Tuesday, March 3, 2015



Lessons from the ‘Irreducibly Simple’ kerfuffle

by Rud Istvan
The Monckton, Soon, Legates, and Briggs paper “Why models run hot, results from an irreducibly simple climate model” appeared in the January 2015 Science Bulletin of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS). Hereinafter MSLB.

The paper discusses the divergence between climate models and observed temperatures, and develops the implications for climate sensitivity.
MSLB has created quite a kerfuffle. There was initial dismissal: it was claimed that Science Bulletin is an obscure journal with lax review standards, so the paper is no good. Bulletin turned out to be the Chinese equivalent of Science or Nature
While Istvan invokes the Chinese Academy of Sciences without its consent, his host Judith Curry asks:
” Have worse papers been published in prestige U.S/EU journals? 

And answers:"Yes.”
Which less recalls Sturgeon’s Iron Law of Scientific Publication:
“Ninety per cent of published papers are crap” 
Than  Minsky’s Corollary-- the famed computer scientist  replied to the science fiction writer:   ”So are 95% of the remainder.”
Still, science happens, and rigorous application of  Sturgeon's Law  to the most cited climate science papers of the present age, still produces a hefty pile of 21st century published Must Reads  from the thousands actively researching the field:

In startling contrast, those seriously contesting the state of the art in  climate science number only in the single digits, a statistic the best efforts  of a brigade of PR flacks has failed to change since the Black Friday in 2008  when a thousand dollar honorarium & all expenses paid failed to rally two dozen PhD's to the Rejectionist banner in New York. (Andy Revkin counted 20 at that inaugural Heartland Conference.)

At the skeptics present rate of  scholarly publication,  several  doublings of  CO2 may pass before they publish enough research to produce one article transcending Sturgeon's Law, and provocative enough to earn widespead citation by authors other than themselves-- something they have yet to achieve outside the comment columns of the blogosphere.

Forget the temperature doldrums- the real pause haunting  the Climate Wars is the lack of intellectually serious skeptical publications since Richard Lindzen retired.

The contrarians' failure to find a heavy hitter to replace him threatens their policy agenda far more than the leisurely pace of climate change threatens their culturally entrenched opponents.
If Istvan asks around China and Cambridge, he'll discover that what Soon's former boss observed in 2013 :
The Harvard-Smithsonian Center’s former director, Harvard astronomy professor Irwin Shapiro, said there was never any attempt to censor Soon’s views. Nor, he said, was Soon the subject of complaints or concern among the 300 scientists at the center.

“As far as I can tell,’’ said Shapiro, “no one pays any attention to him.’’
applies almost equally to  Science Bulletin.  

And that for all the worthy papers it may publish, Science Bulletin remains about as far-famed as Soon's real academic home-- he's an Adjunct Professor at the University of Putra in Buntulu, Malaysia.
Some may esteem Putra U to be the Harvard of Borneo, but as an empirical matter, the Chinese equivalents of  Science and Nature remain, no surprise, Science and Nature.

Sunday, March 1, 2015

What Time Does This Jihad Stop At The Next Armageddon?


In  WUWT's  febrile  view ,  the global  War On Terror  and the Climate Wars are merging into a sort of broadband Armageddon as ISIS pauses  en route  to  the  gates of  Vienna to make common cause with Warmist infidels storming the Coolist Caliphate of K Street.

There's nothing in The Onion to rival  CFACT  janissary  Paul  Dreissen's  hallucinatory  equation  of  climate                             modelers and headhunting Islamic ninjas:
The idea seems to have originated with WUWT regular & Global Cooling enthusiast David Archibald, author of  The Twilight of Abundance: Why Life in the 21st Century Will Be Nasty, Brutish, and Short, who says he "covered  the theological  parallels" last week. 

