tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-87685421395866230032024-03-05T16:22:16.321-08:00Really Sciency<center><big> A look at Climate Change and its portrayal in the media.</big></center>Lazarushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14139033650731770470noreply@blogger.comBlogger70125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8768542139586623003.post-40784432295280206232012-11-21T11:21:00.001-08:002012-12-01T07:18:53.039-08:00Wining The Battle, Losing The War<p dir="ltr">This blog had been pretty inactive as well as the usual reason of being busy with work I also got re-married in that I have now been married for 25 years and decided to do it all again but this time In Las Vegas,  with Elvis of course,  which took a lot of organisation. </p>
<p dir="ltr">I also treated myself to a Nexus 7 tablet which I am slowly writing this on, using an app.  The irony is that I am now probably on the internet more but in less convenient position to knock up a post. </p>
<p dir="ltr">But during my sabbatical I have been thinking that the battle to get the problem of climate change raised and publicly accepted has been won. Unfortunately not purely by the science but the ever increasing record number of weather events now being called Global Weirding or the New Normal. Even before Tropical Storm Sandy caused so much loss in the climate denial stronghold of the US, polls show that concern about climate change was high and most believed that anthropogenic causes do have some responsibility. With Sandy that level of acceptance has only increased and unless we enter into an unlikely prolonged period of climate stability, what the weather will most likely have in store for us will only harden those views. That battle is effectively won. </p>
<p dir="ltr">But the cynic in me worries that the war is being lost or may even already be lost. Even the re-election of Obama,  the only choice if anything can be done to tackle climate change globally,  is little comfort as there seems little appetite with politicians to do anything.  We are in the same position we were in decades ago.  Adaption rather than any attempts at mitigation seems to be favoured and Sandy shows just what we can expect with adaption.</p>
<p dir="ltr">People like me don't need to be alarmist, the conclusions of the science are alarming enough. What to do? We can keep on raising awareness,  keep on confronting denial,  keep on tackling ignorance in the best way we know, but in the end all that effort will pale beside what people are going to experience first hand with floods, droughts, storms and other extremes that are lining up to convince people where sound science has failed for decades. By then the door to mitigating solutions will have closed and adaption will mainly be one of repairing after the damage and the pain has occurred.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Am I wrong to feel that I am looking at the horse bolting?   </p>
Lazarushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14139033650731770470noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8768542139586623003.post-35877348966067234062012-09-21T18:01:00.000-07:002012-09-21T18:01:12.099-07:00Record-High Antarctic Sea Ice Levels Don't Disprove Global Warming<em>The region's ice has weathered global warming better than Arctic ice</em><br />
<br />
Steve Goddard must be feeling shell shocked. Only a few months ago at the winters peak, the Arctic Sea Ice extent (not volume) was almost normal which he touted loudly on his blog, only to see the fastest melt on record to a new low. With the Battle lost he turns his attention to the Antarctic winter and the growing ice there.<br />
<br />
<b>This is a repost from<a href="http://weather.aol.com/2012/09/20/record-high-antarctic-sea-ice-levels-dont-disprove-global-warmi/#page=1" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> SKYE at weather.aol.com</a></b><br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.blogcdn.com/weather.aol.com/media/2012/09/sea-ice.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="345" hspace="4" id="yui_3_5_1_1_1348275278766_451" src="http://www.blogcdn.com/weather.aol.com/media/2012/09/sea-ice.jpg" vspace="4" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><em id="yui_3_5_1_1_1348275278766_456">(Credit: Jeremy Potter NOAA/OAR/OER)</em></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Distracting from the news that Arctic sea-ice extent reached a record
low on Sept. 16 is a widely circulating blog article claiming that at
the opposite end of the Earth, Antarctic sea ice is more than making up
for the losses.<br />
<br />
In the <a href="http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/09/16/antarctic-ice-area-sets-another-record-nsidc-is-silent/" id="yui_3_5_1_1_1348275278766_455" target="_blank">post</a>,
climate change skeptic and blogger Steven Goddard states that Antarctic
sea ice reached its highest level ever recorded for the 256th day of
the calendar year on Sept. 12. He reasons that the Southern Hemisphere
must be balancing the warming of the Northern Hemisphere by becoming
colder (and thus, net global warming is zero).<br />
<br />
The National Snow & Ice Data Center (NSIDC), which tracks sea ice
using satellite data, explains on its website why Antarctic ice has
weathered global warming <a href="http://www.livescience.com/23315-arctic-ice-melt-far-surpasses-previous-record.html">more robustly</a><a href="http://www.livescience.com/23315-arctic-ice-melt-far-surpasses-previous-record.html" target="_blank"> than Arctic ice</a>.
Goddard dismisses the explanation, concluding instead, "Antarctic and
Arctic ice move opposite each other. NSIDC's dissonance about this is
astonishing."<br />
<br />
Despite its lack of scientific support, Goddard's post has garnered
attention around the Web. In a Forbes.com column about the record high
Antarctic <a href="http://www.livescience.com/22651-facts-about-sea-ice.html" target="_blank">sea ice</a>,
skeptic James Taylor writes, "Please, nobody tell the mainstream media
or they might have to retract some stories and admit they are
misrepresenting scientific data."<br />
<br />
But if anyone had asked an actual scientist, they would have learned
that a good year for sea ice in the Antarctic in no way nullifies the
precipitous drop in Arctic sea-ice levels year after year - or the
mounds of other evidence indicating <a href="http://www.livescience.com/23026-global-warming-changing-world.html" target="_blank">global warming is really happening</a>.<br />
<br />
"Antarctic sea ice hasn't seen these big reductions we've seen in the
Arctic. This is not a surprise to us," said climate scientist Mark
Serreze, director of the NSIDC. "Some of the skeptics say 'Well,
everything is OK because the big changes in the Arctic are essentially
balanced by what's happening in the Antarctic.' This is simply not
true." [<a href="http://www.lifeslittlemysteries.com/2722-global-warming-skeptic-turnaround.html" id="yui_3_5_1_1_1348275278766_457" target="_blank">Former Global Warming Skeptic Makes a 'Total Turnaround'</a>]<br />
<br />
Projections made from climate models all predict that global warming
should impact Arctic sea ice first and most intensely, Serreze said. "We
have known for many years that as the Earth started to warm up, the
effects would be seen first in the Arctic and not the Antarctic. The
physical geography of the two hemispheres is very different. Largely as a
result of that, they behave very differently."<br />
<br />
The Arctic, an ocean surrounded by land, responds much more directly to
changes in air and sea-surface temperatures than Antarctica, Serreze
explained. The climate of Antarctica, land surrounded by ocean, is
governed much more by wind and ocean currents. Some studies indicate
climate change has strengthened westerly winds in the Southern
Hemisphere, and because <a href="http://www.lifeslittlemysteries.com/2661-breeze-feel-cool.html" id="yui_3_5_1_1_1348275278766_458" target="_blank">wind has a cooling effect,</a>
scientists say this partly accounts for the marginal increase in sea
ice levels that have been observed in the Antarctic in recent decades.<br />
<br />
"Another reason why the sea-ice extent in the Antarctic is remaining fairly high is, interestingly, the <a href="http://www.lifeslittlemysteries.com/1440-good-news-life-earth-ozone-hole-shrinking.html" target="_blank">ozone hole</a>,"
Serreze told Life's Little Mysteries. This hole was carved out over
time by chlorofluorocarbons, toxic chemicals formerly that were used in
air conditioners and solvents before being banned. "The ozone hole
affects the circulation of the atmosphere down there. Because of the
ozone hole, the stratosphere above Antarctica is quite cold. Ozone in
the stratosphere absorbs UV light, and less absorption [by] ozone makes
the stratosphere really cold. This cold air propagates down to the
surface by influencing the atmospheric circulation in the Antarctic, and
that keeps the sea ice extensive."<br />
<br />
But these effects are very small, and Antarctic sea-ice levels have
increased only marginally. In the coming decades, climate models suggest
rising global temperatures will overwhelm the other influences and
cause Antarctic sea ice to scale back, too.<br />
<br />
The extent of Arctic sea ice at its summertime low point has dropped 40
percent in the past three decades. The idea that a tiny Antarctic ice
expansion makes up for this - that heat is merely shifting from the the
Southern Hemisphere to the Northern and therefore global warming must
not be happening - is "just nonsense," Serreze said.<br />
<br />
Lazarushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14139033650731770470noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8768542139586623003.post-20069540415845586752012-08-30T10:54:00.000-07:002012-08-30T10:54:50.971-07:00Steven Goddard And His Sea Ice Recovery!Way too funny not to post!<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<h1 id="watch-headline-title" style="padding-bottom: 8px;">
<span class="" dir="ltr" id="eow-title" style="vertical-align: top;" title="Arctic Sea Ice Downfall">Arctic Sea Ice Downfall
</span></h1>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/ARJK0MWAITM?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />Lazarushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14139033650731770470noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8768542139586623003.post-38633969314087672812012-08-30T08:51:00.000-07:002012-08-30T08:51:06.440-07:00Idiotic Denier Of The DaySome awards come easily to some people and this one for Idiotic mis-interpretation of the evidence is well deserved by Steve Goddard and awarded to him over at <a href="http://uknowispeaksense.wordpress.com/2012/08/26/idiotic-denier-graph-of-the-day-august-262012/#comment-1497" target="_blank">uknowispeaksense</a>, full repost below;<br />
<br />
<h1 class="entry-title">
Idiotic denier graph of the day, August 26,2012</h1>
Yep, something a little different. I got my 3-year-old niece to
draw on a piece of paper with a fat blue crayon and this is what she
drew.<br />
<div class="wp-caption aligncenter" id="attachment_586" style="width: 510px;">
<a href="http://uknowispeaksense.wordpress.com/2012/08/26/idiotic-denier-graph-of-the-day-august-262012/goddard-uses-crayons/" rel="attachment wp-att-586"><img alt="" class="size-full wp-image-586" height="271" src="http://uknowispeaksense.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/goddard-uses-crayons.png?w=500&h=271" title="Goddard uses crayons" width="500" /></a><div class="wp-caption-text">
Conrats Steve Goddard! You have graduated from preschool.</div>
</div>
Yes, ok. You got me, my niece would never use such a fat crayon to
draw a graph, unless she wanted it to be fuzzy. This masterpiece is the
work of Steve Goddard who, at his woefully misnamed blog, “Real Science”
is <span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/08/25/visualizing-arctic-neurosis/" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue;">trying to debunk a strawman</span></a></span>.
