tG.dpuf
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at: http://thepeoplescube.com/lenin/lenin-s-own-20-monster-quotes-t185.html#sthash.aTrSI3tG.dpuf
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at: http://thepeoplescube.com/lenin/lenin-s-own-20-monster-quotes-t185.html#sthash.aTrSI3tG.dpuf
Tuesday, 31 July 2012
Apart from having the sort of head you’d never get tired of kicking, AWU boss Paul Howes’ record of protecting workers’ interests is abysmal.
When someone like the HSU East’s Kathy Jackson files a complaint, Bill Shorten shuts her down by placing the union in administration. Anyway, Craig Thomson is nothing but a small fish among schools of sharks in an ongoing feeding frenzy.
Howes’ union crony and co-Rudd assassin, Bill Shorten, does nothing either. (Except to plead it's an isolated case.) In fact, he goes to extreme lengths to obfuscate the blatant theft.
Left wing law firms have become union savvy and unions have become Left wing law firm savvy. Paul Howes, makes no effort to recover those stolen members’ funds. I wonder why.
The Gillard Government is a creation of corrupt unions, is stacked with ex-unionists (more than 50 of them) and protected by corrupt union bosses. The people who could bring down this corrupt Government (Craig Thomson, Doug McClelland and Ian Cambridge) have either been dumped or promoted to the union controlled FWA.
Oakeshott and Windsor will not walk the plank for the sake of this nation.
As an official of the ARU I quickly learnt the modus operandi of major unions. It wasn’t pretty then... it’s grotesquely ugly now.
The silence is deafening from the Left wing law firm, Slater & Gordon, as accusations continue to fly from credible sources.
It seems strange that a law firm would not immediately sue or at least take out an injunction against its accusers. Well, here you go boys, I’ll make it easy for you.
• You (Slater & Gordon) have been complicit in fraudulent activities involving AWU officials.
• You aided and abetted union officials in the theft of funds rightfully belonging to AWU members.
• You knew the accounts those stolen funds moved into and out of were fraudulent accounts set up by a certain Julia Eileen Gillard, your Partner.
How’s that? Enough for you yet? Okay, here’s some more:
• You aided and abetted a Bruce Morton Wilson in the dispersal of those stolen funds.
• You represented your client (the AWU) in clear conflict of interest.
• You provided a loan to Bruce Wilson when you knew the loan assisted in the fraud.
• You have done nothing to recover or assist to recover funds misappropriated by your clients, Bruce Wilson and Ralph Blewitt.
• You refuse to release documentation detailing the above.
Is that enough boys, or should I go on? Come on, it's not that hard, surely. Sue me! You’re a law firm aren’t you? You can even give yourself mates’ rates.
There are more than 250,000 people who will see this article via blogs, 10,000 viral emails, Facebook, “The Pickering Post” and its Facebook. God knows how many they will share it with!
I notice you have bumped up your TV advertisements to convince people of your newfound “ethics”. Are you feeling the pinch?
Waste of money I’d say. Oh, unless it’s not yours.
What is it you say, “No Win, No Fee”? Well, you won’t win this one, so you’re home free. You can’t really lose can you?
Oh, yes you bloody can... and you know it!
You are a disgrace and menace to the industrial law you espouse, the people you represent and to the legal profession in general.
Come clean or come get me, you thieving, degenerate shysters!
|Graphene is an atomic-scale honeycomb lattice |
made of carbon atoms. Image: Wikipedia.
The availability of fresh water is dwindling in many parts of the world, a problem that is expected to grow with populations. One promising source of potable water is the world's virtually limitless supply of seawater, but so far desalination technology has been too expensive for widespread use.
Now, MIT researchers have come up with a new approach using a different kind of filtration material: sheets of graphene, a one-atom-thick form of the element carbon, which they say can be far more efficient and possibly less expensive than existing desalination systems.
Read more at MIT News: http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2012/graphene-water-desalination-0702.html
Seems like a promising idea......but wait, graphene is an allotrope of the dreaded "pollutant" carbon.
