Monthly Archives: February 2010

Climate Change – Rice Bowl Science

0
Posted by JJ on February 21, 2010 – 9:17 am
Filed under Global Warming
Tagged as , , , , , , , ,

Climate Scientists are not all necessarily participating in a global conspiracy.  Climate Science itself is compromised by the funding model.

This sentence is in the charter of the IPCC:

“The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socioeconomic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.”

So, the IPCC was set up on the assumption that the risk is considerable, the impacts  huge, and that we  need to have global plans for adaptation and mitigation.  All in one.  It was not set up to assess risk and impact and report back so that decisions could be made about the need for adaptation and mitigation measures.  No, the UN assumed from the outset that those measures would be needed.   They put “options for adaptation and mitigation” right there in the charter.  Such a charter all but guarantees unscientific conclusions – it compromises scientific objectivity,

It is a charter, not for an objective scientific assessment, but for a living organisational entity.  The natural desire of any entity is to survive.  And the IPCC is funded by the UN – a bottomless well.  So, what would you expect the IPCC to find in its assessment of the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change?  The impact assessments would be the conclusions that most influenced future funding of the IPCC.  So, what would you expect to find in their assessment of the impact?  Go on – take a guess.

It is no surprise that of all the IPCC findings, it was the impact assessments that most conspicuously lacked rigour.  Most lacked proper peer-review, some were not peer-reviewed at all.  The IPCC  predictions about the melting of Himalayan glaciers, African rainfall and harvests, tropical storm frequency and strength, the spread of malaria  and projected rises in sea level were based on anecdote, magazine articles, and activist literature.  All were couched in exaggerated, catastrophic terms.  And all have been discredited.

The IPCC preaches global warming to the world, and has a charter for rice-bowl science.  It funds and coordinates funding of climate research, always with the aims of assessing impact on climate change.  The scientists and institutions who win climate change  funding for their research know that their findings must be delivered in terms of the climate impact.  They are not about to disappoint the source of their funding, so they write their findings in the terms of advocacy.

And rice-bowl science is what they deliver.

References:

Principles governing IPCC Work”  http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf

Politcally Correct Eating in New Zealand

0
Posted by JJ on February 20, 2010 – 10:09 pm
Filed under Random Grumps & Raves, Rights and Responsibility, Things to Consider
Tagged as , , , ,

The weka is a native New Zealand bird.  It s a large, brown flightless bird that has a famously feisty and curious personality. These two qualities traditionally made the bird an easy food source for Māori and early European settlers.  The Europeans called them “wood hens”.  By all accounts, they’re damn good eating.

They have all but disappeared from mainland NZ and are protected.   They now survive mainly on islands, that also are home to other endangered birds.  The problem is, weka eat the eggs and young of other ground-nesting birds.

Currently, the only place where the legal harvest of weka can occur is on the Chatham Islands and on some islands around Stewart Island.  But now, they threaten the survival of other birds on the Open Bay Islands off Haast on the South Island’s West Coast.  So, up to 70 weka on the islands  are to be killed to save other native species.  The Department of Conservation and the trustees of the Maori-owned islands have agreed that the birds will be killed and in some cases ‘culturally harvested’.

It’s OK, guys, to manage the conservation of native birds wisely.  And when culling is necessary, it’s very OK to eat the birds instead of wasting them.  But stop making us puke with your politically correct double-talk.  “Culturally harvested” indeed!

Phil Jones on modern Global Warming Rates

2
Posted by JJ on February 14, 2010 – 4:17 pm
Filed under Global Warming
Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , ,

Q&A Part Two: Prof. Phil Jones on Global Warming Rates

Phil Jones is director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA).  The BBC’s environment analyst Roger Harrabin interviewed Professor Jones recently.  Professor Jones’ answers to the first two questions reveal that there is nothing unusual about the rate of warming in the twentieth century.  They also reveal strength of character.

Here’s the question about latest rates of warming compared with other known rates:

Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?

Here is Phil Jones’ answer:

The warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.

Here are the trends and significances for each period:

Period Length Trend
(Degrees C per decade)		 Significance
1860-1880 21 0.163 Yes
1910-1940 31 0.150 Yes
1975-1998 24 0.166 Yes
1975-2009 35 0.161 Yes

.

Here’s the question about global temperature change since 1995:

Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?

Here is Phil Jones’ answer:

Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level.

Jones is obviously uncomfortable about the implications of the questions (“Yes (I agree), but only just..”).  But he has the integrity to answer truthfully, knowing that the answers cast yet more doubt on the AGW cause, and especially on the IPCC, the CRU and the other organisations that promote AGW.

Because the first proves that there is nothing unusual about the rates of warming we have observed, even though there are now much higher levels of atmospheric CO2 that there were in 1880.  And the second confirms what skeptics have been saying for years – there has been no statistically significant global warming since 1995.  This is in spite of increased atmospheric CO2, and contrary to the exaggerated, repeated claims of accelerated global warming by NASA, the CRU and the IPCC.  So much for the need for urgent action.  We do have time to investigate properly the climatic effects of CO2, methane and whatever other demons are conjured up.

Now, if we could show that the Medieval Warm Period was as warm or warmer than present-day temperatures, and that it was global in extent, we could finally establish that the present global temperature is nothing out of the ordinary.  And that would mean that there is no need for any action at all – at least, not in respect of climate change.  Refreshingly, Phil Jones does not deny the MWP, and is aware of its impact on the debate.  See “References” section below for another blog on Phil Jones answers to the MWP question in the same interview, and how we can test the its extent and temperature during that period.

There are other real environmental issues with which we should deal, and other concerns about depending on diminishing commodities for our energy.  We don’t need global warming baloney to help us recognise those real issues – on the contrary, all the AGW noise has obscured them.

References:

Phil Jones on the MWP: http://www.herkinderkin.com/2010/02/phil-jones-on-the-medieval-warm-period/

BBC Interview with Phil Jones: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm