This is a very straightforward competition with very simple rules.
Count up every time you can get an alarmist to call you “denier” and then report back. The person who gets the highest count will win the prize of “Shear Denier”.
I will then send them this luxurious prize:
Shear Denier Stockings
Please note Legs are not part of this offer.
Yesterday I tried to find out from Richard Betts of the UK Met Office at what point if I was confident of my forecast that I should make it known if I was predicting cooling. He didn’t reply but after thinking about it, I’ve decided that I would criticise an academic for keeping quiet. So whilst I am very hesitant to do so, I’m going to issue my first and very provisional estimate of global temperature out to 2030.
But first an apology is due to Girma Orssengo. When I first saw suggestions of a 60-70 year cycle in the global temperature in WattsUpWithThat, I was extremely dismissive adding comments suggesting that sceptics were falling for the same mistake as alarmists and mistaking natural variation for patterns.
After further of the variation of climate trends with time, I’m having to rethink that criticism. For around a week since I wrote that article I’ve been pouring over the graphs and trying to understand how the information should best be interpreted. Whilst I am still very uncertain of what is best, each time I look at it I’m coming to the same conclusion and that is that I cannot simply dismiss the 60 year cycle which Girma Orssengo identified. But neither can I say for certain it is real or has predictive power. Continue reading
Dunbarton Rock known as Alt Clut where 3 out of the five lives of St.Patrick locate he birth
Three out of the five lives of St.Patrick locate his birthplace near Alt Clud or Dumbarton Rock. Using this information we can identify the other name associated with his birthplace “Nemthur” as the Roman Fort of Nemeton or Old Kilpatrick at the western end of the Antonine wall.
This is further supported by the similarity of the modern name Dumbarton the next place in the Latin text called “SUBDOBIADON” or “SUB-DOBIADON”. Together with evidence that there was an early Christian community & late Roman occupation in and around Old Kilpatrick and Glasgow this proposal confirms Old Kilpatrick as the Birthplace of St.Patrick.
As such the Roman names of the principal forts (from East to West) along the Antonine wall can be identified using a note to Nennius which says the wall had seven forts. The Ravenna Cosmology lists six up to MEDIO NEMETON. But if this is considered as two names “MEDIO” & “NEMETON” it gives seven making NEMETON, the last fort which is a perfect fit to Old Kilpatrick & Nemthur the place of St.Patrick’s birth.
From this we can identify the principle forts along the Antonine wall (running East to West) as: Carriden (VELUNIA), Mumrills (VOLITANIO), Castlecary (PEXA), Barhill (BEGESSE), the two next principle forts (COLANIA & MEDIO) are less certain but can be tentatively identified as Balmuildy (MEDIO) and Kirkintilloch (COLANIA) leaving the final Fort of Old Kilpatrick as NEMETON.
Continue reading
We must preserve climate alarmists! Otherwise future generations will only see stuffed specimens like this dodo.
Any sceptic who knows any academics will know some who are sceptical of catastrophic or “doomsday” warming who are afraid to speak out. So hopefully they will all begin speaking out when someone as prominent of Prof Kelly of the Royal Society speaks out against that same society and says they are wrong.
There is a simple rule in science and that is theories are tested by weather 🙂 … whether they predict the evidence and whether the theories work. Therefore it is the cardinal rule in real science that no evidence or indeed contrary views are repressed.
However, western science has been living through a dark age of repression. Because for decades science has been decided not by whether the theories work, not by whether the climate behaves as predicted, but whether the theories are politically correct.
Even at this moment President Obama is conducting a hate campaign against ordinary decent American scientists who dare to speak up … not for anything political, violent … but simply for daring to say the evidence & science does not support the political belief in catastrophic global warming.
Those who were there will remember that in a similar way Tony Blair told us in Britain that the evidence was “unequivocal” that Iraq president Sadam Hussein had Weapons of Mass Destruction. Unlike the US where many factors were taken into account, in the UK it was on this basis alone that Blair demanded that the British parliament went to war. It turned out that claim was a totally bogus lie. It turned out the “unequivocal evidence” was nothing of the sort. Any evidence there was was “sexed up” and it is widely believed by many people in the UK that much of the evidence itself was fabricated solely to delude the British public and parliament.
But there was one brave sole who stood up to be counted. Like the noble Prof Kelly who has spoken out for science against the Royal Society, his name was also Kelly, a Dr Kelly. He let the press know the evidence could not support the conclusions it was being used to support. He met his death, whether it was by his own hands or another we do not know, but we do know his death was undoubtedly the responsibility of the British establishment either by intention or neglect.
Whether or not the Iraq war could be justified as Bush did in the US, the fact is that the perpetrators of the horrific events of 911 were in Afghanistan – a region almost ignored as Bush pushed for war in the middle east an area that has been in turmoil ever since leading directly to the rise of ISIS. So if only in hindsight, history will judge the Blair-Bush invasion of Iraq as a failure leading to ISIS. It singularly failed to make Iraq stable or save the population from repressive murdering regimes.
We can only guess what would have happened if the true state of evidence were known about WMD. But we can be certain that without the lies over WMD, if the UK had gone to war it would have been by popular support which would have vastly reduced the potential for home-grown terrorists that have since emerged.
The important thing is like Climate, we know for certain that many of those at the coal face gathering intelligence were completely deluded about Sadam’s “WMD”. We know there were widespread doubts but only one brave sole dared to speak up. And the many like Dr Kelly who did not speak out are perhaps more culpable than any for for both Dr Kelly’s death and all the lives lost in Iraq in the war and since. Indeed, I’ve always felt that it was highly likely that Sadam would actively encourage rumours of WMD because it would make him look a threat and therefore less vulnerable to outside aggression – an obvious possibility that seemed impossible for these “intelligence” agencies to conceive.
But like Iraq WMD, in the area of climate we have also seen this wholesale fabrication or at least “sexing up” of the evidence. Normal weather events seen regularly were sexed up as “Weather of Mass Destruction”. Scientists who did not support the political “consensus” like Salby were hounded out of their jobs. And eventually those at the coalface of gathering intelligence became so deluded by their own sexed up evidence that even in the face of increasing evidence that their predictions were wrong, they laughingly increased their confidence that they were right.
Now is the time to speak up
From my analysis of the past temperature of the planet, I guarantee that sooner or later temperatures will drop below the current level. And when that happens, if this whole “carbon capitalist”, “anti-western industry” scare has not imploded before, it certainly will certainly implode at that point. And I doubt the public who have had £100s if not £1000s stolen from us through our electricity bills at a time of great hardship economically will be in any mood to forgive. Those not speaking up, will be treated no differently from the last few zealots as they all are left “holding the baby” of failed science.
At that point, people like Prof Kelly who speak up for the evidence against the “consensus” will be applauded. But those who wait until there is no choice but to accept the evidence that the models have failed, will be booed off the lectern.
So, academics now have a simple choice. Not speaking up puts you in the same camp as deluded zealots. So, you have a simple choice. You can speak up for science now or suffer the indignity and lack of credibility when this delusion is exposed for what it is,
Today I was posting a few comments online and I nearly got one annoying alarmist to agree to a 100:1 bet with him forking out the $100,000 – but apparently not.
I’m not naming the person as I really don’t want someone who cannot afford the wager to be forced into it. But clearly they quickly realised that it was a pretty awful bet, even for those believing in massive warming (they didn’t even notice there was an upper limit!!). However, I’m recounting the tale as it does prove how gullible these warmists are and how little understanding they have of how likely events are.
It started when I said something like: “the models do not work” or “if you predict warming and that predicted warming doesn’t happen then the model/theory is invalid and not science”. Well apparently the greenblob also work Saturdays, because one quite obnoxious individual just kept coming back with a whole lot of twaddle. In the past I’ve found that if I just keep to the point and asked them to show me that the global average surface temperature had warmed by at least the lowest prediction of the IPCC prediction they would eventually give up.
Of course, they were unable to give any dataset that had warmed by the 0.14C/decade warming from 2001 when that prediction was made. Usually even the most ardent eco-zealots realise that they’ve lost and give up, but this individual must be a novice born again believer who did not know when to stop. Continue reading
Judith Curry alerted me to a really good article “Here’s one way to reach a consensus“. I think very accurately describes the environment within which the global warming scare flourished and sceptical-science was repressed. Here’s a good excerpt. You need only know is that her own academic she was attacking based his views on actual research evidence and that the “mainstream” being described was “based on junk science advanced by a scientist with a fraudulent degree”.
The Dean of the UCLA School of Public Health admits that she only had “very general” knowledge of a dissenting scientist’s research — so general that she doesn’t know what his conclusions were based on, but still confidently declares her allegiance to the mainstream. Her opinion, you see, is based on “science,” while she has no idea how Dr. Enstrom — a researcher in her own school — came up with his conclusions.
This is exactly why the public should be suspicious of arguments based largely on appeal to “consensus” or the “mainstream.” Consensus is all-too-often created through censorship, suppression, greed, and opportunism.
This confirms what I have known for some time. In many areas like climate, so called “science” is rotten to the core. These subjects are worse than useless, actively causing damage to society by attacking those who do do good science.
It reminded me of another article, which because it was not involving climate, makes an all the more more powerful argument against climate alarmism in academia. It’s not easy to find, so to make it more available I’m reproducing the original in full below (it can be found at Pascal Junod). Also there’s an interesting facebook group dealing with this area called: Just Science
Dear EPFL,
Continue reading
No frogs were harmed in the making of this photo
Pressure pushing down causes temperature to rise. So with more gas in the atmosphere the effect would be to increase the global temperature.
So I wrote the following comment, apparently so extreme that it was removed:
The Guardian is the political extreme. For years we sceptics have been the mainstream on this subject trying to encourage a sensible policy toward what is afterall only plant food.
But no. Political extremists and zealots at the Guardian and BBC have carried out a vindictive vitriolic attack on the ordinary scientists and engineers who have the expertise to look at the evidence and conclude it doesn’t support the argument to effectively destroy the western economy.
For 18 years we have watched as the temperature stubbornly failed to rise and during that time rather than becoming less certain as the evidence requires the “scientists” – for they are not scientist – kept INCREASING their certainty in what is clearly one of the biggest scientific delusions ever seen.
Anyone that understands control systems will know the climate must be stable just from a look at the ice-age cycle. But no we weren’t listened to be the numpties in papers like the Guardian who some how thought their arts degrees made them better judges than the scientists and engineers who are sceptics.
Now, the evidence has come in proving just what we have been saying. There are massive negative feedbacks and far from “runaway warming”, it will be difficult to get any warming at all.
http://judithcurry.com/2015/03/10/the-albedo-of-earth/
So, now we expect an immediate full and frank apology from the Guardian and BBC. We consumers who have been wrongly charged hundreds if not thousands of pounds on our electricity bill demand our money back. And we sceptics deserve compensation to cover our time and expenses.