Anthony Watts, Evan Jones, Stephen McIntyre and John R Christy have published in draft form a new study on US weather stations at
They apply a new methodology which makes allowances for every possible interfering factor such as proximity to heat sources or concrete, asphalt, runways, tarmac and buildings, area weighted and distance weighted, and quality of equipment and maitenance. They apply these to thirty years of US temperature records from 1979 to 2008.
Using the new Leroy 2010 classification system on the older siting metadata used by Fall et al. (2011), Menne et al. (2010), and Muller et al. (2012), yields dramatically different results.
Using Leroy 2010 methods, the Watts et al 2012 paper, which studies several aspects of USHCN siting issues and data adjustments, concludes that:
These factors, combined with station siting issues, have led to a spurious doubling of U.S. mean temperature trends in the 30 year data period covered by the study from 1979 – 2008.Other findings include, but are not limited to:
- Statistically significant differences between compliant and non-compliant stations exist, as well as urban and rural stations.
- Poorly sited station trends are adjusted sharply upward, and well sited stations are adjusted upward to match the already-adjusted poor stations.
- Well sited rural stations show a warming nearly three times greater after NOAA adjustment is applied.
- Urban sites warm more rapidly than semi-urban sites, which in turn warm more rapidly than rural sites.
- The raw data Tmean trend for well sited stations is 0.15°C per decade lower than adjusted Tmean trend for poorly sited stations.
- Airport USHCN stations show a significant differences in trends than other USHCN stations, and due to equipment issues and other problems, may not be representative stations for monitoring climate.
Also see a lecture that was presented at the recent Heartland Sceptyics conference
Professor Illaniaov shows that the current method of assessing Russian weather stations exaggerates the few (only 4) stations with records before 1859 and impose the urban heating from these stations on the whole set, however large. Since Russia has 11.5% of the total land area of the world.it has a large influence on global figures, which are themselves affected by a similar error..
"It's not what you don't know that fools you. It's what you do know that ain't so." ~Josh Billings
Sustainability is impossible. There are only two directions; forward and backward.
The Sydney Morning Herald has an article today ( reprinted from the New York Times):(LINK)
|Cartoons by Josh|
How I saw past the hot air on climate (LINK)
Monday, 30 July 2012
Alex was a dedicated member of the Sceptics and, for our first campaign - the Bradfield By-Election - he first thought of the NO CARBON TAX motto and the symbol as seen in the page header above.
Alex was also the Chairman of the Australian Environment Foundation (LINK)
Alex Stuart was born in Canberra, grew up in Asia, and went to high school in Victoria. He graduated in economics and political science at the University of Melbourne and pursued graduate studies in the UK and US. After starting a business career overseas, Alex was active in international trade in beef and pork products, and later managed the American food manufacturing subsidiary of Dalgety & Co. He was appointed Regional Director of the Americas for Austrade and has subsequently been active in new ventures and technology-based small business.
Another part of his multifaceted life was as a member of the Northern Beaches Hash House Harriers (NBH3).
The NBH3 have made the following YouTube tribute.
Passed away suddenly,
July 23, 2012. Aged 68.
Loving partner of Susie. Former husband of Marcia, loving father of Stephanie, Julia, Catharine, Andrew (Zander) and Tessa, brother of Charles, James and Sabrina.
Much loved and will be sadly missed.
There have been no prosecutions, no Royal Commissions, and with the AWU - the media has been gagged.
Now Michael Smith - a commentator courageous enough to put his job on the line - uncovering the scandal which has engulfed the trade union movement in Australia.
See also Julia Gillard and Bruce Wilson and Union Funds (LINK)
Sunday, 29 July 2012
|Montage Image: Dallydom Pix (copyright used with permission)|
Something Wicked This Way Comes;
taking vigorous action on climate change will damage or slow the economy. Quite the opposite seems to be the case.
On the one hand, we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but...which means that we must include all the doubts, caveats, ifs, and buts."On the other hand, we are not just scientists, but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we have to get loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.
Something’s happened. From now until Sunday July 29th, around Noon PST, WUWT will be suspending publishing. At that time, there will be a major announcement that I’m sure will attract a broad global interest due to its controversial and unprecedented nature.This set the blog world agog
- Bishop Hill -BEST guess is 1/5
- Real Science - My Anthony Theory
- Australian Climate Madness - "Something's happened" - indicates it was unplanned.
