Welcome to Quadrant Online | Login/ Register Cart (0) $0 View Cart
Menu
September 30th 2017 print

Peter O'Brien

The BoM’s Squandered Credibility

A surprisingly chilly dip in the waters off Port Douglas inspired me to check the Bureau of Meteorology's latest water-temperature maps, which didn't seem to mesh with the entirely subjective appraisal of my frigid hands and feet. Once,  I'd have believed the BoM...

thumb on scaleIn mid-September I snorkelled on the Great Barrier Reef, as I have done many times before.  The first site was at Low Isles, a coral cay about 15km off Port Douglas.  I was snorkelling off the beach in shallow water.  Immediately on entering the water I was shocked at how cold it was.  Within about twenty minutes I was shivering and my thumbs were beginning to turn numb.

I have snorkelled at this sit a number of times before and it has always been warm, at times almost uncomfortably so.  Two days later I snorkelled on the outer reef at the Agincourt Reef.  Same story.  I put on a wetsuit but that provided little relief from the cold.  Shivering and numb thumbs within about twenty minutes. I was told by the boat crew that the water temperature was 24C and, indeed, a later check with the BoM website confirmed this.

Now I have been scuba diving and snorkelling for 45 years, up and down the East coast of Australia.  I am normally comfortable to dive, in a wetsuit, at 18C.  Admittedly, I am now 69 and feel the cold more than I used to, but I am quite comfortable walking around my home town at 20C in a T shirt and shorts.  There is no way that water on the GBR was 24C.

Here is a chart, from the BoM, showing the SST in the Coral Sea a few days ago:

O'BRIEN GRAF 1

You will see immediately that there is a mismatch between the colour legend and the isotherms shown on the chart.  The area bounded by the 24C and 25C isotherms should be a bright yellow.  That may or may not have any significance but it got me wondering how these chart are derived.

Obviously the raw data comes from satellites, but how does the BoM derive such linearly complex isothermic boundaries?  What homogenization is carried out?  How is averaging done – presumably by some form of grid square?  Shown is a very large swathe of ocean that purports to be 24C and others at 25C and 26C.  That is a gross granularity, yet the BoM can produce a Sea Surface Temperature anomaly graph for the Coral Sea that shows granularity of less than 0.1C.  Moreover, they could do this over a time period well before satellite measurements, a time when sea surface temperatures were routinely measured by taking buckets of water from the ocean.o'brien graf2

This graph is highly alarmist in that it purports to show a dramatic warming in the Coral Sea but it contains no caveats e.g. pointing out that the data collection methodology has changed dramatically over the period shown and that data for the earlier period is questionable to say the least.  Nor does it show uncertainty.

I’m not sure where I’m going with this other than to suggest that, like much of the BoM’s climate related product, published sea surface temperature records are likely to be very dodgy.  Are they, for example, arbitrarily adjusting inconveniently low temperatures upwards as they did at Goulburn and Thredbo? It is an unsettling thing to conclude that a government agency, nominally pledged to provide taxpayers with impartial and strictly clinical data, can no longer be trusted.

I accept that the Coral Sea has undergone recent warming.  I did observe the effects of significant coral bleaching at Low Isles since my last visit there in 2013, but then, if there were to be bleaching, Low Isles is a most likely site. I also accept that my observation is subjective and anecdotal, not empirical.  Nonetheless I am convinced that the recorded sea surface temperature for the Coral Sea in September 2017 is highly suspect, which makes me wonder how much more of the temporal and spatial record is similarly affected.

In an alternative universe where the BoM had an untarnished reputation for rigorous and transparent stewardship of climate data, I might think nothing of this. However, we all know that the BoM has responded to regular exposes of dodgy practices in processing the land temperature data by closing ranks and, protected by spineless ministers, has hidden behind supposedly independent reviews, none of which have included on their panels the likes of Jennifer Marohasy, who identified the problems in the first place.

