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 " 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 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.

Saturday, February 21, 2015


Good minions are hard to find, but Singer, Spencer and Soon's failure to recruit a new A-Team of artful dodgers doesn't mean the game is up
Why pay megabucks to cut-outs to publish crap science papers in D-list journals when K Street has discovered nanotech & molecular bio, and ingenious lobbyists can create ad campaigns too small to fail: 


Friday, February 20, 2015


Christopher Booker's chief fanboy, James Delingpole, writes that as 

"a young diarist working for the Daily Telegraph... my bosses dispatched me to cover the Green Party conference... The only thing I remember about the event was... the most repellent fart.  It smelt evil but everyone present politely conspired to pretend that everything was normal. I sense something similar... in the collective efforts present the Green Party as a viable, vibrant and credible force in UK politics... I think they are... the kind of people who flock to... week-long protest camps where they can smoke dope...

This sits oddly with Delingpole's heartwarming account of  the last Heartland Institute meeting, which ended in the Hunter Thompson tradition with his  getting "totally wasted"  on the Las Vegas Strip.

The novice foxhunter's pink exterior and pulpy prose recalls his signature fruit :

It’s just that they’re wet, agonisingly prey to all the usual PC groupthink and frankly a bit thick – “green on the outside, red on the inside”... that doesn’t mean they’re as bad as Karl Marx... No – the Greens are much more dangerous than Karl Marx, because...they are also ideologically opposed to.. economic growth. A vote for the Greens is.. a vote for collectivisation, stagnation and immiseration... an unholy mix of economic illiteracy, pathological altruism, and misanthropy, built on a foundation of ignorance, self-delusion and mendacity.These caring, nurturing hippies have blood on their hands.
If UKIP had a single policy half as lunatic ... it would be front page news for the next four months."

Thursday, February 19, 2015


National Review has ceased publishing the neocon anti-climate science blog  Planet Gore.

The disappearance of the  transcendently corny 'Hot Blog' mirrors the magazine's  implosion.  Since  the  death  of its founder,  William  F. Buckley Jr., NR has shrunk in sensibility as alarmingly as The American Mercury in the aftermath of H.L. Mencken's demise.

Seeking  an explanation, I wrote the blog's last known contributor, Detroit News cartoonist and muscle car maven Henry Payne:
Dear Henry;
As the last person to post a Planet Gore article, how do you construe the blog's disappearance from the NR website ?
Best regards -and keep up the cartoons !
​ Who kindly replied:
Alas, PGore is no more. I think they were stretched too thin on blogs - PGore contributors were me and Greg Pollowitz (with GP mostly doing links to other sites). Then Greg left and they didn't have enough material to sustain traffic. 
I'll continue to contribute to NRO is some other forum - I'm working that out with them. As for the cartoons, they can be found all over starting at my syndicate's site,
Keep up the good WattsUp work, and good to have an ally at Harvard. As a Princeton grad, I know how goofy the Ivies can be - HP
Although I first voted against Al when he ran for Student Council here, and have continued to do so with growing fervor ever since, I am obliged to acknowledge the very sensible verdict he delivered as judge of the closing debate at the 1987 Virginia Tech seminar : "Is Nuclear Winter Real And Relevant ?"  

After hearing hours of argument as to the merits and demerits of global climate models and all the parameters needed to run them, the then Senator and his fellow judge-- and father, Al Gore Senior,  concluded that Sagan's "Apocalyptic predictions" were too uncertain to change the basis of US strategic doctrine.*

Though Planet Gore never proved worth its canonical pitcher of warm spit, its disappearance scarcely threatens the nation's self-parody supply. Its namesake continues to subsidize an entourage of Vice-Presidential historians, PR hacks and agitproparezzi that Dan Quayle and Joe Biden might envy.

*[ CF : Proc. IEEE,  news section March 7 1987]

Saturday, February 14, 2015


Curbing its inner Jacobin, the Guardian has apologized for calls to behead Lord Ridley:

"The blogpost used the zombie analogy to discuss Lord Ridley’s views, illustrated by a photograph taken at a festival of someone carrying a dummy zombie head."

Will this inspire an ecumenical call for the demolition of Notre Dame, so St. Denys can put his head back on?

Leaving Bishop Hill's colleague standing about the Ile de la Cite' 
noggin in hand might give banlieusards odd ideas about what to do when infidel pedestrians walk past wind turbines in Paris' stormier arrondissements.

