A reply to Roger Harrabin

How sceptics like me view the alarmists. They are completely defeated but just will not admit the reality of the situation. (Black Night from Monty Python Holy Grail nursing their wounds and saying "tis a scratch".

How sceptics like me view the alarmists. They are completely defeated but just will not admit the reality of the situation.
(Black Knight from Monty Python Holy Grail nursing their wounds and saying “tis a scratch”.


On Radio 4 today Roger Harrabin made the following assertions:

  • CO2 has almost certainly contributed to warming the planet
  • The current pause in warming is likely to end
  • If we double the CO2 we are likely to produce a temperature rise of about 1.7C … a range of 1.25 – 3C
  • Both sides have moved closer

I think the best way to describe this was “highly economical with the truth”. The best that I can say, is that he admitted scpetics exist and did so in a way that  didn’t obviously libel us as the Today program has done before in its “Thought for Today slot“. However, not libelling us, is not exactly the same as giving an accurate portrayal of our views.
So, I will deal with these points one by one. Continue reading

Posted in bbc, Climate, Media, Sceptics | 12 Comments

If climate change isn't manmade – but we could control it – should we control it?

I was reading a Breitbart headline:

Climate Change is Not Our Fault, So Let’s Just Deal With It, says California Professor

And took the meaning to be “it’s not our fault – but even so we must tackle it”, not the intended “just live with it”, when I realised it raised an intriguing question.
Imagine the following scenario.

  1. CO2 has been shown to have direct effect on climate of about 0.6C (Ref: Hermann Harde) and let’s assume strong negative feedback reduces that to 0.2-0.3.
  2. That incredibly, we found a way to change the environment. The obvious one is the one that we were all threatened by in the 1970s which is a “nuclear winter”. In other words, causing a massive explosion that caused lots of dust to go into the atmosphere (aka pollution).

Now let’s suppose we start to understand natural variation and we realise that we are heading toward a massive warming phase. And then we work out, that we can explode a suitable bomb without causing much if any nuclear contamination (or whatever the mechanism is) and so we effectively have a way to altar the world’s temperature to stop natural change.
Should we try to control it?
Logically, if warming (or cooling) is “bad” then it is bad irrespective of what causes it. Because dying from cold is just as bad if that cold is caused naturally or by e.g. the policy of government making it impossible for elderly people to heat their homes.
But if we wouldn’t control the climate as the greenblob has been urging us to do for years, why would we e.g. try to stop Ebola – because it’s ebola also part of the natural world and isn’t it also an endangered “species” that should be protected along with all other endangered lifeforms?

Posted in Climate | 3 Comments

The forgotten genocide of millions of Britons

If I were to say that in the last century nearly 4million people in the UK had died from something in the environment and that the UK government were wetting themselves trying to increase you wouldn’t believe me. But this is what they are doing.
The UK & Scottish government are spending billions of our money actively promoting conditions that kill!
But it is not some chemical that they are introducing, it’s the simple fact that around 37,000 extra deaths occur in the UK due to winter cold. [In the past, Age concern have suggested around 23,000 extra deaths, but apparently the figure is much higher!]

Overall, the UK exhibits an average seasonality rate of 18%, which represents about 37 000 annual excess winter deaths

So 6% of the 588000 deaths each year in the UK are connected to our colder winters. Over our lifetime that is millions of people who die of cold.  To put that in context the main causes of deaths in England & Wales (2010) are: Continue reading

Posted in Climate, Politics, Scotland | 1 Comment

PDO and El Nino: resonant response to natural variation?

El Nino Southern Oscillation Index

El Nino Southern Oscillation Index


In a recent article by Kevin Trenberth amongst his silly comments he mentioned El Nino and Pacific Decadal Variability as one of many “the dog ate my warming” type excuses to deny the scientific fact of the pause.
In my comment to his diabtribe I suggested that PDO is very likely being just a manifestation of natural variation and this is a fuller explanation.
LC circuit

LC circuit


For the academics looking at the earth’s climate it must be very confusing because they have a lot of strange phenomenon which appear to be “something” but whilst appearing to be cyclic, they are otherwise quite random in size. Such well known phenomenon are the El Nino, Pacific Decadal Oscillation, North Atlantic oscillation, etc.
I would now like to suggest how these phenomenon are likely to be just a manifestation of natural variation.
Continue reading

Posted in 1/f, Climate, My Best Articles, Proposals | Comments Off on PDO and El Nino: resonant response to natural variation?

A Weird Coincidence – or Black ops?

First, apologies if you have been trying to read any of my websites or email me. Apparently the server I use (Saltire hosting) has been under attack for the last few days from what I’m told is a “denier or Service Attack”.
I will now outline some facts as I know them and then must let you draw your own conclusion.