Until the BoM releases its archives and methodology sceptics have every right to doubt the land surface temperature record.  My suspicion is that the sea surface temperature record, despite it being derived from satellite data, is equally questionable.

Comments [54]

  1. Ian MacDougall says:

    Yet another regular AGW denialist rant from …Peter O’Brien… on Quadrant Online. So what’s new? Because this ain’t.
    The Earth is a thermometer in its own right and the ‘mercury’ is, the level of the one ocean. Regardless of the water temperature, that level tells us that the planet is warming, spelt W-A-R-M-I-N-G. So here is my regular response, updated.
    Cause? Most likely the oxidation of fossil carbon. You know, coal, petroleum … etc; creating the heat-trapping gas known as carbon dioxide, CO2.

    GMSL Rates
    CU: 3.4 ± 0.4 mm/yr
    AVISO: 3.3 ± 0.5 mm/yr
    CSIRO: 3.3 ± 0.4 mm/yr
    NASA GSFC: 3.4 ± 0.4 mm/yr
    NOAA: 3.2 ± 0.4 mm/yr (w/ GIA)

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2016/05/20/10-things-you-should-know-about-sea-level-rise-and-how-bad-it-could-be/?utm_term=.f8985f4ee2e7

    • Salome says:

      Don’t worry, mate. The USA and North Korea will have a war very soon and, if you believe the ABC, we’ll all be plunged into a nuclear winter.

    • Egil says:

      Yes, yes, yes…
      So;
      See levels rising 30 odd centimeters a century [predicted ] as opposed to what sea level rises over the previous
      couple of centuries when The “Carbon [ Gillard intonation ] pollution” caused by putrid humans was less of a factor?
      Facts regarding accelerating sea level rises, please.
      And while at it, prove correlation of temperature rises over last 20 years with CO2 PPM rises same period, please.
      Any concerns over the fact that 111 of 114 [ 97%....ring a bell? ]
      Government grant dependable climate models OVER ESTIMATED the warming?
      What happened to the “100 meters sea level rise by 2100?…. YES it is possible”, Robyn Williams?
      Or the Gore predicted 6 meters sea level rise by end of this century?
      Enlightenment eagerly anticipated.
      Flannery, Gore, Tasmanian Greens are chilling out at their beach front properties.
      If they can do, why not you, Ian?

    • MOAB says:

      Funny that the source of GW data is wash post… The most credible source ever.

  2. ianl says:

    One of the perennial issues, perhaps *the* issue with spot data sampling of a large horizon, is that of adequate data density. It is easy to draw a single straight line contour between two or three points, of course, but it is meaningless on scale. Adequate data density is not a new issue – millennia old – and many statistical techniques have been developed to cope with this. It’s critical to geoscientists, for example, working under JORC and VALMIN codes as careless results may attract penalties, including jail (in extremis). Perhaps the most common technique is kriging, although many exist. While ever BoM’s ACORN programme remains confidential, the techniques used there cannot be specifically commented on.

    Satellite data density for SST is likely adequate but cannot supply data for reliable contouring deeper than about a metre from the surface (which is periodically warmed and cooled by various oscillations such as ENSO, AMO and so on). The Argo buoys were designed and deployed specifically to try and measure deeper oceanic levels, although not to abyssal depths. This programme is about 5-6 years old now and so far does not confirm warming oceanic depths as hypothesised. Sea levels have been almost imperceptibly rising for about 10,000 years (hard geological core drilling and mapping) with very minor rate changes seen amongst more recent variations for the MWP and Little Ice Age. Basically, there is no empirical evidence of imminent climatic catastrophe from atmospheric CO2 levels causing raging rises in sea level – at worst we have mild and gentle lukewarming occurring [http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo3031.html?foxtrotcallback=true].

    None of that will stop the long march of the sea sprats. The propaganda has been far too effective in channelling votes. The last gasp of the Enlightenment …

  3. Keith Kennelly says:

    Ian

    Search: NASA sea level data.

    You’ll see a site dedicated to climate change in this you can find the actual sea level data obtained by NASA satellites since 1993.

    The actual data charts are available along with graphs for the less intelligent.

    The data and the graphs show a fall in sea levels … over the past three years.

    The site you refer us to has no data only the opinions of climate catastrafarians.

    When the actual data is available and you ignore it all you are doing is mouthing crap and you areobviously only ranting on about rising sea levels?

  4. Keith Kennelly says:

    ‘Twenty five years of sea level data’ is the place for you to go Ian.

    If you dare.

  5. Ian MacDougall says:

    Do the arithmetic. 3.3 ± 0.4 mm/yr (CSIRO) ~ 33mm/decade (= 3.3 cm/decade ~ 33 ± 4 cm/century ~ 330 cm/1,000 yrs: ie 3.3 metres/1,000 yrs
    ~ 33 metres/10,000 yrs. This would have swamped many a piece of classical architecture with some seaside location if it had been going on for long; like say, since before about 1750.
    This has implications. On present trends, it won’t be long before one will have to don scuba gear in order to attend a performance of my favourite opera, Bizet’s The Pearl Fishers, at Sydney Opera House.
    But then again, ostriches are not penguins. Not even ducks.
    AGW could not possibly be happening, because if it was, it would be bad for established business. End of story.
    Well, end of the denialist story anyway.

    • Jody says:

      Ian, I would believe the AGW narrative if it wasn’t almost solely promulgated by the loony left. You see, these people don’t just want something done about climate; it’s their ex officio agenda which frightens me – in the same way that SSM and its relative, the ugly “safe schools” initiative does.

      The other day on “Tucker Carlson Tonight” (Fox) he asked a climate change expert, who reassured him that ‘the science is settled’, to tell the audience “the exact percentage of impact human beings are having on the climate”. I agree with Carlson; that was a scientific question but it had a stunned silence response.

      It’s not the Left and its acolytes – who talk amongst themselves – who need to be convinced, but the ‘impartial’ third party. And I’m not seeing a lot of evidence of that.

      • Jody says:

        PS: And what’s ‘bad for established business’ is chronic uncertainty and political instability. I read in yesterday’s “Australian” that huge numbers of 18 to 35 year olds are moving to New Zealand to live. There they have economic growth and jobs (and hydro power). We are being left way, way behind. So, what’s ‘bad for business’ is bad for the Australian people too.

  6. Ian MacDougall says:

    Ian, I would believe the AGW narrative if it wasn’t almost solely promulgated by the loony left.

    You mean ‘loony left’ outfits like the CSIRO and the Royal Society? And of course, today’s Liberal Party. It’s even given a grudging tick these days by Tony Abbott.
    I’m pretty sure the ‘loony left’ (whoever they are) will be in favour of motherhood and breakfast too, so it looks like they both have to go as well.
    And that’s just for starters.
    ;-)

    • Jody says:

      No, I wouldn’t refer to any scientific organization as the “loony left”. I think we all know (or should) who the loonies are; Tim “The Dams will never be full again” Flannery, the Greens and their cave-dwelling acolytes and other climate catastrophists. The kind of people who rush out and call AGW the reason for hurricanes off the US coast – particularly in Houston – where nobody seemed to know that 12,000 people were killed in that city in 1900 from a worse natural disaster. Facts are not needed when you have hysteria. That’s the problem I’m talking about. And did you know Al Gore studied theology? That might not come as a surprise to many.

      Tony Abbott knows what I do; the climate is changing and always has. What is in dispute is the degree to which it has, whether it has a precedent before modern man invented measuring tools, and whether humans played a role. I’m old enough to remember the hysteria over peak oil and how we’d soon be running out of it. All the experts were wheeled out with statistics and facts and, lo and behold, we still have oil.

      And, of course, there are many scientists prepared to discuss and oppose “the science is settled” model. Science cannot, of course, ever be ‘settled’. And what about Tucker Carlson’s question? These are just some of the questions I have.

    • Lawrie Ayres says:

      The CSIRO was taken over by the climate warriors when it was given millions to study CCS. It built a new facility on the old BHP site in Newcastle ten years ago. In that time it has not achieved a thing except to employ a bunch of so called scientists who all support the global warming fraud. Remember the CSIRO economist who showed that renewable energy was inefficient and far too costly and was promptly sacked for not supporting the company line. It has had a string of global warmist chairmen appointed by global warming prime ministers. It keeps putting out State of the Climate reports that are sheer propaganda. It stopped investigating growing crops in cooling conditions assuming that the future was always going to warm, it hasn’t for twenty years.

      The Royal Society is also a warmist organisation and avoids publishing any contrary papers so as a science body cannot be taken seriously.

  7. Doubting Thomas says:

    Ian Mac, you have long since destroyed any credibility you may once have had. For me, you did this long before you started regurgitating specious nonsense from dodgy sources. You did this immediately and irrevocably by resorting to childish ad hominem in using the word “deniers” when referring to people who express doubts about the alleged consensus of 97% of “climate scientists”. If only for that reason, on this issue you have become a crashing bore.

  8. Keith Kennelly says:

    So Ian,

    you steadfastly ignore the data from NASA. They were on of your usual authorities along with the CSIRO, The Royal Society and the BOM.

    It seems the BOM and NASA have moved into or are moving into the deniers camp.

    Are you in denial of the facts?

    You are no longer a bore, you are just a dope.

    Hahahahaha.

  9. Ian MacDougall says:

    DT & KK:
    Denialists is a term those people bitterly resent being used in reference to themselves. (eg ‘Jo Nova’.)
    But it fits.
    They deny primarily that CO2 has any heat-trapping properties worth concerning ourselves about, and hold that it can be vented to the atmosphere on an industrial scale without any adverse effects. Thus its concentration in the air can just keep rising, heading us in the direction of becoming a twin planet to Venus, which is a GHG Hell.
    This despite overwhelming endorsement from scientific organisations.
    “It seems the BOM and NASA have moved into or are moving into the deniers camp.”
    Could have fooled me.
    https://climate.nasa.gov/

  10. Ian MacDougall says:

    “You are no longer a bore, you are just a dope.”
    Nyaa, nyaa, nyaa, nyaa!
    And to add to the general boredom around chez Kennelly and chez DT: a list of my ‘dodgy sources’:

    http://www.opr.ca.gov/facts/list-of-scientific-organizations.html

  11. Keith Kennelly says:

    And Ian

    I’ve never ever said co2 hasn’t heat trapping properties … just like I’ve never ever said rising sea levels are the obvious proof the planet is warming.

    Oh that’s right you said that and now that the data says sea levels are falling … you go into frantically avoidance of the facts and into the depths of denial and attack everyone …just like the big dope, you are..

  12. Keith Kennelly says:

    Read NASA data on sea levels over the last 25 years. … you dope.
    They contradict everything you hold dear.

    Don’t you feel even a little bit stupid?

  13. Doubting Thomas says:

    The term is a totally inappropriate pejorative, Ian Mac. It was expressly designed by your amoral allies to cement the association in the public mind with Holocaust denial. None of the people you accuse of “denialism” in this context actually deny any of the sort of things you claim, least of all Jo Nova, so not only does the term not fit but also it is a fine measure of the extent of intellectual and moral bankruptcy of the people who resort to such tactics.

    Sticks and stones, mate, so save your bandwidth.

    • Ian MacDougall says:

      “It was expressly designed by your amoral allies to cement the association in the public mind with Holocaust denial.”
      Is that the truth?
      I suggest you have a look at https://www.skepticalscience.com/5-characteristics-of-scientific-denialism.html

      “A fascinating paper well worth reading is Denialism: what is it and how should scientists respond?… While the focus is on public health issues, it nevertheless establishes some useful general principles on the phenomenon of scientific denialism. A vivid example is the President of South Africa, Thabo Mbeki, who argued against the scientific consensus that HIV caused AIDS. This led to policies preventing thousands of HIV positive mothers in South Africa from receiving anti-retrovirals. It’s estimated these policies led to the loss of more than 330,000 lives (Chigwedere 2008). Clearly the consequences of denying science can be dire, even fatal.

      “The authors define denialism as “the employment of rhetorical arguments to give the appearance of legitimate debate where there is none, an approach that has the ultimate goal of rejecting a proposition on which a scientific consensus exists”. They go on to identify 5 characteristics common to most forms of denialism, first suggested by Mark and Chris Hoofnagle…”

      That link again: https://www.skepticalscience.com/5-characteristics-of-scientific-denialism.html

    • Ian MacDougall says:

      ” It was expressly designed by your amoral allies to cement the association in the public mind with Holocaust denial.”
      Is that the truth?

      I suggest you have a look at https://www.skepticalscience.com/5-characteristics-of-scientific-denialism.html

      “A fascinating paper well worth reading is Denialism: what is it and how should scientists respond?… While the focus is on public health issues, it nevertheless establishes some useful general principles on the phenomenon of scientific denialism. A vivid example is the President of South Africa, Thabo Mbeki, who argued against the scientific consensus that HIV caused AIDS. This led to policies preventing thousands of HIV positive mothers in South Africa from receiving anti-retrovirals. It’s estimated these policies led to the loss of more than 330,000 lives (Chigwedere 2008). Clearly the consequences of denying science can be dire, even fatal.

      “The authors define denialism as ‘the employment of rhetorical arguments to give the appearance of legitimate debate where there is none, an approach that has the ultimate goal of rejecting a proposition on which a scientific consensus exists’. They go on to identify 5 characteristics common to most forms of denialism, first suggested by Mark and Chris Hoofnagle…”

  14. Doubting Thomas says:

    Oh, dear. Now he quotes John Cook’s utterly discredited blog. If you don’t know better than that, you don’t know anything.

    • Ian MacDougall says:

      Please tell, DT: “Oh, dear. Now he quotes John Cook’s utterly discredited blog.”
      What has ‘discredited’ it? Political incorrectness perhaps?

      • Doubting Thomas says:

        Well, just for openers, go here: https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2014/03/fine-paper-retracted/

        Now, if you really do wish to go at least part of the way towards seeing the light, I suggest you Google “Steve McIntyre and John Cook” and track the myriad entries you’ll find there. And if Jo Nova’s blog is too rich for your blood, have a poke around in Climate Audit, Climate,etc and check their blog rolls for a wealth of serious discussion by people who don’t depend on the global warming industry for their livelihood.

        • Ian MacDougall says:

          Yes, all that.
          Meanwhile, we can at least count on three things: 1. the icecaps will keep on melting; 2. The seas will keep on rising; and you ‘Thomas’ or whatever your real name is, will keep on doubting. And all probably because of a fourth: CO2 will keep on trapping heat. (Intensity of doubt proportional to atmospheric CO2 concentration.) Those who depend on the burning of fossil carbon for their livelihoods will of course, keep on bankrolling the Ostrich School of Climatology.

  15. en passant says:

    People! Debating with the MacBot is a waste of time as it is actually a computer generated random series of words denying reality. Is that the 18th or 19th time it has regurgitated the same trollish trash? My bet is on 19+.

    How is this for the ultimate idiocy from someone who talks to his cattle and is advised by the Archangel Gabriel (and who has spent too long in the back paddock)?