According to Steve, in 2007 AGW proponents, “went hysterical and told
us that the Arctic would be ice free by 2008, 2010, 2012 or 2013″ and
then provided this……..graph to debunk it. Of course, Steve ‘I just
graduated preschool’ Goddard, didn’t provide a reference to these
statements. So some mythical scientists have been debunked. Well done
Steve, well done. You really showed…….them. Of course, my mate Geoffrey
Brown faithfully <span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2012/08/science-haters-and-ice-loss.html" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue;">cut and paste the same graph</span></a> </span>over
at my favourite denier den, the official blog of the Climate Sceptics
Party and included an admission to being a conspiracy theorist of the
highest order, but that’s for another day.<br />
So what of this….graph? Well, Steve supplied a link to <span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/timeseries.anom.1979-2008" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue;">the data he has used</span></a></span>
for his blue crayon special and it seems it goes all the way back to
1979. It’s no wonder he cherrypicked the last few years. Here’s a graph
or two from <span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue;">the same website</span></a></span>. First, what Steve’s magic blue crayon graph would have looked like if he used all the data.<br />
<a href="http://uknowispeaksense.wordpress.com/2012/08/26/idiotic-denier-graph-of-the-day-august-262012/seaice-anomaly-arctic/" rel="attachment wp-att-587"><img alt="" class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-587" height="406" src="http://uknowispeaksense.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/seaice-anomaly-arctic.png?w=500&h=406" title="seaice.anomaly.arctic" width="500" /></a><br />
<br />
Next, let’s take it back a little further and look at the longer term trend broken down into seasons.<br />
<a href="http://uknowispeaksense.wordpress.com/2012/08/26/idiotic-denier-graph-of-the-day-august-262012/seasonal-extent-1900-2010/" rel="attachment wp-att-588"><img alt="" class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-588" height="407" src="http://uknowispeaksense.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/seasonal-extent-1900-2010.png?w=500&h=407" title="seasonal.extent.1900-2010" width="500" /></a>So,
there you have it. “Real Science” and real science. Which are you going
to accept? Personally, I think I’ll go with the latter. I’m not really
into crayons.Lazarushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14139033650731770470noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8768542139586623003.post-63881952766941757172012-08-29T08:34:00.000-07:002012-08-29T08:34:57.282-07:00Losing Your Own Argument With Your Own ArgumentIt takes someone really special to achieve this. And we have someone very special indeed - Suyts.<br />
<br />
He<a href="http://suyts.wordpress.com/2012/08/22/everyone-lol-at-mike-mann/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> recently had a moan</a> about Prof. Mann's threat to sue the National Review for libellous comments in an article, but even though Mann has every right to use the courts to protect his reputation, Suyts believes that to stoop to saying “I’ll sue!!!!” <strong>"</strong><span style="font-size: small;">is what happens when you lose the intellectual argument".</span><span style="font-size: medium;"><strong></strong></span><br />
<br />
<br />
Problem is that if this is true then Suyts along with Lord Monckton have already lost the intellectual argument because we all know how keen the Lord is in <a href="http://suyts.wordpress.com/2011/09/05/me-too-and-i-dare-them/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">threatening litigation</a> and Suyts fully supports it. <br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg1RbjyIqi_OBudVfn5EkXt975k5qYLPeaEfgclJb_58txum5tjcBGgTkISnF-TAqKF73qlQrKaSBX6drgbZQn3sxI0QZRPSUq8L9f8wd-RR9T5liOBjgUjHpuwsDE58RhMXR9Ey9g3YrbJ/s1600/a-special-person-needs-special-stickers.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg1RbjyIqi_OBudVfn5EkXt975k5qYLPeaEfgclJb_58txum5tjcBGgTkISnF-TAqKF73qlQrKaSBX6drgbZQn3sxI0QZRPSUq8L9f8wd-RR9T5liOBjgUjHpuwsDE58RhMXR9Ey9g3YrbJ/s320/a-special-person-needs-special-stickers.jpg" width="240" /></a></div>
<br />
Yep, it takes a special person to lose an argument with yourself.Lazarushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14139033650731770470noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8768542139586623003.post-62698977535743324442012-08-28T08:40:00.003-07:002012-08-28T08:41:44.450-07:00Steve Goddard Calls It Right!Having been censored and banned - though intermittently I have got a post through - from the Orwellian named Real Science, I decided to look at what if anything the not so good Mr Goddard had to say about such things and to my surprise he calls the practice of censorship correct;<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<h2 class="entry-title">
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><a href="http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/07/01/refusal-to-debate-symptom-of-a-liar/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Refusal To Debate : Symptom Of A Liar</a></span></h2>
</blockquote>
<div class="entry-title">
He apparently believes in <a href="http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/05/24/dear-suzanne/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">defending free speech</a>, (but only when it is him who is speaking), and bitterly complains about blogs he believes have a policy of censorship, <a href="http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/06/21/more-censorship/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">here </a>and <a href="http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/08/16/more-censorship-on-bob-berwyns-site/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">here</a>.</div>
<div class="entry-title">
<br /></div>
<div class="entry-title">
So now we can all agree that not only is the person going by the name of Steve Goddard and Liar but a <b>hypocrite .</b></div>
<div class="entry-title">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhK7KsiwiR9uvQaon74qEFUbWMSqVpLCZnXn15l9P7rSzAKpGcGGX7Wmmo6TSxIdYBV31qtnqGvqUZCb0nC-4Pp3szJ8qrMex4U8HpdWEcJIs-6YTapIdqevzc4IKV5_Mr-6BFtXB8NLK7t/s1600/hypocrite.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="512" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhK7KsiwiR9uvQaon74qEFUbWMSqVpLCZnXn15l9P7rSzAKpGcGGX7Wmmo6TSxIdYBV31qtnqGvqUZCb0nC-4Pp3szJ8qrMex4U8HpdWEcJIs-6YTapIdqevzc4IKV5_Mr-6BFtXB8NLK7t/s640/hypocrite.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="entry-title">
</div>
<div class="entry-title">
<br /></div>
<div class="entry-title">
<br /></div>
Lazarushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14139033650731770470noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8768542139586623003.post-24059525311026848672012-08-23T16:26:00.001-07:002012-08-23T16:26:10.302-07:00Scraping A Barrel<a href="http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/08/23/twenty-five-degrees-cooler-in-iowa-than-1936/" rel="bookmark" title="1:39 pm"><span class="entry-date"></span></a><span class="by-author"><span class="sep"></span><span class="author vcard"></span></span><div class="entry-meta">
</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>"The forecast high for Rock Rapids, Iowa tomorrow is 84 degrees.
It was 109 degrees on the same date in 1936. Experts tell us that 2012
is hotter than 1936."</b></blockquote>
This is what passes for a credible post on <a href="http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/08/23/twenty-five-degrees-cooler-in-iowa-than-1936/" rel="nofollow">Real Science</a>. I seriously hope that anyone capable of reading it has enough critical facilities to see the desperate cherry pick that it is.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgiQgvKIzZPDY7YW_duDqnWtzfBsdxhWt_ZkI8VR_4oWBeZYT0oS6ZtWv__NS7T5VPpPOkKToIpODRHl01Sh4s6CtddlXm1ZvflSBiCegdYXl3kkCxR_EhH3-upx_DaHlJJpn8CmhvLRfyU/s1600/cherrypicking.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="355" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgiQgvKIzZPDY7YW_duDqnWtzfBsdxhWt_ZkI8VR_4oWBeZYT0oS6ZtWv__NS7T5VPpPOkKToIpODRHl01Sh4s6CtddlXm1ZvflSBiCegdYXl3kkCxR_EhH3-upx_DaHlJJpn8CmhvLRfyU/s400/cherrypicking.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />Lazarushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14139033650731770470noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8768542139586623003.post-62485896223605027902012-08-22T16:35:00.000-07:002012-08-22T16:35:50.961-07:00CENSORED and BANNED! Well It Had To HappenIt appears that any comments I make to Real Science do not now appear - I suspect I have been banned for talking sense but maybe there is a technical issue let me just check....<br />
<br />
Nope, my comments are no longer appearing and some have disappeared.<br />
<br />
It seems to have occurred while commenting on this <a href="http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/08/06/us-summers-getting-cooler-since-1895/#comment-111685" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">post</a> which I covered in my own post <a href="http://reallysciency.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/northern-hemispheres-shifting-curve.html" target="_blank">here</a>. In his comments I compared Steve Goddard's cherry picking of record high temps to claim that summers were actually cooling to measuring the time of a journey by only the fasted speed.<br />
<br />
One of his acolytes, <b>miked1947</b>, was not happy with my analogy. He then went on to say some really strange things like,<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>“If we have more days below 90 degrees now than we did then, it is getting cooler” </b></blockquote>
Suggesting if we had 1 day above 90 and 99 at 60 then that would be warmer than 100 days at 89 and,<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>“If I wanted to know whether it was warmer or cooler I would want the average temperature for all the Summers. Because they only provide MAX, MIN and MEAN,”</b></blockquote>
Clearly he had not quite grasped the definition of MEAN!<br />
<br />
After a little polite back and forth miked1947 basically, if unintentionally agreed with me about Goddard's graph by claiming that MAX and MIX were not suitable measures to determine anything significant about temperature trends - while I might not completely agree with what he said he had painted himself into a position where like me he must surely disagree with Goddard's use of maximum temperatures to make his cooling claim.<br />
<br />
So I replied asking him why he was explaining this to me and not to Steve Goddard. My comment appeared, the the next day it was gone. I posted the comment again in case there was a technical issue the first time but nothing appeared at all. A test post on another thread of Real Science had the same result - the comment I typed did not appear - <b>I had been banned!</b><br />
<br />
<b> </b><b>NOTE:</b> The actual publishing of this post has been delayed for a
while because when I double checked to see if my posts would appear some
then did including the response to miked1947 mentioned above - which has not been replied to. But currently nothing is appearing. I can't actually ask
Goddard if it is now his policy to restrict my comments, as I currently
can't comment. If I get some sort of response I will update this post
and apologise if it is simply a technical with the Wordpress site.<br />
<br />
However it does seem a rather innocuous comment to get quietly banned without ceremony from a site considering I have had Steve Goddard in full name calling mode at me only to have him realise<a href="http://reallysciency.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/understanding-climate-change-denial.html"> I was right and he was wrong, and issue a retraction</a>.<br />
<br />
So perhaps getting one of his minions logic turned around where he had to agree with me was just a final straw, or perhaps it was what I said about his <a href="http://reallysciency.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/he-could-have-been-born-yesterday.html" target="_blank"><b>'birther</b>' beliefs </a>in another thread as I noticed my comment has also vanished from there as well. Actually Steve Goddard has been very sly about this because he has not deleted any of my comments that were replied too, only ones that had no reply giving the impression that I either had no interest in the subject or that I could not think of anything reply. <br />
<br />
I wonder what Goddard has said in his own blog on the subject of censorship and banning debate? Well that may make another post.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Lazarushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14139033650731770470noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8768542139586623003.post-85316257960278913112012-08-22T16:11:00.000-07:002012-08-22T16:13:05.531-07:00Steve Goddard BS – Worse Than It SeemsIn what must be the strangest and most desperate post on Real Science about Arctic Sea Ice, (Currently at a record low extent), Steve Goddard <a href="http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/08/22/arctic-bs-worse-than-it-seems/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">posts a part picture</a> of the Arctic from <a href="http://www.arctic.io/observations/8/2012-08-21/7-N74.298483-W168.189975">arctic.io</a>, rephotographs it off the monitor with his phone, which apparently 'does some color/gamma correction automatically', to make the claim that there is more ice in that region than is apparently obvious in the picture!<br />
<br />
Well that it seems is all the evidence this right wing-nut needs to dismiss all the evidence of ice melt this year. Forget this graph of declining see ice extent;<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjpvqXmzX9SkWXx8M9FSk9A0QH3bFMzMxkNLajpvgdNIkIS7Eq20Ql2YVJFh3gj-Bs40j14UlMd70HKmfMaog31bXVKypDspBNDcSA_pyrmOD9tQTszIFznY0OAHgZrianQvW0CYBn-fHMI/s1600/piomas1.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="395" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjpvqXmzX9SkWXx8M9FSk9A0QH3bFMzMxkNLajpvgdNIkIS7Eq20Ql2YVJFh3gj-Bs40j14UlMd70HKmfMaog31bXVKypDspBNDcSA_pyrmOD9tQTszIFznY0OAHgZrianQvW0CYBn-fHMI/s640/piomas1.gif" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">From <a href="http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/08/22/is-climate-really-changing/">http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/08/22/is-climate-really-changing/</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Forget about these from NSIDC;<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhodnVMpjntI1YUlPzwcETPG9Qq9uLbAb-B63p5dkjpI9ljqjYbjyO3xU04EdQeEzo0BDhtWcDja6S31Z_mBLeOUrK7ncA834o6mJURvyni-4Hpk9m8W7CcRxg47T3F-ycDppesqrdHwrEE/s1600/Extent.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="512" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhodnVMpjntI1YUlPzwcETPG9Qq9uLbAb-B63p5dkjpI9ljqjYbjyO3xU04EdQeEzo0BDhtWcDja6S31Z_mBLeOUrK7ncA834o6mJURvyni-4Hpk9m8W7CcRxg47T3F-ycDppesqrdHwrEE/s640/Extent.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhkx6oQwbS9GVEWy74mw4auFMhJF-1ezbv9OBW1oCGEK08Wt0JDI5rSRSAw3KhN4or8DWs5rroRousyWzUMIxKgC6kQPIMCwhUu7c4ummopvA1S3ZutVtjyJsR1WEUPKVfvVkBDPeZ_cPFf/s1600/average+sea+ice+extent+july.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="456" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhkx6oQwbS9GVEWy74mw4auFMhJF-1ezbv9OBW1oCGEK08Wt0JDI5rSRSAw3KhN4or8DWs5rroRousyWzUMIxKgC6kQPIMCwhUu7c4ummopvA1S3ZutVtjyJsR1WEUPKVfvVkBDPeZ_cPFf/s640/average+sea+ice+extent+july.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
Forget about all the actual evidence, because Steve Goddard of Real Science has got a camera phone! I wonder what sort of App? Seriously, I thought I would find using real science to debunk skeptical arguments on blogs like Real Science at least a bit of a challenge but then you get idiot posts from Goddard like this.<br />
<br />Lazarushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14139033650731770470noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8768542139586623003.post-37058625443466708972012-08-08T03:38:00.001-07:002012-08-08T03:40:00.033-07:00He Could Have Been Born YesterdayI may have mentioned on here before that Steve Goddard is a 'Birther' in that he believes Americas first non-white president wasn't born in the US so can't really be the President.<br />
<br />
In a<a href="http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/08/06/kenyan-newspaper-said-obama-was-born-in-kenya-in-2004/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> recent post </a>he provides 'evidence' from a paper that Barack Obama was born in Kenya. Straight away a commenter pointed out that was was an old hoax and documented in <a href="http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/ap.asp" target="_blank">snopes,</a> other facts were added including evidence that his father was in Hawaii at the time he was born and unlikely to send his pregnant wife to a third world country to give birth. No record of any such journey exists for there and back in any case. There does exist a birth certificate form a Hospital in Honolulu and confirmed as authentic. We also have Kenyan official denying that Obama was born there. This is in comments by people who are normally very supportive of Goddard's climate denial posts but obviously are unwilling to stoop to this whole new level of crazy.<br />
<br />
Steve Goddard is having none of it. The link he has is all the proof that is needed.<br />
<br />
So we have multiple lines of evidence all pointing to one conclusion and a single piece of discredited evidence pointing to another. Which does Goddard support? The one that tells him what he want to hear of course.<br />
<br />
<b>Remind you of anything? </b>Lazarushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14139033650731770470noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8768542139586623003.post-45293512492778865742012-08-07T01:35:00.003-07:002012-08-07T01:36:52.567-07:00Northern Hemisphere’s shifting curve.<div class="tr_bq">
Steve Goddard and others are having a hard time deflecting attention from climate change with the weather extremes that are occurring around the world this year and people are starting to notice. They have been scouring the records to find a headline to mislead with. Here is an example for the Orwellian '<a href="http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/08/06/us-summers-getting-cooler-since-1895/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Real Science</a>';<b> 'US Summers Getting Cooler Since 1895'</b>, and it even comes with a graph to prove it;</div>
<div class="tr_bq">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhokvl_DGwj9j-4K7KBCX1uwIMu9jWRlol4UCwxyJzBTa36Bnr4gJf29CGRWMgF-hNbawhpnn-ggAbxQosyI7XxEkhQmNdoMc6_h9KqesL6-oDO-Z4d2ylqcCaTxotcx6VuT3eu1AapZsgW/s1600/screenhunter_123-aug-06-12-43.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="496" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhokvl_DGwj9j-4K7KBCX1uwIMu9jWRlol4UCwxyJzBTa36Bnr4gJf29CGRWMgF-hNbawhpnn-ggAbxQosyI7XxEkhQmNdoMc6_h9KqesL6-oDO-Z4d2ylqcCaTxotcx6VuT3eu1AapZsgW/s640/screenhunter_123-aug-06-12-43.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="tr_bq">
This certainly indicates a decline in the summer temps shown so how can there be more climate extremes now? The answer is in the graphs title, 'Summer <b>Maximum</b> Temperatures' and I was going to do a long post on it but when I found it has been explained rather well over at '<b><a href="http://uknowispeaksense.wordpress.com/2012/08/07/northern-hemispheres-shifting-curve/" target="_blank">uknowispeaksense'</a></b>, I thought plagiarism is so much easier than origionality so I will let them take up the story;</div>
<div class="tr_bq">
<br /></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>I’ve already had one commenter in here point out a bunch of
cherrypicked individual high temperature records from all sorts of
places and from different times and asking me how there can be new
extremes as reported by James Hansen if these records haven’t been
broken. Of course Hansen’s data is dealing in average temperatures not
indivdual records. As the average temperatures increase the bell curve
shifts to the right indicating that on average, extreme highs will
increase and extreme lows decrease. Without bothering to check the
credibility of the data that suggests that in Seville, Spain on August
4, 1881 it was 122 degrees F, and assuming it is correct, my question
is, so what? We are not dealing with individual time points here, we are
dealing with decadal averages. That said, here’s the thing, average
global temperatures are rising. That fact is indisputable. That also
means maximum temperature anomalies and outliers will continue to be
superceded. It is inevitable. Continuing to try and muddy the waters
with erroneous outliers just demonstrates how desperate deniers are to
hang on to their evermore untenable positions. It is sad.</b></blockquote>
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>Here is a page with some excellent graphics. The first, showing the
increasing number of “hot” and “very hot” summers in the northern
hemisphere and the second, the graphic highlighting the shift to the
right.</b></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b><a href="http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/warming-links.html" target="_blank">http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/warming-links.html</a></b></blockquote>
<br />
<br />
<div class="tr_bq">
<br /></div>
<div class="tr_bq">
<br /></div>Lazarushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14139033650731770470noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8768542139586623003.post-57910866639263886132012-08-03T07:29:00.002-07:002012-08-03T07:29:44.972-07:00Suyts Fails To Touch BaseIt seems that either my criticisms at <a href="http://suyts.wordpress.com/2012/07/21/a-visual-assist-arctic-was-warmer-in-the-thirties/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><b>suyts place</b></a> or my <a href="http://reallysciency.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/warmer-in-thirties-i-think-not.html" target="_blank">last post</a> pointing out that his claim about Arctic temperatures in the thirties compared to today used temperatures over a decade out of date embarrassed him enough to do a further post where he actually tried to get some current temps to compare the thirties with. He even dedicated the post to me! - Now there is someone who is easy to awe. He even got off to a good start by choosing UAH satellite data.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately he made another totally embarrassing hash of his analysis. His commentators even congraulated and fawned over it and one even re-blogged it, so it doesn't bode well for their critical thinking skills. To be honest it was doomed from the start because suyts already had the answer he wanted so it didn't really matter what the data showed, he was always going to get the answer he needed.<br />
<br />
The technique he chose involved 'splicing' the UHA data to the Cosimo graph mentioned in the last post. This is not necessarily a bad thing if done correctly but like so many AGW deniers he says it shouldn't be done. Adding data sets from different sources in appropriate in a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-analysis" target="_blank">Meta Analysis</a> is common across <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-analysis#Applications_in_modern_science" target="_blank">all science disciplines</a>. It is especially common in climatology, and the likes of Prof Mann has done it, so if deniers can convince themselves it shouldn't be done at all it allows them to dismiss at least some of the science showing how wrong their thinking is.<br />
<br />
So suyts makes it clear that he doesn't like 'splicing'. In fact he makes the point several times but then does it anyway and uses his results as evidence he was right all along.<b> That's right - he uses a technique he believes is invalid to get a result that proves his case and makes a post about it.</b> The irony of the contradiction seems lost on his commentators but wouldn't be on anyone with the slightest sense of true skeptcism.<br />
<br />
So by all rights <b>this post should end here</b> with another embarasment to suyts.<br />
<br />
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<br />
<br />
However 'splicing' is a valid thing to do so maybe even if suyts doesn't like it he still has made a valid point - if only:<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjet0LbN55YbG2RhDjr5gkgWdeZG9tGHWY92Zx9DEd9Urc0iY4HxVNEWZP63l6E0gqzdPGr87lMgS2AxSCoMhYtWRtFkH82_ghv8S7IhSjRaslKQLCUakskgROOofQ49jaH6nZ5IeJlmpqm/s1600/polar_face_palm.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="238" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjet0LbN55YbG2RhDjr5gkgWdeZG9tGHWY92Zx9DEd9Urc0iY4HxVNEWZP63l6E0gqzdPGr87lMgS2AxSCoMhYtWRtFkH82_ghv8S7IhSjRaslKQLCUakskgROOofQ49jaH6nZ5IeJlmpqm/s320/polar_face_palm.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
He first graphs the last decade of the UHA data set with a trend and a 60 month moving average and gets this;<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj3rWhi26iEVZ62JDIDoUHfJNjAKowi2OyoEVU2bjrHF8CJIne9rd5H8RPvZY6_GnQIC8l1EIfRo1D2wQHVqMmuMqdyoku2UsC-c6urdXFD_7gvR2S1OsqLzSQOWfkP9djb8_TtArDvRztN/s1600/image_thumb131.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj3rWhi26iEVZ62JDIDoUHfJNjAKowi2OyoEVU2bjrHF8CJIne9rd5H8RPvZY6_GnQIC8l1EIfRo1D2wQHVqMmuMqdyoku2UsC-c6urdXFD_7gvR2S1OsqLzSQOWfkP9djb8_TtArDvRztN/s1600/image_thumb131.png" /></a></div>
<br />
Then he <strike>sticks</strike> aligns '<b>the anomaly axis to match Cosimo’s</b>' graph that he used in his first failed post and gets this;<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgK84SLqxCgSdVzNXE7sOz_CDtW-Yxbd7V76Glgns2onKOWY_ZXuChNdWD92om3aqzSyQjtZiKC2mcfDoa0n1fcORgZ6RZINQm7shxchmduJkKvO05IyOI4Uc6QzdrV_MnCpBhUwtsgRDLn/s1600/image_thumb132.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="342" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgK84SLqxCgSdVzNXE7sOz_CDtW-Yxbd7V76Glgns2onKOWY_ZXuChNdWD92om3aqzSyQjtZiKC2mcfDoa0n1fcORgZ6RZINQm7shxchmduJkKvO05IyOI4Uc6QzdrV_MnCpBhUwtsgRDLn/s640/image_thumb132.png" width="640" /></a></div>
I suppose because the black smear, (highlighted by my red arrow), is below the 'thick black line' he added then he believes that the current 5 year average is below that of the 1930s and claims '<span style="font-size: medium;"><b>that the arctic, after adding the recent arctic temps, is still colder than what it was in the late 1930s'</b></span>. <br />
<h3>
</h3>
<h3>
Oh Dear!</h3>
Combining data sets, when done appropriately, is valid. If you don't understand why then consdier this;<b> If various samples; ice cores, tree rings, lake sediments etc., when tested are known to contain different values </b><b>related to temperature</b><b>, then how can you can you determine what those temperatures are unless you align the values with known and reliable temperatures for at least part of the record?</b> So these proxy temperature records are aligned with known temperatures, usually the most accurate instrument record for the same area the proxies are taken from, to determine temperatures back in that record when temperatures are known with less certainty. So if it is valid to calculate proxy temperatures using this method how can it be invalid to add (splice) the most accurate temperatures to the record? This is really all that Prof Manns 'Nature Trick' amounted to - he added the most accurate instrument record to over write and extend the proxy record and had it documented in research published in Nature magazine.<br />
<br />
What suyts had done is not the same technique, even if he believes it is. You just can't take different data sets and align '<b>the anomaly axis' </b>to zero. This shows such ignorance of the basics it is difficult to believe that he not only did it but his, (now apparently just as ignorant), commentators didn't call him out on it.<br />
<br />
<h3>
<a href="http://chartsgraphs.wordpress.com/2011/01/06/rclimate-converting-5-global-temperature-anomaly-series-to-a-common-baseline/" target="_blank">Different data sets have different base lines!</a></h3>
<div style="font-weight: normal;">
The Cosimo graph appears to use data with a 1961-1990 (HadCru) base line. The UHA satellite data has a 1979-1999 base line - this data set didn't start until the December 1978. <b>Of course the 5 year trend of the UHA is going to be below! </b>The only way to do the 'splicing' properly is to average the same time period for all data sets used - something I'm not prepared to spend time on as there is plenty of current research showing recent <a href="http://www.ess.uci.edu/events/tingl2012-04-25" target="_blank">Arctic temperatures are unprecedented in several centuries</a>. But I thought I would do a rough calculation on the differences in the base lines and reapply suyts technique to see what he would have got if he had knowing anything about science. </div>
<div style="font-weight: normal;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-weight: normal;">
Using this <a href="http://processtrends.com/Files/RClimate_consol_temp_anom_latest.csv" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">link</a> I got the data for the major temperature data sets and worked out the average of HadCru between 1979 - 1999 and also for the UHA data for the same period. I found HadCru = -0.03742 and UHA = -0.0933, so a difference or the offset is<b> 0.055888</b>.</div>
<div style="font-weight: normal;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-weight: normal;">
I then plotted the same UHA decade that suyts used in his post to ensure we were both using the same data set in the same way and got this;</div>
<div style="font-weight: normal;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgZ9N2egZ6t-_NRdNChiV30wIB3DEi92lM2xQi2Ga1bdOXp5KZQnB1Bjc3nDoNCA0OdtPm-ZGZmmHxk1YWbdpnHxQHfy-Alw3jGmfjFDHJKFibl6z-SOWedwHj-JutrlFfYpjWRTYtWAg9-/s1600/uha+2001topresent.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="424" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgZ9N2egZ6t-_NRdNChiV30wIB3DEi92lM2xQi2Ga1bdOXp5KZQnB1Bjc3nDoNCA0OdtPm-ZGZmmHxk1YWbdpnHxQHfy-Alw3jGmfjFDHJKFibl6z-SOWedwHj-JutrlFfYpjWRTYtWAg9-/s640/uha+2001topresent.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="font-weight: normal;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-weight: normal;">
The graph looked the same so I <b>rescaled it with the offset</b> and added it to the original Cosimo graph and ended up with this:</div>
<div style="font-weight: normal;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEirDXlj3oMMaaml0grZf7_JPO8_J2x3-x6uFmZjGBpRAGjm-_ikCgMv11EmnCa_oTMhmDQ7jbSnA0Rw8N1mX9DUpNoZqIdQVpB8lGwNnUsYUmxEKaufesMpuH0ylJJ1b0maxl-Pyio8y-Zz/s1600/syuts+correct.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="504" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEirDXlj3oMMaaml0grZf7_JPO8_J2x3-x6uFmZjGBpRAGjm-_ikCgMv11EmnCa_oTMhmDQ7jbSnA0Rw8N1mX9DUpNoZqIdQVpB8lGwNnUsYUmxEKaufesMpuH0ylJJ1b0maxl-Pyio8y-Zz/s640/syuts+correct.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjgusNEEKImDSJMA25MI4IrFaUHwc4OId_zs8b98sQoW6YEW3PhSSKhSY-9thEYT2EIP2dMqqyZaK_Atqs5r3BIpOJEYXHwWGc-7ViKCl4kooxZdS5yNPXj7Ap6PT6FMp75vbcRac1R5aar/s1600/syuts+correct.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br /></a></div>
<div style="font-weight: normal;">
</div>
<div style="font-weight: normal;">
As you can see the trend is well above the 1930s level. I know this technique is not very accurate in either calculating the offset nor the alignment so just to check that it wasn't a totally inaccurate depiction I looked for a graph showing past to current Arctic temperature trends and found this from the <a href="http://www.asf.alaska.edu/program/gdc/project/alison/science" target="_blank">Alaska Satellite Facility</a>;</div>
<div style="font-weight: normal;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgjGXRtweov6lNEcpJrPj5800iqpmqMGvW5Ehk3jfowcv4XHVtnrgUQNJCSoHILcR-CE0J44o_t8w2k8CejvazAk1zMRizBz4IemLjOGsJ_8PCbu-pDcKCz1aRHx-XNm9LybpzcshFS5e11/s1600/science_C_TEMP_DevArctic.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="543" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgjGXRtweov6lNEcpJrPj5800iqpmqMGvW5Ehk3jfowcv4XHVtnrgUQNJCSoHILcR-CE0J44o_t8w2k8CejvazAk1zMRizBz4IemLjOGsJ_8PCbu-pDcKCz1aRHx-XNm9LybpzcshFS5e11/s640/science_C_TEMP_DevArctic.gif" width="640" /></a></div>
<div style="font-weight: normal;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-weight: normal;">
It has an 11 year rather than a 5 avg year but it still clearly shows the peak in the 1930s and it even more clearly shows it was not as warm as current temperatures.</div>
<div style="font-weight: normal;">
<br /></div>
<h3 style="font-weight: normal;">
<b>So how did suyts do?</b></h3>
<div style="font-weight: normal;">
Other than using a technique that he believes wont give a valid answer, and displaying little knowledge of some very basic scientific methods, and being totally ignorant of the concept of data sets having a different zero base line for anomalies the boy did rather well! It remains to be seen if he has the honesty and maturity to correct his rather obvious mistakes and perhaps even apologise for misleading his very gullible readers, but based on his example so far and this <a href="http://suyts.wordpress.com/2012/07/27/a-glimpse-into-the-mind-of-an-alarmist-a-case-study/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">latest nonsense</a> it doesn't bode well so I'm not going to be holding my breath - <b>however time will tell</b>.</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="64"><tbody>
<tr height="17"><td align="right" height="17" style="height: 12.75pt; width: 48pt;" width="64"></td></tr>
</tbody></table>Lazarushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14139033650731770470noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8768542139586623003.post-23824211434662966652012-07-27T03:45:00.000-07:002012-07-27T03:45:13.021-07:00Warmer In The Thirties - I think NOTA regular commenter on the Orwellian named '<b>Real Science</b>' is someone called <b>suyts</b> who has merited a mention on <b>Really Sciency</b> before for his <a href="http://reallysciency.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/doctored-goddard.html" target="_blank"><b>‘some pale shading’</b></a> and his warped logic achieving <a href="http://reallysciency.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/understanding-climate-change-denial.html" target="_blank"><b>'muppet'</b></a> status. Well this guy has his own blog which reaches a whole new level of crazy.<br />
<br />
Recently the <b>'syuts place</b>' blog made a very specific claim - <a href="http://suyts.wordpress.com/2012/07/21/a-visual-assist-arctic-was-warmer-in-the-thirties/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><b>"Arctic Was Warmer In The Thirties!!"</b></a>. Yes the two exclaimation marks were his just to show how significant he wanted the claim to be considered. He even included graphs picked out from actual credible sourses to prove it;<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiFqn7t_Vg1vya-mxD_lvQQsYT8wqiDFFS0IHaRbisMMSOmiMA4lnNqII69rTE8J8GOpCbSgvg8KYSWXvY4l3Qi1BE2LEnA8baJUAwcavIObE18Ix2zOewGlukfHXiwvy3xMcpBxQHuJ5vN/s1600/suyts.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="277" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiFqn7t_Vg1vya-mxD_lvQQsYT8wqiDFFS0IHaRbisMMSOmiMA4lnNqII69rTE8J8GOpCbSgvg8KYSWXvY4l3Qi1BE2LEnA8baJUAwcavIObE18Ix2zOewGlukfHXiwvy3xMcpBxQHuJ5vN/s400/suyts.png" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><b>"I added the thick black line"</b> appears on the NASA version by suyts.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
The actual source for his graph is <a href="http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0442%282003%29016%3C3498%3AWTITAF%3E2.0.CO%3B2" target="_blank"><b>Warming Trends in the Arctic from Clear Sky Satellite Observations</b></a>, JOSEFINO C. COMISO, from NASA Goddard Space Flight Center which appeared in Journal of Climate way back in 2003, via NASA's "<a href="http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ArcticIce/arctic_ice3.php" target="_blank">Evidence of Arctic Warming</a>" page.<br />
<br />
It is true that the 'thick black line' shows that the temperature trend was higher in the thirties than it is by the end of the graph. However if you read the paper you find that Comiso and the research fully support the global warming theory - as does NASA. There is no doubt about this and the Abstract clearly states;<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>The longer-term in situ surface temperature data shows that the 20-yr trend is 8 times larger than the 100-yr trend suggesting a rapid acceleration in the warming that may be associated with the recent change in phase of the Arctic Oscillation that has been linked to increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.</b></blockquote>
So basically suyts has cherry picked a graph, altered it a little and taking it out of context has added his own denial spin that is totally at odds from the actual published research - a typical tactic when no real research supports your beliefs.<br />
<br />
<h3>
But is there any evidence that the Arctic Was Warmer In The Thirties?</h3>
I commented on suyts post to make two specific points;<br />
<br />
First, as another poster, <cite class="fn"><a class="url" href="http://uknowispeaksense.wordpress.com/" rel="external nofollow">uknowispeaksense,</a></cite> (whose rather good blog I have been following for a while), <span class="says">says: "So What?" </span>Cherry picking one area to suggest something significant about Global temperatures is wrong on so many levels. It a tired old tactic. Find an area that might just be bucking the trend for now and highlight it. Then when challenged claim that you were never suggesting it related to anything else. Of course if this were true and the person was honest, this would have been stated from the outset - "This area was warmer in the past than it is today - even though most other areas have warmed more now". This sort of level of openness and honesty is rarely found in those who are desperate to find something to support their beliefs.<br />
<br />
So simply put, even if suyts is correct in his statement that the "<b>Arctic Was Warmer In The Thirties</b>", (and he isn't as I will show), without a global context the statement is as significant as saying refrigerators were as warm in the thirties. <br />
<br />
The second point I wanted to make is obvious to anyone with the slightest hint of real scepticism. <b>The graph presented stops over a decade ago. </b>I included a link showing more recent temperatures from<a href="http://www.blogger.com/goog_1487077474"> </a><b>NOAA's Arctic Report Card. </b>This is from <b><a href="http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/temperature_clouds.html" target="_blank">2011</a>;</b><br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgoIemxS7cGng-xyGD9kMqck4Be0rJ5j7qVBajBusIUJdmhp0J7n-3vHmhW7NYz3XCJjzUSIEycQ1-_-gNgl4LiLjcMk8-kNMWgvn97RKng3Tc3Db7A489csYfpLyn0yOzBY-Yp6uB1tPvq/s1600/NOAAARC.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgoIemxS7cGng-xyGD9kMqck4Be0rJ5j7qVBajBusIUJdmhp0J7n-3vHmhW7NYz3XCJjzUSIEycQ1-_-gNgl4LiLjcMk8-kNMWgvn97RKng3Tc3Db7A489csYfpLyn0yOzBY-Yp6uB1tPvq/s1600/NOAAARC.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">This time the black line has been added by me</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />
<br />
It clearly shows that while the peak trend in thirties was high in 2000, where Comiso's data ends, that by 2003 the temperature trend exceeds any in the record. Natural variation still causes the temperature to drop below my line but the overall direction of the trend is clear and with 2012 so far the warmest recorded for the Northern Hemisphere I strongly suspect that trend is likely to continue.<br />
<br />
So what response does someone get from suyts for highlighting more recent data that clearly shows that the Arctic was NOT warmer in the thirties?<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>"I thought it was you guys who put so much stock in “peer-review”."</b></blockquote>
I assume that this response is because the NOAA graph is from their report card and suyts graph is cherry picked and misrepresented from research that is totally at odds from his beliefs.<br />
<br />
He also replied;<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>"warmists, for some reason, don’t like this graph. They aren’t very explicit as to why"</b></blockquote>
Clearly Language comprehension isn’t his strong suit and the meaning of “<b>the graphs presented stop over a decade ago</b>” was out side his range of understanding. I then asked him specifically <b> “<i>Do you accept that the recent temperature data for the area shows your headline to be false</i>?” </b>His direct answer was <b>No</b>.<b> </b>The graphed data demonstrably shows that he is wrong. His reasoning was bizarre;<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>"Now, using the same data set as COMISO, show that I’m wrong."</b></blockquote>
Why would I have to show him wrong? It must be accepted from the data I presented that his headline clearly is wrong. Logic would state it is up to him to present evidence to the contrary, especially since he had presented no recent data to support his recent claim. A bit like stating flared trousers are the height of fashion and proving with a picture from the 1970s.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhYgsVYpCZNXPnv58m2qLWg7c1IGvhDIq7Ogf0fKD87jb5YABQSHq-xogdxXiJWBnOVNigyz7IXHjBDRWNSC15uhMveFLK8n8MFPiikEJb-_H4j3SlmMmMCG4L3lMGQAsnsx_i-tvvHvJbQ/s1600/flares.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhYgsVYpCZNXPnv58m2qLWg7c1IGvhDIq7Ogf0fKD87jb5YABQSHq-xogdxXiJWBnOVNigyz7IXHjBDRWNSC15uhMveFLK8n8MFPiikEJb-_H4j3SlmMmMCG4L3lMGQAsnsx_i-tvvHvJbQ/s1600/flares.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">suyts - height of fashion?</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
As for using the same data that was used in the Comiso paper, that data ended in 2000 but it was data approved by NASA just as the data used in the NOAA graph - except of course that data was more current.<br />
<br />
There was of course a lot more rambling but none of it provided any support for the <b>Warmer In The Thirties </b>claim. Undeterred by his irrational nonsense I decided to spell out what would be acceptable evidence<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>"The NOAA document I have linked shows Arctic up to 2010 and clearly
shows a peak about 0.7 kelvin above the 30s peak. By all means show ANY
data from a recognised source covering the same area and time frame you
prefer if you can find any actually showing the ‘Arctic Was Warmer In
The Thirties’."</b></blockquote>
It was at this point that he started to believe he was<b> Batman!</b> <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>Wholly crap Laz! ... What is implicit throughout the
entire post and comments are that none of the present data sets show
what was once shown. Notice how your NOAA offering butchers the data? </b></blockquote>
Ah, so that's it. A conspiracy, the data has been manipulated in nefariousness ways. I actually knew this was coming because in a previous comment I stated I was "not really interested in any conspiracy nonsense" he would concoct. The psychological problem with those that believe in conspiracy theories is that by necessity they do not think them a conspiracy. I'm not suggesting that he is wrong about data adjustments. They are necessary to reduce uncertainties as the science improves. The problem is that the conspiracy theorist will always believe that they have either been altered to prove them wrong or not altered, (in the case of not compensating enough for the heat island effect), to not prove them right.<br />
<br />
But even looking at the two graphs he is still wrong. Below you will see the two graphs taken from the original sources one overlayed on top of the other. I have squashed and stretched the images as necessary to get both scales to align. The only other alteration I have done is to alter the contrast to highlight the trend over the variation on one graph and coloured the other graph red so that differences can be easily seen. The graphs track each other very well. There is no indication that the one showing recent data (red) has been manipulated in such a way as to make the past colder, as I suspect suyts is trying to insinuate, in fact the older graph in black could be a trend of the other. If anyone doubts it do the exact same exercise and align up the scales.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjH096Tvj8qtyrIIN4TXkqYzgD0nj-_1rUY2twTLnD6IztrSnA9eIvzMxlQqVqL0KCOHCzAUTmU2MOeP7gJAro1eeChKvUoJy41NsX8s77IQ1dMAoXV3wuvFShpj_XMEHuddJX9okWo-3yY/s1600/overlay.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="484" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjH096Tvj8qtyrIIN4TXkqYzgD0nj-_1rUY2twTLnD6IztrSnA9eIvzMxlQqVqL0KCOHCzAUTmU2MOeP7gJAro1eeChKvUoJy41NsX8s77IQ1dMAoXV3wuvFShpj_XMEHuddJX9okWo-3yY/s640/overlay.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
<br />
It is crystal clear from the data that the warming trend continues into the next decade, as it does in all recognised temperature data sets. Guess what?<b> The Arctic Was NOT Warmer In The Thirties!</b><br />
<br />
However I'm still certain that suyts will claim that the recent data is unreliable. But there is a simple point of logic here; If we chose to believe over reason that the data is unreliable, how can it be claimed that it was cooler than any previous time?<br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Oh dear poor suyts;</b></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhAP_V3IYlAuzSF-54JCxSernAVQPG_DC0PbOquEDCY20D7xzPwAwk8yg-6WblBW1adfpP0YvLhu3ND5YO0mUNtfeJNqLn9tCd3vxQCoPYpGxlFDtqe31ra3ldwvxabOC9HJ7e9Jb_nH05G/s1600/blackadder1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhAP_V3IYlAuzSF-54JCxSernAVQPG_DC0PbOquEDCY20D7xzPwAwk8yg-6WblBW1adfpP0YvLhu3ND5YO0mUNtfeJNqLn9tCd3vxQCoPYpGxlFDtqe31ra3ldwvxabOC9HJ7e9Jb_nH05G/s320/blackadder1.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
Lazarushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14139033650731770470noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8768542139586623003.post-18153155100407499362012-07-12T04:03:00.000-07:002012-07-12T04:03:33.063-07:00Even Half a Brain Makes You Over Qualified<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhHUjrMkMxaDswRts16bAI_SSoAagcUrd0-zXxASo3ydBNC80cbKBTEvKkoaJyi0cVm7NRNOTC4jBkUeJWemnCH7MO9MLAuckewNUMsu6UTCaO6nnrAuiVLjDeJOGraI6aOI_JRnxyNndeu/s1600/images.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhHUjrMkMxaDswRts16bAI_SSoAagcUrd0-zXxASo3ydBNC80cbKBTEvKkoaJyi0cVm7NRNOTC4jBkUeJWemnCH7MO9MLAuckewNUMsu6UTCaO6nnrAuiVLjDeJOGraI6aOI_JRnxyNndeu/s1600/images.jpg" /></a></div>
<h3>
The globe isn’t warming any more. </h3>
This may have come as a shock to anyone with a brain but it's true. I know you might be wondering about certain facts you may have heard like the Global temperature from <a href="http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/trend/plot/gistemp" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">GISS</a>, <a href="http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">HADCRUT</a> , <a href="http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/trend/plot/rss" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">RSS</a>, <a href="http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/trend/plot/uah" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">UAH</a> and <a href="http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/best/trend/plot/best" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">BEST</a> all showing a long term warming trend or that<a href="http://www.enn.com/ecosystems/article/43880" target="_blank"> nine of the 10 hottest years occurred since 2000</a>.<br />
<br />
But don't let all that empirical evidence and your common sense get in the way, the globe isn't warming anymore because it says so in a recent <a href="http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/07/11/why-they-are-rewriting-history/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Real Science</a> post. To comment and suggest this claim is a joke means, according the great intellectual Mr. Goddard, that you only have half a brain. <br />
<br />
Then again perhaps Goddard is wrong (yet again) and having even half a brain makes you over qualified to have a rational debate with him and most of his followers, as none at the time of writing has had the sense to query such and absurd and unfounded claim, some even appear to support him!Lazarushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14139033650731770470noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8768542139586623003.post-77485669019232917092012-06-30T07:17:00.000-07:002012-06-30T07:17:24.164-07:00Goddard Gets Hot Under the CollarMr Steve Goddard is getting hot under the collar and it's not only due to the terrible wild fires in Colorado, it's the result of the media highlighting the possibility that the wild fires may have been exasperated due to global warming.<br />
<br />
So much so he is again misleading his, largely ignorant, following on his blog. It's uncertain if he does this deliberately or through his own basic ignorance - it's difficult to tell, but both<a href="http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/06/27/hansen-makes-a-fool-of-himself-in-boulder/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> James Hansen </a>and <a href="http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/06/30/phil-jones-shows-no-trend-in-colorado-temperatures-since-1850/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Phil Jones </a>get targeted by his nonsense - I mean his 'theory' - that they are wrong because temperatures have not increased in Boulder Colorado so global warming cant be linked to these wild fires.<br />
<br />
The thing is, it doesn't take much on an intellect to realise that temperature isn't the main factor in wild fires, it's drought. Temperature isn't even the main factor in drought, it lack of water. So what does current drought conditions for Colorado look like;<br />
<br />
It went from this;<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgbKqhjMRq5xsXROybHTvAKiCugTDTbOK9XxAKVE8fbJxrjMsugktxE-N3aZF_NbM4i5sdkcFT_sTYpN5eQqR1h_v3r55WObPX6nXkia1yFMzEPlwaxMPDFk7YNhQaNC2Kbx_nrp1RdHlWb/s1600/april.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="305" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgbKqhjMRq5xsXROybHTvAKiCugTDTbOK9XxAKVE8fbJxrjMsugktxE-N3aZF_NbM4i5sdkcFT_sTYpN5eQqR1h_v3r55WObPX6nXkia1yFMzEPlwaxMPDFk7YNhQaNC2Kbx_nrp1RdHlWb/s400/april.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
To this in just over two months;<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj2GIscsS41f5UG1TbFGywKB7q9C0p6wLCP63b2-DG8d2-mZ8FM0sOyIhE_jH6YfwLODasIZ88h260EhSpvZJKwtwReXdMOpO-2h94TAzfAF0LieHPqyzwELAsPIgjBGtfskDSOXmY2nSy9/s1600/june.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="302" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj2GIscsS41f5UG1TbFGywKB7q9C0p6wLCP63b2-DG8d2-mZ8FM0sOyIhE_jH6YfwLODasIZ88h260EhSpvZJKwtwReXdMOpO-2h94TAzfAF0LieHPqyzwELAsPIgjBGtfskDSOXmY2nSy9/s400/june.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
But Mr. Goddard isn't likely to reveal this to his readers any time soon.Lazarushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14139033650731770470noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8768542139586623003.post-77989406156891504862012-06-18T09:16:00.000-07:002012-06-18T09:16:36.943-07:00Mass MigrationMass Migration of species toward the pole due to climate change has led to Mass Migration of reason from Steve Goddard at Real Science - he even gave me some credit for the post showing so much misunderstanding of science that even those in remedial education should spot it.<br />
<br />
Recently I provided a link to a meta study for a commenter on a Real Science post who stated;<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<a href="http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/06/14/arctic-doomed-time-to-put-up-your-bets-on-the-record-minimum/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><b>“Migration towards the poles has not been observed.”</b></a></blockquote>
The link I provided showing this was simply untrue was a report nearly a year ago called <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/content/333/6045/1024" target="_blank"><b>'Rapid Range Shifts of Species Associated with High Levels of Climate Warming</b></a>' published in Science.<br />
<br />
It appears that Goddard was displeased with real scientific research being linked on his blog because he used my link as the subject of another post that turned out to be wrong in some many embarrassing ways.<br />
<br />
In his post he asks;<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>"Why is it necessary for the government to keep wasting billions of
dollars repeating the same cherry picked study over and over and over
again?"</b></blockquote>
Clearly he doesn't really understand what a meta study is. This wasn't a single study let alone a repeated one.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiEKz4SkFVqfA60BtHXqOx9sebJfu7H5zcE_CLUqXxDVh9bfWT2cL7Mwrw006dT1KEsHEGDhicH8xmlCk_IouGCIUi8qJxhqQ4G5HbVy6xwP2VLJ1wcjznnV5CZT_ldbaF8AeQimIOW6EG5/s1600/images.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiEKz4SkFVqfA60BtHXqOx9sebJfu7H5zcE_CLUqXxDVh9bfWT2cL7Mwrw006dT1KEsHEGDhicH8xmlCk_IouGCIUi8qJxhqQ4G5HbVy6xwP2VLJ1wcjznnV5CZT_ldbaF8AeQimIOW6EG5/s1600/images.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
It was a meta analysis of 54 separate studies that looked at data for over 2000 animal and plant species and found that species were moving toward the poles or to higher elevations at an average rate of around 20 cm per hour, faster than a previous study found in 2003.<br />
<br />
Goddard then states; <br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>"Why doesn’t someone do an honest study – which starts in the 1940s? We
see 1970s cherry picking in almost every single study coming out now. It
is worse than intentionally deceptive, as it is intended to defraud the
reader into drawing a wrong conclusion which the larger data set does
not support."</b></blockquote>
Not honest, intentionally deceptive, cherry picking? It appears he is suggesting that this study chose data just from the 1970s to give the impression that species were moving, but if a study looked at a longer period of time this would not be the case. You see it '<b>was very cold during the 1970s'</b>, so all these 2000 species must have wandered south during that time and are just waltzing back again now. An 'honest' study starting from the 1940s would show that - well that appears to be what Mr Goddard is saying. He even provides his version of the GISS temperature graph just to prove it 'was very cold in the 1970s'. The official GISS graph is below.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh35wkEYOVUFr1QIb7IMExB74i_TPkMh9ql3HjhKhS-eP7ciJz4qpgbw-SKmNy5KDQkXpB9mrhfgwq4QednA5FI6zcY_DTcEL8d_qHtc3j4Qoxmw8ueUQfIgSKkvBJ3FRwfiIsUPKRTeiDE/s1600/509796main_GISS_annual_temperature_anomalies.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="394" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh35wkEYOVUFr1QIb7IMExB74i_TPkMh9ql3HjhKhS-eP7ciJz4qpgbw-SKmNy5KDQkXpB9mrhfgwq4QednA5FI6zcY_DTcEL8d_qHtc3j4Qoxmw8ueUQfIgSKkvBJ3FRwfiIsUPKRTeiDE/s640/509796main_GISS_annual_temperature_anomalies.gif" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
The 70s were a little cooler than 1940s to be sure but that was warmer than all previous years - wouldn't starting a study from then be cherry picking? In any case it is clear that even the 70s were just part of an overall warming trend that began after 1900 so if Goddard's theory where species continually wander north and south and up and down is true, then they have been migrating both north and higher for several decades before 1940 in response to warming, just as this honest study continues to prove.<br />
<br />
As to cherry picking, can Goddard point to any species data from the 1940s that could be included in a study such as this and would support his preposterous claims of these scientists being intentionally deceptive and dishonest? Without such evidence his beliefs are just unproven ramblings of an unqualified conspiracy theorist blogger. Suitable studies do not date back that far but it is reasonable to assume based on the evidence of this research that species also migrated due to warming as long as there has been a warming trend and according to the GISS graph that pre-dates 1940.<br />
<br />
However if Goddard was even slightly interested in science he would have looked at this meta-study and saw that many of the studies used actually did<a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/content/suppl/2011/08/17/333.6045.1024.DC1/Chen.SOM.pdf" target="_blank"> use data sets older than 1970,</a> many were from the 60s and even one from as far back as 1947.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgeQXXI6uACf5TbLodjJNirVn1fA_l3LRy0dBIWYG_0IJO2tSLg-rFfPmYTej2ArSV9xZWeZoOpDrmXYMftLT9Jw2RZrRdgOUIiF2zd7nr8ZF-57BdNkoRQkU8_ZbK4PheXNpab87n1giXq/s1600/images2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgeQXXI6uACf5TbLodjJNirVn1fA_l3LRy0dBIWYG_0IJO2tSLg-rFfPmYTej2ArSV9xZWeZoOpDrmXYMftLT9Jw2RZrRdgOUIiF2zd7nr8ZF-57BdNkoRQkU8_ZbK4PheXNpab87n1giXq/s1600/images2.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
But now comes Mr. Goddard's biggest howler as he goes for a hat-trick; His claim that the government is wasting billions of taxpayer dollars repeating this research. Ignoring that he is wrong about this being repeated research, and forgiving his alarmist '<b>wasting billions of dollars</b>' shriek, this study was carried out by scientists in the Department of Biology at the <b>University of York, England</b>. Not a single taxpayer dollar was used.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEigm_8-ReEFY2GMbXwndvmm2mrvbh3U-OcSEsZYtZmgGSDpDWn1oKEpYBL1uvrTWOr6572YZCg1NyaxjtaRQDTYk4vi-2Fo8vph_rYS_LQyFqlO9PbrLfPXo3LR9LLh5sDS3zEAi_yzCRUX/s1600/images3.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="394" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEigm_8-ReEFY2GMbXwndvmm2mrvbh3U-OcSEsZYtZmgGSDpDWn1oKEpYBL1uvrTWOr6572YZCg1NyaxjtaRQDTYk4vi-2Fo8vph_rYS_LQyFqlO9PbrLfPXo3LR9LLh5sDS3zEAi_yzCRUX/s400/images3.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>Lazarushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14139033650731770470noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8768542139586623003.post-47093406777277546272012-06-12T03:31:00.000-07:002012-06-12T03:31:55.389-07:00Irony BypassWith a total irony bypass, Steve Goddard says;<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>"<a href="http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/06/09/how-long-does-it-take-for-a-97-consensus-of-scientists-to-stop-being-morons/" target="_blank">In the case of continental drift, it took almost 70 years to accept the evidence, and allow the science to proceed.</a>"</b></blockquote>
Anthropogenic Climate Change is based on basic science well over a century old and with good evidence to support current warming is caused by it for a few generations. Thankfully it hasn't taken the scientific community as long to accept it as it did continental drift. We can only hope that it will not take Goddard and his cronies much longer.<br />
<br />Lazarushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14139033650731770470noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8768542139586623003.post-4696298584361640412012-05-30T18:43:00.000-07:002012-05-30T18:43:35.493-07:00Steve Goddard Caught Lying?To my recollection I have never directly called anyone a liar on any of the forums or blogs I have posted on as such terms prove too emotive which tends to get in the way of mature discourse. But have I caught Steve Goddard of Real Science in a bare faced lie?<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjyfj9p3O7lqAn9JSics7-v0Ki89NgWky0_NFIXLFDte6J-o_M5tCC85F7L3RPJzQqJabemRBsjXD1GGPeC9ppBBZdOi9f7odk1lUM0d9HHw-UnMcHLa_seYr8mzikJMIFVCYmt7O-MZxKy/s1600/liar.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="312" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjyfj9p3O7lqAn9JSics7-v0Ki89NgWky0_NFIXLFDte6J-o_M5tCC85F7L3RPJzQqJabemRBsjXD1GGPeC9ppBBZdOi9f7odk1lUM0d9HHw-UnMcHLa_seYr8mzikJMIFVCYmt7O-MZxKy/s320/liar.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
In <a href="http://reallysciency.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/real-science-proves-hansen-correct.html" target="_blank">my last post</a> I showed how Goddard's foolish attempts to slag of Prof. James Hansen backfired as it would seem Hansen made the correct call some 26years ago. I visited <a href="http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/05/30/one-born-every-minute/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Goddard's post</a> to reveal this with a link to my analysis, and no doubt embarrassed he responded with;<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>"I have never visited your blog"</b></blockquote>
Which is a rather strange thing to say since as a response to <a href="http://reallysciency.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/doctored-goddard.html" target="_blank">a post where I caught him doctoring maps </a>he responded with a post on his own blog called <a href="http://www.real-science.com/enough-is-enough" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">'Enough Is Enough'</a> where he claimed that I had '<b>written thousands and thousands of lines all over the Internet'</b> and he emailed me directly calling me<b> 'scum'</b> and a <b>'liar'</b> as <a href="http://reallysciency.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/understanding-climate-change-denial.html" target="_blank">reported here</a>.<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li><b>How did he reach his conclusions without ever reading what they were? </b></li>
<li><b>How did he get my contact information without visiting the blog he claims to have never visited?</b></li>
</ul>
<br />
I suppose someone could have told him what my post contained and gave him the contact information, which would mean that he resorted to name calling based on hearsay. Far worse than lying in my book and someone who would do that would certainly be capable of lying too.<br />
<br />
Or perhaps he just forgot he did. That would surprise me in the light of the embarrassing climb down he had to do when someone else realised his maps were botched and he crossed out what he said about me and issued a correction for his post. You'd think he be likely to remember doing that.<br />
<br />
So have I caught Steve Goddard telling porkies? The evidence strongly suggests I have.<br />
<br />Lazarushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14139033650731770470noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8768542139586623003.post-41453062345205985602012-05-30T03:36:00.003-07:002012-05-30T03:37:12.093-07:00Real Science Proves Hansen Correct Again.In a Real Science <a href="http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/05/29/hansen-1986-earth-living-hell-by-2001-and-it-is-reagans-fault/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">post</a>, as usual aimed more at right wing politics than real science, Steve Goddard quotes James Hansen from 1986;<br />
<blockquote>
<b>"Within 15 years, said Goddard Space Flight Centre honcho James Hansen, "global temperatures will rise to a level that hasn't existed on Earth in 100,000 years"</b></blockquote>
Mr Goddard should look rather foolish as Hansen was right. Antarctic Ice Cores from Vostok revealing temperatures going back 800,000 years show that present temperatures are warmer than at any time in over the last 100,000 years. This is something that was unknown to science back in 1986, so whether Hansen made a lucky guess or an inspired one, he was right.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><img border="0" height="492" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEitYP5Gky9w0VbvJAcubc1hyFZQhu6LS5g0Ryg10jscAwVmEd940hKaVOVu9vU9iVI1lGV59W_s-UETPaOz1vW3ft7BJLktXTPxikY1nlswCErPUwW6XqaTJZa0dbC2WfWAN-8NGedUJeaz/s640/Vostok.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" width="640" /></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Co2-temperature-plot.svg" target="_blank">This figure shows historical CO2 (right axis) and reconstructed temperature (as a difference from the mean temperature for the last 100 years) records based on Antarctic ice cores, providing data for the last 800,000 years.</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
This isn't the <a href="http://reallysciency.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/goddard-statisically-proves-hansen.html" target="_blank">fist time</a> Goddard has shown Hansen to be correct even though he remains in denial. Like many foolish people Goddard doesn't know when to quit and his defence of this evidence is to incorrectly insist that;<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>"According to ice cores, temperatures peaked 8,000 years ago"</b></blockquote>
This is an old denier fallacy which was promoted by people like Don Easterbrook and long debunked by sites like <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/10000-years-warmer.htm" target="_blank">Skeptical Science</a>. 8000 years was a warm period and Easterbrook presented graphs like this one that that showed just that;<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgMZioUNvv4DJ8oJWKeG8AjYYNJgeHQiks0WN3APHkIXepraU50F6pXHVt10FgxG5XDz9hdsN31XK-oyskVD7dgxPZqnAJ3Iqzh9X75N3O18-5vMEIBZYBp10OTHfOkmrnOiF7y9LMN6rAi/s1600/GISP210klarge.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="402" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgMZioUNvv4DJ8oJWKeG8AjYYNJgeHQiks0WN3APHkIXepraU50F6pXHVt10FgxG5XDz9hdsN31XK-oyskVD7dgxPZqnAJ3Iqzh9X75N3O18-5vMEIBZYBp10OTHfOkmrnOiF7y9LMN6rAi/s640/GISP210klarge.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