- Jo Nova - Watts Up Speculaltion Thread.
- Godlike Productions - ClimateGate lll
- Climate Depot - Shadow of WUWT.
- And on Facebook "There is no Greenhouse Effect" Mann versus Ball case possibly????
|Cartoons by Josh|
BEST is not best, as Josh puts it - Skewered by TITANthony.
See WUWT Press Release HERE
See also analysis by Dr Joanne Nova - HERE
The big news is out on Watts Up: Half the trend is due to badly placed thermometers and erroneous adjustments
A global warming skeptic who's a lot smarter than Al Gore
Paul mentions that he is reading a book "Project Orion: The True Story of the Atomic Spaceship." about Dyson written byhis son George.
Ever since the 1980s one of my favorite authors in the realm of science has been Freeman Dyson.The Princeton physicist has written books on a wide range of topic, from the potential perils of nuclear weapons to discoveries in the human genome.
He thus gets a good laugh at all of the simplifiers of science, such as Gore and the rest of the what I like to call the climate scientology cult.See other NCTCS posts on Freeman Dyson HERE and HERE.
Anyone who knows anything about science realizes that something as complex as the Earth's atmosphere offers too many variables to be understood in a matter of mere years.
Research is just beginning into the role of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, yet the climate scientologists claim to know exactly what effect each tiny increment of CO-2 will have on the environment.
Read more of Paul Mulshine's article HERE.
H/t Marc Morano
Friday, 27 July 2012
link) and expanded it in part 2 for the Frontier Centre for Public Policy (link)
by Tom Harris
Rethinking Stephen Harper’s climate strategy (Part 1)
U.S. experience shows that Canadian government must lead public opinion if we are to avoid another KyotoThe 15 year battle in Canada over the Kyoto Protocol ended last week when the Federal Court ruled that the Stephen Harper government's withdraw from the agreement was legal. Countries that do not meet their emission targets and did not withdraw before the end of 2011, as allowed by Kyoto’s Article 27, will soon have to face the music for having violated the treaty. Thanks to our Government’s clear thinking, Canada will not be one of those nations.
But the Canadian Government, and many others in developed countries, have not been so clear-thinking when it comes to future international climate commitments. Unwittingly, they are getting us back into another Kyoto.
At the climate conference in South Africa in December, delegates from 194 countries, including Canada and the U.S., agreed to the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action. Under this agreement, the Canadian, American and other governments pledged to work with the UN to establish, by 2015, a global apparatus to force countries to enable legally-binding greenhouse gas reduction plans starting in 2020. Environment Minister Peter Kent boosts the plan, saying repeatedly, “we support the establishment of a single, new international climate change agreement that includes greenhouse gas reduction commitments from all major emitters.”
The Durban plan advances, “in a balanced fashion”, the UN asserts, the implementation of the December 2010 Cancun Agreements that Canada, the U.S. and many other countries say provides the framework for future legally-binding deals. U.S. Special Envoy for Climate Change, Todd Stern stated that the Cancun Agreement “is a very good step and a step that’s very much consistent with U.S. interests and will help move...the world down a path toward a broader global response to changing – to stopping climate change.”
But western counties are being hoodwinked again. Cancun has an opt-out clause for developing countries that allow them to agree to legally-binding emission cuts but then never actually carry them out. Developed nations do not have this option. Cancun states this twice, as follows:
- “...Parties should cooperate in achieving the peaking of global and national greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible, recognizing that the time frame for peaking will be longer in developing countries, and bearing in mind that social and economic development and poverty eradication are the first and overriding priorities of developing countries…”
- “Reaffirming that social and economic development and poverty eradication are the first and overriding priorities of developing country Parties, and that the share of global emissions originating in developing countries will grow to meet their social and development needs…”
Since actions to significantly reduce GHG emissions will usually interfere with development priorities, developing countries will soon realize that an agreement based on Cancun will not limit their emissions. Such a treaty would then work in the same asymmetric fashion as Kyoto.
Under the Cancun Agreement, UN monitoring is to be much more intrusive in developed countries than in developing countries.