    The MacBot writes: (MY CAPITALS ARE NOT TO SHOUT, BUT TO SEPARATE SANITY FROM THE GARBLE) “Do the arithmetic. 3.3 ± 0.4 mm/yr (CSIRO) ~ 33mm/decade (= 3.3 cm/decade ~ 33 ± 4 cm/century ~ 330 cm/1,000 yrs: ie 3.3 metres/1,000 yrs. I SPENT MY SLEEPLESS NIGHTS TERRIFIED THAT IN JUST 500 YEARS MY NEW HOME WILL HAVE WATER AT THE FRONT DOOR. CAN I BUILD A WALL/DAM TO HOLD IT BACK FOR ANOTHER 500 YEARS BEFORE MY TIME {AND THAT OF MY CHILDREN} RUNS OUT. LOOKING FORWARD ALWAYS SEEMS SO FAR AWAY, BUT WHAT IS IT WE MUST FEAR IN JUST 1,000 YEARS, WHEN ONLY 1,000 YEARS AGO THE SUN WAS SPINNING ROUND THE EARTH AND THE WORLD WAS IN TE LAST DARK AGE. THE GREENS ARE, OF COURSE PROMOTING THE NEXT ONE – ABLY SUPPORTED BY AN ARMY OF ORC MACBOT TROLLS.
    ~ 33 metres/10,000 yrs. JUST 10,000 YEARS! IS IT WORTH EVEN GOING ON WHEN DOOM IS SUCH AN INEVITABLE CERTAINTY. I MEAN, JUST LOOK AT THE PARADISE MANKIND LIVED IN JUST 10,000 YEARS AGO.

    This would have swamped many a piece of classical architecture with some seaside location if it had been going on for long; like say, since before about 1750. IS THERE ANY INDICATION OF WHAT THE WATER LEVEL IN SYDNEY HARBOUR (OR HOBART) WAS IN 1788. THE FORT DENISON RECORDS SHOW NO SIGNIFICANT RISE IN SEA LEVELS (WHICH IS WHY THE BOM RETIRED THE RECORD KEEPER WHEN HE REPORTED THIS LACK OF PC PSEUDO-SCIENCE. HOBART? TRY THE LATE JOHN DALY’S BLOG (YOU KNOW, THE REALIST WHOSE DEATH WAS CELEBRATED BY THOSE NICE PEOPLE FROM UEA LIKE ‘PROFESSOR’ PHIL JONES).
    “There is a high water mark etched into a sea cliff in seismically stable Hobart in Tasmania. In 1841 it was put there by Captain Ross, as a reference point.
    A check of the reference point in 2004 shows that the water level has not changed in the intervening 160 years. (http://www.john-daly.com/) A similar mark in Sydney Harbour produces the same result. Just two curious, coincidental anomalies that show no discernible sea level rise? I think not. What has changed is the honesty of the scientists responsible for measuring and mapping our climate and all that that entails.”

    This has implications. On present trends, it won’t be long before one will have to don scuba gear in order to attend a performance of my favourite opera, Bizet’s The Pearl Fishers, at Sydney Opera House. NAME THE DATE AND BET ME $1,000 AT 100:1 ODDS.

    ARE WE STILL THE ONLY HUMAN ‘FRIENDS’ YOU HAVE?

  16. Ian MacDougall says:

    Eyn Pyssant writes “MY CAPITALS ARE NOT TO SHOUT, BUT TO SEPARATE SANITY FROM THE GARBLE”
    Which is total bullshit.

    But admittedly, of the quality we are now accustomed to.

    • en passant says:

      List the ‘We’. You and who else?
      1. Archangel Gabriel
      2. Cattle
      3. ….

      You did not refute: “There is a high water mark etched into a sea cliff in seismically stable Hobart in Tasmania. In 1841 it was put there by Captain Ross, as a reference point.
      A check of the reference point in 2004 shows that the water level has not changed in the intervening 160 years. (http://www.john-daly.com/)”

      Nor have you EVAAAA told us the destination you seek:
      1. Ideal average global temperature
      2. Ideal concentration of CO2

      You CANNOT ANSWER (Shouting!)

