Christopher Hitchens, the late lamented pundit, God-denier and scourge of Saddam Hussein, invented the wonderful word game in which you replace the word “heart” in a well-known phrase with the word “dick” to get a humorous effect. Hitchens’ favourite examples were:
Bury my dick at Wounded Knee and;
I left my dick in San Francisco.
My own favourite used to be the McGarrigle sisters’s song Heart Like a Wheel:
Some say the dick is just like a wheel
When you bend it you can't mend it
But this billboard suggested a new contender:
To associate the patron saint of union crushing with the plot to install a one-world government is in unacceptably poor taste. This institute clearly has no heart.
For this reason, I will be joining fellow Canadians Ross McKitrick and Donna Laframboise in a principled boycott of the next meeting of the Dickland Institute.
John Cook emerging from one of his infrequent baths. Source
Luboš Motl, the articulate and compassionate science blogger —cruelly dubbed NSF or even the Irredeemable Czech by his many jealous detractors—has said it better than FoGT ever could:
Instead of congratulating someone which would be truly inappropriate, cynical, and unethical, let me express my deep condolences to Archimedes and all his fans (and all fans of science) – because his famous trademark has just been brutally humiliated and desecrated.
And Cook, now you're not just a regular crackpot but a corrupt one. A few years in prison have been added to my Excel table next to your name.
Standing up for the reputation of a dead Greek scientist is the kind of magnanimous and principled statement that we have come to expect to read on Mr Motl’s elegant website.
Source: Ethical Oil (no joke)
Lonely welders are free to hold hands on Fort McMurray’s Main Street on their day off and no women in the town has ever got stoned, well not in that way, anyway.Read More...
The recent release of the long-form version on the US surface weather stations is a blatant, if subtle, attempt by the “team” to discredit the efforts of the 650 volunteers who visited obscure corners of the USA to photograph asphalt and air-conditioner outlets. As with l’affaire O’Donnell, the scientific establishment has taken breakthrough research that, as reported on blogs, totally undermines the whole silly notion of global warming and, after subjecting the work to pitiless peer-review, dilutes the results to such an extent that the team can then patronizingly declare: “Well done chaps, that was pretty much what we were saying all along”.
So what do you believe, a bunch of statistical mumbo-jumbo or your own lying eyes? SourceRead More...
Judith Curry deserves to become known as the Founding Mother of the United Skeptics of Alarmism. For a while, her she fooled the red-coat alarmist occupiers of the consensus that her offer of a parlay was an attempt to negotiate a cease-fire between the two sides. Instead it was a ruse de guerre that rallied the yeomen of the oppressed colonies, bringing together lukewarmers, magical thinkers, iron-sun theorists, ocean-oscillation promoters, photographers of tarmac and air-conditioning vents, venal billionaires, curmudgeons, principle-component-analysis obsessives, high-discount-rate advocates and one-world-government paranoids into a More Perfect Union. Read More...
FoGT would add one more argument, based on concentrations. The biomass of marine fish is estimated at 800-2000 billion tonnes; let’s say 1.4x1012 kg. This mass can be divided by the mass of the oceans, approximately 1.4x1021 kg. This means that the fish concentration in the ocean is approximately 0.001 ppm. This should be compared with the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere of 389 ppm—and they call that a trace gas! But it’s even worse: there are approximately 32,000 species of fish, among which only 360 are sharks and among those only four of those are anthropophagic. However you do the math, the concentration of man-eating fish in the ocean is dilute to a homeopathic degree and there is therefore no reason at all for us to suppose that sharks could in any way pose a threat.
Sticklers may object that “taxpayer’s dime” is an exaggeration, since Pachauri is not actually paid a penny for his IPCC duties. However, it’s important to consider these salary figures in the perspective of the per capita GDP ($1031) of his home country, India, where they don’t look quite so far out of line, relatively speaking.
In a disturbing development–and a threat to the freedom of the press to print whatever “facts” they please–Pachauri employed the notorious Farter-Fuck law firm to extort a groveling apology and retraction from the Sunday Torygraph: Read More...
There have been some very disturbing incidents of denial-apostasy lately.
Firstly, Willis Eschenbach in the world’s most popular science blog argues that measurements of carbon dioxide concentrations at Mauna Loa are reliable and that the amount of plant food in the atmosphere is increasing due to human activities. This is the thin end of the wedge, once we admit that humans are causing this increase, extremists could twist this into making a case for reducing emissions. Read More...
Ah, gits weary
An' sick of tryin'
Ah'm tired of livin'
An' skeered of dyin',
But ol’ Ma Gaia,
She jes'keeps rollin' along!
Nobel Prize winning physicist Robert Laughlin has written an essay on deep time and the futility of even attempting to do anything about climate change. His thoughts were commented upon recently by libertarian journalist Neil Reynolds in the Globe and Mail. Laughlin’s argument roughly goes:
- The Earth is old, truly, staggeringly old.
- On one hand: Carbon dioxide from the human burning of fossil fuel is building up in the atmosphere at a frightening pace, enough to double the present concentration in a century. This buildup has the potential to raise average temperatures on the earth several degrees centigrade, enough to modify the weather and accelerate melting of the polar ice sheets.
- On the other hand: Climate change, by contrast, is a matter of geologic time, something that the earth routinely does on its own without asking anyone’s permission or explaining itself.
- The only practical thing we can do is to short Bangladeshi real estate.
- We’re screwed and entirely helpless but, not to worry, alarmists, ol’ Ma Gaia, she’ll jes’ keep rollin’ along.
Mr Goddard has now turned his penetrating insight onto that favourite bête blanche of the alarmists, the supposedly shrinking Arctic sea ice. Goddard performs some simple time series analysis on the JAXA data, disentangling all that confusing varicoloured spaghetti and shows how the long term trend is revealed by a linear fit. Thus:
(Gentle readers of the FoGT blog may be confused by the last sentence in Goddard’s caption where he uses the rhetorical device of irony, whereby the literal meaning of his words is the opposite of what he really means to say.) Some critics immediately jumped on Goddard’s results and claimed that the California-sized increase in sea ice was an artifact of Goddard’s analysis and that everything depends on where you pick the starting point. I suppose that, taking this idea to an extreme, means that the JAXA data could even show “more proof that the Arctic is melting down”, which would be doubly ironic when you think about it.
A recent article published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science is based on the obsessive work of the shadowy Toronto-based activist Jim Prall who keeps a blacklist of climate scientists who dare question the AGW articles of faith. Prall and his coauthors categorize scientists as either “convinced” or “unconvinced” by the evidence of AGW. How does he arrive at making such loaded judgments? By raking through the muck of published petitions and looking for incriminating signatures, that’s how. Prall’s simplistic logic is that if someone expresses an opinion publically and in writing and then never retracts it, then that somehow reveals what they actually think. Hitherto unpublished citizen-scientist Prall even has the gall to categorize the distinguished Roger Pielke Sr as “unconvinced”. Contrast this, if you can, with the humble and respectful tone that Steve McIntyre adopts when he refers to “The Team”. Read More...
Now in 2010, we see that a 4th-grader has disproved AGW. I assume 4th-grade means about 10.
Defying the wrath of those that might insist that 2 points are insufficient to obtain a statistically valid trend, since others do this all the time, and since I am at least not cherry-picking, but using the entire data set:
I compute the slope is -1.66 year of age per calendar year, although I did no further analysis.
Put another way, in about 6 years, some unborn baby will disprove AGW just before birth…”
Now I know that many of us skeptical-deniers prefer graphic visualization to dry tables of values, so here’s a chart for you.