Tuesday, 12 February 2013

Climate Trend REVERSAL in the Swiss Alps.

Pierre Gosselin on his blog NoTricksZone reports on a new peer-reviewed paper published by the Journal of Climatology:

Snow variability in the Swiss Alps 1864–2009Simon C. Scherrer, Christian Wüthrich, Mischa Croci-Maspoli, Rolf Weingartner, Christof Appenzeller. Article first published online: 4 FEB 2013   DOI: 10.1002/joc.3653

Pierre writes:

The paper looks at nine Swiss Alpine snow series that cover different altitudes (450–1860 m asl) and go back more than 100 years. In addition the authors analyzed data from 71 stations covering the last 50–80 years to get a more complete picture of Swiss Alpine snow variability.

They analysed data for trend and variability for:
  • New snow sums (NSS)
  • Maximum new snow (MAXNS)
  • Days with snowfall (DWSF)
According to their abstract (my {Pierre G's} emphasis):
Our results reveal large decadal variability with phases of low and high values for NSS, DWSF and DWSP. For most stations NSS, DWSF and DWSP show the lowest values recorded and unprecedented negative trends in the late 1980s and 1990s. [...]  The fraction of NSS and DWSP in different seasons (autumn, winter and spring) has changed only slightly over the ∼150 year record. Some decreases most likely attributable to temperature changes in the last 50 years are found for spring, especially for NSS at low stations. Both the NSS and DWSP snow indicators show a trend reversal in most recent years (since 2000), especially at low and medium altitudes. This is consistent with the recent ‘plateauing’ (i.e. slight relative decrease) of mean winter temperature in Switzerland and illustrates how important decadal variability is in understanding the trends in key snow indicators.”
The study shows snow and temperature are naturally variable and that temperatures in Switzerland, as is the case globally, are no longer rising, and are now trending downwards.


Protecting Global Warming Liars

Freelance US writer Alan Caruba has a great item on his blog Warning Signs entitled

Protecting Global Warming Liars

By Alan Caruba

The debasement of science continues as various elements, organizations and publications, and the mainstream media circle the wagons to protect those who continue to spread lies about global warming.

Most recently, the National Geographic Science Blogs have added Dr. Peter Gleick to its roster of contributors despite the fact that he stole documents from The Heartland Institute in 2012, creating and disseminated a phony “memo" to defame the 28-year-old, non-profit research organization. 

In his initial National Geographic blog post, Dr. Gleick described himself as a member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. He is also the president of the Pacific Institute. Among the topics he intends to address are “misrepresentations of science.”

You can read the facts about his deception on www.fakegate.org, a website Heartland created after Dr. Gleick’s aborted effort to spread a variety of lies about its funding and efforts to debunk the global warming hoax. Dr. Gleick admitted to this and one would think that such behavior would not be rewarded, but neither the National Geographic nor the Pacific Institute and other organizations that claim to be devoted to scientific accuracy and ethics were bothered in the least.

He was welcomed back to the Pacific Institute with a statement that blandly stated that Dr. Gleick “has apologized publicity for his actions, which are not condoned by the Pacific Institute of Directors and run counter to the Institute’s policies and standards of ethics over its 25-year history. The Board accepts Dr. Gleick’s apology for his lapse of judgment.”
Lapse of judgment? Using deception to deliberately slander the Heartland Institute is hardly a lapse of judgment. Those invested in keeping the global warming hoax alive are happy to forgive and forget, and hope the public does so as well. 

At a recent convention of the American Geophysical Union, Dr. Gleick was among the featured speakers, along with Michael Mann, a key figure in “Climategate”, the 2009 exposure of emails between himself and other global warming schemers. Mann is famous for creating false data to support it and, in 2012, claimed to have been a joint winner of the Nobel Peace Prize! The Norwegian Nobel Institute issued a statement “affirming that climate scientist, Michael Mann lied…”

Penn State University where Michael Mann remains on the faculty despite his Nobel Peace Prize lie, the university simply scrubbed its websites and official documentation of his claim.
Considering that global warming is a lie from start to finish, one must conclude that all those involved have few, if any, qualms about lying. Indeed, this year the American Geophysical Union honored Dr. Gleick as a new AGU Fellow. 

