A Weird Coincidence – or Black ops?

Posted on 30 October 2014 by Scottish-Sceptic

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

Posted on 30 October 2014 by Scottish-Sceptic

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

Posted on 26 October 2014 by Scottish-Sceptic


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

Posted on 24 October 2014 by Scottish-Sceptic

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

Posted on 23 October 2014 by Scottish-Sceptic

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?

Posted on 23 October 2014 by Scottish-Sceptic

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

Stonehenge, pyramids + Glastonbury – but can anyone tell me the probability of seeing the sun?

Posted on 23 October 2014 by Scottish-Sceptic

I’ve written three articles suggesting how ancient monument could have been used to calibrate a calendar:

But some key data is missing: how often can we see the sun?

Campbell–Stokes recorder measures sunshine

Campbell–Stokes recorder measures sunshine

Midday sun

There are two separate figures I need. The first is one to work out the probability of seeing an observation when the sun is high in the sky during the middle of the day. The reason this is important, is that if solar observations are being of “the equinox”, then unless it is almost certain the sun can be seen each and every day, then you would build an instrument that could calibrate a calendar with the sun’s position on several days. And the number of sun calibration alignments would increase as the probability of getting a good observation decreased. Continue reading →

Posted in General | Tagged , , | 2 Comments

The Decline and Fall of the British University

Posted on 21 October 2014 by Scottish-Sceptic

I found this at: Here The email given has bounced so I publishing it without permission.
The goal of widening access to education is a noble one and very much in line with the motivations of the post-war British governments. One way of implementing it would have been to investigate why so few students went to university, and, having constructed a careful social analysis, to have increased the percentage of entrants by improving the educational qualities of the average school leaver. Of course thats the hard and genuine route and it takes a generation. An easier way is to water down the educational system to a lower standard and then peg the university income to the number of students accepted while reducing the funding per head. In that way universities are given the happy choice of losing money and enforcing redundancies or watering down their requirements. No prizes for guessing which route the government took and how the universities responded. Continue reading →

Posted in Academia, UK | Comments Off on The Decline and Fall of the British University

Power resilience

Posted on 20 October 2014 by Scottish-Sceptic

Hearing this morning of the major fire at the Didcot B Power Station, and learning that due to several other problems on the UK grid, we are already likely to have problems if there is a cold spell in January, I thought it was time to stop trying to change the mind of our deluded politicians who never listen to anyone but themselves and instead it’s now time to prepare.
So, I would welcome feedback on the following – particularly comments in [square brackets]:-

 Warning – Now is the time to prepare for Electricity Power cuts

Likelihood

The evidence strongly suggests that a large part of Scotland has already experienced a wind related power outage. So the growing level of wind is likely to be the key factor triggering a large power outage. So, the most likely time will be when wind is a problem to the network. This occurs in two scenarios:

  1. High pressure/low wind: When the wind is not blowing and it is cold, dark and everyone is trying to cook the demand may at some point exceed available supply- so about 6pm typically on a Saturday during high pressure (sunny, frosty).
  2. Low Pressure/high wind: From my analysis of the previous wind power outage. This is most likely to occur when the wind is scheduled to be strong and conventional power stations are shut down to cope with the excess electricity from wind. As these conventional power stations stabilise the grid, the grid becomes progressively less stable. Then even a modest problem or a sudden mismatch of wind supply and power demand could cascade through the grid causing it to effectively crash. Last time this occurred at 8:40pm on a windy night as the power demand dropped forcing more and more of the “base-load” to come from unstable wind leading to instability.

This means Scotland has a “reasonable” chance [I guess 50:50] of at least one major conurbation facing an evening without power typically in January – March.
However, there are now suggestions that: Winter 2014 set to be ‘coldest for century’ Britain faces ARCTIC FREEZE in just weeks if these are true, then I would suggest that there is a strong chance of [75% ?] of at least one major conurbation facing an evening without power, perhaps [50%] of most of Scotland being without power and perhaps [50%] of remoter areas being without power for several days and perhaps [33%] chance of some major conurbations being without power for more than 24hours.

Therefore all of us face the potential of being without power for days.

Enhanced risk

Continue reading →

Posted in bbc, Politics, Scotland, Wind | 1 Comment

Why do academics get involved with policy?

Posted on 8 October 2014 by Scottish-Sceptic

I was reading an article and came across this:

Sid Richardson College senior Maddie Camp said she thinks it is important to examine skeptics’ viewpoints to make progress on climate policy.

Why is this academic getting involved with policy at all?

You are either an impartial scientist- in which case you cannot also be advocating particular policies. Or you are advocating particular policies and so are not a scientist.

“Because climate change is really a policy issue, skeptics bottleneck the whole process of beginning to address climate change, so it makes sense to understand that barrier and think about how we can move past it,” Camp said.

Yet again, another academic (and I’m not even bothering to check as they all are) who wants to have their cake and eat it. They want to be seen as “impartial” and dispassionate at the same time as passionately advocating a particular point of view.

Or to use other analogies:

  • They want to stand in the election AND count the result
  • To play football AND be the referee
  • To be in the play AND write the critique.

etc.

Posted in Academia, Politics, UK | Comments Off on Why do academics get involved with policy?