The Trickery Tricks of the Team

There is no end to the tricks, deceits and duplicity of the Team when they are out to protect their lavish funding and to keep any critique against their incompetent frauds and tricks out of the scientific literature. We have recently seen two events where the typical pattern emerges.

First we have the reconciliatory meeting in lovely Lisbon, attended among other by the indomitable Steve McIntyre and the great peacemaker Judith Curry. The latter was very pleased to be awarded a T-shirt depicting a garbage can with "Climate Science" written on it:

But nobody from the Team turned up to this reconciliatory meeting intended to create friendship, understanding, trust, openness, confidence, good faith, mutual respect and appreciation and peaceful harmony between the different sides of the climate controversy. The Team had also used their powers of intimidation to prevent other climate researchers from attending. Yes, the Team returned this noble offer of peace and forgiveness, this olive branch from the innocent to the wicked, with a slap in the face. But it doesn’t stop there. Gavin Schmidt, the evil arch genius, declined by an email in which he very cleverly pretended to say that “the science is settled.” In an act of the noblest reconciliatory spirit and greatest openness and transparency, one of the organizers, the distinguished climate realist blogger Tallbloke, showed this email to Fred Pearce, who wrote about it in New Scientist. So far no surprises. But then Gavin Schmidt started screaming like a donkey when somebody steps on its toes, and claimed that he had said no such thing. And indeed, if one carefully reads Schmidt’s duplicitous response, he does not say so explicitly. It is rather hinted between the lines; this trick is apparent to any skillful interpreter of interpretations. Obviously, this was a trap set by Schmidt to make Tallbloke look stupid and dishonest. A most disgraceful act by Schmidt! A trick! A trick!

Then we have the sordid affair with the paper by O’Donnell, Condon and McIntyre which proved that the infamous paper about Antarctic warming was wrong. They used better methods and demonstrated that the alleged warming had a somewhat different pattern. This affair is becoming as great as Climategate:

• One of the reviewers was Eric Steig, notorious team member and first author of the paper that was being criticized. He used his position as reviewer to delay the publication of the article by coming with a lot of objections and recommendations. As expert interpreter of interpretations and peer review process authority James Delingpole writes: 'Even in the monstrously corrupt world of “climate science” this was clearly a breach of protocol. Certainly, in no other scientific discipline would a reviewer with such a clear conflict of interest be invited to review a paper whose main purpose was to criticise one he’d written himself.'
• In his first review, Steig wrote 88 pages of objections, while the original paper had only 8 pages! This is utter madness!
• Steig also made it appear as if his three reviews were in total 88 pages long, when in reality he wrote only 24 pages, and O’Donnell, Condon and McIntyre wrote 64 pages in responses. Normally, a review for a scientific journal is a few lines (I have heard). Like “Good job, old boy”. Blog science is much superior: one can get hundreds of well-informed comments in just a couple of days. And their original submission was 45 pages (not 8). Shame on you, Steig! A trick! 
• Steig suggested in his reviews that O’Donnell, Condon and McIntyre should use a method (iridge) which he later criticized in a blog post. Well, at least he didn’t sufficiently warn them against the dangers of using such a method. It is clear that Steig planned this so he could ciriticize the paper.Shame on you again, Steig! A trick!
• Finally, when O’Donnell in a reconciliatory spirit published the reviews and revealed that Steig was “Reviewer A” (as the latter had stupidly admitted it in a private exchange), he gets criticized for breaking the confidentiality of the review process. Are they not ashamed to try to hide their clandestine behavior behind a questionable notion of “confidentiality”? And then the Team tries to use this against O’Donnell! How dare they insinuate that O’Donnell has behaved disgracefully? What bottomless hypocrisy! What a nasty, evil trick!

It is obvious that Steig did everything he could to delay and corrupt the article by O’Donnell, Condon and McIntyre. This proves that the peer review system has been corrupted by the Team! But we climate realists must continue to strive for reconciliation which these duplicitous fools and trickery knaves! They spin and spin and trick and trick and the mad dance of the Team never ends! Mark my words: this is the final nail into the rotten coffin of the climate fraud!

