clothcap (clothcap) wrote,

Flying fish, Trenberth twaddle taken to task

When the cat keeps soiling the carpet the thing to do is take it by the scruff of its neck and rub its nose in it then show it the cat litter. If only warmist politicians and alarmist journalists were as quick to learn as cats.
Not content with waiting for pigs to fly when CO2 becomes harmful to the climate, expert Malcolm Fergusson, the agency’s head of climate change mythology (1980 University of Cambridge MA Anglo-Saxon, Norse and Celtic, 1974-1977 University of Cambridge, BA (Hons) Part I Archaeology and Anthropology; Part II Anglo-Saxon, Norse and Celtic (Upper Second Class) ) released a report about flying fish:
Fish threatened by global warming to be moved north (Indy)
The title is bollox for a number of reasons. The Indy commenters point out:
* “Ancient vendace fish saved from edge of extinction” Daily Telegraph Paul Eccleston 09 Jul 2008
“To the delight of conservationists the vendace has survived and thrived at its new home. There are now 10 times as many vendace per hectare in the scottish loch compared to Derwent Water and there are hopes that eventually, if conditions can be improved in Cumbria, they can be used to restock Bassenthwaite
But the final blow is sediment that has come into the lake – we consider this to have been the most damaging factor in its decline.”
From Geomorphological Study Sediment Delivery Into Bassenthwaite Lake:
A Catchment-scale geomorphological assessment of contemporary and historical sediment dynamics. The largest areas of potential sediment sources within the catchment are eroded ground on the high fells (15.5 % of unenclosed fell is experiencing some erosion – estimated volume of sediment 4,000,000 m3). However, delivery of this sediment to the channel network is largely dependent on the degree of channel connectivity (the processes by which sediments enter the channel network), which in turn is largely dependent on slope and the presence and trapping efficiency of vegetation. Given the volume of material estimated to have been lost from erosion on the high fells, this must be the major, short, medium and long-term issue. The state of the high fells has significant impacts on: sediment supply; runoff; ecology; and indicates that these sensitive areas are in a poor state to adapt to the impacts of predicted climate change for this region.…
* The word in the street is algal blooms are choking the fish. The lakes are no warmer than usual within acceptable temperature fluctuations. What is causing the problem is high phosphate levels (caused by washing detergents, agricultural run off and sewage leakage) that are as good as giving a can of Red Bull to algae.
All very dull and based on real information from real people not sensationalised garbage from a journalist with an agenda

hauntingthelibrary – UK Government Goes MAD: Plans to Airlift Fish to “Cope With Global Warming”
The British Government appears to have been poisoned with LSD or a similar hallucinogen, and has announced that it will be releasing more than ONE HUNDRED reports on how it intends to cope with global warming.
[...] even though temperatures in the UK have shown no discernible change from normal, despite CO2 emissions going up and up, the government is spending a fortune in taxpayer’s money to fund 100 reports on how we’re going to cope.
Excerpts from the comments:
* 2 species of the large family Salmonidae are involved – the vendace and the schelly: Schelly – At Haweswater [where they are declinig], the fishery officers are now culling all of the cormorants that visit the lake, in order to protect the endangered fish. An analysis of reservoir management data over a 30 year period (1961-1991) has revealed that the decline of the schelly population is associated with increased water abstraction and reduced water levels.
* Vendace (Britain’s rarest fish) – The declining populations of the fish are thought to be due to introduced species that utilise the native vendace as a food source, and also due to pollution.
* “Creeping government lunacy is one of the greatest challenges facing the world today. We have been guiding its effects in the UK since the mid 1990s. It’s important we mislead the populace about how this changing climate of insanity will affect their lives and their environment.
* ” Better still employ a fish whisperer to lead the fish south and thereby avoiding any dangerous pollution and poisoning of the atmosphere by cargo aircraft.”
* History is not a Hockey Stick. How can cities not be abruptly warming more than usual if history is one? 

I await the rest of the reports to see if the gross incompetence and-or deceit is exceeded.

Continuing the “government dementia due to drug abuse” theme:
Mobilising the ‘home front’ to fight climate change (Guardian)
When it comes to tackling climate change, there are many lessons we can learn from the wartime generation
Britain’s first ever Green MP, Caroline Lucas, has called for a revival of the Second World War spirit to help meet carbon emissions targets, saying “we need to mobilise as a nation in a way we haven’t seen since 1945″
Here’s one for the hot head – “careless talk costs lives”. Government by gang-green is destroying the UK. The enemy is within.