A year earlier, then AGU president, Michael McPherson stated that Dr. Gleick’s “transgression cannot be condoned” and had “compromised AGU’s credibility as a scientific society.” But that was last year and AGU has the same short memory as other scientific organizations that have put their reputations on the line for global warming.
Other professions, such as the law, drum out such people, deny them the right to practice law in the courts, and treat them with contempt when they engage in criminal or unethical behavior, but in the world of science these days, such behavior ends up being rewarded and, by inference, defended.

It is not surprising that National Geographic has provided Dr. Gleick a platform for his defense of global warming. It has long perpetrated all the global warming lies we associate with the hoax. 

It is not surprising that AGU has honored Dr. Gleick barely a year after the revelations of his attack on The Heartland Institute. 

It is not surprising that Michael Mann remains on the faculty of Penn State University and continues to earn thousands for speeches about global warming.

Nor should we be surprised that Al Gore who spent years campaigning against fossil fuels as the “cause” of global warming should sell his television channel to Al Jazeera, funded by Qatar, a leading oil producer.

What we are witnessing is the web of deception, a global conspiracy joined by governments, including our own, to advance the greatest hoax of the modern era.
Its victims are those forced to pay higher prices for the energy provided by traditional sources, oil, natural gas, and oil, along with the higher cost of gasoline that must be blended with ethanol even if it damages the engines of our automobiles and drives up the cost of food as a large percentage of our corn crop is diverted for its production. 

If the so-called “greenhouse gas emissions” of carbon dioxide can be taxed governments such as Australia’s benefit while the industries and businesses affected are defrauded and even driven to close their doors. Carbon dioxide does not trap heat. The Earth balances its absorption and release. It is a minor gas in the atmosphere, barely 0.038%.
There was a time when science adhered to strict rules of ethical behavior. When those are thrown overboard, everyone is victimized.

© Alan Caruba, 2013 re-published with permission.

Lewandowsky's EGO.

Lewandowsky’s EGO.

by Anthony Cox
Stephan Lewandowsky is at the very top of the academic pile; he is an exemplar; he has more degrees and awards than Speed Gordon.

In terms of the accepted standards of intelligence he is smart. How then can such a smart man be so stupid?

Lewandowsky supports AGW. AGW is a failed theory; that is beyond doubt.

As well as supporting AGW Lewandowsky has supported all the methods to promote and prove AGW such as the consensus. The consensus is a stupid idea which is fundamentally anti-science. It is anti-science because as Popper has shown with his Black Swan analogy scientific validity is not based on a majority view, it is based on replication, predictability and the absence of any contrary proof of the Null Hypothesis that AGW is wrong. AGW has no replication, no predictability and a plethora of Null Hypothesis supporting evidence.

Lewandowsky knows all this; and he knows that we all know that pro-AGW scientists have admitted to exaggeration and lies; he also knows we all know that the peer review system is irreparably broken as the emails showed and that the IPCC has been found wanting. To ignore all this evidence would be stupid yet Lewandowsky pretends it doesn’t exist.

Can Lewandowsky’s continued support of AGW be due to Noble Cause Corruption? We have seen Lewandowsky support Peter Gleick’s indefensible behaviour so has he sacrificed his intellect, and his morality, at the altar of the Noble Cause of saving the planet?

Noble Cause Corruption is one explanation, that is Lewandowsky and his ilk are suffering from misplaced and tainted altruism. But Noble Cause Corruption is not the only possible explanation. People support AGW for a variety of reasons: money, and the governments of the Western world are spending like drunken sailors to ‘solve AGW; ideology, and part of AGW ideology is of a most vile kind which supersedes the usual run of the mill misanthropy; and of course ego and power.

AGW, by offering the world as a stage and the narrative of saving the planet, provides vindication of the highest possible kind. This combination must be intoxicating to academics like Lewandowsky who, in the normal course of events, would have expected to live out their working lives in the musty ivory towers of academia with little or no public recognition or access to huge amounts of publically funded grant money.

