Seen elsewhere

Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace

Freeman Dyson interview 

Steve Connor, the science editor of the Independent has published an email exchange with Freeman Dyson. I was more struck by what Connor said than Dyson's thoughts. This for example:

As you know these [climate] models are used by large, prestigious science organisations such as Nasa, NOAA and the Met Office, which use them to make pretty accurate predictions about the weather every day. The scientists who handle these models point out that they can accurately match up the computer predictions to real climatic trends in the past, and that it is only when they add CO2 influences to the models that they can explain recent global warming.

And how are the predictions made by these models turning out, Mr Connor?


More on those commenting problems

A reader has written to advise that he fixed the commenting problem by deleting existing BH cookies.

Hope this helps - nothing from Squarespace yet...


Edinburgh Climate Conference

There is a climate conference this weekend at Edinburgh. Speakers include Gabi Hegerl.

The programme can be seen here. It looks to me like a "gee up the activists" kind of thing, so I don't think I will be missing much.

(H/T Cameron by email)


Do you recycle?

There is an interview with Bjorn Lomborg here (H/T Chris by email). Anyone who has followed BL in the past will have heard most of it before, but I was struck by his statement that he still recycles.

Just to be clear, you are still green?
Absolutely. Obviously, I still recycle. I don't own a car.

My impression of most recycling is that it is very wasteful of resources, the chief exeption being aluminium. Given that Lomborg's claim to fame is that he checks out the numbers on these issues, I was surprised to see him say what he did.

Am I wrong? Do readers here recycle (if they can help it)?


Science policy on data and code

This from reader Lance:

The Feb 11 Science magazine (v331, p649) states a new journal policy--they will now require that authors archive not only their data on a website (copy to be held at Science) but also their computer codes!

Think of the time and exasperation that Steve McI could have been spared had the journal that published the Hockey Stick had this policy in place.

On the other hand, the world would have lost the "rattlingly good" Hockey Stick Illusion as well.

I almost think that Science has been listening to M&M, WUWT, and Your Grace.

The new policy doesn't appear to be online. It's certainly welcome.


Climate cuttings 49

Too busy to post much, but there are a few interesting postings around the place that are worth a look.

Judith Curry's focus on hide the decline is attracting a lot of attention. Matt Ridley salutes JC, while Keith Kloor reckons the reputation of climate scientists is not as bad as she thinks.

Another month, another Climategate investigation. The Office of Commerce has found not wrongdoing among NOAA staff - although there is much of interest. The Office of Commerce report is here and deserves careful study.  McIntyre has started looking at the details. News coverage here and here.

Leading insurer RSA has said that it's not clear that weather is any more volatile. Good news for sceptics, reckons the Evening Standard.

And, saving the worst till last, Richard Black's standards have sunk lower than even I thought possible.


Josh 80

Click for full size


Virginia assembly refuses to block Cuccinelli

The Cavalier Daily, a publication serving the University of Virginia, is reporting that attempts by Democrat legislators in the Virginia assembly to end Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli's powers to demand documents from university staff have been blocked. Had they been successful, Cuccinelli would have been prevented from pursuing his investigation into Michael Mann's grant applications.




Climategate - emails were deleted

Steve M is reporting some fascinating new information about a US Department of Commerce investigation into Climategate. As part of this inquiry they have interviewed Eugene Wahl about the notorious "delete all emails" message sent by Jones to Mann, in which Mann was asked to pass the request on to Wahl.

According to the report, Wahl has confirmed his belief that he did delete his AR4 email correspondence in accordance with Mann's request.

Full story here.


Rob Wilson at St Andrews

There was some doubt over whether members of the public could attend Rob Wilson's lecture in St Andrews on Friday. I dropped a line to the organisers and they are quite happy to have outsiders come along. If you're going, see you there.


Weathermen more sceptical

A survey of meteorologists has found that many became more sceptical of global warming in the wake of Climategate.

Among the respondents who indicated that they had followed the story, 42 percent indicated the story made them somewhat or much more skeptical that global warming is occurring.  These results stand in stark contrast to the findings of several independent investigations of the emails, conducted later, that concluded no scientific misconduct had occurred and nothing in the emails should cause doubts about the fact which show that global warming is occurring.


Josh elsewhere


Haunting the sickroom

Several people have emailed about the silence from Haunting the Library. HtL has emailed to say that he has been unwell and is now tied up with other things, but will return to blogging in due course.


The Beddington challenge

Judith Curry has taken up Sir John Beddington's challenge to scientists to stand up and be counted in the battle against pseudoscience, with a long post on the subject of the Trick to Hide the Decline.

It is obvious that there has been deletion of adverse data in figures shown IPCC AR3 and AR4, and the 1999 WMO document.  Not only is this misleading, but it is dishonest (I agree with Muller on this one).  The authors defend themselves by stating that there has been no attempt to hide the divergence problem in the literature, and that the relevant paper was referenced.  I infer then that there is something in the IPCC process or the authors’ interpretation of the IPCC process  (i.e. don’t dilute the message) that corrupted the scientists into deleting the adverse data in these diagrams.

McIntyre’s analysis is sufficiently well documented that it is difficult to imagine that his analysis is incorrect in any significant way.  If his analysis is incorrect, it should be refuted.  I would like to know what the heck Mann, Briffa, Jones et al. were thinking when they did this and why they did this, and how they can defend this, although the emails provide pretty strong clues. Does the IPCC regard this as acceptable?  I sure don’t.

It's pretty interesting to see Sir John Beddington, Sir Paul Nurse and rest of the scientific establishment, as well as most of the sci-bloggers in the UK, all lining themselves up on the side of pseudoscience on the Climategate issue and Hide the Decline in particular. I wonder how long they can sustain the charade that everything is well in UK climatology?


Diversionary tactics

A truly Wardian performance by the LSE man at the Grantham Institute site today, taking a pot-shot at Christopher Booker because of his (entirely correct) observations about the inaccuracies in the science in Sir Paul Nurse's Horizon programme. No true statement should ever go unchallenged it seems:

Dr Bindschadler indicated that human activities emit the equivalent of about seven billion tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere each year, whereas natural sources, such as volcanoes, only produce about one billion tonnes.

Christopher Booker, whose weekly column in The Sunday Telegraph regularly recycles the content appearing on 'sceptic' blogs, attacked Dr Bindschadler's statements, describing them as "mind-boggling" and "a grotesque misrepresentation"|.

Mr Booker claimed that natural sources account for more than 96 per cent of annual emissions of carbon dioxide.

So who is right?

With a typical flourish, Ward then proceeds to avoid the question he has just posed and embarks on a lengthy discussion of various aspects of the carbon cycle, but one that never quite gets back to the ratio between human and natural carbon dioxide emissions.

As readers here know, Bindschadler got it wrong and Booker was right. The ratio is nothing like 7:1. Unfortunately, Ward just can't quite bring himself to say that truth.