Friday, August 16, 2019


The following appeared this week in a Nature Communications article entitled 
Discrepancy in scientific authority and media visibility 
of climate change scientists and contrarians :

Understanding Earth’s coupled human–environmental systems requires broad and deep knowledge of processes occurring across a range of scales—from microscopic chemical processes to macroscopic thermodynamic flows and human consumption and land-use trends that span the entire global system52. The monumental task of drawing together and integrating expertise across numerous research domains will require intense trust-based collaboration across disciplinary, organizational, and political boundaries35. To this end, the consortium science framework53—whereby teams of teams organize around a common goal, with a mission to share returns both within and beyond organizational boundaries—is an appropriate model for facilitating cross-disciplinary knowledge exchange and achieving the transformative breakthroughs needed to address this grand challenge. We see this collaborative pattern in the structure of citations within the broader Climate Change Science community documented here (Fig. 7), but not within the Climate Change Contrarian community, which is too small to encompass the complexity required to grapple with the fundamental issues of CC science.

The response ? A famously sedulous fabricator of flatulent whigmaleeries has submitted this 6,183 word foofaraw to the journal's Editors :
Fraud, breach of right of privacy and libel by Nature Communications @NatureComms
Elisa de Ranieri, editor-in-chief, Nature Communications, 
David Gevaux, chief “physical-sciences” editor, Fiona Gillespie, managing editor, Jasper Franke, associate editor,“Earth team”, Alexander Michael Petersen, asst. professor, engineering, Emmanuel M. Vincent, “climate communications”, Anthony LeRoy Westerling

15 August 2019
Mesdames, gentlemen,
Fraud, breach of right of privacy and libel by Nature Communications
My attention has been drawn to a purported “peer-reviewed” “research” “study” for which the addressees hereof are jointly and severally responsible. Publication of the purported “study”, actively and widely marketed on the homepage of Nature Communications as well as on the co-authors’ websites and curricula vitae, is unlawful at criminal as well as at civil law.

The purported “study”, entitled Discrepancy in scientific authority and media visibility of climate change scientists and contrarians was prominently posted online by Nature Communications at
The journal, its editors names supra and the three authors of the purported “study” are guilty of conspiracy to commit fraud by misrepresentation and by abuse of public trust on multiple counts evidenced later herein. 

Unless within seven days I shall have received from each of the addressees a written apology for their role in the fraud and an undertaking that the offending “study” has been removed permanently from all forms of circulation and will not be reissued under any circumstances or in any form, I shall report the fraud to the Serious Fraud Office, to the Chief Constable of South Gloucestershire, and to Interpol, and shall request that the addressees hereof be added to the list of those under investigation for scientific and financial fraud in connection with the systemic and profitable international over-promotion of the imagined problem of “global warming”.

The said defendants are guilty of breach of my right to privacy in terms of Art. 8, European Human Rights Convention in their widespread circulation without having obtained or even sought my consent (which is for the avoidance of doubt withheld) of a list, including my name, of those described on the Nature Communications homepage as “climate deniers” and in the offending “study” variously as “denialists”, “contrarians” and other derogatory terms calculated in context to lead readers to hold me in hatred, ridicule and contempt. I require within seven days a written undertaking from each addressee that the list will not be further circulated, that each addressee will at once contact all those into whose hands he or she has allowed it to fall and instruct them to destroy the list and to pass on the instruction to all to whom they may have distributed it...

... what purports to be a “peer-reviewed” “research” “study” but is in reality a party political broadcast for the defendants’ extremist, totalitarian viewpoint – that journalists and editors should censor what is, in the journals, the majority view to the effect that we cannot be sure that global warming is chiefly anthropogenic. The fact that that is the majority view, even though journals such as the Nature group have done their malevolent worst only to reflect the defendants’ Party Line in their pages, shows just how little true “consensus” there really is. Indeed, the notion that totalitarians should peddle the idea that there is a consensus, that the debate is over and that the West must be made to suffer for its imagined “climate debt” was first promulgated by a Communist front group in the United Kingdom in 2006...

Here, the defendants recite yet again what that Communist front group proclaimed as the Party Line well over a decade ago: the science is settled (when the defendants know it is not); the consensus is near-unanimous (when the defendants know that it is limited only to the question what fraction of global warming is anthropogenic, and that on that question the defendants are in a tiny, insignificant majority that they are fraudulently presenting as though it were an “overwhelming” majority); and we must act (when in fact we must not act, for if we act we cause needless economic and environmental damage).