Update: I just came up with the following excellent counter-argument to the claim that O'Donnell behaved unethically when he exposed Steig as Reviewer A. Imagine that islamic terrorists have hidden an atomic bomb in New York. They have revealed the location of the bomb and the code needed to disarm it in a review of one of your papers. You have previously told them that you will not expose their identity. What would you do? Respect "the confidentiality of the reviewing process" and do nothing and let millions of people die? Or tell the FBI about the location and code, and the identity of the evil terrorists? The global warming alarmists who support Steig would apparently have done the former. After all, to them nothing is more important than "the confidentiality of the reviewing process". To a true patriot, like O'Donnell and Jack Bauer, the second course of action would be obvious!

Delingpole Victim of Forced Intellectual Intercourse

The Guardian reports about the next episode of the BBC TV show Horizon: Science Under Attack, in which the president of the Royal Society Sir Paul Nurse was supposed to interview the intrepid Telegraph journalist James Delingpole (picture), one of the world's most distinguished blog-experts on Climate Change alongside with Anthony Watts and myself. However, the interview turned into an intellectual rape when Nurse used his scientific weight to bear on Delingpole. Nurse, a Nobel Prize winner, asked Delingpole the following loaded question:

If a dear relative was suffering from a fatal disease, would you opt for the "consensus" treatment recommended by doctors, or advice to drink more orange juice offered by a fringe maverick quack?

Whereupon the poor James was speechless. This question was absolutely disgraceful! The BBC should be ashamed of themselves. They are trying to insinuate that a global warming realist is equivalent to a juice quack! A more relevant question would have been:

If a dear relative was suffering from a fatal disease, would you opt for the "consensus" treatment recommended by eco-fascist grant-grabbing bedwetting doctors hellbent on destroying Western civilisation, or advice to drink more orange juice offered by a British Lord who has already found a cure for HIV, MS and the Common Cold?

Shame on the BBC for exposing poor innocent James Delingpole to such massive cerebral abuse. He is just an innocent journalist who doesn't read scientific papers! They should have pitted him against somebody like George Moonbat instead.

In cauda venenum.

Advanced statistics with percent

The alarmists claim that there is a consensus among scientists. Therefore, they always have to agree with each other. Nobody is allowed to have any opinions that diverge from what is commonly believed. Therefore, you never find any interesting discussions or lively and informed arguments among the warmists. They all just adhere to the IPCC dogma. They believe that disagreement is a sign of weakness, or heresy, and need to be suppressed at any cost.
Not so among us climate realists. We know the value of a critical discourse. We know that by criticizing each other and scrutinizing each other’s arguments, we can eventually get closer to the truth (and not surprisingly, we often find it where we thought it was to begin with). If we are proven to be wrong, we are not afraid to admit it, because we have intellectual integrity.
Dennis Ambler from the Science and Public Policy Institute, one of the world's leading centres for blog science, has recently released a report with the witty title Climate "Consensus" Opiate, The 97% Solution which criticizes the infamous and fraudulent paper by Doran and Zimmerman, two infamous ad-hominem activists, which spuriously claimed to prove that there was a consensus about global warming. They did so by a survey sent out to 10,157 scientists and got 3,146 responses. Among those, they arbitrarily classified 77 as “climate science specialists” (e.g. faithful).

The second question in the survey was:

2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

The SPPI comments:

This is the classic closed question, in that it implies mean global temperatures are being changed and someone must be responsible.
The response to this question was 75 specialists out of 77, so here we have our massive 97%.
It is disingenuous to now use the “climate scientists” as a new population sample size. The response figure of 3,146 is the figure against which the 75 out of 77 should be compared and in this case we get not 97% but just 2.38%.
The original number contacted was 10,157 and of those, 69% decided they didn’t want any part of it, but they were the original target population. When the figure of 75 believers is set against that number, we get a mere 0.73% of the scientists they contacted who agreed with their loaded questions. However a headline of “0.73% of climate scientists think that humans are affecting the climate” doesn’t quite have the same ring as 97% does it?