Scottish Climate and Energy Group

Back in 2012 some sceptics met in Scotland to set up a new association and at that meeting the name chosen was “Scottish Climate and Energy Group”. We did this because this domain name was available.
Unfortunately, as the organisation didn’t exist, I couldn’t stop someone who appeared to be an enthusiastic sceptic who just happened to turn up registering the domain sceg.org.uk on the spot.
However, that turned out to be disastrous for SCEG, because whilst I tried to work with the person who had registered the domain, all he seemed to want to do was to gain access to my own websites and eventually despite being polite, etc. he stopped responding to any emails.
Having worked in the wind sector I had heard rumours of “black ops” whereby people were hired to either spy on or disrupt wind protest groups. So, even at the time I thought it was quite possible that this individual had been hired by the wind developers with the intention of throttling the organisation at its birth.
Eventually, I registered another name The Scottish Climate & Energy Forum (scef.org.uk), but by then much of the momentum had gone from the idea and
Then today, I wondered what had happened to the SCEG.org.uk. So I looked it up and found that it was registered to a Paul Gibson. Thinking this was some club that just happened to have picked the same name, I was intrigued to find out what kind of organisation it might be.
I expected something innocuous like: Scunthorpe Children’s Equarian Gallop?
I found  it was being used by an organisation now called “Security in Complex Environments”. (https://www.adsgroup.org.uk/pages/24204653.asp)
Unfortunately, there’s absolutely no way to tie this latest incarnation of SCEG with the person who appeared to have acted intentionally to prevent SCEG forming. So this could be a coincidence. And what purpose would there be keeping the name – surely no security consultant worth paying for, would leave such an obvious paper trail leading to them and thence to their client!
However it does appear to be a remarkable coincidence that the original registrant appeared to be acting like a paid security “consultant” and now the site has been (re)registered to a paid security consultant.

Posted in General, Sceptics, Scotland | Comments Off on A Weird Coincidence – or Black ops?

A brief summary of why "science" failed with global temperature

David Cage prompted me to write a reply which on reflection is a nice summary of why academic science got into this mess with global warming so I’m posting it as an article.
He was replying to my comment that “academics … are looking increasingly sheepish and trying to talk about anything but their proven inability to predict the climate.” and said that this was not true as some academics working on signal processing had understood the real nature but had failed to get grants and so moved into engineering  which is how David got to know them.
As someone who started University in Physics but eventually chose to take electronics as well and then eventually worked in the very traditional area of a textile mill, I can remember my own transition from “science” to engineering. And sometimes I really do feel quite schizophrenic, because these are very different cultures and outlooks and both as a scientist in engineering and as a engineer interfacing with academia, I’m found myself on either side of this cultural and philosophical divide.
And to be frank, there just aren’t many (any?) academics who look themselves in the mirror and say “what is wrong with us”? So, the academic view of themselves and how they behave is perhaps one of the least studied areas of research.

My comment

Thanks David, I can remember where I was standing when I realised that if I had personally recorded the global temperature signal on one of my instruments as part of my work and I had been asked “is it correlated with this other rising signal” … I would have had to say “I could not possibly say – there’s far too little signal to draw any real conclusion”.
And then I realised that I had been applying a very different standard to the “big” temperature signal to any other “ordinary” signals. I tried to explain it in my submission to the Climategate inquiry. However, how do you explain something that you really just learn on the job by looking at lots and lots of signals?
But it was interesting seeing my own perception change as I started to view it as a signal and not as “science”. I think the difference is because I had been taught in science to look at signals in an entirely different way to that which I did as an experienced engineer.
After studying it, I think the big difference is that in the real world, real world signals are full of 1/f noise. However, in most areas where science works, the signal is a relationship that is “static”. So, the “signal” is a long term relationships and so almost all noise is higher in frequency like white noise. So, in physics the philosophy was “if you average it enough, the noise will disappear”, whereas in the real world of engineering, if you average a signal often, the signal disappears leaving only the noise.
When you play around with short duration real world signals with multiple frequencies, you learn that averaging can only go so far and eventually it’s a question of judgement. But in science, the experiments will keep going until they have enough data, and/or they only work in areas where averaging is a useful technique.
The other huge cultural difference, is that in “science” the aim is to “understand” something and anyone who doesn’t understand a system is considered to be … morally corrupt would be a good way to put it. Continue reading

Posted in 1/f, Climate, Fails | 5 Comments

A personal request: please sign this petition


John is a friend from University where he was a first class physicist. Recently he was detained apparently for no medical reason.
He was not a danger to himself or others and they failed to come up with a diagnosis of illness. John even phoned me as he was being detained when I tried to explain that there was nothing wrong. But they would not believe me or John. Unfortunately, whilst I was deeply concerned at his treatment, I could not write about it unless or until he made it public.
Now, following his publication of a petition on 38degrees I am able to express my horror at the events that occurred albeit whilst trying not to go beyond the personal details he himself has made public.
The key part that will certainly worry any sceptic is the way authority figures have behaved in this case, because it is so similar to the whole way climate is treated. They ignore the evidence and instead characterised someone who disagreed with them, even about their own health, as being insane and therefore unfit to have a say.
It’s catch 22 – you are insane because you dispute the doctor who says you are insane.
The key part in the petition is this:

