Thursday, November 03, 2011 ... Français/Deutsch/Español/Česky/Japanese/Related posts from blogosphere

Some climate change news

UAH October data, Mann as Galileo, Richard Muller said he was never a skeptic

Roy Spencer's new data

The October temperatures as measured by UAH AMSU are out. The global anomaly dropped from 0.289 °C a month earlier to 0.114 °C. This significant drop couldn't be unexpected for those of us who regularly observe the UAH daily temperatures.

The most recent anomaly means that October 2011 was the coldest October among the 11 months of the same name in the 21st century so far. The anomaly in the tropics was in fact negative.

Just to be sure, the UAH anomaly for a given month and a given zone (or the globe) is the difference between the actual average temperature in the piece of spacetime under consideration and the average temperature in the same zone and the same month during the 1981-2010 period.

I expect the RSS AMSU anomaly to drop by a similar amount which makes it likely that the year 2011 will end up at the 10th or 11th place according to RSS. Meanwhile, my optical impression is that La Niña has weakened a little bit in recent weeks, especially near the South American Western beaches (Eastern Pacific).

Michael Mann is Galileo Galilei

Chris Mooney, the director of the American Geophysical Union for science communication (who recently awarded Gavin Schmidt for the "best of the best" prize of AGU for the promotion of climate alarmism), an English major, and a complete imbecile (whose presence in the AGU only helps to reinforce the idea about geology as yet another inferior and soft scientific discipline) has determined that Galileo Galilei has reincarnated and his current name is Michael Mann.

That's because just like Galileo Galilei, Michael Mann just won a procedural lawsuit in his struggle to piss upon the freedom-of-information-act. Oops, Galileo actually lost the key trial, but that doesn't diminish the power of Mooney's analogy. Another similarity between Galileo and Mann is that much like Galileo, Mann claims that the Earth and its climate is actually revolving, back and forth. Oops, Mann actually says that it is not revolving; it was always flat (shaft) and now it is flatly going up (blade). But at Mooney's accuracy, the analogy is still perfect.

Another point in which the two giants coincide is that they're carefully taking into account all the observational data. Oops, Michael Mann's whole career is built upon the hiding of the data, but that's just another detail. The great men are also similar because they're not afraid to break out of the prevailing orthodoxy. Oops, Michael Mann has actually organized witch hunts against the heretics who would dare to oppose the prevailing pseudoscientific misconceptions adopted by most of the Marxist-environmentalist mediocre minds who have contaminated much of the Academia.

As you can see, Michael Mann and Galileo Galilei are almost identical men(n). Chris Mooney must be ingenious because he was able to observe this isomorphism for the first time.

Richard Muller: I am not a skeptic

The dishonest i.e. politically correct media have repeated the theme that Richard Muller is a climate skeptic who has surprisingly confirmed the cataclysmic sinner-made global warming theory (a beautiful story, a true gospel). Well, Richard Muller finally clarified whether he has ever been a skeptic for the Huffington Post:

"It is ironic if some people treat me as a traitor, since I was never a skeptic – only a scientific skeptic," he said in a recent email exchange with The Huffington Post. "Some people called me a skeptic because in my best-seller 'Physics for the Future Presidents', I had drawn attention to the numerous scientific errors in the movie 'An Inconvenient Truth.' But I never felt that pointing out mistakes qualified me to be called a climate skeptic."
A rather accurate description of the situation.

In a nutshell, the primary constraint that Richard Muller is careful about is the suffocating group think in the Academia. While attempting to be "interesting" in many ways, he would never dare to call himself a climate skeptic because frankly speaking, he is just another coward who prefers comfort in his life among the Marxist partisans at Berkeley and beyond.

(Czech president Václav Klaus loves to repeat his explanation of the situation in Czechoslovakia in the late 1960s. While he was on a visit of America four decades ago, he told some U.S. Academics that the University of Berkeley probably contains many more people who actually believe in Marxism than the whole Czechoslovak Socialist Republic.)

The relationship between the term "climate skeptic" and "scientific skeptic" is also amusing because the term "climate skeptic" is nothing else than the term "scientific skeptic" applied to the climate science: it is a person who refuses to believe extraordinary, nearly supernatural statements that are not backed by the scientific evidence. The very indication that a "scientific skeptic" may still fail to be a "climate skeptic" means that climatology isn't a science.

Two days ago, Richard Muller gave a 15-minute interview – Part I; Part II – which largely avoided big questions but what he said about his de facto impartial approach to various questions (and less-than-uncritical attitude to Al Gore's movie which Muller demonstrated in his book about physics for the U.S. presidents) could be agreed by many genuine scientists. He blamed the insane title in his Wall Street Journal promotion of the BEST results upon the WSJ editors which sounds only partially convincing. However, my problems with his article went beyond the headline.

(By the way, if you want to ask: Barack Obama hasn't studied from Muller's textbook "Physics For the Future U.S. Presidents" before he audaciously co-authored a footnote in a crackpot paper about the Curvature of the Constitutional Space which later became Barack Obama's most prominent scholarly publication.)

At any rate, Richard Muller exhibits some proper and honest attitudes that are still common among physicists; however, he also makes it very clear that he has never been a climate skeptic (he was born as a de facto alarmist before he looked at the first data) and if you ask me why it's so, I would say that it's because Muller lives and wants to live in the narrow-minded left-wing boxes in the Academia in which certain dogmas – such as the dogma that we should be worried about the climate – shouldn't be questioned.

So he makes sure that he grovels in the mud much like the majority of the Academia so that the true villains such as the liars in the left-wing media who called him a climate skeptic may stand on his shoulders. Fred Singer wrote a very friendly comment about the "skeptic Muller" in the Wall Street Journal, kind of cherry-picking the more skeptical proclamations by Muller. I don't quite think that this is the right thing to do; it's the same thing that the media did.

Bill Gates, grandma, and CO2

The occasional climate crusader Bill Gates said that if you're driving your grandma home from the hospital, you're damaging the lives of poor people in Africa. However, if you drive her directly to the cemetery, you improve the African lives because the CO2 emissions will drop as long as you're careful to replace cremation by the fancy chemical process. Well, this scientific opinion of Bill Gates may explain some of the occasional blue screens of death we still experience with Windows (he's being an intermittent idiot is a part of the explanation).

Thanks to and Tom Nelson for some of the news alerts (although I found them by other methods as well).

Add to Digg this Add to reddit

snail feedback (0) :