It is obvious that ego and power have infected the academics supporting AGW. Karoly’s arrogance is well known, which is astounding from a leading exponent of AGW who makes so many mistakes, Flannery sprouts doom and gloom about sea level rise but has a house by the sea and disdains any suggestion of inconsistency with that or his ideas of super-organisms; the Climate Commission and other pro-AGW agencies and NGOs can’t get anything right and neither can the BOM.

And look at Karl Kruszelnicki who is incapable of admitting any mistake however obvious and egregious.

This is the key with people like Lewandowsky and the other pro-AGW supporters; they cannot admit there is anything wrong with AGW. One only has to look at Leweandowsky’s infamous survey of climate ‘deniers’. This paper, co-authored with the baby-faced John Cook, would have to be in the running for the worst ‘scientific’ paper of all time; its many faults are categorised here.

The list of faults of this ‘paper’ are too numerous to list, but one aspect of it is so incredibly stupid that it bears repeating. Lewandowsky wanted to show ‘deniers’ were conspiracy freaks and generally irrationally inclined to anti-authority theories of the grassy knoll, pro-smoking variety and, most apparently, disbelief of the moon landing.

That is, ‘deniers’ are disbelievers of the veracity of the moon-landing. To say this and base a ‘scientific paper’ on the assumption that ‘deniers’ are also deniers of the moon landing ignores the fact that ALL of the surviving moon astronauts are sceptics.

This is clearly beyond stupidity and it dovetails with the machinations, lack of transparency, denigration of disbelievers and implacable support of the AGW narrative which people like Lewandowsky indulge in.

The only explanation possible is that Lewandowsky, one of the smartest people the system has produced, is not being altruistic in a Noble Cause way but has invested his ego in AGW to a point where his sense of self would be compromised if he recanted to any extent.

It doesn’t matter to Lewandowsky that he is undermining a scientific and academic system which is supposed to accommodate new scientific discovery in an evolving fashion but which still preserves the scientific apparatus. In supporting AGW in all its ridiculous fatuity Lewandowsky is removing that inherent flexibility which allows science to grow; he is placing his ego above the very system which has allowed him to reach its top.

AGW belief is a religious one and its supporters manifest the traits of fanaticism; their sense of self, their ego, is defined by their belief. Lewandowsky like Kruszelnicki cannot admit or concede anything wrong with their belief in AGW because their sense of self-worth would be threatened by such a concession. For them the science, as with dogma of any kind, is settled. Lewandowsky clearly shows this with his follow up justification of his original survey. This egregious follow-up has been withdrawn due to its persistent misrepresentation of Jeff Condon’s own climate analyses, but Lewandowsky will still not admit to any error or wrong.

Religions generate their own morals, good and bad; as Lewandowsky shows the religion of AGW has yet to even develop a morality beyond the infantile and destructive egoism of its leading exponents.

See also Australian Climate Madness  and Jo Nova's Who is Lewandowsky's "Research Team"...why it's Mike the Denier!

Alarmist Attenborough's Aspersion Abolished

In David Attenborough's series Africa, he made the outlandish claim:
Africa's climate is certainly changing. Some parts of the continent have become 3.5ºC hotter in the past 20 years.
As the Guardian points out:
I'd never heard this arresting claim before. If that rate of temperature rise continued over, say, a century, then those parts of Africa would see a deathly rise of 17.5ºC?! Could that claim really be true?
I also noticed some people on Twitter asking the same question. So the following morning I called the BBC press office and asked where this information about a 3.5ºC temperature rise over 20 years had come from.
Also reported by the UK Telegraph, Hayley Dixon writes:
Given that since 1850 global temperatures have risen by about 0.8ºC, causing widespread concern, it was seen as a shocking assertion. 
Bloggers and environmentalists expressed their surprise and questioned the scientific evidence behind the claim.
But the BBC initially defended it.............Unable to back up the assertion, the BBC last night deleted the words from the repeat of the episode.
David Attenborough has previously had problems with his Frozen Planet series in which he used fake footage and also had a propaganda episode dropped by the US.

See Also Donna Laframboise's The Workshop Presentation that Never Was