But as can be clearly seen, Easterbrooks 'present ' times stopped in 1855 just as current global temperatures started to rise. It would be rather inconvenient for a science denier to include modern temperatures and highlight that present warming really is at an unprecedented high, not seen for many thousands of years. Clearly Goddard and his other foolish promoters of myths are living in the past as current average global temperatures are higher than 8000 years ago and as shown higher than over 100,000 years ago just as Hansen said they would be. <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b> </b><b>"There are two kinds of fools: those who can't change their opinions and those who won t."</b></blockquote>
<br />Lazarushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14139033650731770470noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8768542139586623003.post-62390124622443369922012-05-17T17:56:00.000-07:002012-05-17T17:57:47.800-07:00Goddard's Appeal to AthoritySteve Goddard continues to misrepresent Hansen to misinform his readers, and probably himself.<br />
<br />
As previously <a href="http://reallysciency.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/hansen-forecast-verification.html" target="_blank">reported</a> he accuses Hansen of calling or declaring a permanent drought in the US, when what Hansen actually said was, there would be a semi-permanent
drought over the next several decades with rain, when it does come, occurring in extreme events with
heavy flooding.<br />
<br />
He repeated a similar claim in his '<a href="http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/05/16/warming-to-bring-permanent-drought-and-permanent-flood-to-the-midwest/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Warming To Bring Permanent Drought And Permanent Flood To The Midwest'</a> post and said;<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b> "No sooner than Hansen declared permanent drought for the midwest – we
get a new global warming report warming of permanent floods in the
midwest."</b></blockquote>
<br />
Well as anyone can see Hansen has never declared a permanent drought and certainly no drought for this present time. Nor has there been any war(n)ing of permanent floods. Why does Goddard feel the need to make this easily refuted stuff up?<br />
<br />
Just to reiterate, what we have is drought conditions being alleviated somewhat by heavy rain. Doesn't that fit exactly what Hansen suggests will happen over the next several decades?<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>“Over the next several decades, the Western United States and the
semi-arid region from North Dakota to Texas will develop semi-permanent
drought, with rain, when it does come, occurring in extreme events with
heavy flooding.”</b></blockquote>
<br />
But it gets better. When I said <b>"Shouldn’t that be Semi-permanent drought over several decades?"</b>, Mr Goddard replied with his usual politeness;<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>" I have been hearing the exact same crap for three decades already."</b></blockquote>
<br />
So straight away on being challenged Goddard drops the permanent drought claim - though don't hold your breath for a correction.<br />
<br />
It seemed only fair that I should suggest he provide a quote of Hansen saying <b>'the exact same crap'</b> three decades ago and he kindly provided a<a href="http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=kAcgAAAAIBAJ&sjid=-2QFAAAAIBAJ&pg=1403,4484337&dq=hansen+drought&hl=en" target="_blank"> link </a>to this news article about US drought in 1988;<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEirTp5Yd-CvpcoFhA0seIgsEc3txtqgFGn9wEh5y_Fj0TUVYX8RWa_90sMLxjQ4hIGq6NtsxXNj6oLrsTEPsPqvw0o5oLhZcT4PYOiQtQRNgwnN_NZVxVGf7IwFGW6eC_AnJBgPIUvtLjbs/s1600/nasa.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="187" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEirTp5Yd-CvpcoFhA0seIgsEc3txtqgFGn9wEh5y_Fj0TUVYX8RWa_90sMLxjQ4hIGq6NtsxXNj6oLrsTEPsPqvw0o5oLhZcT4PYOiQtQRNgwnN_NZVxVGf7IwFGW6eC_AnJBgPIUvtLjbs/s640/nasa.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
Now any one with a keen intellect will immediately realise, (sorry Mr Goddard that can't include you), that 1988 can't be said to be three decades ago. <br />
<br />
The article itself is also an interesting read in light of Goddard's claim. Although Hansen is quoted in it, and there is a quote <b>"It is an example of the kind of drought that will occur more frequently as global warming become larger"</b>, this wasn't said by Hansen, but Manabe, a soil specialist.<br />
<br />
However, something I found rather amusing happened in our conversation when I asked Goddard if he really did think 1988 was three decades ago. He replied in his usual <span class="queryn" id="queryn">amiable way;</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>"You are a know nothing idiot child. I was working on global warming studies at Los Alamos in 1980.<span class="queryn" id="queryn">"</span></b></blockquote>
<span class="queryn" id="queryn">Well 1980 is over three decades ago so I will give him that but perhaps he should have quoted his own published Global Warming research instead of a news article eight years later.</span><br />
<br />
<b><span class="queryn" id="queryn">Blow me, isn't that a p</span>rime example of the Fallacy: <a href="http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html" target="_blank">Appeal to Authority</a>? Only using Goddard's view of his own self importance to make himself the authority?</b><br />
<span class="queryn" id="queryn"> </span> <br />
<br />
<br />Lazarushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14139033650731770470noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8768542139586623003.post-21263428419454668992012-05-16T01:39:00.001-07:002012-05-16T01:39:28.850-07:00Prize for most misleading headline...<span></span>
<br />
<div class="post-header">
</div>
<div class="post-body entry-content" id="post-body-8602648295190373471" itemprop="articleBody">
... goes to the Daily fail for:<b> <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2144609/Drivers-face-50-cent-rise-fuel-duty-make-tax-shortfall-green-cars.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Drivers face a 50 per cent rise in fuel duty to make up tax shortfall from 'green' cars</a>. </b>Is
it just me or does this headline look at first glance to mean that
those nasty 'green' cars being pushed by the government are actually
going to make motoring much more expensive?<b><br /></b>
<div style="background-color: white; border: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;">
<br />Clearly I'm not the only one as some of the Fail's readers show. Ollie from Ashford says;</div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="comment-body">
<b>"Let the Green Party stump up the monies"</b></div>
</blockquote>
And a very bright Bev for Dorset cries;</div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="comment-body">
<b>"Green! Green! The government use it to rob,
steal and lie. The next tax will be exhaling tax hold your breath to
reduce carbon emissions." </b></div>
</blockquote>
<div class="comment-body">
</div>
<div class="comment-body">
So what is it really all about? Well a read of the actual article
reveals that an RAC report calculated that as people, (and these people
can be Daily Fail readers too), swap to hybrid and electric cars there
will be a loss of government tax revenue through drivers taking
advantage of current tax breaks, paying less road licence and purchasing
less petrol, leaving the Treasury with a shortfall by 2029. <span style="font-size: 1.2em;"></span></div>
</div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;">
</div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;">
But isn't that the same as blaming <b>people who give up smoking for increasing our tax burden by not buying cigarettes?</b><br /><br />No
one who spends half a moment to think about it would believe that the
current tax breaks on buying 'green' cars will still be in place if
they become the vehicle of choice, and it would seem likely that
government policy will alter over time as motorists pay less tax to
address the the balance in some way to cover any shortfall if it is
needed. </div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;">
</div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;">
So there is no real indication that motorists per se will be paying any
more tax in real terms as they do today, just that the tax may be on
other things. In fact in the article Paul Johnson from the Institute of
Fiscal Studies suggests replacing the current system of fuel taxation
with, <b>'A national system of charging related to mileage and congestion'</b>.
Sound like a idea worth looking at to me, and perhaps should have
formed part of the headline used rather than one that appears to some as
anti green.</div>
</div>Lazarushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14139033650731770470noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8768542139586623003.post-71995540544291882862012-05-14T03:29:00.001-07:002012-05-14T03:29:34.694-07:00Hansen Forecast VerificationGoddard likes to twist the truth to align it with is ideology. In a recent post called "<a href="http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/05/11/hansen-forecast-verification/" target="_blank">Hansen Forecast Verification"</a> he claimed "<b>Hansen called for permanent drought from Texas to North Dakota</b>", only to show a US map of recent heavy rain in Texas. No reference was given but Goddard must have been referring to an <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/10/opinion/game-over-for-the-climate.html" target="_blank">opinion piece in the New York Times</a> where Hansen didn't 'call' for anything but said;<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>“Over the next several decades, the Western United States and the
semi-arid region from North Dakota to Texas will develop semi-permanent
drought, with rain, when it does come, occurring in extreme events with
heavy flooding.”</b>
</blockquote>
So it isn't a '<b> permanent drought'</b> occurring now as Goddard misinforms his readers but a semi-permanent one that Hansen is referring to and is to happen over the next several decades, but even so it
semi-permanent drought is still holding true even with the heavy rain in
the past week, the rain was not sufficient to alleviate the current drought conditions.<br />
<br />
But twisting things is Steven Goddard's modus operandi to give his deluded readership what they want to hear.<br />Lazarushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14139033650731770470noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8768542139586623003.post-21891777999770490432012-05-11T06:53:00.000-07:002012-05-11T06:54:06.292-07:00Fox News Can't Decide if Climate Change is for Real<div>
<b>A mirrored post from Christopher "Tanoro" Grays' blog;<a href="http://www.tanoro.com/viewblog?id=43" target="_blank"> A Personal blog of science and reason</a></b> <br />
<br />
Just last week, I was arguing with someone on Facebook that when
an organization with a clear-cut bias that claims to report the news
cannot even get its own position straight, we should become less
inclined to take said organization seriously. At the time, I was talking
about NaturalNews.com, the Fox News of alternative health. This time,
it's Fox News doing what it does best.<br />
My boss told me this morning that Fox News released <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/04/30/wind-farms-are-warming-earth-researchers-say/" target="_blank">an article</a> indicating that <a href="http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1505.html" target="_blank">new research</a> shows that wind farms may cause global warming.<br />
<blockquote>
<b>New research finds that wind farms actually warm up the surface of
the land underneath them during the night, a phenomena that could put a
damper on efforts to expand wind energy as a green energy solution.</b></blockquote>
The title of the article is very misleading and doesn't quite reflect what the study's author actually said.<br />
<blockquote>
<b>"Overall, the warming effect reported in our study is local and is
small compared to the strong year-to-year changes" that result from
natural variation, said Liming Zhou.</b></blockquote>
This means that a big enough wind farm could cause small, but
noticeable, change in local meterology, a warming effect quantified in
the study as 0.72°C per decade in the regions containing such wind
farms. That doesn't mean climate change! As usual, Fox News is trying to
sensationalize the story.<br />
What I find troubling, however, is what story was right below this one on Fox News' homepage.<br />
<img alt="" height="280" src="http://www.tanoro.com/images/fox-climate-change.jpg" style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" width="226" />The article <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/04/30/proof-global-warming-isnt-making-weather-wackier/" target="_blank">highlighted here</a>
discusses a blog by climate change denier, Steven Goddard, a former
guest author on WattsUpWithThat. The blog questions whether or not
greenhouse gases cause severe weather patterns attributed to climate
change. Now, this is not a topic with which I am familiar, so I cannot
comment on it. What I found most laughable is the author's introduction