Percentages is one of the most complex parts of statistics, and it is quite easy for a person without proper statistical training to make mistakes. I’m afraid that my friends from SPPI have made one. They should have consulted somebody with expertise in statistics, like myself of Edward Wegman, to check their calculations. This is the problem in their calculations. They say that 75 climate scientists answered yes, and they say that 10,157 scientists were asked. 75 out of 10,157 gives 0.73%. But the climate scientists are not the same as all scientists. We need to know what all the other proper scientists answered as well, before we can calculate what percentage of them answered yes. If we read a bit further in the SPPI report, we find the number 82% for all proper scientists. This would indicate that 2759.72 scientists answered yes. One of them was apparently only 0.72 sure.
Most alarmists are completely mathematically illiterate, so they will not notice this little and innocent blunder. Nor would they understand it if somebody would point it out to them. Nonetheless, they would gleefully revel in this minor mistake if it came to their attention, and they would use it in their propaganda to divert attention from their own grotesque errors and frauds. They may even try to claim that this innocent little mistake constitute fraud (yes, they certainly can sink so low). Therefore, we should always strive to keep the highest possible standards in our blog science, and we should consult the best experts in statistics.
Thanks to blog science, this minor problem was discovered and corrected in a month from the release of the report. Blog science has once more proven its superiority.

Ab amicis honesta petamus.

Booker on climate change and evolution

I recently wrote about Dr Tim Ball’s essay about Velikovsky and climate sceptics. That reminds me of another great essay I read almost two years ago, by Christopher Booker. It was about the bicentenary of Charles Darwin, author of The Origin of Species and the inventor of the theory of evolution. Booker wrote:

What is fascinating about the Darwinians is their inability to accept just how much they do not know. Armoured in their certainty that they have all the answers when they so obviously don’t, neo-Darwinians such as Richard Dawkins rest their beliefs just as much on an unscientific leap of faith as the ‘Creationists’ they so fanatically affect to despise. It is revealing how they dismissively try to equate all those scientists who argue for 'intelligent design' with Biblical fundamentalists, as their only way to cope with questions they cannot answer.
Something strikingly similar has been taking place over the belief that the world is dangerously warming, due to the rise in man-made CO2. For a time the believers in this theory seemed to have the evidence on their side, as CO2 levels and temperatures rose in apparent harmony. But lately all sorts of evidence has been put forward by serious scientists to suggest that this theory is seriously flawed, not least the fact that recently falling temperatures were not predicted by any of those computer models on which the advocates of global warming rest their beliefs.
It becomes increasingly obvious that, like the Darwinians, the warming supporters are so convinced by the simplicity of their theory that they are unable to recognise how much they do not know - and like the Darwinians their response has been to become ever more fanatically intolerant of anyone who dares question their dogma. This might not matter so much if they hadn’t, on the basis of their faith, persuaded so many of the world’s politicians to propose measures which threaten to inflict a real economic disaster on the world.

A very astute observation indeed! Personally, I’m not a creationist, and I find it vexing, outrageous, nefarious and disgraceful that the fanatical AGW-cultists dare to compare us climate sceptics to Bible-thumping fundamentalists. However, I believe in keeping an open mind, and to be honest the science of origins is far from settled. Both sides have good points, and it would be best for science if everybody could admit that: it is never good for science to solidify into rigid dogma enforced by a cruel and oppressive inquisition. And I do enjoy thumping the Bible once in a while, and if anybody has a problem with that, then it is their problem and not mine, and they will surely burn in hell!
Have you noticed that evolution used to be about the progression from lower to higher forms of life, but nowadays, they define it as “any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next”? In other words, any kind of change is evolution. If somebody with brown-haired parents is born with red hair (like my brother’s youngest child), it is “evolution”. Evolution has effectively become unfalsifiable. Does this sound familiar? “Global warming” and “climate change”? Need I say more? They used to call it “global warming” but since it is not warming anymore they have changed it to “climate change”. In addition, many evolutionists faked the data, cooked the books, boiled the spaghetti, like in the case of the infamous "Piltdown Man". That is just like Mann's "hide the decline". Indeed, the parallels are uncanny and legio!

