Socrates Paradox

I just finished reading  “The Hockey Stick Illusion”, by A.W.Montfort (Bishop Hill) and I would recommend it to anyone. 

The first question I have for science is, “Does a tree’s growth rate respond to temperature?” and a corollary to that is, “Is the science of dendrochronology advanced enough to pick up temperature changes of 0.7C per century?”

 In searching the internet (Googling) for “tree growth rate” my first selection was www.arborday.org/treeguide/growth.cfm.  They quoted from “Manual of Woody Landscape Plants, by Michael Dirr” that “Rate of growth refers to the vertical increase in growth unless specified differently. Rate, as is true for size, is influenced by numerous variables such as soil, drainage, water, fertility, light, exposure, ad infinitum.”  No mention made here of temperature. (more…)

The main issue of ClimateGate that is often overlooked is the attempts by scientists to avoid releasing their data, either voluntarily or under FOIA actions.  I am reposting this because I would like to advance this issue, possibly with a petition,  similar to the letter by 255 scientists to Science Magazine. 

Both Science Magazine and Nature Magazine have detailed requirements for data archiving.  The NSF has requirements that need improving.  It is hard to understand why Nature, having a sound policy that states, “An inherent principle of publication is that others should be able to replicate and build upon the authors’ published claims” could defend those who went to extreme measures to prevent disclosure. (more…)

There is an excellent article by Stephen Hayward that describes in detail the entire Climategate issue here. 

Maybe I’m prejudiced, but the behavior of Gavin Schmidt and the pople that post on realclimate; http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/03/a-mistaken-message-from-iop/are so very similar to the behavior of the scientistists as depicted by the CRU emails that were released.  Their first approach is to shoot the messenger.  In this case, the messenger is the Institute of Physics.  The second approach is to blame it on BIG OIL.  They also viciously attack any poster that is the least critical of them.  Thirdly, they deny that there was any attempt to withhold data, code or methods.

I am presenting a work-in-progress of IPCC AR4 WG3 Chapter 3, Section 3.2 Changes in Surface Climate: Temperatures. The main page is a PDF of Section 3.2 of the IPCC report with links to PDF files of the supporting documentation.  I am looking for validation of the temperature records.  So far, all I see is a lot of peer-reviewed literature on the theory and methodology, but nothing that validates the execution and quality of the temperature record.  There is a lot of interesting information in these papers.  Please comment on interesting things that you may find.  To get to the documents, click here.

This is a work in progress.  I still have many papers to find.  I also have a problem in that the home document is PDF and most of the papers are PDF.  What is happening is when you link to another PDF, the home document is closed.  Then to return, it has to reload the home document, and that is taking all too long.  If anyone knows how to fix it, please let me know.  In the meantime, if I can find the papers in html format, I will replace the existing PDF with HTML.

The function of scientists is to advance science.  They do not produce a product.  Entire different disciplines and procedures are used to produce products than to advance science.  In the advancement of science, peer-review and publication is the end of the process.  In producing a product, maintaining customer satisfaction is the end of the process.  (Yes, I know this is idealistic; selling the product and making a profit is what it is all about.)  The scientists involved in the Climategate e-mails simply did not and do not exhibit the discipline required to produce a product, in this case the product is the global climate database.  (more…)

Below is a talk by Lord Monkton in Melbourne is 2 clips.

Lord Monkton in Melbourne, Part 1

Lord Monkton in Melbourne, Part 2

Reviews of the Global Climatic Data Center show that the number of stations used to calculate global average temperatures has decreased from a peak of over 6000 in the 1950’s to 1990’s  to less than 1500 in 2009.  Surprisingly, this resulted in an increase in the calculated global average temperatures.   It has been pointed out by numerous sources that the stations omitted are those from higher elevations, rural locations and higher latitudes, all of which tend to show cooler temperatures.  The position of NCDC on their website is that a large number of paper records were collected and these were manually entered into the system.  Eventually the records from these stations will be entered.  (more…)

Dr Phillip Stott puts forward his eloquent arguments in his blog, “Clamour of The Times” 

http://web.me.com/sinfonia1/Clamour_Of_The_Times/Clamour_Of_The_Times/Entries/2010/1/30_Global_Warming%3A_the_Collapse_of_a_Grand_Narrative.html

(more…)

Warren Meyer at Climate-Skeptic.com has produced  a new video and it is available for viewing, download, or purchase on his web site.  After several attempts, I find I cannot write a description that can give it justice-take a look at it yourself.  http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2010/01/catastrophe-denied-the-science-of-the-skeptics-position.html