Friday, February 13, 2015


Michael Lewis Ph.D. whose bio tells us he has:

"dug ditches and washed dishes for minimum wage, sold shoes and tax shelters, and advised people how to make and spend a fortune... partied with rock stars and played Black Jack in Vegas for table limits...studied to become an Episcopal priest ...been ... an Executive gun for hire, and started companies in auto services, fast food, software development, physician administrative services, and the manufacture and sale of industrial and commercial fabric shade structures... 
also deserves credit for putting Paraguay on the Climate Wars map by passing Parana temperature stats from a Pay to Play journal into the undigested sea of bloggerell that is WUWT:
A Conversation with the Author

Guest post by Michael A. Lewis, Ph.D
In a New Year’s Day post, Anthony mounted the Abstract from a Paper titled Warming Power of CO2: Correlations with temperature change. Subsequent comments raised some questions about the Journal citation, International Journal of Geosciences, and the publisher, Scientific Research Publishing.
A commenter wrote that he (or she) had called the listed number for SRP and had not received an answer. I had the same experience. I wrote to the author, Professor Paulo Cesar Soares, and received a nice reply saying that yes he is a retired professor and researcher at the Federal University of Paraná, and he did write the article and published with SRP because they have free access to all Journal articles available to researchers and students alike.
So, the article can be judged on its own merits, and the legitimacy of SRP can be judged on the quality of articles it dispenses.
Note: the journal’s first edition can be seen here (PDF)

Why do crank physics and wierd data outliers  appeal to the editorial consciousness of The Telegraph? Could Christopher Booker be impressed by cost-effectiveness of paying just $150.00 to become a globally published scientist ? 

While Prof. Soares is better known for his work in support of restorative dentistry in Brazil ( CF Brazilian Dental Journal

Print version ISSN 0103-6440

Braz. Dent. J. vol.20 no.1 Ribeirão Preto  2009  

Impact of refrigeration on the surface hardness of hybrid and microfilled composite resins)

the journal whose inaugural issue launched Soares' alternative view of CO2  also elevated :

The Need to Regularise Activities of Illegal Small-Scale Mining in Ghana 

Geochemistry of Termite Hills as a Tool for Geochemical Exploration of Glass Sand in the Iraqi Western Desert  and the

Pedoecological Regularities of Organic Carbon Retention in Estonian Mineral Soils 

into the global policy conversation. 

Thursday, February 12, 2015


Who could possibly dislike an Old Salopian contemporary of Michael Palin witty enough to help found Private Eye in 1961 and remain a permanent feature of the magazine's joke-writing team?

Besides writing Spectator media columns, Sunday Telegraph jazz criticism, political satire for That Was The Week That Was , and seconding the Prince of Wales' fight against Labour's brutalist urban architecture with the 1979 BBC program, City of Towers , this paragon of Pythondom authored The Neophiliacs, an insightful analysis of the role of fantasy in British political life.

His own included: Booker is a scientific illiterate on a par with Bishop Wilburforce. In 2005
this peerless intellectualoid overshot the Antimodernist mark by telling  Telegraph readers that Creationism was OK, and Darwinists 
"rest their case on nothing more than blind faith and unexamined a priori assumptions." 
In 2010 Booker turned his powers of investigation on the chair of the IPCC, whom he accused of corruption, but a British libel judge disagreed, and in 2010, The Daily Telegraph issued an apology and paid about a quarter of a million dollars in legal fees.

Yet the content-challenged Booker continues to write like an angel, and his next satirical project seems made in heaven. What could provide more ample scope for a sequel to The Neophilliacs than the rich fantasy life of his current patron, the Global Warming Policy Foundation?

It's not too late for some Green Lord Copper to gazump the Barclay Brothers & the GWPF by kickstarting Booker's overdue masterpiece! 

Saturday, January 31, 2015


Josh, court jester & cartoonist to sundry 
Newcastle coal barons and the odd viscount
has blown his top again:


Josh Cartoons by Josh

04:59 (9 hours ago)
to seitz
Hi Russell
many thanks for linking to your version of my cartoon, very amusing ;-)

The cartoons are my copyright (see the link to my website below each cartoon) and are allowed to be reproduced on request and with my permission, which in this case was not sought nor granted. So if you can please remove the cartoon I would be grateful.

All the best


Dear Josh ;

Many thanks for for your amusing note; I wish you Godspeed in  producing equally funny cartoons  in the future.

Both parody and satire  constitute copright  fair usage  in reference to any object of public controversy.

This is of course a symmetrical point of copyright law, and you do not require any permission from me  to reproduce it. 

 if  it pains you  to see my fair comment on your fair comment on the copyright work of   Compton, Bennett & Hreinsdottir  in  THE JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH 

Climate driven vertical acceleration of Icelandic crust measured by CGPS geodesy

compared to your cartoon , just ask and I'll remove the link as a courtesy, failing which you can always ask the Bish to take down the original .

Best regards to Matt


  • DOI: 10.1002/2014GL062446

    Friday, January 30, 2015


    Has the irony area of  Josh's brain succumbed to cartoonist spongiform encephaly? Today he smeared BEST author Richard Muller thus:

    Not to be outdone, Watts soon posted this: