by Judith Curry
"The journals want the papers that make the sexiest claims. And scientists believe that the way you succeed is having splashy papers in Science or Nature — it's not bad for them if a paper turns out to be wrong, if it's gotten a lot of attention." - Michael Eisen
Pierre Gosselin writes:
Europe Climate Policy Blows Engine…”Giant Failure” … Scientists “Failed Tricking Their Way Past Democracy” …”Mood Of Resignation”
This is about one of the most damning pieces on the European climate movement I’ve read all year. An atmosphere of resignation is truly sweeping through Germany’s climate movement. Flagship media are waking up.
The Hockey Schtick brings this to our attention. It seems Dr. Roy Spencer was prescient with his observation:
"The most obvious way for warming to be caused naturally is for small, natural fluctuations in the circulation patterns of the atmosphere and ocean to result in a 1% or 2% decrease in global cloud cover. Clouds are the Earth’s sunshade, and if cloud cover changes for any reason, you have global warming — or global cooling."
Why did the Royal Society need secret meetings?
Guest essay by Dr. Tim Ball
Recent events underscore problems with understanding climate and how the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) achieved their deception. Comments about my recent article appreciated it was a synopsis. The problems were central in my presentation to the First Heartland Climate Conference in New York relating to climatology as a generalist discipline in a world that glorifies specialization.
NSIDC cleverly starts their graphs in 1978, the year of peak Arctic ice. This creates the impression that there is a linear downwards trend.
What NSIDC is hiding is that there were satellite measurements much earlier than 1978, which showed that 1978 was the peak ice extent. The graph below is from the 1995 IPCC report. I added the red circle to show NSIDC's misleading start date.
Scientific understanding and faith simultaneously on display:
'For climatologists, the search for an irrefutable "sign" of anthropogenic warming has assumed an almost Biblical intensity.' - Fred Pearce, New Scientist, October 1996
This being near Climategate time, it is worth reflecting upon that heady time in late November 2009 when the world of climate science saw its edifice of assumed scientific integrity broadsided by its own hidden reality.
UPDATED - see below
Monckton provides these slides for discussion along with commentary related to his recent post on CO2 residence time - Anthony
There is about one molecule of 13C in every 100 molecules of CO2, the great majority being 12C. As CO2 concentration increases, the fraction of 13C in the atmosphere decreases – the alleged smoking gun, fingerprint or signature of anthropogenic emission: for the CO2 added by anthropogenic emissions is leaner in 13C than the atmosphere.