All Scientists are Sceptics ~Professor Bob Carter

Whenever someone asserts that a scientific question is “settled,” they tell me immediately that they don’t understand the first thing about science. Science is never settled. Dr David Deming

Perhaps the most frustrating aspect of the science of climate change is the lack of any real substance in attempts to justify the hypothesis ~Professor Stewart Franks

A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at:
A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at:
A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at:

Thursday, 27 October 2016

CSIRO BOM State of Climate Report 2016:

More doom and gloom at the taxpayers’ expense
Anthony Cox

The lads and lassies at the sky is falling CSIRO and BoM have produced their annual the end is nigh report.

I’m not going to say they lie or that the report is bullshit, just that they are wrong. A few examples based on claims from the report:

1 Australia’s climate has warmed in both mean surface air temperature and surrounding sea surface temperature by around 1 °C since 1910.
 There is a superficial truth to this: if you accept the official BoM temperature record which has major problems due to inexplicable adjustments (also here, here, here, here, here, and here). But even if you accept the official temperature record there has been a pause in temperature over land (from Ken Stewart):

That’s a pause in temperature rise for 21 years.

The Sea Surface Temperature (SST) is a bit more complicated. Around Australia the BoM shows a consistent increase over the 20thC. However in the neighbouring Pacific Islands SST has not been showing this increase in SST which is shown in Australia. For instance, in Vanuatu there is no such trend in SST:


2 The duration, frequency and intensity of extreme heat events have increased across large parts of Australia
This is plainly wrong. David Stockwell shows there has been no increase in droughts which contradicts the official DECR report. Geoff Sherrington shows heatwaves are not trending upwards:

Cyclones are not increasing as the BoM shows:

3 May–July rainfall has reduced by around 19 per cent since 1970 in the southwest of Australia. There has been a decline of around 11 per cent since the mid-1990s in the April–October growing season rainfall in the continental southeast. Rainfall has increased across parts of northern Australia since the 1970s
Rainfall has changed around Australia. None of this has anything to do with alarmism. Overall rainfall has increased in Australia:

How is this a bad thing? Of course, any good news is excluded from these reports. They are for one purpose only: to instil fear and force politicians to make policy decisions consistent with the zealots who produce these reports.

4 Finally sea level. 

The report says: Sea levels have risen around Australia. The rise in mean sea level amplifies the effects of high tides and storm surges
This is classic alarmism. A statement which is nominally correct used to justify fear-mongering. Sea level was looked at in Watson’s paper which showed no increase in the rate of rise:
This rate of sea level rise is far less than predicted by alarmists; around 1 mm PA in long standing sites like Port Arthur as the 2003 Hunter, Coleman and Pugh paper shows. Or 0.5 mm PA at Fort Denison:

This rate of between 0.5mm and 1 mm PA is not only shown in other locations around Australia but also inconsistent with CO2 emissions and modelling by the IPCC as Ken Stewart shows.

Globally today’s sea levels are completely normal and not exceptional at all. At the Monash University site the Sahul Time interactive graph shows that previous sea levels were up to 135 meters less than today and 4 meters higher, with no correlation with CO2 levels.

So, this report will get the usual level of coverage from the media, even Graham Lloyd has reported on it, and when it is revealed to be, well, let’s be frank about it, bullshit, the media cycle will have moved on. I would like to see Senator Roberts put questions to the authors. Maybe then the cycle will be broken.

Saturday, 22 October 2016

The Spotless Sun

Some News Reports

Earth faces another ICE AGE within 15 YEARS as Russian scientists discover Sun 'cooling'

THE Earth is heading towards another ice age as solar magnetic activity is set to drop by up to 60 per cent in the next 15 years. Experts say that solar activity as low as it currently has not been seen since the mini-ice age that took place between 1645 and 1715 – a period known as the Maunder Minimum where the entire Thames froze over.

Earth heading for ICE AGE as sun goes blank: Analysts reveal shock SUNSPOTS discovery
Analysis of the sun has revealed that there has been a sharp decrease in the amount of sunspots this year. Sunspots release solar flares and vast amounts of magnetic energy.For the fourth time this year, the sun has gone blank, which has led some experts to believe that a new Ice Age is on the horizon and could hit us by 2019.
The sun has gone blank twice this month. This is what it means
According to scientists, this unsettling phenomenon is a sign we are heading for a mini ice age.Meteorologist and renowned sun-watcher Paul Dorian raised the alarm in his latest report, which has sparked a mild panic about an impending Game of Thrones-style winter not seen since the 17th century.“For the second time this month, the sun has gone completely blank,” Mr Dorian says.
Image: NASA

Diminishing solar activity may bring new Ice Age by 2030
The arrival of intense cold similar to the one that raged during the “Little Ice Age”, which froze the world during the 17th century and in the beginning of the 18th century, is expected in the years 2030—2040. These conclusions were presented by Professor V. Zharkova (Northumbria University) during the National Astronomy Meeting in Llandudno in Wales by the international group of scientists, which also includes Dr Helen Popova of the Skobeltsyn Institute of Nuclear Physics and of the Faculty of Physics of the Lomonosov Moscow State University, Professor Simon Shepherd of Bradford University and Dr Sergei Zharkov of Hull University.

It is known that the Sun has its own magnetic field, the amplitude and spatial configuration of which vary with time. The formation and decay of strong magnetic fields in the solar atmosphere results in the changes of electromagnetic radiation from the Sun, of the intensity of plasma flows coming from the Sun, and the number of sunspots on the Sun’s surface. The study of changes in the number of sunspots on the Sun’s surface has a cyclic structure vary in every 11 years that is also imposed on the Earth environment as the analysis of carbon-14, beryllium-10 and other isotopes in glaciers and in the trees showed.

Saturday, 15 October 2016

Alarmist Science doesn’t add up.

Anthony Cox

IPCC's standard of peer review

In 2010 the IPCC ‘science’ was found by the InterAcademy Council, the IAC, to be defective. David Stockwell and I wrote a piece about the IAC for The Drum in the days when the ABC was slightly balanced and was accepting sceptical articles. In that article we pointed out:

Here is what the IAC concluded about the IPCC's standard of peer review: 
"An analysis of the 14,000 references cited in the Third Assessment Report found that peer-reviewed journal articles comprised 84 per cent of references in Working Group I, but only 59 per cent of references in Working Group II and 36 per cent of references in Working Group III (Bjurström and Polk, 2010)." 
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Nearly half the IPCC's science is not peer reviewed; it is grey literature, from interested parties like the WWF and Greenpeace; referencing them is like Clive Hamilton referencing Clive Hamilton. 
But it is just not the peer review failure of the IPCC; it is how the IPCC strays from its own criteria for establishing confidence in its [non] peer reviewed evidence. Confidence in scientific terms means what degree of uncertainty predictions about future climate and causes of that future climate have. 
For instance one of the IPCC's criteria, which is noted in the IAC report, is that it should "give greater attention to assessing uncertainties and confidence in [key findings]". It should also "Avoid trivializing statements just to increase their confidence [and] Determine the areas in your [the IPCC's] chapter where a range of views may need to be described... to form a collective view on uncertainty or confidence." 
What this means is that a true consensus requires "a range of views" on "uncertainty and confidence". Only when you truly know the scientific strengths and weaknesses of your evidence can you claim a consensus, bearing in mind a scientific consensus is only as good as the next scientific paper which may contradict it. The IPCC has actively quashed dissent to achieve its "collective view"; a very Lysenko state of affairs and a non-scientific consensus.

Peter Brobhaff has done a brilliant summary of the IAC’s findings about the IPCC’s defects and lists such things as political influence, bias and the many errors of alarmist science.

In Australia the Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) was recently examined by a panel of statistical experts, The Technical Advisory Forum (Forum). The Forum found a number of defects with the BoM’s temperature record as Jennifer Marohasy notes. In fact, the recommendations by the Forum deal with profound defects including inadequate uncertainty parameters, inadequate treatment of regional temperature sites and transparency of methodology. In short the Forum found much the same problems with the BoM as the IAC found with the IPCC.

Now a peer reviewed paper published under the auspices of the Royal Society has found incorrigible Poor research design and data analysis by alarmistscience. This had led to false positive results about whether alarmism is even happening. The Paper finds that institutional corruption which requires no further conscious acts of lying by individual scientists in alarmism has created a self-perpetuating conclusion that alarmism is correct.

This paper isdevastating. It claims that the money and other reinforcements of prestige and success ensure that all new alarmist papers conform to alarmism. This is not science but gross propaganda and a corruption of the scientific process. As sceptical scientist Pat Michaels says:

So, instead of being rewarded for research that supports a prior hypothesis, no matter how sloppy it is, those involved in climate studies get published a lot not by testing (which can’t be done in the prospective sense) but by producing dire, horrific results. Because these often appear in prominent journals — which love to feature articles that generate big news stories — the greater the horror, the more likely is promotion, citation and more money.

This then generates more and more of these perverse incentives in a vicious cycle.

All of this is well and good and could be dismissed as just another example of how incentives drive supposedly dispassionate scientists. But in several fields, like climate, the accumulation of horrific literature is often summarized by governments, usually to support some policy. Bad science then justifies bad policy.

It is quite significant that Smaldino and McElreath’s paper was published by the Royal Society. Surely they know the result will be more distrust of the modern scientific enterprise, and, by extension, in the policies supported by it. The fact of its publication is evidence that we have reached a turning point, where the pollution of modern science is now an accepted truth.

The issue is, as much as the manifest corruption of science caused by alarmism, why do our politicians continue to base policy and waste $$$billions on programs which are justified by the corrupt alarmist science.