Skip to content

Shub’s Thoughts On The Great Debate

February 12, 2015

By Paul Homewood  

 

image

https://nigguraths.wordpress.com/2015/02/11/mosher-venema-adjustments/

 

Some thoughts from Shub Niggurath on the temperature adjustment debate:

 

As always, the climate orthodoxy possesses little understanding of how the internet works. They struggle to understand how ‘small, inconsequential issues’ seem to get magnified and blow up in their faces. There is undeniable shock at the Booker articles on temperature adjustments in the Telegraph which have over 35,000 comments and 100,000 social media ‘shares’. Here’s one old explanation (from yours truly):

…deficiencies and uncertainties in climate science are not allowed to become part of everyday discussion…

It is for this reason primarily that Trenberth’s Travesty, Mike’s Nature Trick and Jones’ Hide the Decline are all memes of the post-Climategate age. They carry memetic value because their opposites are pushed relentlessly as part the dominant paradigm, even as scientists apparently discuss doubts in private.

The current episode was set off by relentless ‘hottest year ever’ oversell perpetrated by such sources as AP’s Seth Borenstein. It led Paul Homewood to look at hot areas in the global average starting with Paraguay.

‘…if you want to properly understand an argument or debate you need to look at the primary sources’ reminds Kevin Marshall at manicbeancounter, just as Steven Mosher and a clueless Lubos have not done. Marshall traces the evolution of the story:

With the Booker story exploding, a clutch of scientists and enthusiasts decided they needed to spread their own memes. They picked up a rash of ad hoc excuses to fight the mighty Booker. 

 

Read the rest here.

10 Comments
  1. A C Osborn permalink
    February 12, 2015 6:10 pm

    Paul, their post over at Cliamte etc has been getting a pasting from commenters.
    I thought this one was especially “professional” sounding.
    richardcfromnz | February 12, 2015 at 4:56 am | Reply
    I posted Zeke’s own Graphs against him and he really has no answers, he posted another one and other posters immediately picked up the fact that it didn’t match the graph he had posted earlier. They are getting themselves a bit tied up.
    Mosher doesn’t give good answers either about his claims.

    Have you seen the posts by Gail Coombs on Real Science on the probable reasons for Dr Judith Curry hosting that post?
    It is a real eye opener, she is not anything like a Sceptic and appears to be making a lot of money directly out of the Scam, so a cynical hypocrite then.

    • February 12, 2015 7:11 pm

      AC, Gail is wrong. With Lindzen’s retirement, JC is the most academically qualified sceptic. See her new paper on sensitivity. Her company does longer range weather forecasting. For things like offshore oil platforms in the Gulf of Mexico. Nothing to do with CAGW. She allows guest posts on both energy and climate, and from a number of perspectives. BEST deserves to be heard –and scrutinized– even though that is not a direct response to regional criticism of GISS. Nor the clear evidence that GISS and NCDC have indisputably and progressively cooled the past in the US. The real issue is that historical temperature data intended for weather is only marginally fit for climate purpose, and is presented without proper uncertainty to help ‘settle the science’.

      • A C Osborn permalink
        February 12, 2015 7:59 pm

        That is odd I haven’t seen you on this thread telling her she is wrong.
        Perhaps you should read it first.
        https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/02/10/the-global-temperature-record-is-meaningless-garbage/

        And then tell her.

      • February 12, 2015 10:33 pm

        Did days ago. Do not engage there much. But always scan it for information nuggets. Commenters too rapid and dogmatic, plus too much off climate topic politics. Tony’s historical climate stuff is very nice. And some of his climate data is indisputably sound; I used some in the book essay When Data Isnt, with footnote credits each time . Other of Tony’s climate stuff has been shown just wrong. Use with care and only after independent vetting. The comment above was meant for you and others here. Not Gail there, since I very much doubt anything would change her mind given the tone in which she posted.

