Pssst, sshhhushh, it’s secret. Don’t tell anyone about this. more
nonsciense science secrecy by cultists and ideologues. First, the Royal Society wants this meeting kept secret: The highest quality climate science
At least they met but why the secrecy. This is by Nigel Lawson in the latest edition of The Spectator:
The long-discussed meeting between a group of climate scientists and Fellows of the Royal Society on the one side, and me and some colleagues from my think-tank, the Global Warming Policy Foundation on the other, has now at last taken place. It was held behind closed doors in a committee room at the House of Lords, the secrecy — no press present — at the insistence of the Royal Society Fellows, an insistence I find puzzling given the clear public interest in the issue of climate change in general and climate change policy in particular.
The origins go back almost a year, to a lecture by the president of the Royal Society, the biologist Sir Paul Nurse. In it he chose to launch a gratuitous personal attack on me, making a number of palpably false allegations. I wrote to him, pointing out his errors, and he replied — somewhat changing his tune — conceding that ‘it is quite legitimate for both of us to talk about climate change policy, but before doing so we need to have access to the highest quality climate science. I am not sure you are receiving the best advice, and I would be very happy to put you in contact with distinguished active climate research scientists if you think that would be useful.’
So now the highest quality climate science has been provided but we don’t know what it was or how Nigel Lawson replied. All I do know is that Lawson has not changed his mind. But again, why the secrecy?
UPDATE: Josh writes:
Glad that’s settled.
Next, polar bear ‘science’ by press release at the Guardian. Dr Susan Crockford puts them straight. No polar bear data. No on ground research. They may have gotten eaten if they had I guess, due to the actual, you know, big increase in numbers.
Then, papers are retracted due to bad science: Science self-corrects: bogus study claiming Roundup tolerant GMO corn causes cancer to be retracted
Whoo boy. This sounds like a familiar climate episode. Andrew Revkin tips me to this retraction of a paper that got screaming headlines worldwide, and says this along with the photo. (Warning don’t click “continue reading” while eating Thanksgiving dinner).
I’m pleased to have had a chance to to review this new paper just published in the Journal of Climate:
An Evaluation of Decadal Probability Forecasts from State-of-the-Art Climate Models Suckling, Emma B., Leonard A. Smith, 2013: An Evaluation of Decadal Probability Forecasts from State-of-the-Art Climate Models*. J. Climate, 26, 9334–9347. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00485.1
Yes, there’s a parallel universe out there: Sleepwalking to extinction, or maybe communism?
From Sleepwalking to Extinction. Climate Madness is coming, and to save us Richard Smith says we need an eco-socialist civilization! Jo Nova thinks we need people who can add up numbers. […]
UPDATE: Censorship too? NASA : Access Denied
NASA has blocked access to their fraudulent US temperature data. I was able to get to it on November 3, but after bugging Gavin about their cheating on RC and twitter, the data has been blocked.
More fraud or just incompetence? Both, but mostly nonsense: Mind Boggling Incompetence Or Fraud At NOAA
NOAA shows that summer 2012 had the second hottest afternoons in US history, just behind 1936.
This is complete nonsense. The graph below plots the average summer maximum temperature at all US HCN stations which have been continuously operative since at least 1930. Summer, 2012 wasn’t in the top five, and was more than two degrees cooler than 1936.
As far as number of hot days go, summer 2012 didn’t even rank in the top ten for number of 95 degree temperature readings.
How does NOAA get away with publishing blatantly inaccurate information like this?
Below is the station list used in this analysis