Cedric's article

I have a commeter named Cedric, who appears to see the whole world as one big conspiracy to conspire and keeps talking about Vax machines – which I don’t think is fair on the Vax machines as they were good in their day.
However, I thought if Cedric had the chance to put his thoughts down in one article he might be able to make more sense than he has hitherto. However, this is what he sent me:


 

Dear Mike,
                 My point is simple. You have fallen into a pattern of science denial and abandoned any genuine skeptical methodology.
It would be nice if the people who fall victim to this actually could identify if for themselves…but that’s not the way it works.
So to objectively identify it, you need to compare real-life examples.
The climate denial blogosphere is the identical twin of the anti-vaxxer blogosphere which is in turn identical to the creationist blogosphere and the 9/11 Troofer blogosphere and all the rest.
If you are doing what they are doing then…that’s a clear sign you need to stop.
Sometimes it’s much easier to see glaring flaws in methodology when others do it as opposed to your own camp.
Get out of your comfort zone.
You are not an HIV denier, I trust? You understand that they are doing the whole skeptical thinking wrong?
Good. So….you are not like them.
You have better standards. They are not in your league etc.
That attitude is important. Because if (IF!!) you really are not the same as those wackaloons over there, then….logically, there will be no similarities between the statements you make and the sources of information you use or reject.
Take your typical wackaloon. Where does your wackaloon go to for their science info? Are they going to go to some blog or are they going to go to the mainstream scientific communities?
Think about it. That’s just one comparison. There are many, many others.
So…if they are not going to use the mainstream scientific communities, how are the wackaloons going to rationialize that?
How does an anti-vaxxer (for example) justify not paying any attention to the CDC?
Put yourself in their shoes for a moment.
You just know vaccines are bad. BAD, BAD, BAD!  You are firm on that. Now someone likes me comes along and mentions the CDC….repeatedly. Mentions all the other medical science communities too.
How are you going to defend the indefensible?
You can’t just go “OH, the CDC? Ah, silly me. Didn’t realize they knew a lot about medicine and diseases and suchlike”
Nope.
You’ve got to reject it….somehow…anyhow.
Imagine the possible retorts you could come up with.
Seriously, think about it. What prime examples can you come up with? There’s lots to choose from.
Now switch the scenarios with say, a creationist.
Same deal as before.
How does the creationist rationalize all those scientific communities and the work the scientific consensus represents?
Well, he can just copy and paste the same retorts from the anti-vaxxer guy from before.
Job done.
Now do it for an HIV denier.
It will work.
How about a 9/11 Troofer? It will work.
How about a die-hard smoker who doesn’t believe all that liberal namby-pamby nonsense about lung cancer?
Yep, it will work.
Now take a random survey from your own blogosphere community.
It.  Will.  Work.
That should horrify you. That’s not ok.
Do as much research into science denial as you like. There are a variety of solid resources out there. They identify the patterns very clearly and cover all the commonalities. See if you agree with their analysis.
Let me leave you with some links to get you started.  Compare them to each other. When you’ve done that, feel free to do a quick google and see if other groups..do exactly the same thing.  They’re not doing science. That’s not science at all.
First, you should know about Project Steve.
http: //rationalwiki.org/wiki/Project_Steve
Now for the comparisons:
List of Scientists Rejecting Evolution- Do they really?
https: //www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ty1Bo6GmPqM
32000 Scientists
https ://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Py2XVILHUjQ
Please let me know what you think.
Cheers.
Cedric.
Posted in Climate | 23 Comments

Soon children won't know what the Met Office is!

For reasons which are quite obvious, whenever I log into the Independent I find I cannot post comments.
However this one was just too good to keep quiet about:

Soon children won’t know what the Met Office is!

For anyone who doesn’t yet this is a reference to the 2000 article in the independent in which a UEA academic said:

Soon children won’t know what snow is!

Posted in Climate | Comments Off on Soon children won't know what the Met Office is!

Met Office – we've won (again)

Note: Oldbrew informs me: “It’s a £3 million contract not £30m so the MetO may just about survive :/”
http://www.thegwpf.com/bbc-pulls-plug-on-met-office/


I must learn to stop saying “we’ve won” – because each time I do, something even better comes along which seems a better point to mark the end.
So, again, it is just beginning to dawn on me that if reports that some £30million of the Met Office budget of £33million are true, it now appears the end of the BBC contract with the Met Office is not only the end of “credible” global warming climate extremism on the BBC (fuelled by the Met office), but quite possibly the end of the Met Office.
And if so, the “head” & much of the body and several arms and legs of the global warming beast will have been removed in the UK. The UK climate extremists will once again be relegated to a few leather-patch-on-elbows pipe-smoking sandal-wearing hi-vis jacket wearing academics, ready to be wheeled out once in a blue moon.
In other words, it now seems likely that it will be the end of the Met Office contract with the BBC that history will mark as the end of the global warming scam in the UK.
And if only I hadn’t already said “we’ve won” – I could now say “we’ve won”.
Moreover, because this came out of the blue in a way that must have been unexpected, it will certainly send a cold shiver of realism down the backs of other government climate extremist organisations, particularly in the US, where similar draconian action against e.g. the EPA, NASA or NOAA looks highly likely when the Republicans win the presidency (even without it still looks probable!)

Posted in Climate | 5 Comments

Articles wanted and/or discussion topics

I’m currently engaged on a very different project. So, if anyone whether sceptic or not, wishes to raise any issue or subject vaguely on climate, science, engineering or Scottishness, then I’d welcome a few paragraphs to raise an issue, interest or question.
Main rules are not to attack individuals and it must be legal and decent.

Posted in Climate | 1 Comment

Cedric's NASA comments

I have a poster named Cedric who keeps going on about NASA. As his comments were off topic, I removed them from another subject but as he put in the effort to write them, I will reproduce them here:


 
NASA, for example. Continue reading

Posted in Climate | 98 Comments

Re: BBC & Met Office

When I was at school I seriously thought about joining the Met Office. So, I must admit I have some empathy with the old school weather forecasters who used to run the Met Office who may suffer as a result of the loss of the BBC contract.
But unfortunately, even if I had joined, like so many others with a science background, I would have been sidelined by the new breed of arrogant computer geeks with their £100million (public paid) computers and their (failed) models, marketing consultants and accountants.
Because, in a real sense the Met Office I wanted to join died years ago. Their obsession with global warming was not so much the cause of their decline, but just a symptom of its demise.
Of course, I am delighted that the climate extremists in the BBC will no longer have the succour of the climate extremists that now infest the Met Office. Continue reading

Posted in Climate | 7 Comments

Thanks

Dear sceptic (skeptics),
you might know me as “Scottish Sceptic”, in real life I’m Mike Haseler, a father of three, who like so many others felt obliged to fight the non-science in what some called the “climate wars”. I believe I speak for most of us, when I say our aims were modest: to stop the stupidity, arrogance and politicisation that infested academia and those like NOAA from seriously impacting our society, economy and yes … the environment. Because, I sincerely believe that at the heart of most sceptics is not only a passion for honesty and real compulsion to do what we believe is right for society, but also a deep concern for the earth.
And in a real sense we have “won” the climate war, because Green groups are now all but admitting what I call the “Dead Parrot Talks” (as I call them) in Paris will be a “failure”. They are now discussion “how to make people care” about the (lack of) warming. And the reality is that whatever their rhetoric, governments like the UK are starting to dismantle the global warming bandwagon.
But in another sense, the war can never be “won”, because the fight against arrogant stupidity and greed will always be with us. Because so long as there are gullible people, there will always be the profiteering sharks, ready to fabricated crisis to line their pockets. So, there will always be a need for us sceptics!
But like “the Dead Parrot” sketch of Monty python, this parrot (global warming) is dead as more and more the public realise that it was only ever on its perch “because it had been nailed there” as the sketch goes.
So, I think it is time we all gave ourselves a pat on the back,. But unfortunately, we sceptics initially few in number, but now overwhelming in numbers, do not have some leader to stand on some battleship and proclaim “the war is over”. Nor can we cannot award medals of gallantry to those who stood out for their devotion to duty however much they are deserved.
However, I can say without modesty or fear of contradiction (by the facts), never have so many owed so much to so few. Those bloggers who stood up against tyranny in the dark hours of repression, those who supported them in the comments, even just those who read the posts in quiet support, have all been responsible for one of the greatest victories of humanity: not against actual weapons of mass destruction, but instead against false ideas and ignorance. I sincerely believe that if there had not been those few first sceptics willing to take the lead and this global warming hysteria had taken a deeper hold, the impact to our society would have caused a Stalinist type holocaust greater than any war the world has ever seen.
That threat has gone (for now), so as the turmoil of the “climate wars” ebbs away and governments, academics and governmental agencies, begin to wake up to the changing world, I would just like to say “thanks” to each and everyone sceptic.

thanks!

Thank you all the bloggers both big and small, all of whom played a vital role disseminating the truth. Thank you to everyone who has contributed articles and comments both on my blog, here and everywhere else. It has been a pleasure getting know people throughout the world. Thank you wives & husbands, families & friends that have put up with us “enthusiasts”. Thank you the few politicians who listened to us and thank you to those journalists who did their job and ensured the public heard the “other side” of the debate.
But those like me contributing on the internet at least could escape the vitriol and hatred thrown at us by the ignorant and greedy on line. In contrast, in areas like academia, sceptics not only risked their own careers, but in some notable cases lost them. So a particular thanks to them for their personal sacrifice in standing up for real science against the evil of ignorance and political spite.
But last of all one special lady deserves a mention. Without her, none of us would be here. She is without doubt our greatest sceptic who has consistently put up two fingers to all alarmists. She was the original sceptic who was just as sceptical of the global cooling crisis as the 20th century warming. So, let us all, in our own way say:

Thank you mother earth

mother_nature_denies_global_warmingThe Human race’s greatest sceptic!

Posted in Climate | 29 Comments

Met Office: nothing short of criminal investigations will satisfy me

Back in 2008 when I wrote the following post, the BBC might have got away with what Andrew Montford on Bishop Hill describes as:

For such a trifling programme, Quentin Letts’ What’s the Point of the Met Office is really making waves. Booker reviews it over at the Mail and there’s some interesting coverage by Damian Thompson at the Spectator.

So, let’s just see what was already apparent some 8 years ago:

Global Temperatures & CO2 The Failure of the Theory of Manmade Global Warming

Global Temperatures & CO2
The Failure of the Theory of Manmade Global Warming

February’s Update news: According to revised official Met office1 figures, January 2008 was still the coldest month globally in 14 years2. At only 0.056°C higher than the nominal reference3 We must look back to February 1994 to find a colder month. Global temperatures peaked in February 1998 at 0.75°C and with February coming in at 0.194°C there is a definite and accelerating cooling trend of -0.1°C/decade.
By the Met Office’s own statistic’s it is highly unlikely that the forecasts could be consistently too high by chance and therefore this is clear proof of a consistent error in the forecasting model. That is to say, the cooling temperature clearly contradicts the theory of manmade global warming, because although CO2 levels continue to rise, global temperatures have cooled. Continue reading
Posted in Climate | 5 Comments

The theory of non-causality

In logic, there is a requirement the world is structured such that A->B which can be read “if A then B”, but is often assumed to mean: “A causes B”.
As a physicist, I was indeed taught that the whole world could be dissected into smaller and smaller constituent parts and that these could all be put together again and their behaviour explained by a set of causal relationships (aka science) to build the world we have. As such the implied philosophical basis of science is that …

“everything has a cause”.

I would now like to suggest that there exists systems where it is not only impractical to describe them as having a cause, but that there is literally no “cause”.

Fortunately for me, after doing physics at University, I went into engineering and fairly quickly the arrogance instilled in me from my school and university courses began to disappear. I realised that in real life, the assumption the world could be dissected into constituent parts and that by knowing “science” you could predict how these would work was false.

Like most people who follow a similar path, I quickly learnt the idea that :

“it might work in theory – but does it work in practice”.

Looking back now, I now have a much higher regard for this engineering philosphy as I now see that this is undoubtedly the origin of what later came to be known as “the scientific method”. AKA (it might look OK in theory – but does it work in practice?)

The “Scientific Method is Anti-Science”

Continue reading

Posted in Academia, Climate, My Best Articles, Politics, Proposals, Sceptics, science | 4 Comments

Met Office economic with truth: Scotland coldest July since 1998

OK, I admit I’m just extremely pissed off with the weather! (And by the time I finished writing this I was even more pissed off with the Met Office for their dishonest portrayal of this weather)
OK, there’s no evidence that the ice age is coming (my original title), but I rightly feel rightly miffed with the Met Office and all the other climate extremists. It’s another cold wet day, after a cold wet July following the coldest June in 40 years. And to put it in context, this coldest July since 1998* included a spectacular hot 2-3 days (see: How to survive a Scottish heat wave).
So, if this coldest July since 1998 includes a heat wave – which we couldn’t appreciate because it came as shock after the previous cold weather and so none of us had time to acclimatise and get to enjoy it – you can imagine how grim the rest of the month was like!
Scotland was the coldest July since 1998* – and probably if you exclude those 2-3 days with heat – it may well be the coldest on record.
And this is how the Met Office show it (courtesy of  “NotALotOfPeopleKnowThat“).
2015_7_MeanTemp_Anomaly_1981-2010
AND HERE IT MIGHT HAVE ENDED HOWEVER ….
As I peered to see why there wasn’t a HUGE dark blue pot where we live, something occurred to me.  It’s really easy to give a false perception of the climate by adjusting the scale. THIS SCALE GOES UP IN 1C STEPS. So I checked on line to see what scale the Met Office used when it is warm and I found this:
AndMetOfficeClaimsTHIS SCALE FROM THE SAME MONTH LAST YEAR GOES UP IN 0.5C steps (not 1C as this year), but worse, the first colouring of “warm” is at +0.2C allowing them to plaster the whole map with red.
The majority of the warm of the map last year was “up to +1.5C”. This is exactly the same limit for the cold this july, but don’t the maps look completley different! This shows a clear conscious decision to down play the recent cold and/or to enhance the recent warming using to dishonest tricks:

  1. Picking an abnormally low level for “warming” so as to ensure the map is entirely coved in red hue when it is warm whilst picking a much higher threshold for “cooling” so that a large part of the map has no hue
  2. Increasing the scale so that anomalies that appear this July in a faded blue, appear as a dense red last year.

I don’t have the actual data to allow a map similar to the above, but using something similar to last July’s scale and guessing where the -0.2C limit would be, I think it would not look too different from this:

2015_7_MeanTemp_Anomaly_1981-2010

Scale as used by Met Office this year.

UpdateJuly 2015

The same colour scale as July 2013**

* Allegedly but the Met Office clearly have a culture of exaggerating warmth when it comes and severely down-playing cold, so for very good reason I don’t trust the Met Office on any statistics.
**As close as I can get it given I don’t have all the data.

Posted in Climate | 27 Comments