To simplify the life of the mind,  here in parallel are the guts of Archibald's two recent American Thinker tracts on the subject,  merged into a panoramic view of  End Times strategic analysis by policy intellectuals in Heartland Land- all quotations guaranteed real: 

Studies In Comparative Theology: Hidden Imam Versus Hidden Heat                      By David Archibald   February 22,2015

"Two of the faiths trying to take over the world believe in hidden things. Of the two, Islam is the more venerable with its sacred texts over a thousand years old. Global warming’s faithful are still writing their sacred texts with adaptation to actual results -- that the world stopped warming neigh on a generation ago. 

The Twilight of Abundance   By David Archibald    April 12, 2014

"Baby boomers enjoyed the most benign period in human history… the climate warmed due to the highest level of solar activity for eight thousand years.  All those trends are now reversing. We are now in the twilight of that age of abundance. …In essence…There will be less fruit from the fruited plain and fewer amber waves of grain.

Hidden Imam
The Shi’ite strand of Islam believes in the Twelfth Imam, also known as the Hidden Imam and the Mahdi. The Hidden Imam is an historical figure born in 869 A.D. who disappeared in 941 A.D. His disappearance is referred to as the Occultation. Twelver Shi’ites believe that the Hidden Imam will appear, with Jesus Christ as his sidekick, to bring justice to the world. They also contend that they should hasten the return of the Hidden Imam by creating the proper conditions. This mainly involves slaughtering non-Moslems or forcing them to convert to Islam. 

It was also in 2011 that I was introduced to…the fact that Egypt imports half its food….a line of enquiry that became a lecture entitled “The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse

Jesus provides some crossover to the dominant Sunni brand of Islam which has re-established its caliphate in the Euphrates Valley. In this branch of the belief system, the caliphate will win a battle in the town of Dabiq in northern Syria and then goes on to sack Istanbul. An anti-Messiah, known in Muslim apocalyptic literature as Dajjal, will come from the Khorasan region of eastern Iran and kill a vast number of the caliphate’s fighters, until just 5,000 remain, cornered in Jerusalem. Just as Dajjal prepares to finish them off, Jesus -- the second-most-revered prophet in Islam -- will return to Earth, spear Dajjal, and lead the Muslims to victory.

Who are those four horsemen?  A severe, solar-driven cooling is one.  we are going back to the climate of the early 19th… growing conditions will move three hundred miles south from their current position.  The United States will be producing twenty percent less grain by 2030…The second horseman is…population collapse will take the Middle East back to the population levels of the Napoleonic era…The third horseman is our energy supply, Soon oil production will tip into decline and the price rise will resume and accelerate … to maintain a high level of civilisation …The fourth horseman is the Pakistani nuclear bomb program…

Hidden Heat
Rational people abandon ideas when facts prove them wrong, as per John Maynard Keynes...Unfortunately...to avoid the mental distress of cognitive dissonance, warmers have to believe that the absence of the heat that their climate models have predicted is due to that heat being “hidden”. 

The high priests of the warmers have told their faithful that …the hidden heat will eventually come out of wherever it is hiding with a rush, making conditions far more dire than they had previously predicted. 

The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse come from the Book of Revelation, the last chapter of the Bible… also warns of another beast with these words:
And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads.
What has seven heads?  The Standing Committee of the Chinese Communist Party.  In 2012, the number of members of that committee was reduced from nine to seven, no doubt to properly align with Biblical prophecy.

Unfortunately we live on the same planet as a couple of apocalyptic cults which find the existence of non-believers an affront to their particular belief system. One cult fantasises about executing non-believers, the other does it in imaginative ways. Both cults need to believe in hidden things. Both are best avoided."

And what is the seven-headed dragon going to do to disturb the peace of the world?  They are going to invade Japanese territory 
We…should be boycotting China and... the funding of the Chinese war machine... To be completely morally virtuous, you will have to make the effort required to make sure that nothing of Chinese origin ever enters your possession. "

David Archibald, a Visiting Fellow at the Institute of World Politics in Washington, D.C., He is also the founder of the website www.boycott-china.net

Saturday, February 28, 2015



Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer!



THE BBC NEWS                  FRIDAY DECEMBER 1 2006

Sceptics: Cards on the table please!

Richard Black
Richard Black
"Climate sceptics" would do society a favour, argues our environment correspondent Richard Black, if they would open their claims to scrutiny that science is biased against them.

 To slag off those holding an opposite point of view as idiots, frauds, careerists or worse is not taking the world anywhere constructive 
Another week, another article written on the science of climate change; another invitation for a barrage of email abuse from the great open prairies of the internet, where ardent catastrophist does battle with equally ardent sceptic and the humble journalist is skewered on the horns of both.

An ex-colleague of mine used to groan in frustration at the playground language which has now, unfortunately, become almost routine in exchanges on climate issues.

His point was that most people involved in the field were trying to do their honest best; to assume otherwise, and to slag off those holding an opposite point of view as idiots, frauds, careerists or worse was not taking the world anywhere constructive.
While sharing his frustrations, I can understand the passions involved.
If you accept the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) consensus view of climate science, humankind is involved in an unprecedented and highly risky experiment with the only ecosphere it has, and climate sceptics are simply vandals laying a tree trunk across the train tracks which society must traverse to escape its fiery grave.
 It is as though the apple tree, rather than the fruits, were rotten 

If you dissent from the consensus, you take the view that public opinion and much of politics has embarked on a wild decarbonising goose chase which will break economies, restrict personal movement and distract resources from other important societal challenges.

When this fundamental divide erupts in parliaments, in media, in alehouse arguments, that is fair enough; much of society works, for better or worse, on the basis of airing disagreements and having a good old rant, with your ability to shout loudly outweighing the intrinsic merit of your argument.
It is not, however, the way that science should be.

Strange fruit
Of all the accusations made by the diverse community of climate sceptics, the most damaging by far is that the institutions of science have become biased against research which questions the IPCC consensus, or which builds alternative explanations for the warming we have seen over the last century or so, and the other physical trends which go along with it.
George Bush and Tony Blair. Image: Getty
Politicians can be out of step with one another on climate issues
Here, in the internet prairie, we find comments such as: "Science has become as blatantly biased in the direction of tragedy as television. But, given the way we fund and reward science and scientists, it was inevitable."
We find the IPCC criticised along the lines that it is "...an artfully constructed presentation of just the science that supports the fear of human-induced climate change. It is as one sided as a legal brief, which it resembles."
We find blanket condemnations such as: "We know that one's career and income are closely related to one's position on global warming."

These, aimed at the heart of science, are serious accusations. It is as though the apple tree, rather than the fruits, were rotten.

Inclusive process
Now, if political parties hear only the arguments they want to hear, that is the way of the world.
If two politicians look at the same evidence and come honestly to opposing conclusions, that is also the way of the world; after all, finance ministers have been conducting experiments with economies since governments existed, and still there is no universally agreed blueprint for building an economy which brings happiness to the citizenry.

Equally, it is entirely natural that some media organisations which traditionally plough a slanted furrow should find suitable angles on climate issues.
Scientist. Image: Getty
 Journals are meant to publish the best research irrespective of whether it accepts that the sky is blue, or finds it could really be green 
That one newspaper, say, should commission articles on climate science from people with a vested interest in business as usual, while another censors columns which are not lurid enough for its catastrophe-driven climate theology, should not surprise anyone.

No, it is the accusations of scientific bias which hit hardest.
Science is supposed to be evidence-based, open, inclusive.
Journals are meant to publish the best research irrespective of whether it accepts that the sky is blue, or finds it could really be green. Scientific conferences should showcase the full panoply of thought in a given field; the societal remit of consensus bodies such as the IPCC is to consider all the evidence, not just the convenient bits.

So the accusations that all is not well at the heart of climate science, and that censorship is rife in organisations which award research grants, the editorial boards of journals and the committees of the IPCC, should be examined seriously....

Open door

For our part - the Science and Nature team on this website - we undertake to deal with what you send in seriously.
For your part, I ask for two things.

Firstly, focus on science, and leave to one side, for all the reasons given above, issues concerning possible bias in politics, the media or the wider spheres of society.

Secondly, be selective. "Evidence" does not mean links to blogs, websites, other news articles, or vague rambling condemnations of science and scientists; it means some sort of documentary proof. Fewer and better leads will make our initial sifting much more effective.

I don't expect this exercise to change the tone of wider climate discourse one iota. Sceptics and catastrophists will still make their arguments, I'm sure, with the full armouries of vim and vitriol at their disposal; emails of abuse will still reverberate around the blogosphere.
But if research is being skewed and distorted, we ought to know, because good climate science is the key to good climate policy.
If it is not, then the most damaging accusation raised by the sceptical community will have been laid to rest. 


Wednesday, February 25, 2015


"Willie Soon is a highly original, laterally thinking and communicative solar physicist who epitomizes the balanced theoretical-empirical, agnostic approach that all scientists should apply to scientific issues that relate to societal matters.”


Tuesday, February 24, 2015


"Willie Soon .... forms  part  of  a  quartet with Fred Singer, Richard Lindzen and Roy Spencer – as an equal member of the four U.S. climate scientists who are most respected by their international peers"
                           --  Bob Carter     February 2015

Carter's claim eclipses in absurdity even Monckton's delusional view of himself as Prime Minister Thatcher's military and  economics adviser. Contrast and compare:           
"Among the few skeptics on climate change who count as real players in the underlying scientific game is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and a prolific and respected author of peer-reviewed papers on the atmospheric sciences, MIT’s Richard Lindzen.

Lindzen stands out like a gilded lightning rod atop a pyramid whose scientific facade is propped up by a rubbly Flintstone fill of politically appointed TV weathermen, geologists, and mining engineers righteously defending the turf (and production prospects) of coal and tar sand miners....  he has alienated many...by committing the unpardonable political sin of allowing scientific facts to change his mind."
                              -- Russell Seitz       March 2008

Monday, February 23, 2015



"how many times have we had a “consensus” of opinion only later to find that consensus overturned? Well there’s plate tectonicsphlogistonEugenicsEarth centric universestress caused ulcers, and now cholesterol." 


Forget Willie Soon's bad ink in The New York Times, and Climate Research  editors resigning en masse to protest his end run around peer review.  God is on his side, says Calvinist luminary E. Calvin Beisner, ThD. ,who last year canonized  Roy Spencer as 'Outstanding Evangelical Climate Scientist of the Year.' and elevated Delaware's politically appointed State Climatologist  to Fellow of The Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation.

Now it's Willie's turn. If anything beats apotheosis in Vegas, it's having the last journal you published in propelled into the Science Citations stratosphere by an Act of God. 

According to the Reverend Doctor Beisner Willie's recent paper with Viscount Monckton et al appeared in
'Science Bulletin (formerly Chinese Science Bulletin), "the Orient's equivalent of Science or Nature," as co-author William Briggs, a statistician, describes it.'
Here, from The Christian Post, is Dominionist divine Beisner's take on why Willie must be right, and everybody else's climate models are engines of preterition hateful to God and unfit to be seen in Christendom:

"On the heels of the Vatican's announcement that the Pope intends to urge support for an international agreement to fight global warming by reducing human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) from fossil-fuel energy use, a new peer-reviewed scientific paper reveals powerful evidence that CO2 emissions contribute far less to global warming than widely thought.
The paper, "Why models run hot: results from an irreducibly simple climate model," appeared in the January 8 edition of Science Bulletin (formerly Chinese Science Bulletin), "the Orient's equivalent of Science or Nature," as co-author William Briggs, a statistician, describes it.
Briggs's co-authors are Harvard-Smithsonian astrophysicist Dr. Willie Soon, British journalist and mathematician Christopher Monckton of the Science and Public Policy Institute, and University of Delaware Professor of Climatology Dr. David R. Legates, a Senior Fellow of The Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation.
The authors set out to explain why the computer models on which the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and others who believe rising atmospheric (CO2) concentrations will cause dangerously high global warming simulate increases far in excess of what is observed, as shown in this graph:
Medium term global temperature trendsMedium term global temperature trend projections from January 1990 to October 2014.They conclude that it's because the models all assume that feedbacks—the many ways the climate system responds to changes within it—on balance magnify any warming that takes place, whereas observations indicate that they reduce it instead.
This would make the climate system, like other natural systems, robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, i.e., would allow it to vary but within bounds. The opposite assumption would make it prone to catastrophe driven by "runaway positive feedback loops."...
The Biblical worldview … suggests that the wise Designer of Earth's climate system, like any skillful engineer, would have equipped it with balancing positive and negative feedback mechanisms that would make the whole robust, self-regulating, and self-correcting. 
The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other climate alarmists, however, all depend for their projections of dangerous warming on computer climate models that have a strong bias toward positive feedbacks...
Climate scientists around the world are reducing their estimates of climate sensitivity. The implication is that whatever harms are alleged to result from manmade global warming must also be reduced. And that makes it more difficult to justify the hundreds of billions, or trillions, of dollars global warming alarmists want us to spend to reduce CO2 emissions...

Sunday, February 22, 2015


It's only a matter of time before the usual climate loons hijack Mike Rampino's latest paper, but bravo to him anyway for his December Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society paper  announcing something refreshingly new under the sun 

Forget Nemesis encounters doing in the dinosaurs--Mike doesn't do existential threat inflation by halves.

Instead, try gross ( hundreds of Kelvins ) heating of the Earth's entire core by sporadic infall and annihilation of clumps of  WIMP dark matter  as the solar system traverses the galactic plane.  Mike hypothesizes that the big delta T could drive accelerated tectonics and rifting, leading to or exacerbating extinction events  large and small:

Wheras  ordinary  solar system  dark matter flux annihilation is estimated, assuming  ta ab=∼0.34, ρ 0.3=1, V300 =1, mX =15–100 GeV and the cross section of iron  σN  to be ~10 to the minus  32 cm2, to warm earth's core by only four ten thousandths of the current geothermal flux, (Mack, Beacom & Bertone 2007).

Rampino reckons that 
For encounters with dense clumps of DM, however, with coreDM densities up to 10^9 times the average (Silk & Stebbins 1993)...up to 10^19 W of internal heating is possible during clump crossing, with clumps encountered every 30–100 Myr (Collar 1996)

here's the abstract :

Disc dark matter in the Galaxy and potential cycles of extraterrestrial impacts, mass extinctions and geological events

  1. Michael R. Rampino1,2,3,
  1. 1Department of Biology, New York University, New York, NY 10003, USA
  2. 2Department of Environmental Studies, New York University, New York, NY 10003, USA
  3. 3NASA, Goddard Institute for Space Studies, 2880 Broadway, New York, 
  • Accepted 2014 December 30. Received In original form 2014 November 4.published online February 18, 2015.


A cycle in the range of 26–30 Myr has been reported in mass extinctions, and terrestrial impact cratering may exhibit a similar cycle of 31 ± 5 Myr. These cycles have been attributed to the Sun's vertical oscillations through the Galactic disc, estimated to take from ∼30 to 42 Myr between Galactic plane crossings. Near the Galactic mid-plane, the Solar system's Oort Cloud comets could be perturbed by Galactic tidal forces, and possibly a thin dark matter (DM) disc, which might produce periodic comet showers and extinctions on the Earth. Passage of the Earth through especially dense clumps of DM, composed of Weakly Interacting Massive Particles (WIMPs) in the Galactic plane, could also lead to heating in the core of the planet through capture and subsequent annihilation of DM particles. This new source of periodic heating in the Earth's interior might explain a similar ∼30 Myr periodicity observed in terrestrial geologic activity, which may also be involved in extinctions. These results suggest that cycles of geological and biological evolution on the Earth may be partly controlled by the rhythms of Galactic dynamics.