For example, the world is expected to simply believe China when they assert that certain domestic GHG reductions have been accomplished - the UN cannot inspect. This has the strong potential to result in significant reporting fraud as has occurred in a number of other fields concerning China (see here and here for recent examples). International inspection and monitoring of developed countries’ emissions will be very strict, however. Here is a sample of what is to come if the UN get their way. It is hard to imagine the UN “rebuking” China “for poor reporting of progress to cut greenhouse gases” or “ordering” China to do anything, as they have done with Australia.
If a Cancun Agreement-based treaty becomes international law, we will have little idea of what emission cuts will actually be happening in countries such as China. Once again, there will be anything but a level playing field between developed and developing countries no matter what politicians say.
In the final analysis, the only really significant difference between a Cancun-based greenhouse gas reduction treaty and Kyoto may be that developing countries are expected to submit their intended emission cuts to the UN. But their obligations to carry those cuts into effect would appear to be essentially meaningless. The current approach is clearly designed to persuade the United States to participate in an agreement for binding international emission limits. Then, the U.S. and everyone else would be effectively included in an extension to the Kyoto Protocol after all.
The only solution that makes sense for Canada and the U.S., and indeed all developed nations, is to get out of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC) that spawned the Kyoto, Cancun and Durban agreements in the first place. Like Kyoto, the FCCC text lays out simple steps for withdrawal, stipulating that, “Any Party that withdraws from the Convention shall be considered as also having withdrawn from any protocol to which it is a Party.”
But the Canadian government is afraid to do this, thinking they must wait for public opinion to change before they can take sensible action. Learn why this approach is a serious mistake in part 2 of this article. (below)
Rethinking Stephen Harper’s climate strategy (Part 2)
U.S. experience shows that Canadian government must lead public opinion if we are to avoid another KyotoIn part 1 of this article, I outline how developed nations are being hoodwinked by the United Nations again on climate change. Our governments are pulling us into another Kyoto Protocol where only developed countries will be held to emission limits. Canada, and all developed nations need to withdraw from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC) that spawned the Kyoto, Cancun and Durban agreements in the first place.
Last month’s Angus Reid public opinion poll found, almost three-in-five Canadians still believe that global warming “is mostly caused by emissions from vehicles and industrial facilities.” Government strategists have obviously therefore concluded then that they must continue to play along with the climate scare until public opinion changes. Consequently, the Government continues to support alarm, telling us that “scientists agree”, we are causing a climate crisis and so we must reduce GHG emissions to prevent a two degree temperature rise. That none of this makes sense is immaterial. Government cannot lead public opinion, they assume.
But recent research shows that this is not the case at all.
In “Shifting public opinion on climate change: an empirical assessment of factors influencing concern over climate change in the U.S.” published in February in the scientific journal Climatic Change, Professors R. J. Brulle of the Department of Culture and Communications at Drexel University in Philadelphia, J. Carmichael of McGill University and J. C. Jenkins of Ohio State University showed that the stated positions of politicians and other “elites” in society is the major factor driving public opinion. Their analysis, based on the construction of “aggregate opinion measures” from 74 separate surveys over a 9-year period, supported the 2009 conclusion of Harvard University’s Susan McDonald that “When elites have consensus, the public follows suit and the issue becomes mainstreamed. When elites disagree, polarization occurs, and citizens rely on other indicators…to make up their minds.”
Brulle and his colleagues showed that, beginning in the first quarter of 2006 and continuing until the third quarter of 2007, when prominent Republicans worked with the Democrats in support of the dangerous human-caused global warming hypothesis, the public was far more supportive of this position. ”These elite cues worked to increase concern about this topic”, Brulle et al said, as did the release of Al Gore’s film, An Inconvenient Truth.
But starting in 2008, the Republicans split with the Democrats on climate change, and coupled with increased unemployment, this led to a sudden drop in the fraction of the public who ‘"worried a great deal" about climate change”’ – see graph here.
Brulle explains, “when politicians focus on climate change, their statements are transmitted to the public via the media. The media will cover the issue if it deemed newsworthy. This then influences public opinion. So by not talking about climate change, the politicians diminish media attention to the issue, and thus public concern goes down.”
There are important lessons in this for Canada’s Conservative Government:
1 – Support for the climate scare remains significantly higher in Canada than in the U.S. largely because the issue has become mainstreamed with all party support in our country, while political opinion on the issue is polarized in America. Clearly, Environment Minister Peter Kent’s strong advocacy of the climate scare must stop if the Government wants Canadian public support for action “to stop climate change” to diminish;
2 – Climate alarmism needs to be quietly purged from Canadian government Websites and other communications. Even a neutral stance is preferable to David Suzuki-like proclamations on Environment Canada’s Website.
3 – The Government must talk about the issue much less. Instead of making child-like assertions about stopping climate change, which is of course impossible, they need to quietly set the stage so that the public can more frequently hear the voices of qualified, independent skeptics. Supporting an advertised-as-neutral climate science and energy conference, inviting in experts from all reputable points of view, would be a start. So would occasionally bringing up, in the House of Commons and interviews, the growing credibility of the worldwide skeptic (AKA “realist”) movement, as a reason for going slow on (and eventually cancelling) greenhouse regulations.
The Harper government has made a small start on this already, with the Senate leading the way. On the morning of December 15, 2011, The Senate Standing Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources heard from four expert witnesses about the science and economics of climate change – see here. This was the first time since 2005 that scientists who do not accept the hypothesis that humanity’s carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions are causing dangerous global warming were permitted to testify before a Canadian government committee. This was followed by important climate realist speeches in the Senate by Senator Nancy Greene-Raine of British Columbia and Senator Bert Brown of Alberta. Hearings into the realist view of the science of climate change should be repeated by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development as soon as possible. Listening to scientists from only one side of this intensely controversial issue, as this committee has done for many years, is irresponsible.
4 – Kent and his cabinet peers should support adaptation to climate change as a more cost effective and humane approach to the file, devoting the bulk of our resources to helping real people today cope with deadly threats such as droughts and floods. Putting the vast majority of climate change monies into vainly trying to stop what might happen late in the century, as is happening around the world today, is irrational and immoral, the Government could say.
Simply waiting for public opinion to change while the Government itself helps feed the fire that threatens to burn down our economy, is obviously a serious mistake. It’s time for the Canadian government to help lead public opinion if Canada is to avoid another Kyoto.
History Of How The Hockey Stick Was Manufactured
There wasn’t any hockey stick prior to the year 2000.
The 1990 IPCC report showed that temperatures were much cooler than 800 years ago.
Steve then details, with graphs, the original IPCC graph showing the MWP and the LIA (See image) followed by Briffa's tree proxies; 1975 NAS report; NCAR graph; USHCN daily temperature data; GISS graph; etc etc
Hansen getting rid of the 1910-1940 warm period gave Mann cover to claim that something was wrong with Briffa’s trees – and throw them out. This opened the door for the creation of hockey stick.
Once the flood gates opened, they went nuts – erasing the MWP and LIA, erasing the 1930s and jacking up recent temperatures. All over the world, the past got cooler and the present got warmer.
Real Science concludes:
And now we have this completely manufactured temperature trend. The spike that we see is indeed Mann-made, and Hansen-made.
See all at Real Science.
Thursday, 26 July 2012
He recently addresses Sandia National Laboratories' Climate Change and National Security Speaker Series.
Richard Lindzen, a global warming skeptic, told about 70 Sandia National Laboratories researchers in June that too much is being made of climate change by researchers seeking government funding. He said their data and their methods did not support their claims.
“Despite concerns over the last decades with the greenhouse process, they oversimplify the effect. Simply cranking up CO2 [carbon dioxide] (as the culprit) is not the answer” to what causes climate change."For 30 years, climate scientists have been “locked into a simple-minded identification of climate with greenhouse-gas level. … That climate should be the function of a single parameter (like CO2) has always seemed implausible. Yet an obsessive focus on such an obvious oversimplification has likely set back progress by decades,” Lindzen said.
There is little evidence that changes in climate are producing extreme weather events, he said. “Even the IPCC says there is little if any evidence of this. In fact, there are important physical reasons for doubting such anticipations.”
Real-world observations do not support IPCC models, he said: “We’ve already seen almost the equivalent of a doubling of CO2 (in radiative forcing) and that has produced very little warming.”
He disparaged proving the worth of models by applying their criteria to the prediction of past climatic events, saying, “The models are no more valuable than answering a test when you have the questions in advance.”
Read more at LabManager and WUWT.
Wednesday, 25 July 2012
NZCLIMATE TRUTH NEWSLETTER NO 297
Teaching of science and mathematics is now in rapid decline in our schools. Science has been replaced by the pseudo subject "the environment" and you are lucky if you can get a school leaver or even a graduate who can give exact change, let alone complete an income tax form.
As a chemist I deplore the current ignorance of basic chemistry.. All chemicals are "toxic". The whole universe, including all living things and all food substances, is made out of chemicals and toxicity is a matter of entirely dependent on concentration and degree of supposed harm So for that matter, is radioactivity.
When I worked for the Forensic Division of the DSIR the police were always bringing in unknown white powders for identification . If they were crystalline a quick look under the microscope would find common salt (cubic) and sugar (anorthic). A flame would tell you flour, chalk (red colour) and soap powder (yellow flame). A pH test would give citric acid. I do not recall any other. Yet today it takes weeks with sophisticated computerised machines to identify these. If they are spilled on the road it is a national emergency and a media event. You even have to put on goggles and protective gear to deal with ordinary salt.
Statistical mathematics has basic assumptions which render its use invalid if they are not met.
In order to obtain any sort of average there are several essential conditions before the result should be believed.
The sample must be random. and representative. This requirement is built in to all industrial quality specifications.
I remember an occasion when I worked for the Coal Research Association when a shipment of coal from Lyttleton to Japan was rejected because the Japanese got a different value for its analysis than we did, so it had to return. Getting a random, representative sample before analysing it was quite an exercise.
People doing public opinion surveys and medical experiments often fail to get a truly representative sample, so their predictions must always be questioned. TV polls are useless and I often wonder whether the few set-top boxes which enable the TV people to decide how many people view ads really work.
It is quite impossible to measure the average temperature of the earth's surface as we cannot put measuring devices in a random representative manner over the entire surface. 71% is ocean and there are large regions of desert, forest,, mountain and ice. the temperature is also strongly dependent on time and altitude so it would have to be instantaneous. Since this is impossible, it is also impossible to claim that the average is increasing or decreasing. There is therefore no logical or scientific basis for the claim that there is "global warming", a steady increase in the average temperature of the earth's surface..
Temperature measurements at weather stations are a valuable guide to local weather. Efforts are made to reduce variability by the use of standard measuring equipment and screens, but these have changed over the years. but no weather forecaster would ever claim figures more accurate than the nearest degree Celsius. They never use decimals of a degree.
Efforts to make use of these measurements to provide a very poor substitute for a global average are not only defeated by the lack of representivity. No weather station ever measures a daily average temperature. Even the most modern automatic weather stations, which are capable of providing a daily average, have never done so
Instead , until recently, only the maximum and minimum are measured. The average of these two does not give a mathematically acceptable average.
Then, the observations when plotted against value, must be symmetrical; otherwise there is no recognisable average. Gary Kerkin recently plotted distribution curves for two sets of maximum and minimum measurements from New Zealand weather stations and found they were bimodal, that is to say there were two maxima. The arithmetic average therefore is not the most probable figure.
Even if they were symmetrical they have to mimic the Gaussian bell curve upon which the mathematics depend. Without that you cannot calculate the variability. It has become conventional to calculate the "standard deviation" or "standard error" which is performed readily from a "scientific" calculator. or a computer spreadsheet. It is common practice to regard two standard deviations from the mean as representing 95% of the observations; in other words there is one chance in 20 that any individual measurement will fall outside it. This figure tends to be adopted even when the chance of falling outside this range is unacceptable, such as adverse reactions from a new drug..
The processing of individual maximum and minimum temperatures into what is termed the "annual global temperature anomaly" consists of the averaging of a whole year of individual figures. subtracting the average minimum from the average maximum., carrying out this procedure for every weather station in a 5ºx5º box on a map, averaging all the boxes, and then subtracting them from the average of all the boxes for a reference period. Each of these procedures incurs large inaccuracies for each average, which when added up must surely amount to several degrees, yet the figures obtained are regarded as constants without any inaccuracy for each year in a time series. These unexpected constants are called "data" and many people seem to think that they are accurate representations of global temperature. A nominal inaccuracy is sometimes claimed, but is far below what it should be.