in the Fox News article.<br />
<blockquote>
<b>Steven Goddard, who runs the skeptical climate blog Real Science and has a background in <span style="text-decoration: underline;"><b>geology</b></span> and <b><span style="text-decoration: underline;">computer science</span></b>, has spent thousands of hours studying bad weather events around the world.</b></blockquote>
What is wrong with this picture? First of all, Fox News is quoting an
expert in geology and computer science on the subject of meterology and
climatology? I can actually hear my brain cells shriek in pain.<br />
<br />
Secondly, Fox News has no trouble spelling out the pseudo-science
claptrap of the anti-science minorities, but they fall flat on their
faces when trying to transmit a simple message from the peer reviewed
literature. What's worse, the message they successfully conveyed is by a
stark opponent against climate change while the headliner is an article
suggesting alternative energy causes climate change. Fox News, if I
"head desked" everytime you got something hopelessly wrong, I'd have
brain damage that strongly correlates with the frequency in which I read
your content.<br />
<br />
Sources:<br />
<a href="http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1505.html" target="_blank">http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1505.html</a><br />
<a href="http://grist.org/list/wind-farms-do-not-cause-climate-change/" target="_blank">http://grist.org/list/wind-farms-do-not-cause-climate-change/</a><br />
<a href="http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/04/30/wind-farms-are-warming-earth-researchers-say/" target="_blank">http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/04/30/wind-farms-are-warming-earth-researchers-say/</a><br />
<a href="http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/04/30/proof-global-warming-isnt-making-weather-wackier/" target="_blank">http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/04/30/proof-global-warming-isnt-making-weather-wackier/</a></div>Lazarushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14139033650731770470noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8768542139586623003.post-75637967786447906492012-05-08T08:52:00.000-07:002012-05-08T08:53:06.221-07:00Hitler Liked Dogs. Do You?I have been following the news of Heartland's ill judged<a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/unabomber-global-warming-billboard-heartland-institute-article-1.1073052" target="_blank"> ad campaign</a>. I'd say ill judged only if you consider shooting yourself in the foot while it is in your mouth, ill judged. Didn't they learn anything from the not funny satirical 10:10 ads?<br />
<br />
By pretty much suggesting that those who accept the science of global warming are like serial killers and terrorists they have managed to alienate supporters and funders alike. Drink giant <a href="http://www.environmentalleader.com/2012/05/07/diageo-stops-heartland-donations-after-unabomber-billboards/" target="_blank">Diageo</a> who owns brands like Guinness, Smirnoff, Johnnie Walker and Moët & Chandon and gave Heartland $10,000 over the past two years say they have no plans to work with the Heartland Institute in the future. State Farm an insurance company has also announced that <i></i>they were<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/shawn-lawrence-otto/an-open-letter-to-state-f_b_1489265.html" target="_blank"> severing all ties</a> with the Heartland Institute.This company gave $114,000 in 2010, $230,000 last year and $95,000 this year according to Heartland's leaked <a href="http://www.shawnotto.com/downloads/heartland/%281-15-2012%29%202012%20Fundraising%20Plan.pdf" target="_blank">fund-raising plan</a>. <b>Ouch!</b><br />
<br />
<span class="post-labels">Donna Laframboise, author, climate skeptic and blogger had planned on attending Heartlands latest anti-climate change conference but stated<a href="http://www.blogger.com/goog_1738703840"> </a></span><a href="http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2012/05/05/why-i-wont-be-speaking-at-the-heartland-conference/" target="_blank">'my participation in the upcoming Heartland conference has now become untenable.'</a> With her book being advertised on the same Heartland web page she believes her ' reputation has been <i>harmed'. </i>She also reports<i>;</i><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>'Ross McKitrick said in an a <a href="http://climateaudit.org/2012/05/04/mckitrick-letter-to-heartland/">strongly-worded letter</a> to Heartland yesterday: <br />You cannot simultaneously say that you want to promote a debate while equating the other side to terrorists and mass murderers.'</b></blockquote>
Perhaps more can be learned about the ethics and morals of those who appear to see nothing wrong with this sort of campaign. Enter stage left my Member of the European Parliament, Roger Helmer. He became an MEP on a Conservative ticket before defecting to the more extreme right UKIP party who has for a<a href="http://www.ukip.org/content/latest-news/1675-christopher-a-man-of-many-talents" target="_blank"> deputy leader Mad Monckton</a>. Helmer has been mentioned on my blog before;<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b><a href="http://lazarus-on.blogspot.co.uk/2010/12/who-voted-for-this-idiot.html" target="_blank">Who voted for this idiot? </a></b><br />
<b><a href="http://lazarus-on.blogspot.co.uk/2011/05/rape-victims-shared-responsibility-for.html" target="_blank">Rape victims share responsibility for the crime! </a></b><br />
<b><a href="http://lazarus-on.blogspot.co.uk/2011/10/winds-of-change.html" target="_blank">Winds of Change? </a></b></blockquote>
<br />
Helmer is still <a href="http://heartland.org/events/seventh-international-conference-climate-change">down to attend this Heartland conference</a> as a breakfast speaker;<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>"Breakfast - May 23, 2012: SPEAKER, Roger Helmer, European Parliament, Great Britain - $39.00 "</b></blockquote>
By all accounts this insidious Ad campaign is no barrier to him giving his speech. <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2012/may/04/heartland-institute-global-warming-murder?newsfeed=true" target="_blank">According to Leo Hickman</a>;<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>'He confirmed he was still attending, adding:</b><br />
<b>I am
delighted that the Heartland campaign for the Chicago climate conference
has succeeded in its purpose and attracted the attention of the
Guardian.'</b></blockquote>
So with Helmer and his conservative opinions in mind I thought I'd give Heartland a few suggestions for alternatives to their posters. This ones for Rog;<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgX0ePYYkvOpriJRNF9SHn9kJUl9CgH3pshoxEO1NznjaMwuv8Enfoj8uk0ycgbbG_vQeOU5Tslpil_8FcmInqBxJ8CH37LCycKEmbVN1c3UyEBVNjRTa7UZQqc9xoMkzbrCpqqzh67G4ll/s1600/heartThatcherr.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgX0ePYYkvOpriJRNF9SHn9kJUl9CgH3pshoxEO1NznjaMwuv8Enfoj8uk0ycgbbG_vQeOU5Tslpil_8FcmInqBxJ8CH37LCycKEmbVN1c3UyEBVNjRTa7UZQqc9xoMkzbrCpqqzh67G4ll/s1600/heartThatcherr.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
But Heartland's ads are really a reverse version of the<a class="l vst" href="http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html"> Appeal to Authority.</a> Choose someone who is noteworthy in some respect and use them to promote something unrelated. I can't see dairy farmers being too pleased to see this around the country;<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgDnujQ4C2FntGd4ZV5ssBywK9db66DTA3PuEE2ojZS2yjLQ9tlAavLB7G7j0ScY1tYQIH_qbmRfVePZfklPkQPMkvHbpx4eHGoGMVnBNS-hdGsFAWie8LkKXaP8DTyzHHqyKv36KYaUAJh/s1600/hearmilk.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgDnujQ4C2FntGd4ZV5ssBywK9db66DTA3PuEE2ojZS2yjLQ9tlAavLB7G7j0ScY1tYQIH_qbmRfVePZfklPkQPMkvHbpx4eHGoGMVnBNS-hdGsFAWie8LkKXaP8DTyzHHqyKv36KYaUAJh/s1600/hearmilk.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
Or, as the title of this post suggests, dog breeders liking this;<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj-PB6mnro-_r3Uf6KPn7zl5CyQ-X_jMrJFzqAmFNc68cdIzAB9t3twez5xhZTQHISn2MXeTcm0SWIY6huwCUK_Bs2uuiGDOIs-4zlneSuNEpvaSa9faDEx4oapmTZR2jZPrRRXlTDvK6ea/s1600/heartHitler.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj-PB6mnro-_r3Uf6KPn7zl5CyQ-X_jMrJFzqAmFNc68cdIzAB9t3twez5xhZTQHISn2MXeTcm0SWIY6huwCUK_Bs2uuiGDOIs-4zlneSuNEpvaSa9faDEx4oapmTZR2jZPrRRXlTDvK6ea/s1600/heartHitler.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
<b>But to really show the absurdity and irrationality of this add campaign, suppose an environmental group had commissioned this;</b><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgV9lNsjUYdj6ly6zxm9KRygg8jmdfjRXe-a-0zC7rEWwp9O8N8yFEQfBB9rOk0bVOTGcLA7C4GvmiV9R_FuIGGlD7nrBT2fALCvL2ClexAyTI21giWdY0lYtjqHwzoZJRdCM3olGAf0pHo/s1600/hearAnders.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgV9lNsjUYdj6ly6zxm9KRygg8jmdfjRXe-a-0zC7rEWwp9O8N8yFEQfBB9rOk0bVOTGcLA7C4GvmiV9R_FuIGGlD7nrBT2fALCvL2ClexAyTI21giWdY0lYtjqHwzoZJRdCM3olGAf0pHo/s1600/hearAnders.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Lazarushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14139033650731770470noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8768542139586623003.post-24510892299974693852012-05-01T18:50:00.000-07:002012-05-01T18:50:24.476-07:00Normal Service Has Been ResumedAfter the hack at Steven Goddard Orwellian named <b>'Real Science'</b> web site that resulted in no posts for several days, normal service has been resumed.<br />
<br />
The <a href="http://www.real-science.com/are-you-beginning-to-see-that-youve-been-lied-to-by-every-institution-including-science" target="_blank">latest post</a> still rejects science and rationality. It still denies global warming is happening. It still promotes conspiracies including '<b>“Global Warming” to scare the masses and make lots of money while controlling nations</b>'.<br />
<br />
The only real difference is that this post isn't from the guy who calls himself Steven Goddard, he still seems to have lost control of his domain, but by someone calling themselves <b>Richard Garwin</b>.<br />
<br />
There is a rather eminent physicist called <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Garwin" target="_blank"><b>Richard Garwin</b>,</a> now 84 years old, and a <b><a href="http://www.ucsusa.org/about/board.html" target="_blank">Board member of the Union of Concerned Scientists</a></b>, but this clearly isn't Goddard's hacker.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjQypK0aHlHXMnawo3KiUvr5xFZ8N4oNtLUP5oouj8-6sW35hAFAFPTx42gPPWYrvxX6K11FBrme_94jO3BI2Ii-6n1Dn2NBiF5Nnr5SILOFPNDhsRJHKkKng_AwMAWpCbEXiuevJbcPcU_/s1600/Richard+Garwin.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjQypK0aHlHXMnawo3KiUvr5xFZ8N4oNtLUP5oouj8-6sW35hAFAFPTx42gPPWYrvxX6K11FBrme_94jO3BI2Ii-6n1Dn2NBiF5Nnr5SILOFPNDhsRJHKkKng_AwMAWpCbEXiuevJbcPcU_/s640/Richard+Garwin.jpg" width="617" /></a></div>
<br />
The post has received quite a lot of interest form Goddard's usual commenters but they seem unhappy with it for some reason and I can't quite put my finger on what it is. Perhaps this Richard Garwin is slightly more extreme in his conspiracy theories with talk of <b>Elitists, Weather Control and UFOs</b>, but it hardly makes less sense that Goddard's <b>'<a href="http://www.real-science.com/where-is-the-paper" target="_blank">Birther</a></b>' conspiracies for example. But what is assured is that their ability to think rationally remains just as impaired;<br />
<br />
'<b>Ano</b>' suspects the hack could be down to the warmists;<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>I would suspect it might be a guy from Desmog Blog. This is their kind of thing</b></blockquote>
'<b>Dave Burton</b>' agrees;<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>I suspect that the person impersonating Richard Garwin is a climate alarmist having some fun at skeptics’ expense. </b></blockquote>
<br />
Meanwhile, normal service has been resumed by Steve Goddard himself over at his old <a href="http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/04/28/real-science-com-update/" target="_blank"><b>Worprdpress blog</b> </a>where his own anti-science, conspiracy theory nonsense continues.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately so does the nonsense that the hack was an attack carried out by the warmists, '<b>ntesdorf</b>' says:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>Dirty tricks are all that the Warmists really know.</b></blockquote>
And '<b>Rogelio</b>' says:<br />
<blockquote>
<b>I still think that that site was stolen because it is and was really doing major damage to the AGW. I cannot possibly contemplate any other reason</b></blockquote>
Apparently it was even believed that Richard Garwin the physicist, was responsible for the hack, '<b>foxgoose</b>' says;<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>Is he really a Board Member of the Union of Concerned Scientists?<br />Hilarious!<br />Obviously they’re a lot more “concerned” than we thought. </b></blockquote>
<br />
All this despite Goddard's best efforts and continued claims that this incident has nothing to do with either. You really could not make this stuff up.<br />
<br />Lazarushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14139033650731770470noreply@blogger.com1