Id quod circumiret, circumveniat.

What does Velikovsky and climate skeptics have in common?

Immanuel Velikovsky (1895-1979) was a free-thinking scientist that made many interesting discoveries: Noah's Flood was caused by Saturn entering a nova stage; Mercury caused the destruction of the Tower of Babel; Venus (ejected from Jupiter) caused the events in Exodus including the parting of the Red Sea, and also caused the sun to stand still when Joshua was fighting the Amorites at Gibeon (see picture below), and so on.



So what do Velikovsky and climate skeptics have in common? Dr Tim Ball (in the picture), world renowned climate scientist and one of the few who dare go against the Al Goreian priesthood, writes about this for Canada Free Press (mandatory reading). In short, Velikovsky challenged the prevalent scientific dogma, and the corrupt establishment tried to marginalize and ridicule him in the most horrible ways. Today, climate skeptics find themselves in precisely the same situation when they challenge the dogma of the AGW inquisition.

Dr Ball observes:

In the end Velikovsky succeeded because he passed the ultimate test of science; the ability to predict. More important, they were in contradiction to prevailing views. He made many and apparently none are incorrect to date. The interesting one was the temperature of Venus, which was almost double what the textbooks said. The same textbooks that incorrectly use Venus as an example of runaway CO2 induced Greenhouse Effect.

Failure of the University President to approve a conference on Velikovsky was symptomatic of the dogmatic, closed minds that pervade modern science. The few scientists involved with the AGW debacle deliberately exploited and practiced that condition. Their actions indicate they saw this as a battle, but it was against the truth and as Aeschylus said, “In war, truth is the first casualty.”

Just like Velikovsky and other great anti-dogma scientists like Erich von Däniken, Richard C. Hoagland and Kent Hovind, I'm sure that we climate skeptics one day will be victorious and the house of cards that is contemporary AGW "science" will fall apart and blow away like a house of cards hit by a low-flying planet.

Steteruntque sol et luna donec ulcisceretur se gens de inimicis suis nonne scriptum est hoc in libro Iustorum stetit itaque sol in medio caeli et non festinavit occumbere spatio unius diei.

Criminals illegally steal FOX email about AGW scam

Image from Whats Up With That

Illegal and criminal hackers recently broke the law by illegally stealing the email above from Fox News Washington managing editor Bill Sammon. The email was later displayed on the criminal blog "Climate Progress" ran by the offender and AGW activist Joe Romm. The email must have been illegally obtained either from Mr Sammon's mail account or illegally forwarded from one of the recipients to some criminal activists.
Anyhow, Sammon is perfectly correct to point out that whether it is getting colder or warmer is scientifically a very controversial issue (just like the citizenship of Obama), and it would be tantamount to communist propaganda to suggest otherwise. Indeed, all non-manipulated evidence unequivocally point to the imminent onset of a new ice age. For instance, large parts of Europe are presently covered by snow, and no "trick to hide the decline" can possibly hide that "travesty". This email proves that FOX truly is a fair and balanced network that embodies the highest journalistic and scientific standards. The activist-criminals surely have shot themselves in the foot with this illegally obtained weapon.

We can only hope that Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli can identify the culprits of this illegal and immoral email theft when he gets hold of the email correspondence of fugitive decline-hider Michael Mann.

The Lord Monckton censored at Cancun

Photograph: Jenny Bates for the Guardian

Censorship rules in Cancun! The Lord Monckton was forced to leave the World Climate Summit lunch party at the Ritz Carlton hotel, reports the Guardian. The Lord Monckton had informed the other participants that man-made climate change was not happening, but this wasn't tolerated by the Hitler Jugend organizers of the event. Indeed, their mind-controlling zealotry went so far that they hadn't even invited the Lord Monckton in the first place.

It is evident that the alarmist eco-fascists are getting increasingly desperate as the AGW house of cards is falling apart! And they really have no manners!

Absentem laedit, qui cum ebrio litigat.