      • myrightpenguin permalink
        February 12, 2015 10:50 pm

        Rud, everyone has their different styles but some are fed up with what is clearly a scam built upon pseudo-scientific BS. Can you believe this whole nonsense is still going many years since Climategate?

        Some are naturally intellectual in their approach but if they don’t believe what has been going on has been systematic, in best case driven by groupthink, in worst case outright dishonest nefarious behaviour, they should say so. When you do down people such as ‘Steven Goddard’ and Gail you help no one except for the real dogmatic radicals such as Mann, Schmidt, Hansen, Nuccitelli, etc., etc.

      • A C Osborn permalink
        February 13, 2015 3:47 pm

        Rud, if you have read everything Gail wrote about Dr Curry and her partner perhaps you can refute what she says with some facts rather than an opinion.

      • Gail Combs permalink
        February 13, 2015 4:23 pm

        I suggest we let people read the evidence I have gathered and make up their own minds.

        First you missed WHERE the 1.2 million in grants came from.

        Judith’s company CLIMATE FORECAST APPLICATIONS NETWORK, LLC

        Number of Employees: 9
        Woman-Owned?: Yes (Judith???)
        Award Totals:
        Program/Phase Award Amount ($) # of Awards
        SBIR Phase I…….. $100,000.00………….. 1
        (SBIR = Small Business Innovation Research)
        STTR Phase I…….. $150,000.00…………… 1
        STTR Phase II …… $980,932.00 …………… 1
        ( STTR = Small Business Technology Transfer)

        2012 / STTR / Phase I
        DOE
        Principal Investigator: Judith Curry, Dr.
        abstract

        Abstract:
        Goals of 80% clean energy production for the United States by 2035 and 20% of the countrys power being supplied by wind energy by 2030 imply nearly a tenfold increase in wind power production. This means that the need for forecast information will extend to longer projection windows with increasing penetration of wind power into the grid …. future scenarios on decadal time scales are needed to support assessment of wind farm siting, government planning, and the regulatory environment. CFAN will expand upon its hybrid statistical/dynamical forecasting scheme that delivers probabilistic wind forecasts….

        2013 / STTR / Phase II
        DOE
        Principal Investigator: Judith Curry, Dr.

        Abstract:
        This proposal addresses the challenge of providing weather and climate information to support the operation, management and planning for wind-energy systems. There is a growing need for extended range forecast information as wind power increases its penetration into the grid. Future scenarios on decadal time scales are needed to support assessment of wind farm siting, long-term purchase agreements and the regulatory environment. To address this challenge, CFAN has developed a hybrid statistical/dynamical forecasting scheme for delivering probabilistic forecasts on time scales from one day to seven months using what is arguably the best forecasting system in the world….

        >>>>>>>>>>>>

        My Comments on Judith Curry at Steve Goddard’s
        starts Here

        On Peter Webster her business partner HERE

        And the psychology she uses HERE

  2. A C Osborn permalink
    February 12, 2015 6:26 pm

    Paul, by the way Jan P has tried his hand at trolling over at Real science instead of here.
    he didn’t last long.

  3. Bloke down the pub permalink
    February 12, 2015 7:18 pm

    The current episode was set off by relentless ‘hottest year ever’ oversell perpetrated by such sources as AP’s Seth Borenstein. It led Paul Homewood to look at hot areas in the global average starting with Paraguay.

    As I remember it, the story started with the large chunk of South America that did not publish data and was therefore infilled with data from the likes of Paraguay. Seems that part of the story has been left behind, which is unfortunate as it has a bearing on the plausibility of quoting global temps to three decimal places.

  4. February 13, 2015 10:46 am

    Bloke, the problem of lack of data in South America has always existed. There are however stations present in the eastern South American warm blob. Presumably their data hasn’t made it in yet into the NOAA databases.

    When the data does make it, one can check to see if the local records match the orange blanket draped over half the continental landmass.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: