| Field summary for Q07 | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Which of the following areas of science have you worked in for at least a year? | |||
| Answer | Count | Percentage | |
| Laboratory work (1) | 256 | 10.29% | |
| Teaching (2) | 218 | 8.76% | |
| Research (3) | 1210 | 48.63% | |
| Field work (4) | 451 | 18.13% | |
| Other | 329 | 13.22% | |
| No answer | 24 | 0.96% | |
 |
|||
The annual get together of the deluded at Lima has successfully kept the greenblobbyists occupied for another few weeks dangling carrots in front of them for the next talks in Paris:
“Right now we are facing the prospect of being no further forward than we were when we left last year’s meeting in Warsaw.”
“everything is still up in the air.”
“deadlock”
” weak-willed compromise.”
etc.
And yet again having achieved nothing but empty promises, they are again triumphing the achievement of having a plan to talk about what they plan to do at the next meeting, where they will plan to plan, to talk about the talks they plan…….
You can fool some people some of the time but there really are thousands of greens at Lima who can be fooled every time.
Just been thinking and trying to understand how the politicians can keep stringing along these greenblobbyists year after year after year.
And I thought: “Of course, if a sceptic were at these talks, they would spot within a few hours what was going on as they would be focussed on measurable outcomes.”
… then it twigged!
Alarmists don’t care much for hard and fast facts. To them even when the temperature has not warmed, it is warming if there is a general “consensus” that it is warming. To them Arctic ice is melting because that’s the “consensus”. For them CO2 is a poison and not a plant food because that’s the “consensus”.
So, these alarmists must see a “success” at these talks, not in solid progress toward a measurable goal as we sceptics would see it, but instead on the degree of “consensus”.
So, this is how I think the greenblob has been strung along so long. Each year the politicians create a scenario of disagreement that needs to be overcome – and each year they go to these talks and at the last minute (for there is always a last minute deal), they come to a “consensus”. And because the greenblob see the world only in terms of whether there is consensus or not, and not tangible progress, the mere fact that they yet again come to a consensus to carry on to the next meeting is seen by the greenblob as a huge achievement.
But of course, the disagreement is as fake as the consensus – it’s just a way to suggest progerss when there is none.
Yet again, my websites and emails have been subject to another attack starting sometime before 10am and ending around 2pm. This time I’ve decided to report the incident to the police.
If anyone else is subject to such attacks, please report them to the police.
This will ensure such attacks are treated appropriately.
| Field summary for Q06 | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| How many years have you worked in science | |||
| Answer | Count | Percentage | |
| 1 year (1) | 81 | 3.26% | |
| 2 – 3 years (2) | 284 | 11.41% | |
| 4 – 7 years (3) | 315 | 12.66% | |
| 8 – 15 years (4) | 337 | 13.55% | |
| 16+ years (5) | 1452 | 58.36% | |
| No answer | 19 | 0.76% | |
 |
|||
Just back from the Scottish parliament which I attending with Lord Monckton where we attended something called SPREEE. Here we heard three of their advisers starting with WWF.
I repeat: starting with WWF! What on earth are they doing advising the Scottish parliament? Not on how to bread pandas or haggis, but on energy policy! And what were these advisers saying? They were insisting that climate would warm 6C (as a result of Monckton’s questions) and not one of them cared at all about the effects on the hard pressed consumer as not one mentioned the cost to people in Scotland or the harm being done until I got the last question in.
And to cap it all, it was snowing – so I got in the mention about “children won’t know what snow is”.
I couldn’t believe it when the answer came back “it’s cheaper than it would have been if we hadn’t done anything”. Putting up fuel bills by the renewable stealth tax in a country with massive fuel poverty is “cheaper”.
And then I happened to be on the same train as someone else who had gone to the Scottish parliament. They worked for a charity called Energy Action Scotland who deal with fuel poverty.
Apparently 900,000 Scots are in fuel poverty. That’s an utter disgrace. In a country with oil and coal, 900,000 cannot afford to adequately heat their homes.
And what is the Scottish parliament doing on this wintry day? Taling about the real problems facing Scots or the delusional beliefs of the greenblob? They were pandering to the greenblob without a care for the thing that directly impact Scots and kills many of them.
| Field summary for Q05 | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Have you worked in science for more than one year? | |||
| Answer | Count | Percentage | |
| Yes (Y) | 1050 | 25.41% | |
| No (N) | 3081 | 74.55% | |
| No answer | 2 | 0.05% | |
 |
|||
I just love watching these high cost committee produced greenblobbiest videos from the pause deniers to see just how soon they start telling lies. And I did not have to wait long. After the 10s “I did media studies” type intro, the video failed … in 2 seconds flat … on the sixth word:
“Let’s not beet around the rapidly melting ice …”
All their money gone to waste – they can’t be pleased with the latest news:
I was reading Bob Tisdale’s blog Absolutely Amazing! A Climate Scientist Writes a Blog Post about… in which he discusses a post on unRealClimate, in which unRealClimate discuss Anthony Watts blog’s widget. (right)
And I was looking forward to seeing how they would replace the widget. Obviously it would turn from blue to red, their graph would highlight 1970-2000 and “hide the pause” afterwards, etc.
Time and again I hear nonsense from people saying climate signals are, or are not, “significant”, by this they suppose they mean “cannot be normal”. But they ignore the fact that in order to say whether or not something it abnormal, we must know what is normal. And they do not know what is normal but assume a model of “normality” which is totally wrong for the claimate. So I decided to write this explanation of 1/f climate noise to help explain the difference.
It’s often easier to see something that for someone to explain it. So it might help to have a look at the demo of 1/f noise I have at uburns.com (I’ve jokingly portrayed this as a “forecast” but it just generates noise similar to climate noise. Further info is on the about page. I’ve got some results showing how variance increases: Statistics of 1/f noise – implications for climate forecast. And I’ve even collected together a few examples of how 1/f noise causes errors in interpreting data even by sceptics: Natural habitats of 1/f noise errors.
Also for a wider perspective of how we need to know the underlying variation in order to know what is meaningful see: Lies, damned lies, and statistical significance of climate trends
Fig 1 so called “normal distribution”
The so called “normal distribution” shown right is arguably one of the worst concepts in the whole of mathematics and science. I suspect is the single biggest cause of the failure of climate academics to comprehend why they can’t predict the climate.
Continue reading
| Field summary for Q04 | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Please tick any of the following areas where you have received formal post-school education or training | |||
| Answer | Count | Percentage | |
| Climatology (a05) | 282 | 5.04% | |
| Geology or other earth science (a01) | 893 | 15.97% | |
| Environmental studies (a02) | 663 | 11.86% | |
| Computer programming (a03) | 2251 | 40.27% | |
| Biology or other life science. (a06) | 737 | 13.18% | |
| Economics (a07) | 1057 | 18.91% | |
| Philosophy (a08) | 427 | 7.64% | |
| Physics /Chemistry (a09) | 1827 | 32.68% | |
| Mathematics (a10) | 1864 | 33.35% | |
| Engineering (1) | 2053 | 36.73% | |
| Architecture/Planning (2) | 239 | 4.28% | |
| Medical sciences (3) | 397 | 7.10% | |
| Arts/History/Languages (4) | 574 | 10.27% | |
| Business/Law/Accounting (5) | 1209 | 21.63% | |
| Education (6) | 407 | 7.28% | |
| Social Studies (7) | 221 | 3.95% | |
| Other | 572 | 10.23% | |
 |
|||
