Looking at his scientific work today gives an insight into why the people at the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) and the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit were so annoyed with Daly’s work and why he was such a thorn in the side of their climate theories and research.
Archive for the ‘books’ Category
Tim Ball has a new book out. ‘The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science’ is a hard hitting critique of the development of the co2 scare covering the whole sorry saga from the inception of the IPCC up to present. I’m reproducing the preface here with his permission in order to promote this great read to as wide an audience as possible. Tim is still in the throes of dealing with the moribund lawsuit Mickey Mann launched against him after he quipped that Mann should be in the state pen rather than at Penn State. Please consider buying his book in order to support his effort to defend himself against the combined resourses of Mann and his financial backers.
The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science
by Dr Tim Ball – Stairway Press January 21, 2014
Then up and spent the evening walking with my wife, talking; and it thundering and lightening mightily all the evening—and this year have had the most thunder and lightening, they say, of any in man’s memory.
—Diary of Samuel Pepys, entry for July 3, 1664
I’ve studied climate both scientifically and academically for over forty years after spending eight years studying meteorology and observing the weather as an aircrew and operations officer in the Canadian Air Force. When I began the academic portion of my career, global cooling was the concern, but it was not a major social theme. During the 1980s the concern switched to global warming which became a major political, social and economic issue.
I watched my chosen discipline—climatology—get hijacked and exploited in service of a political agenda, watched people who knew little or nothing enter the fray and watched scientists become involved for political or funding reasons—willing to corrupt the science, or, at least, ignore what was really going on. The tale is more than a sad story because it set climatology back thirty years and damaged the credibility of science in general.
We can do this. Today, people around the world are coming together to say no more.
GCHQ in the UK and the NSA in America are hoovering up your personal data when you visit websites, send emails and texts, make calls and use social media and sharing the data with each other.
When I first heard these revelations from Edward Snowden, it was overwhelming. Now though, we’ve got an ambitious plan to change UK surveillance for good.
The Day We Fight Back is today.
Around ten days ago I made an enquiry to Copernicus (the innovative science unpublishers) asking when they would be billing me for the order I made at the end of 2013. It turned out they had forgotten to do so, and they provided an invoice for a fresh order on Jan 27, 10 days after they axed the journal.
No system is perfect, and sometimes papers with errors in them get past peer review into the scientific literature via journal publication. The checks and balances in the system operate to deal with this. The scientific method works through the process of the proposal and rebuttal of hypotheses, conducted in the scientific literature in as rational and objective manner as possible. If one group of scientists get papers published and another group believe their work to contain errors, they write a rebuttal paper pointing out the errors and get it published in the same journal the original work was published in, or in another journal if the editors don’t accept their rebuttal paper.
However, in the highly politicised and emotive world of climate science, things work differently, as the excerpts from the email chain below demonstrate:
> >>>—–Original Message—–
> >>>From: Phil Jones [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> >>>Sent: Wednesday, 16 April 2003 6:23 PM
> >>>To: Mike Hulme; Barrie.Pittock@xxxx.au
> >>>email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; Greg.Ayers@xxxxx.au;
> >>>Rick.Bailey@xxxxx.au; Graeme.Pearman@xxxxx.au Subject: Re: Recent
> >>>climate sceptic research and the journal Climate Research
> >>> (more…)
An Unbelievable Decision
Handling editor of the Special Issue of PRP
The idea that the planetary motions affect and control the solar variability is old, but in the stage of an unproven hypothesis. In recent years major advancements have occurred and in 2013, it seemed that time was ripe for a major, multi-authored, reinvestigation. Therefore, a Special Issue of Pattern Recognition in Physics was devoted to: “Pattern in solar variability, their planetary origin and terrestrial impacts”.
The volume includes 12 separate research papers and General Conclusions, co-authored by 19 prominent scientists. Indeed, they agreed that the driving factor of solar variability must emerge from the planetary beat on the Sun, and by that its emission of luminosity and Solar Wind both factors of which affect the Earth-Moon system.
Doug has posted an essay, book review with wider commentary
I’m reading “American Betrayal”, by Diana West, macmillan (2013).