  17. Keith Kennelly says:

    Still haven’t checked that NASA data, have you Ian?
    Is the truth, from one if your own sourcres, too confronting?

    Now there is a spectacular display of denialism
    Hahahahaha

  18. en passant says:

    Goebbels 350.org does not count as a credible source of reality.

    Just ANSWER THE QUESTIONS I ASKED!

  19. Ian MacDougall says:

    Goebbels (ha!) 350.org does not count as a credible source of reality.

    Brilliant! Absolutely bloody brilliant!
    ‘Reality’ is as defined by Eyn Pyssant!
    You could define your own world, and live in it on the strength of that.
    Go into business: Eyn’s Reality Agency. Reality checks done here.
    Is your life/world/etc lacking credibility? Stop looking! You’ve found it! Right here! Reality makeovers while U wait!
    Home planet heating up? Eyn & Co can cool it down and make it credible again ! All with an easy 5-minute patented define-it-all-away procedure!
    “350.org does not count as a credible source of reality.”
    Now see what you’ve gone and done! I’ll be saying that over and over all day.
    I might just have to alter that to “Eyn Pyssant does not count as a credible source of reality. (snuffle, smirk).”
    And make do with it.

    • en passant says:

      What a deranged answer. Did it come from the cattle or the Archangel in your head?

      How about cutting your rants and just answer the questions asked? I know you cannot, but your failure exposes you as a fake, even to us, your only friends.

      “A check of the reference point in 2004 shows that the water level has not changed in the intervening 160 years. (http://www.john-daly.com/)”

      Nor have you EVAAAA told us the destination you seek:
      1. Ideal average global temperature
      2. Ideal concentration of CO2″

      Learn to spell/copy properly. It is En Passant.

  20. en passant says:

    I knew he could not answer the simplest of questions

  21. Ian MacDougall says:

    Eyn Pyssant:

    Learn to spell/copy properly. It is En Passant.

    A classic slab of hypocrisy from one of the Net’s great hypocrites. Hiding there under your pretentious chess gamer’s pseudonym, you demand a level of respect that you have never accorded to me.
    And why not?
    Because I happen to be a supporter of mainstream science, including mainstream climatology.
    So perhaps I should address you as Ein Pissant?
    Spelt either way, it has a good ring to it.

    • en passant says:

      Ad homs. insults without substance and NO ANSWER to the questions. MacBot is a hollow man, but we should sympathise as the back paddock is a lonely place, even with the Archangel Gabriel talking to you.

      A Nowhere Man, with only us for ‘friends’.

    • en passant says:

      MacBot,
      Is there no end to your talents? You even deduce that I am “Hiding under your pretentious chess gamer’s pseudonym” of ‘en passant’.

      Actually, it’s a nom-de-plume to protect me from trolls.

      No doubt you are also a great chess player (with help from angels), but would be happy to bet on myself as the cattle are more likely your level. You could always call yourself ‘Fool’s Mate’

  22. Doubting Thomas says:

    Look who’s calling whom a hypocrite. In the interests of proving that you are not a pot calling the kettle black, you may wish to look at the following links which deal rather critically with compelling evidence that what you call mainstream climatology is not exactly pure as the driven snow. Now, I’m pretty sure that buried under the piles of rubbish being promulgated by the mainstream media and some of the more dubious professional journals there will be a large number of ethical scientists. However, alarmists such as yourself using pejoratives like “deniers” would rarely see them, because if they did they would not be using such terms or relying on dodgy sources such as the IPCC and its publications – the sources the mainstream media alarmists almost exclusively rely on.

    Now, you will not be aware, because by your posts here you are not aware of much other than alarmist propaganda, that there is a considerable body of evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the some of the influential stars of the global warming science act are frauds. The first serious shot in the campaign was fired when the CRU emails were “hacked” leading to what became known as Climategate. But a good year before that a bloke by the name of Andrew Montford published on his Bishop Hill blog a paper called Caspar and the Jesus Paper (http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2008/8/11/caspar-and-the-jesus-paper.html). It was this paper that converted me from a position somewhat close to yours into a complete unrepentant skeptic.

    A year or so later, on 20 Nov 2009, Mr Montford published the first of a series of posts about the CRU leaked emails: http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/11/20/climate-cuttings-33.html. Read and weep.

    Next shot in his locker was this, dealing with CRU’s code: http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/11/23/the-code.html

    Another one of his articles a few years later deals with what he calls the Yamal Deception which demonstrates the dodgy nature of the data sources used by Michael Mann and his mates to arrive at the IPCC’s infamous Hockey Stick abused by Al Gore to convince the world that global warming was out of control and we’ll be rooned unless we drank the Koolaid: http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/5/9/the-yamal-deception.html

    A few months later when the Stern Report was all the rage, came this: http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/10/1/climate-sensitivity-and-the-stern-report.html

    Now, years earlier, in 2005, Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick published a paper in Geophysical Research Letters (a peer-reviewed journal), the following: https://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/mcintyre-grl-2005.pdf

    To my knowledge, despite numerous attempts to mock these guys, nobody has laid a glove on their work to refute their arguments.

    If the above is not enough to shake your faith in the credibility of the global warming industry, there are plenty more out there, but you’ll never hear about them from the mainstream media or from alarmist sources. Why do you think Bjorn Lomborg gets such a hard time. It’s not because he’s wrong.

  23. Ian MacDougall says:

    DT: Is ‘Climategate’ etc the best you can do? (Incidentally a British Parliamentary Inquiry found that the Hadley climatologists had no case to answer.)
    All this is ‘look over there.’ The real elephant in the room remains: the coal industry and its shills, whose clear aim is to muddy the waters and draw attention away from the role of CO2 in global warming, which is evidenced by the melting polar and Himalayan icecaps. (I have been to Alaska, and have seen it with my own eyes.)
    Fact is that CO2 remains a heat-trapping gas. Best evidence: the planet Venus. See https://history.aip.org/climate/Venus.htm
    The “global warming industry” ??? You are clearly an aspiring humourist & clown. That rests on the notion that the AGW proposition is a global conspiracy run by the world’s climatologists whose game is scoring research grants.
    That is a fable that will have anyone with the slightest knowledge of the way real science works rolling round the floor in hysterics. I could tell you why, but I’d prefer to let you work it out for yourself.

    • en passant says:

      Ad homs. insults without substance and NO ANSWER to the questions. MacBot is a hollow man, but we should sympathise as the back paddock is a lonely place, even with the Archangel Gabriel talking to you.

      A Nowhere Man, with only us for ‘friends’.

    • en passant says:

      MacBot,
      Did you produce CO2 traveling indulgently to Alaska (instead of saving the planet by slaughtering your methane producing cattle. But then you need something on your intellectual plane to tell your Omm, Omm stuff to.)

      Secondly, CO2 on Venus is 97% and on Mars is 96%. Why is one hot and the other not? Could there be a more relevant cause than CO2?

      I know a LOT about the AGW industry – having worked for them. I felt more like Kim Philby than James Bond. I wrote ‘business cases’ to successfully extract $M’s from the government.

  24. Doubting Thomas says:

    The British Parliamentary “Inquiry’s” terms of reference and selected personnel were a standing joke. They’d have been able to find the Great Train Robbers innocent of any wrongdoing and probably would have, soulmates as they were.

    I know you haven’t read the sources I provided because you couldn’t possibly regurgitate you usual specious garbage if you had. Alternatively, you are quite without any sense of shame.

    You’ve just confirmed yourself to be the ignorant troll others have said you are.

  25. Ian MacDougall says:

    DT: “You’ve just confirmed yourself to be the ignorant troll others have said you are.”
    From the deepest abysms of my ignorance, I offer you this: http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2011/04/history-of-climategate/
    You might learn something from it.
    NB: I did say “might”.