The Haw-haws of the gang-green movement though few have very big mouths and as the saying goes, empty drums make the most noise. Here is the take-down of another, a slithery political advocate masquerading as a climate fortune teller predictor philosopher researcher.
Unequivocal Equivocation – an open letter to Dr. Trenberth – A dismissal of Trenberth’s con artistry by Willis at WUWT
I would like to take as my text the following quote from the recent paper (PDF, 270k also on web here) by Dr. Kevin Trenberth:
Given that global warming is “unequivocal”, to quote the 2007 IPCC report, the null hypothesis should now be reversed, thereby placing the burden of proof on showing that there is no human influence [on the climate].”
[...] In climate science, the AGW hypothesis states that human GHG emissions significantly affect the climate. As such, the null hypothesis is that human GHG emissions do not significantly affect the climate, that the climate variations are the result of natural processes. This null hypothesis is what Doctor T wants to reverse.
[...] The first part of Dr. T’s statement is true. There is general scientific agreement that the globe has been warming, in fits and starts of course, for the last three centuries or so. And since it has been thusly warming for centuries, the obvious null hypothesis would have to be that the half-degree of warming we experienced in the 20th century was a continuation of some long-term ongoing natural trend.
But that’s not what Dr. Trenberth is doing here. Keep your eye on the pea. He has smoothly segued from the IPCC saying “global warming is ‘unequivocal’”, which is true, and stitched that idea so cleverly onto another idea, ‘and thus humans affect the climate’, that you can’t even see the seam.
The pea is already under the other walnut shell. He is implying that the IPCC says that scientists have “unequivocally” shown that humans are the cause of weather ills, and if I don’t take that as an article of faith, it’s my job to prove that we are not the cause of floods in Brisbane.
Now, lest you think that the IPCC actually did mean that ‘humans are the cause’ when they said (in his words) that ‘global warming was “unequivocal”‘, here’s their full statement from the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report Summary For Policymakers (2007)  (PDF, 3.7 MB):
Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global mean sea level (see Figure SPM-3).
Despite the vagueness of a lack of a timeframe, that is generally true, but it says nothing about humans being the cause. So he is totally misrepresenting the IPCC findings (which he helped write, remember, so it’s not a misunderstanding) to advance his argument. The IPCC said nothing like what he is implying.
Gotta love the style, though, simply proclaiming by imperial fiat that his side is the winner in one of the longest-running modern scientific debates. And his only proffered “evidence” for this claim? It is the unequivocal fact that Phil Jones and Michael Mann and Caspar Amman and Gene Wahl and the other good old boys of the IPCC all agree with him. That is to say, Dr. T’s justification for reversing the null hypothesis is that the IPCC report that Dr. T helped write agrees with Dr. T. That’s recursive enough to make Ouroboros weep in envy …
And the IPCC not only says it’s true, it’s “unequivocal”. Just plain truth wouldn’t be scientific enough for those guys, I guess. Instead, it is “unequivocal” truth. Here’s what “unequivocal” means (emphasis mine):
unequivocal: adjective:  admitting of no doubt or misunderstanding; having only one meaning or interpretation and leading to only one conclusion (“Unequivocal evidence”)
Notice how well crafted Dr. T’s sentence is. After bringing in “global warming”, he introduces the word “unequivocal”, meaning we can only draw one conclusion. Then in the second half of the sentence, he falsely attaches that “unequivocal” certainty of conclusion to his own curious conclusion, that the normal rules of science should be reversed for the benefit of … … well, not to put too fine a point on it, he’s claiming that normal scientific rules should be reversed for the benefit of Dr. Kevin Trenberth and the IPCC and those he supports. Probably just a coincidence, though.
For Dr. Trenberth to call for the usual null hypothesis (which is that what we observe in nature is, you know, natural) to be reversed, citing as his evidence the IPCC statement that the earth is actually warming, is nonsense. However, it is not meaningless nonsense. It is pernicious, insidious, and dangerous nonsense. He wants us to spend billions of dollars based on this level of thinking, and he has cleverly conflated two ideas to push his agenda.
I understand that Dr. T has a scientific hypothesis. This hypothesis, generally called the “AGW hypothesis”, is that if greenhouse gases (GHGs)  go up, the temperature must follow, and nothing else matters. The hypothesis is that the GHGs are the master thermostat for the globe, everything else just averages out in the long run, nothing could possibly affect the long-term climate but GHGs, nothing to see here, folks, move along. No other forcings, feedbacks, or hypotheses need apply. GHGs rule, OK?
Which is an interesting hypothesis, but it is woefully short of either theoretical or observational support. In part, of course, this is because the AGW hypothesis provides almost nothing in the way of a statement or a prediction which can be falsified. This difficulty in falsification of the hypothesis, while perhaps attractive to the proponents of the hypothesis, inevitably implies a corresponding difficulty in verification or support of the hypothesis. /this most excellent “professional advising consistently wrong rank amateur” is heartwarming, that there are plenty of scientists like Willis it gives hope for the future of science. It should be compulsory reading for all IPCC researchers and propagandists. (link)

Excerpts from the comments:
jae says: HAS sez:
“The fact that the null often reflects the default or commonly held view is simply because typically it isn’t usually very interesting to prove what is already common belief. But when there’s real argument or difference of views the experimenter is free to choose what they are trying to do in their experiment.
So Dr T is perfectly at liberty to say I’m testing to falsify that CO2 has no/limited impact on temperatures. In fact he should have been doing this all along given what he clearly believes
No. By switching the null hypothesis in this manner, scientists are forced to try to prove a negative. This is logically impossible, and Trenberth probably knows that. What a perfect hypothesis for them! Society would then have to cave in to the CAGW nonsense because they cannot prove there’s nothing to it (and it looks like there is not)!
Richard S Courtney says: HAS:
Sorry, but No! your post at January 15, 2011 at 6:48 pm makes the same mistake as Trenberth.
As scientist has to work within the scientific method. He/she does not have the luxury of changing the method because of any personal desire. And part of the scientific method is an acceptance of the nature and importance of the null hypothesis in any investigation.
The null hypothesis is that in the absence of evidence of a change then it has to be assumed there has been no change.
So, in the case of AGW, it has to be assumed that climate behaviour has not changed from previous climate behaviour unless and until there is evidence that climate behaviour has changed.
There can be no compromise with this.
Your suggestion that the null hypothesis should be that climate behaviour may have to change by a specified amount (you suggest 5%) redefines the null hypothesis. And an attempt to redefine the null hypothesis is the same mistake that Trenberth makes.
The null hypothesis in AGW is that climate behaviour has not changed as a result of the anthropoigenic emission of GHGs (i.e. following the industrial revolution) and it is the ONLY scientific assumption because there is no evidence – none, zilch, not any – evidence of such a change. If such evidence were produced then the null hypothesis would be disproved and there could be investigation of what caused the change. But unless and until such evidence exists there is not – and there cannot be – any scientific purpose in investigating the cause (perhaps AGW or something else) of a change which is not known to exist.
Investigating if AGW is the cause of a change to climate behaviour when there is no evidence that the change exists exists is like investing the behaviour of a specific ghost in a house that is said to be haunted.

Our currency has gone West and stagflation will soon be upon us
High inflation and a falling make it tougher for Britain to sell gilts, which we’re about to do in near-record quantities.
[...]The great unknown in this is the euro. The Davos crowd will tell you that the euro won’t break up, given the strength of the core countries’ “political will”. I think that’s tosh. The euro was created because the last generation of German leaders felt that, for political reasons, they owed the rest of Europe an apology.
It seems to me that the coming generation of German leaders feel, that for financial reasons, the rest of Europe owes an apology to them. And who can blame them?
So here’s another prediction: within the next 18 months, at least one peripheral country will leave the euro and Germany will do nothing to stop that. And once that’s happened, it could be followed by several more.
Tory Fury Over Bid To Block EU Referendum [Ecofascist EC-banker agents screw the reps as well as the electorate]
Senior Tory Peter Bone branded his Government an “utter disgrace’’ over tactics to scupper debate on his call for a referendum on whether the UK stays in the EU.
MPs claimed business managers had arranged the Commons timetable, tabled a host of new amendments and recruited loyalists to talk at length to ensure there was no time to scrutinise key aspects of the European Union Bill.
A comment -
25.01.11, 12:01pm
INSTEAD – just ignore all these traitors & quisling who have sold us out – and “As a people” leave the blessed EU whether ‘our government’ want to or not.
And instead of fighting rear-guard actions, let’s go onto the attack – WE LEAVE ON 6th June 2012.
That is the anniversary of D-Day when the Anglo-Ams liberated mainland Europe form the 3rd Riech – its the day we liberate Britain from the 4th Reich.
It gives us 18 months to get organised.
Posted by: john_u
What Green MP Caroline Lucas should know about Liberal Fascism
And from the puerile to the outstandingly ludricrous:
Warmists New Claim: Little Ice Age Caused By American Settlers
(Makes the claim that US postal rates drove modern warming reasonable)
The costs of the EU’s Galileo satellite system are still skyrocketing
Just Say No to Subsidies and Global Warming
The death of the AGW belief system.
1) Denial – A total refusal to see, believe or accept what has happened.
2) Anger – Blaming someone else, oneself, everyone else or anything else for what has happened. The deeper the belief, the more vehement this stage is.
3) Bargaining – Believing that you can still do some trading to keep all, something or at least a shred of the collapsing structure. e.g. concessions, scapegoats, prayer.
4) Depression – It can’t be stopped. Apathy, depression, tiredness, feeling unfairly punished.
5) Acceptance – Utter Calm. It’s all over. Death.
Data interpreted both ways
In countering the claim that a heat wave disproved global cooling, Ponte relates:
“But as Dr. Lamb pointed out calmly, such heat waves have accompanied every past global cooling and are to be expected. A high-pressure zone blocked warm air and chilled the North Atlantic. Now another hihg-pressure zone was blocking cold air and bringing extremes of heat into Europe. But such blocks were both symptoms of a cooling climate. Such cooling, he said, ‘means more volatile weather. It will be more hot, more cold, more wet and more dry, just as it was in the seventeenth century.’”
Lowell Ponte, The Cooling, (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1976)

Tags: flying fish, trenberth politicker

  • Post a new comment


    default userpic
    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.