It is concerned with not the fact of Soviet influence (through placement and support of specific pro-Communist figures in the WWII+) American government, but with the refusal to recognize American political (and military and intelligence) life had been infiltrated by agents working against American (and British) best interests. Her book is a polemic, unfortunately, a rant written in a self-indulgent way that will be easy to dismiss as shrieking from a soapbox in Hyde Park. But her point is extremely well made and very, very pertinent to our on-going fight about CAGW: it is not the facts that are in dispute but the “implication” (her term) of those facts. To accept the implication of Soviet penetration is to accept that our view of the last 70 years is false, that the control and decision-making of our wise fathers was not for our but of Stalinist betterment. This is a paradigm shift that is simply unacceptable so as each unassailable point comes up, something is done to destroy the reputation of the teller, or negate the point as a “detail” within a broader, “normal” background.
Mike Hume asks:
What has changed since Climategate?
(9 August) ‘The 97.1% consensus’. While I was away on holiday, my criticism at Making Science Public of the Cook et al. study in Environmental Research Letters attracted a fair amount of comment on several climate blogs (for example see here). In partial response I have posted here an extract from one of my new essays (‘After Climategate … never the same’) which appears in my latest book, published yesterday by Routledge (see below).
Greenland Ice Cap Research
Dansgaard is the father of radioisotope ice history. This is his story from discovering about rain through to Vostok ice core.
Edited by The Department of Geophysics of
The Niels Bohr Institute for Astronomy, Physics and Geophysics at
The University of Copenhagen, Denmark.
From Breitbart.com H/T Benny Peiser
Breitbart News can exclusively report on Tuesday night that the Chinese Academy of Sciences has translated and published a Chinese edition of two massive climate change volumes originally published by The Heartland Institute in 2009 and 2011.
The volumes, Climate Change Reconsidered and Climate Change Reconsidered: 2011 Interim Report, are chock full of 1,200 pages of peer-reviewed data concerning the veracity of anthropogenic climate change. Together, they represent the most comprehensive rebuttal of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change findings, which have been the basis of the climate change legislation movement across the planet.
Wikipedia tells us:
He is the chairman of the John Ray Initiative, an organisation “connecting Environment, Science and Christianity”, where he has compared the stewardship of the Earth, to the stewardship of the Garden of Eden by Adam and Eve. He is a founder member of the International Society for Science and Religion. He is also the current president of the Victoria Institute.
Jon Jones alerted me to a press cutting this morning. I was amazed:
Early examination of IPCC AR5 shows lessons not learned on grey literature.
Originally posted on NoFrakkingConsensus:
I’ve had a bad experience with a FoxNews reporter in the past. Which was why Charles Couger apologized for an offense he had nothing to do with and promised to behave professionally.
His story appeared earlier today and is titled Leaked UN climate report slammed for citing WWF, Greenpeace. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a big, complicated bureaucracy. Anyone who hasn’t been studying it for a while has a difficult time making sense of things. Couger has done an admirable job.
The full text of our e-mail interview follows, with a typo corrected and links to my book inserted:
1. Is the WWF an “activist” group?
On its website, the WWF invites people to join its “environmental campaigning community” (see here, under the “Take action” subheading). It’s therefore accurate to describe the WWF as
- an activist group
- a pressure group (a term often used in…
View original 1,397 more words
Tags: Richard Tol
The energetic Richard Tol has completed the first draft of his new book, and made it available online for open review. Excellent work, and excellent idea. To gauge Richards attitude to the climate debate, this quote should suffice:
Climate research is rather controversial. Good introductions to the controversy are Mike Hulme’s book Why we disagree about climate change: Understanding controversy, inaction, and opportunity, Donna Laframboise’ book The delinquent teenager who was mistaken for the world’s top climate expert and Andrew W. Montford’s book The hockey stick illusion: Climategate and the corruption of science.
Originally posted on Pointman's:
A substantial second leak, already nicknamed the Secret Santa leak, of further portions of the forthcoming IPCC AR5 has just occurred. There was a smaller leak of material last year, which was owned up to by the person who did it on their blog.
