Jump to content

Climate Change - Farce II


Recommended Posts

I do apologise to those that groan when they see another rant on this from yours truly - but yet again there seems to be a reality horizon breach by those who want us all to believe that Climate Change = catastrophe.


As you may know, the now (in)famous "hockey stick" graph that shows the climate steady as a rock then rising sharply due to mans industrial revolution was based on Tree Ring data which was fiddled about with so that the hockey stick graph was what came out of it.


Now, sceptics have always said that such a graph ignored other more reliable data on things like the maunder minimum, when a lack of sun activity had the Thames frozen over, and the medieval warm period when the UK as was basked in warmth and the Vikings farmed places like Greenland.


So have been asking for access to tree ring data for years, but just like the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit, other centres refused to release the data, collected via grants paid for by the tax payer and so should be freely available and in the public domain.


However, a chap called Doug Keenan has now successfully forced Queens University Belfast to release this data. The story of his battle with the Climate Scientists that did not want the data released makes fascinating reading.




But apart from the battle Doug Keenan had to obtain the data that should be freely available, those that tried to stop him from getting the data, citing that it was somehow their intellectual property when it was clearly not as the Information Commissioner has now ruled, have rather let a huge cat out of the bag!


The scientist who had been withholding the data, Michael Baillie, ridiculed the idea that his Irish oak data was relevant to temperature reconstructions, saying that it would be “dangerous” to use this data for reconstructing temperature. Hannah Devlin of The Times:


However, the lead scientist involved, Michael Bailee, said that the oak ring data requested was "not relevant to temperature reconstruction records".


"Although ancient oaks could give an indication of one-off dramatic climatic events, such as droughts, they were not useful as a temperature proxy because they were highly sensitive to water availability as well as past temperatures", he added.


“It’s been dressed up as though we are suppressing climate data, but we have never produced climate records from our tree rings,” Professor Bailee said.


“In my view it would be dangerous to try and make interpretations about the temperature from this data.”


Baillie made a similar statement to the Guardian Newspaper:


“Keenan is the only person in the world claiming that our oak-ring patterns are temperature records,” Baillie told the Guardian.


Rob Wilson, another Climate Scientist, agreed with Baillie on this point, telling the Times that “oaks were virtually useless as a temperature proxy”.


But the chap who constructed the Hockey Stick graph that "proves" that man is causing Catastrophic Climate Change - Prof Mann - used these very same sets of tree ring data!!! - Ref - Mann et al 2008




So - notwithstanding the considered opinion of Baillie and Wilson that oaks are “virtually useless as a temperature proxy” and “dangerous” to use in a temperature reconstruction, no fewer than 119 oak chronologies were used in Mann et al 2008.


Among Mann’s oak chronologies were three Baillie chronologies: brit008 – Lockwood; brit042 – Shanes Castle, Northern Ireland; brit044 – Castle Coole, Northern Ireland.





I think it has all gone pear-shaped!!




(lol) (lol) (lol) (lol)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest pelmetman

These climate change experts are they like the experts that told us Saddam had WMD, or the ones that managed to cause the worse recession in recent history, or perhaps the ones that told us volcanic ash will make planes fall out the sky, but thankfully they have managed to find another expert to say they won't (lol)

an expert a is a drip under pressure (lol)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What gets me is the abuse those that "believe" that Climate Change = Catastrophe dish out to those that simply state that the Climate has always changed so how come we all have to be taxed more on the basis of a few dodgy dossier computer models where the data has clearly been manipulated to give that result and those that wrote these suspect programs refuse to share the data on which these alarmist projections are based.


After all - what Prof Brignell* suggests is a good question is very true:-


"You have made some observations and calculations, which show that humanity is doomed unless it changes its ways. You have total belief in the accuracy of your predictions. Do you:


(a) Announce your results, but keep your workings secret for fear that someone will criticise them.


(b) Announce your results, but set up a group of companies to make yourself mega-rich on the back of the scare you have created.


© Drop everything, including secrecy and profit, and devote yourself to saving the human race. "




Hmmm! - so far we have the likes of the UoEA CRU answering yes to a)


and Al Gore answering yes to b),


but no one on the alarmist bandwagon so far has answered c)



*Prof Brignell - http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/jeb/cv.htm


and his "Numberswatch" website




Link to comment
Share on other sites

pelmetman - 2010-04-22 10:00 PM


These climate change experts are they like the experts that told us Saddam had WMD, or the ones that managed to cause the worse recession in recent history, or perhaps the ones that told us volcanic ash will make planes fall out the sky, but thankfully they have managed to find another expert to say they won't (lol)

an expert a is a drip under pressure (lol)



I don't think you should include the volcanic ash as it has been proved that it can make planes fall out of the sky.


A British Airways jumbo jet did 'fall out of the sky' over Indonesia some years ago. All four engines stopped and the abrasive nature of the ash stripped a lot of paint off the fuselage and badly scratched the windscreen.


It was the subject of a documentary the other night on TV.


The only 'argument' has been about how much ash is it safe to fly through.





Link to comment
Share on other sites

hi Malc.


I saw that program and damn frightening it was too! - But I do remember it saying that the plan flew right into the ash cloud. So much so that the windows of the plane were etched and the pilots only had about 1/2 an inch of clear vision round the edge of the glass.


The precautionary principle is to assume that any amount of ash = catastrophe.


The Royal Society makes a similar statement on Climate Change stating that any amount of Climate Change is dangerous. So we have always lived in danger then, because the Climate has always been changing.


Trouble is that these ill-educated statements are made by those who truly believe that Prof Manns hockey stick is totally and utterly true.


But the reality is that Climate Changes a lot. Right now we are going through a relatively cool cycle such that the Antarctic Ice is now back to what is deemed to be "normal" levels.




So the precautionary principle means that any ash = planes grounded, but the truth is that whilst this one plane in the documentary had real problems because it actually flew into the ash cloud plume, many other planes that where in the air in the same region flew through the dispersed ash without any real problems.


From my point of view, grounding planes for a few days to make sure people are safe seems like a good idea.


But applying the same "Any change (Ash or Climate) is catastrophic" precautionary principle to the world economies based upon unproven Climate Change models presents us with the same sort of inaccuracies as the ash cloud modelling that seems to have overblown the grounding of planes and the subsequent vast disruption and cost.


I personally think this current situation encapsulates the real issues that we should all be considering when the Alarmists make such bold statements about what we need to do to wind back our economies to "save the planet" from Global Warming.


i.e. - do their models really predict and forecast what is going to happen? Or is Mystic Megs horoscopes just as likely to accurate predictors of the future?




Link to comment
Share on other sites


This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Create New...