Unlike courts or police that rely upon solid evidence/facts these people (psychiatrists) have unfettered powers and operate on ‘opinion’ often bolstered by undoubtedly incorrect diagnostic ‘label’. A ‘patient’ is in no position to disagree. Any valid and correctly followed route of disagreement with them is regarded as ‘complaint’ liable to forcible medication/assault or even detention. Rules are not being adhered to or even given lip service. Medical ‘notes’ supposedly legal documents – are taken as fact whereas often fiction. Legal advice – effectively denied. You can call it ‘confirmation bias’ but it it is much sicker and much worse than that. These people are not of rational mind – and they could lock you up tomorrow should you disagree.

And, the only way to “prove” you are “sane” appears to be to ignore the evidence of your sanity and instead agree with the authority figure that something is “wrong” with you, then pretend to be “treated” and finally they may let you go once you have submitted to them. But like climate sceptics John is passionate about science and does not like agreeing to things that are not supported by any evidence.
That in my opinion as someone who has known John for many years, is the only reason he was detained for nearly a month!
Unfortunately, I can’t say how this detention without trial has affected him, nor what it has done to his employment prospect. But you can guess.
What I can say is that as far as I can see the details of the petition are correct and that there is a serious issue behind it. Apparently human rights such as the simple right not to be detained without reason are thrown out the window if you get labelled as being mentally ill.
Therefore, I would urge you to sign the petition.
 

Posted in General | 2 Comments

Launch of my election campaign for UK parliament 2015

I have today worked out that one would only need £1100 to stand at next years election and that mean with funding I could stand against Jo Swinson, Lib Dem Minister so utterly pro global warming that my sides ache laughing listening to her.

Jo Swinson car crash interview with Andrew Neil (07Oct14)

The costs break down as follows:

  1. Deposit: £500 deposit (which as a sceptic I expect to lose)
  2. Leaflets: Whilst delivery is free, printing ~40,000  single side A5 leaflets to deliver to each household will cost around £500 to print
    Street posters: £100
    Website: A domain name and website can be secured for £30.

In addition I will need 10 signatures from people registered to vote in the constituency. I will obtain these by knocking on the doors of as many people as it takes (up to 40,000)
If however I want something suitably “sceptic” to go on the ballot paper, I will need to form a party. For this I will need:

  1. One other person willing to be an officer
  2. £150

However, whilst I can put in the time, I cannot put in the money. So I need £1000 of additional funding plus £150 if we form a party.
For this funding you will get:

  • 40,000 leaflets delivered to East Dunbartonshire, a commuter area around Glasgow which is filled with Scottish civil servants, journalists and other influential people.
  • The sceptic message on each ballot paper.
  • A say in the name of the party and the “description” that goes on the ballot paper.**
  • A say in the party emblem.**
Posted in Climate, Politics, Scotland, Wind | 11 Comments

The Death of Kyoto and the lies about a replacement

On 31st December 2012, the sceptics won the war on global warming nonsense as the Kyoto protocol commitment faded into history as it ended without any realistic prospect of a replacement.
However, the world was lied to. We were told that a magical fairy had come along, created a magical replacement called “Doha” and that somehow the magical mystery bus of global warming nonsense was still merrily trundling onlong on its acid trip.
Well coming up to two years after Kyoto died, can you name a single country that has committed to this replacement:

Name the countries that are delusional about global warming.

Name the countries that believe in the global warming scam.


Oops, I should have said. It’s not the grey countries or the white. Look carefully – those aren’t greenflies on your monitor. They are actually the “overwhelming” support for the supposed replacement to Kyoto which we were told came into force on the 31st December two years ago.

Posted in Kyoto | Tagged | 1 Comment

Does internet scrutiny improve academia?

For much of the last decade as the internet allowed people outside universities to not only have access to the same data but to comment on what academia was doing and even propose their own ideas.
Personally, that process has revealed some horrendous failings in academia with appalling standards seeming to be everywhere from climate to archaeology. In other words, people were just making up history (e.g. the “celts”) and making up “science” (e.g. “global warming” after 18years without any).
The one thing that defines sceptics is that they demand high standards. And like a dog with a bone, once we find areas where absolute rubbish is being printed daily and poured into the ears of students, then we have outed this nonsense.
And yes, we are still finding many instances of absolute nonsense from academia and rightly those who standards are so appalling are being heavily criticised on the internet.

However

What about everyone else? Continue reading

Posted in Academia, Climate, Media, Sceptics | 7 Comments