While everyone is no doubt considering how on Earth to work their way through a gigabyte of dense reading material, my first thoughts before plunging in myself is to wonder if the leaker is perhaps the same person or persons, commonly called FOIA, who leaked the original climategate material.
What caught my eye is the tradecraft used to deliver it. The data was sent to Donna Laframboise a week before Christmas on three USB memory sticks. Apart from a posting address, any forensics would be minimal, especially if Donna has done the usual post-Christmas clear out of all envelopes, wrapping paper, packaging etc etc. I hope you’ve done that Donna. Apart from the three sticks…
View original 355 more words
A well known and loved British science personality, Sir Patrick Moore, has died at the age of 89. The voice of popular astronomy for more than half a century, his monocled presentation of ‘The Sky at Night’ on BBC TV was a fixture in many astronomers almanacs. This article has just been posted on the BBC website:
He “passed away peacefully at 12:25 this afternoon” at his home in Selsey, West Sussex, they said in a statement.
Sir Patrick presented the BBC programme The Sky At Night for over 50 years, making him the longest-running host of the same television show ever.
Here’s an interesting article which was published in ‘Punch’ in 1976. My thanks to Ian Laidlaw for providing copy. It provides some historical context to the climate debate, and shows not much has changed in terms of uncertainty. It’s also a fun, well written piece. Following that, some more very british humour from Marriot Edgar, for the amusement of those hit by flooding this weekend.
Here’s a nice freebie from the Institute Of Physics; a special issue of ‘Physics World’ looking at animals which employ interesting physics in their daily lives. Grab the link below the break.
Our old friend Josh has sent me flyer for his 2013 calendar. This is great idea for a stocking filler, buy one (or more) for your climate friends (or foes) and support Josh’s fantastic (and mostly unpaid) work.See below the break for the description and ordering instructions. Humour is a powewrful force in shaping ideas, and Josh’s talent speaks volumes for his insight into the important factors in the climate debate.
Hans Jelbring has kindly sent me seven copies of his successfully defended 1998 Doctoral Thesis ‘Wind Controlled Climate’ from Sweden. Nicely produced and bound, these are rare. I’m keeping one, and to cover production and postal costs from Sweden, these copies are for sale at the special introductory price of £12 inc VAT + postage to your location.
Given this historical moment as the momentum gathers around the new understanding of the causes of the atmospheric thermal enhancement, and Hans Jelbring’s authorship of an early paper pointing the way to a study of other planets as the correct method of confirming the effect of atmospheric mass rather than composition as the major cause of surface temperature level above grey-body baseline, this is a truly smart investment, and a bargain.
My thanks to Ned Nikolov, who has sent me a paper by Richard Lindzen, recently retired professor of Meorology at MIT. This work is of prime importance to those interested in the issues surrounding the development of science in society, and the outcome in climate science. Names are named, and some dirty washing hung out to air.
Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions?
Richard Lindzen 2012 www.euresisjournal.org
For a variety of inter-related cultural, organizational, and political reasons, progress in climate science and the actual solution of scientific problems in this field have moved at a much slower rate than would normally be possible. Not all these factors are unique to climate science, but the heavy influence of politics has served to amplify the role of the other factors. By cultural factors, I primarily refer to the change in the scientific paradigm from a dialectic opposition between theory and observation to an emphasis on simulation and observational programs. The latter serves to almost eliminate the dialectical focus of the former. Whereas the former had the potential for convergence, the latter is much less effective. The institutional factor has many components. One is the inordinate growth of administration in universities and the consequent increase in importance of grant overhead. This leads to an emphasis on large programs that never end. Another is the hierarchical nature of formal scientific organizations whereby a small executive council can speak on behalf of thousands of scientists as well as govern the distribution of ‘carrots and sticks’ whereby reputations are made and broken. The above factors are all amplified by the need for government funding. When an issue becomes a vital part of a political agenda, as is the case with climate, then the politically desired position becomes a goal rather than a consequence of scientific research. This paper will deal with the origin of the cultural changes and with specific examples of the operation and interaction of these factors. In particular, we will show how political bodies act to control scientific institutions, how scientists adjust both data and even theory to accommodate politically correct positions, and how opposition to these positions is disposed of.