With good reason, then, I reiterate the requests set forth at the beginning of this letter. I shall expect answers from each defendant within seven days of the date of this letter.
Yours faithfully,
Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

Tuesday, August 13, 2019

                           FREE RANGE NUT CUTLET FLOATS
                       A MODEST PROPOSAL FOR REDUCING

George Monbiot in The Guardian:

We can’t keep eating as we are – why isn’t the IPCC shouting this from the rooftops? 

It's time we stopped treating soil like dirt 

The official carbon footprint of people in the UK is 5.4 tonnes of carbon dioxide per person per year...  if we counted the “carbon opportunity costs” of our diet, our total footprint would almost triple, to 14.4 tonnes.

Why is this figure so high? Because we eat so much meat and dairy...  the carbon cost of chicken is six times higher than soya, while milk is 15 times higher and beef 73 times.

One kilo of beef protein has a carbon opportunity cost of 1,250kg: that, incredibly, is roughly equal to driving a new car for a year, or to one passenger flying from London to New York and back...

Are we prepared to act on what we know, or will we continue to gorge on the lives of our descendants?

By George, that  is  incredible !

Were his calculus correct, fossil fuel production could be offset entirely by  just 12  of the  17  billion kilos of beef protein eaten annually. Just as well it's not --

The Vegan Zealotariat would have a cow if  chicken'n cheese-eating omnivores turned the world carbon-negative by beefing up Big Macs & bangers with Miracle Meat and shooting more game: by Monbiot's reckoning,  putting  a deer in the larder is like taking a Range Rover off the road.

Monday, August 12, 2019


The Economist August 8

America’s coal capital knows it must rethink its future

In Gillette, Wyoming, many people see a liberal conspiracy at work

Rusty bell climbs a roadside platform and gazes at the sweeping, flower-strewn landscape of northern Wyoming. Immediately before him is a vast hole. Eagle Butte, a canyon of grey and brown rock, is one of the largest coal mines in America. The commissioner of Campbell County calls it a mainstay of the economy. Nearby Gillette, for example, has a swanky recreation centre, decent public-health services, a community college and more, all thanks to coal revenues, he says.
Mr Bell’s problem is that nothing moves in the hole. Yellow lorries on the valley floor look tiny and toylike in the distance. Each is really a giant able to haul a payload of 400 tons. The tyres on each one are more than twice the height of a tall man. But where a shift of 75 workers usually toils, all is still. Where trains 1.5 miles (2.4km) long used to leave from the mine’s edge, their 140 cars brimming with low-sulphur coal, nothing stirs. Buses that bring 8,000 tourists a year to the mine are also locked out.

The operator, Blackjewel, last year shipped 34m tons from Eagle Butte and a sister mine. About 165bn tons of recoverable coal remain under the prairie grass of the wider Powder River basin. In theory that means hundreds of years of digging yet. But in July Blackjewel declared bankruptcy...  Cloud Peak Energy runs three mines nearby and declared bankruptcy in May. Six Wyoming operators have done so since 2015. 

 America consumes 40% less coal than at its peak in 2005. Just over a decade ago, thermal coal produced half the nation’s electricity; today it accounts for little more than a quarter. Many investors are abandoning coal. The only real uncertainty is when digging it will cease to be a significant business. ..

Almost a century ago 860,000 coal miners toiled in America; by January just 53,000 did... The Sierra Club estimates that 239 coal-fired plants survive, down from 600 in 2007...

Academics from Columbia University forecast coal consumption crumbling by another 25% in the coming decade. For Campbell County, which digs two-fifths of America’s coal, that may be the best it can hope for. Many power plants now mix gas with coal, cutting demand. If other energy sources get cheaper, or if congressional Democrats succeed in passing laws designed to limit carbon emissions, demand will fall faster.

Some in Wyoming—which overwhelmingly backed Donald Trump in 2016—see a liberal conspiracy against coal workers and their hardscrabble way of life... Many scoff at curbing carbon emissions. “I’m not sold that the ice caps are melting, most people aren’t persuaded by climate change,” says Phil Christopherson, boss of a group trying to diversify Gillette’s economy.

Such denial helps nobody. Jim Ford, another local who works on diversifying the local economy away from mining, concedes there is “widespread distaste for carbon-flavoured kilowatts, [so] it doesn’t matter what we think.”... Mr Ford describes a $20m international effort at Dry Fork to extract carbon from flue gases while producing marketable products from it. Some local firms hope to use coal to make asphalt, carbon fibre or water filters.

