Tuesday, 22 July 2014

If Lewandowsky is a climate scientist then so am I.

Anthony Cox

Shag on Rock
Apologies to Josh
You can’t keep Lew down and he has just co-authored a paper proving the temperature is rising. Lew’s idea is that statements about the temperature pause, including by the IPCC, simply don’t take into account natural variation which in a cooling phase will suppress the AGW warming.

This idea has been around for yonks. Cohenite looked at the idea in 2008. Basically the technique is detrend for all natural factors by removing the estimate of their temperature effect and what is left should be the pure AGW signal.

Lots of people have done this; the original paper was Keenlyside et al in 2008. Easterling and Wehner in 2009 extended this concept to the usual grotesque AGW exaggeration. The previous Keenlyside et al effort predicted masking of underlying AGW due to SST driven natural variation. Unfortunately, when the ENSO is removed from temperature trends there is no post 2000 underlying AGW. Easterling and Wehner revisit this trainwreck of an idea to prove that future cooling will still have underlying AGW. Their null hypothesis [NH] really settles the matter. The NH is that there will be an “equal percentage of statistically significant positive and negative trends” [p6]. This is high order virtual reality; the concept of the 100 year flood explains why. Pacific Decadal Oscillation [PDO] climate phases have greater probability of floods during a negative phase during which time [about 30 years] there may be several 1 in 100 year floods. During the positive, El Nino dominated PDO phase there will most likely be no 1 in 100 year flood.

How Wrong Can The Age be? The Age's Dementia.

The Age, a consistent pusher of the falsified Man Made Global Warming Hypothesis, has shown some lack of journalistic integrity in their recent editorial

Repeal of carbon tax shames our nation

Take their opening sentence:-
The overwhelming majority of the world's climate scientists concur: the emission of greenhouse gasses as a result of human activity is contributing to a rise in temperate and to the resulting climate change that poses nothing short of an existential threat.
Three thoughts out of three wrong. Whatever happened to Journalistc Integrity? Whatever happened to Sceptical Journalism?

NewsTrust is a guide to good journalism: They write that "the best way to learn news literacy is to think like a journalist." (link)
The four Ds of thinking like a journalist exemplify these qualities. They are:
1. Doubt — a healthy skepticism that questions everything.
2. Detect — a “nose for news” and relentless pursuit of the truth.
3. Discern — a priority for fairness, balance and objectivity in reporting.
4. Demand — a focus on free access to information and freedom of speech.
Looking at the Age and their support for the global warming hoax, they have completely failed in every respect to think like good journalists.

Applying the four Ds to the above opening sentence.
"The overwhelming majority of the world's climate scientists"
The consensus notion has been pushed by three flawed yet peer-reviewed papers: