Unequivocal Equivocation – an open letter to Dr. Trenberth

A must-read essay for everyone...

The “null hypothesis” in science is the condition that would result if what you are trying to establish is not true. For example, if your hypothesis is that air pressure affects plant growth rates, the null hypothesis is that air pressure has no effect on plant growth rates. Once you have both hypotheses, then you can see which hypothesis is supported by the evidence.

UPDATE: I just sent the above essay to the Climate Change wing of our university, and told them, in no uncertain terms, to get a reality check and stop wasting our tuition fees. I will post their reply when and if I get it.

Global Warming Apology?

I suppose it is too much to ask for an apology from the crazy warmists?

Ours is not a 'House of Commons' - commoners have common sense from whence the parlance is derived. Ours is a House of Fools for they do not represent the people and have not represented the people for a few decades now. Whilst the Union is craving for some proper leadership in tune with the fiddles of the people, we are given nothing but pathetic puppets who would not be able to tell the difference between a spine and a crime, where they forced to do so.

Remarkably they seem to harbour under the illusion that the current status quo will continue.

The blowing up of people

Now I am firmly on the sceptical side of the AGW debate and I know what constitutes proper science and what is complete and utter bullshit. But this must be the most tasteless fucking thing I have ever seen. Sure we do not agree on AGW but here you are blowing people up, to poke fun at us who don't believe in your thesis - and you think that is going to strengthen your position? How completely fucking retarded are you people exactly? I know you are all die-hard left but you guys seem to be beyond stupid, clinically and mentally incapacitated, seems a more appropriate depiction.

Richard Curtis’s eco-prop video confirms the worst impression people have of greenies, namely that, behind all the self-righteous rhetoric, they are misanthropic and nihilistic.

Small AGW victories count and Graph design can be misleading

I was greatly surprised, and delighted, this morning when I ripped open a popular-science magazine to which my parents subscribe. They like to stay in the loop when it comes to science but they have gone with the most politically correct and left-leaning (you know the type who proclaim to be 'progressive' but mean that we should all shut the **** up and follow their rules for you see they know what is best for us proles) periodical there is out there. If there is anything sensational going on with AGW - birds are flying into concentrated blocks of CO2 - you can bet this bollocks magazine is on it. They never seem to check any of the most ridiculous claims they relate as "news" and you can be quite sure that they would never, ever, break or even scratch the "consensus" on global warming.

Which leads us to this morning's joyful occasion; there was a letter from a reader saying precisely what I have been thinking about this magazine. How it is so hopelessly entangled in its own dogmatic ways that it really is not any fun to read anymore. Never questioning a topic, taking the opposite view for good or for bad, and always -always- delivering some expert who of course has a government grant to back-up him up on what he or she is saying; naturally, not challenging government policy etcetera. A breath of fresh air this letter was and even more so because it was written by a professor of particle physics at a very respected university. Well, what does a particle physicist know about global warming I hear you say? A damn sight more than Chris Huhne that's for sure (and if you honestly did think that rhetorical query to yourself, even subconsciously, you are bloody stupid - truly). Anyone who is in the loop when it comes to science knows that whatever you do, you do not stick your nose out and go against the flow on AGW. You are seen as a maverick, a raving loony charlatan, who bought his degree online. Or worse yet: did your PhD in something useful. The horror!

This man should be knighted for his bravery.

PS. Here is a very easy trick for you non-scientists if you want an easy way to distinguish proper science (most of the time) from bogus politically motivated hacks. Scientists, the real ones without an agenda (and I am sad to say some with an agenda who have no regard for scientific impartiality and process), use a program called MATLAB (short for Matrix Laboratory) to make their graphs and tables. This program is not that difficult to learn, but most people don't for the simple reason that Excel is 10 times easier to use. Which is why hacks and warmists usually use Excel for their graphs and tables. The difference is very easy to spot; you all recognise an Excel graph, it looks very slick and I do not really need to describe one for you. The one below is of a typical MATLAB graph; quite grubby, not very pleasing to the eye but it does the job and that is the key point. Next time you think someone is talking bollocks and is backing it up with dodgy data: have a look at his graphs and check to see if he knows his shit or is talking shit. I think it noteworthy to add that the now infamous 'Hockey Stick Graph' was made in Excel (most of the versions I have seen at least). Sort of says it all really.

Observe though: this is more of a guideline than a rule.

How Carbon Trade Works

H/T: WUWT

Courageous and Cautious

Napoleon once said that the two things he most envied about the British were their Caution and their Courage, it made them invincible.

Where Napoleon left of scare tactics took up the reigns.

Y2K, AGW, Swine Flu and there will probably be another virus scare next year, just as we had SARS, Foot-and-Mouth, Avian Flu and Mad Cow Disease etc. The government’s response will be predictable — total over-reaction, again. I wish people could start seeing the trend on scare tactics. Suffice to say if Napoleon knew that this was all it took to bring the British to their knees, we would all be enjoying Chicken Marengo right now, in our freezing little huts seemingly flabbergasted at the gargantuan incompetence of our governments - present and past.

THIS is how you do science

• A false hypothesis remains false no matter how many people say it is true.
• An unproven hypothesis remains unproven no matter how many people claim it is proven.

Brothers in Arms

Apologies for very sparse blogging over the past few days, this trend will unfortunately continue until the next week as the university has decided to give all students on my course a "nice christmas present" - bastards...

Any who, the thought of the day is this; why is it only the Telegraph and the Spectator who are even remotely willing to look at the other wise of the Climate Change debate. They are the only two papers willing to speculate and consider the repercussions of the Climategate scandal while the rest of the media are publishing articles of scientists screaming down the dissenters, calling them heretics and 'flat-earth-deniers'. Mr. Columbus ought to give them a run for their money. Incidentally it was Gordon who called sceptics "flat-earth-deniers" which is akin to a overweight person calling an obese person 'fat'. Oh, the irony.