It never will again

Such activities, so far, are small-bore. Mr Von Flatern thus expects tighter belts and rising property taxes to come, because residents cannot expect taxes on minerals (oil, gas and some uranium are also extracted) to keep paying for 58% of all the county’s bills. Wyoming gets an estimated $900m a year in royalties and fees from coal miners. That sum is starting to fall.
The mayor talks of luring firearm-makers or other industries to use Gillette’s railway, roads, airport, energy, skilled labour and water. She notes how trade shows, tourism and conferences are growing. “We know we need to diversify, but it takes time,” she says. And time is short.

Wednesday, August 7, 2019


Geoengineering vs. volcanic activity
  for a cooler climate


Just as Greta Thunberg announced her transatlantic sail to the UN, 114 private jets, and a superyacht armaada generated a kilotonne or more of CO2 transporting 300 guests to ‘Google Camp VII', a seminar at a sybaritic Sicilian resort geared to those too rich & famous to bother with climate change in Davos or Aspen.  To avoid an instant replay of this carbon footprint fiasco, tens of thousands of woke COP-25 delegates must find  organic, biodegradable and renewable ways to get to the far side of the world.

Tuesday, August 6, 2019

                              1,700 WORD WHIGMALEERIE

Saturday, August 3, 2019

                                       POPPER'S PEAK

Nary a week goes by without some climate crank invoking Popper's falsifiability criterion to reject climate models as uncientific.

But the ritual invocation of  the late Sir Karl is by no means limited to the Climate Wars, and it vexes professional philosophers no end, witness Willard's  send -up of the genre at ATTP :

The Popper Ratio 
Posted on by 

I hereby propose the Popper Ratio – (n.) Unit obtained by calculating the number of “popper” in a long-form text compared to the number of times Sir Karl is really cited.

By “really cited” I mean (a) a quote and (b) a reference. No mere mention. No handwaving. Proper quote and citation.
The Ratio is inspired by a SpeedoScience fight between Nassim and Claire. Both misrepresent our curmudgeon. Why? The simplest hypothesis is that paying lip service to authors makes one forget to pay due diligence to their points. 

As a proof of concept, here are the results of a simple search at Claire’s. It may not be an exhausive list. It sure exhausted me. Numbers are involved. Caveat emptor...

All well and good, but how influential has pop Popperology been in the culture wars at large?
The ever useful NYTimes media analytics service casts some very wan light on the subject;
If the Times word-counting software is to be believed, the most invoked  philosophical F-word, 'falisifiable'  has flatlined ince 1970, It simply has not appeared in the newspaper of record in the last half century. Nada.  Zip.
So low are the stakes in the pop philosophy wars that the F-noun 'falsifiability ' enjoyed only one year of postmodern currency in the Times.  Peak Popper came and went in 2013 when it briefly rose from zero to about 200 parts per million of the paper's vocabulary. A great many buzzwords have done better before and since. 


I initially punted on  searching the ‘falsification’  Times timeline, , fearing the legal charge of  'falsification of evidence '  might drown out the Popper signal.

Sure enough, falsification has always been present in the Times vocab,  peaking in the 70’s at about 5X the current rate. – a spike  that could be the real Popper’s Peak.

Tuesday, July 30, 2019

                           WOKE CLIMATOLOGY  IS  NOW  IN


Once you fully understand the climate crisis, you can't un-understand it; you have to do something,  To my critics I say, ‘Spend your time doing something else, because this isn’t going to lead anywhere...’” says Greta

HRH The Duchess of Sussex Introduces The September Issue In Her Own Words
It was in early January, on a cold and blustery London day, that I sat down for a cup of tea with British Vogue’s editor-in-chief, Edward Enninful. What evolved over the next hour was a promising pow wow of two like-minded thinkers, who have much in common, including our love of... how one can shine light in a world filled with seemingly daily darkness. Lofty? Of course. Worth it? Without question.
Within hours of our meeting’s end, we were already texting one another – philosophising about how to communicate this shared understanding and the lens through which we see the world, how to pivot from a perspective of frustration to one of optimism.

Edward Enninful On Why HRH The Duchess Of Sussex Is The Ultimate Force For Change

The ellipsis  the “dot dot dot” that inspires the greatest practice of patience in this digital era.
And then it appeared, EE’s reply: “Yes! I would love for you to be my guest editor.” Sitting on my sofa at home, two dogs nestled across me, I quietly celebrated when the words appeared on my screen.

 Can you get Leonardo  DiCaprio  to be our Method Climatology coach?        

Sunday, July 28, 2019

                      PLAN ICE 911 FROM OUTER SPACE


Polar ice cap-building umbrella wins 
eVolo Skyscraper Competition