This sequence is then subjected to a statistical procedure called "linear regression", again, a calculation available on every "scientific" calculator and every computer spreadsheet. The objective is to seek to determine a "trend" which can be of value in future temperature prediction..
However the mathematics behind the theory of linear regression mean that it can only be used if all the samples are obtained in identical circumstances, with only one variable as the argument. It should only be used for short period time series where identical samples can be guaranteed. It is quite unsuitable for annual climate time series since conditions always change over time, and any "trend" exaggerates the importance of the least known and least reliable earliest measurements. Its use for "trends" of "Global temperature anomalies" is quite illegitimate, as it tends to identify past bias but not trends of the temperature variable. It is also unsuitable for long-term sea level trends, since earlier sea level measurements are prone to downward bias from the action of storms, local ground subsidence and dredging of harbours. ""Trends" should be based on recent, most reliable measurements in both cases.
Not only are weather stations not representative, the extent that this is so changes every second as stations are removed, added, or altered somewhere in the world. A genuine "temperature anomaly" is impossible.
This is so obvious that even the scientists who have the effrontery to claim validity for this system consider that it needs to be "corrected" for "uncertainties. The process by which they do this is called "HOMOGENIZATION". At last I have got round to the title of this Newsletter..
The procedures used for "homogenization" are difficult to discover and seem to be largely intended to cause the "trend" in the "temperature anomaly" to rise. The success in this objective is modest, less than one degree per century and even this has petered out during the past ten years. These "corrections" can only concern a very few of the differences between the many non standardized weather station observations.
There have been very few attempts to check whether their assumptions can be justified. Anthony Watts found that such a simple matter as changing the screen treatment from whitewash to latex paint made a difference of about half a degree, but this correction is never done. There are many studies which show that weather stations are affected by increases in local buildings, the use of concrete or local traffic, but no "correction" is applied. Since glass is a cooled liquid, liquid in glass thermometers read high if not regularly calibrated, but calibration certificates do not seem to be part of the archives,. No study has ever been done to find out whether changing the location of a site makes a difference by parallel studies with both sites. Gaps in the record are "guessed" by taking the average of "neighbouring" sites, which are sometimes far away. Recently it was found that when Bolivia failed to supply measurements for two years in a row, they took the average of the nearest sites, on the warmer coast of South America, and compounded the error by adding an amount to compensate for the high elevation of the country of Bolivia. This made Bolivia the warmest place in the world for two years.
The most recent scandal has arisen because two Greek scientists Steirou and Kotsoyannis (attached) have uncovered another error in "homogenization" which should be obvious.
It is assumed, not only that all the "mean daily" temperatures were obtained under identical circumstances, but that they are independent of one another. Well, all of us know that this is not true. The temperature one day not independent of the next day or the one before. They found that if you assume wrongly that they are independent and put it into the "homogenization" it automatically reduces the older figures and increases the more recent figure. so you get an increased "trend" which helps you "prove" global warming.
Another "homogenization" procedure that is dubious is that it is assumed that "Outliers" of more than three times the standard deviation should be eliminated. Now it happens to be true that the Gaussian Bell curve is often useful near the average, but rarely so at the outliers, which usually occur much more frequently than the maths assume. This why we are always getting "hundred year" extreme events such as floods or heat waves that occur more frequently. To eliminate outliers altogether seriously damages the result.
S and K found that important changes in thermometers and screens were not allowed for.
Weather stations have recently changed to automatic measurement, but there has been no comparison on the same site, between the automatic equipment and the previous system to see whether it makes a difference. Automatic measurement means that there there is not even an observer at the site at all so anything that goes wrong may not be known.
This half-baked unscientific system is helping to justify stopping the building power stations, running cars or prospecting for oil and gas.
"It's not what you don't know that fools you. It's what you do know that ain't so." ~ Josh Billings
Sustainability is impossible. There are only two directions; forward and backward.
When friends ask me why your organisation runs such opposing views on climate change - on Fox News’ claims that it’s all bunkum to The Australian newspaper occasionally claiming it’s accepted science – I am able to say,“it’s simple. It’s all about making more money.
As you control 70% of the print media is Australia