GLEICK AS DON QUIXOTE, FIGHTING DELUSIONAL WINDMILLS


On the Gleick FakeGate farce, Judith Curry has the post, Why target Heartland? in which she asks:

<blockquote>Who would you target?

…In the U.S. anyways, who (individual organization) has been most effective at challenging the IPCC consensus science in the public debate on climate change?

Peter Gleick seems to think it is Heartland Institute.  Even among the libertarian think tank/advocacy groups, Heartland would not be at the top of my list…

…What about bloggers such as Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre?

What about skeptical scientists such as Richard Lindzen and Roy Spencer?

And what of the people in the (relative) middle, e.g. Revkin, Curry, Pielkes, Randy Olson?

Now THIS is an “I told ya so” for me.

From the moment I heard of the fraud, before anyone knew it was Gleick, I am on record as saying that all this doesn’t mean a damned thing, because Heartland wasn’t in the top 20 of effective skeptical forces of nature.  I asked “What the heck was anyone going after Heartland for? If they were going to go after someone, the most effective were Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre.

I find it very enlightening that the one person involved who would ask the same question is the President at Heartland.  HE could see that Heartland’s piffling dollars were not a factor, and that Heartland’s efforts simply weren’t doing anything measurable to injure the warmist cause.

But I know exactly why Gleick did it:  The warmists in feeding off each other, long ago came to the conclusion that “big industry and its think tanks” were funding skeptics right and left.  That meme has been around for a decade or more – without one shred of evidence.  The warmist idiots never got around to producing any evidence, but they nevertheless never let go of the idea.

VAMINOS, SANCHO PANZA!
So, here came Gleick, all frustrated at the demise of the warmist’s monopoly on the climate soap box, carrying the absolute wrong concept, and out to destroy the “windmills” – his (and the common) delusions of what they imagined was the funnel of skeptical activity: Heartland.

It simply has not occur to any of them that they are up against two bloggers who are doing it gratis.  And their own emails.

THE DEVIL IS IN THE EMAILS
Even Watts and McIntyre take a back seat to Climategate and the Hockey Team with their ultimate foot-in-mouth “Mike’s Nature trick to hide the decline”.  Till Climategate, all Watts and McIntyre were doing was slingshots from the barrricades; none of it made inroads.  Not directly.  It was ony by being PESTS that their efforts paid off.  Even while 100% ruling the roost in the world of the IPCC, climatology, and funding, The Hockey Team began to freak out.

But Gleick can’t undo Climategate.  He can’t go back in time and tell Phil Jones to not write that email.  But Glieck doesn’t know that, even to this day.  To him it is the industrial bottomless money that killed the warmist mojo.  And THAT he could do something about.

Except: The money from industry was all a warmist delusion, and he bought into it, hook line and Sing Sing.

I imagine more persons than just Gleick thought about doing just what he did.  He was just the only one stupid enough to do it.

Steve Garcia

Advertisements

6 responses to “GLEICK AS DON QUIXOTE, FIGHTING DELUSIONAL WINDMILLS

  1. I drop this here only because I can’t see where to drop a response to your response wrt the meteoric impact at the Younger Dryas, on WUWT:

    The emptying of the Agassiz Sea/Lake, the creation of the Okotoks Erratic Train, both catastrophic flood events, are around the same 12.9K YBP. Over the years the timing seems to be getting more refined, but as a geologist I know that we refine what we think we already know, rather than redetermine what might be. Still, the “best” evidence so far is that somewhere in the 12.9k YBP both events occurred. Which is not to say that a meteoric event of that time caused them, at all.

    It is more reasonable to think that a continuation of end of ice age melting reached a threshold and ice dams holding back large amounts of freshwater simply failed, than to posit a sudden catastrophic event that overwhelmed the stabilized drainage. Occam’s Razor and all that. Thresholds and tipping points do exist, however. In the case of the Okotoks Erratic Train, there was a sudden trigger, for certain: the blocks of ice that carried the larger rock required very deep waters, very rapid transit and rapid, near-simultaneous deposition to account for the conditions in which they are found. A cascading series of ice dam failures is generally believed to be the reason, and as I have personally looked at a number of valleys with clear glacial lake silt deposits WITHOUT EMBEDDED PEBBLES OR STONE (!) I know that a number of these low energy environments existed prior to the western Canadian flood. Something changed.

    What I wonder if a meteoric impact could not initially cause a brief heating event, say if it were oceanic rather than land based. The 1998 El Nino kicked global temperatures for about a year. What if we are looking to something that overwhelmed the meltwater drainage system on the order of a year or two?

    Timing, they say, is everything. Maybe it makes a difference if a meteorite hits in the summer rather than the winter, and in the ocean, rather than the land.

    Just thinking. You seem to have a longer term interest in the subject.

  2. Steve

    Just saw your comments over at Climate Etc regarding CO2 levels in the past.

    I don’t know if you ever caught my article on this which, with the comments, is a very comprehensive resource on the subject. We were fortunate to have Ernst Beck participate in what must have been one of his last entries before his sad death.

    http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/03/06/historic-variations-in-co2-measurements/

    The accepted levels for 120 years of scientific measurement was around 400ppm. Within the article I demonstrate how Callendar (whose archives I researched) cherry picked an artificially low level which Keeling subsequently used.
    tonyb

  3. Tony –

    First off I found an ebook version of Huxley’s book “Physiography – An Introduction to the Study of Nature (1883)” at http://tiny.cc/btx7aw.

    I am cross-posting at The Air Vent in the comments for the above mentioned post.

    Steve

  4. Hi Steve

    I managed to borrow some of these old books from our library and they make interesting reading.

    The physics of course say that co2 levels can’t possibly jump around like that shown in the historic readings.

    What worrires me is that people were happily measuring co2 with increasing accuracy from around 1820, and were sophisticated enough to take into account even the gas lights ion factories when measuring for indstrial purposes.

    Measurements were taken by many renowned scientists and the accepted limit was around 400ppm. Then along came Keeling-who had no experience whatsoever of measuring co2-and managed to measure it ‘accurately’ immediately. He of course took personal advice from Callendar(its in his archives) who believed the limits to be around 290ppm when the charts clearly show this was a substantial underestimate.

    Personally I would like to see these historic measurements independently audited-ice core validation is very weak stuff. All the best
    tonyb

    • tonyb –

      I just approved your comment from 16 months ago. Apologies, but I honestly never saw it listed.

      All the thousands 400+s in Germany early in the 1900s should have perked somebody up. Having seen just a few photos of the volumes of crap people were putting in the air back then, it is unbelievable that anyone can think we’ve been on a steady up-slope of worse and worse air. Since the USA’s Clean Air Act we have SO much better air to breathe. But no one wants to give credit to us for that. As it stands, we in the USA could eliminate CO2 and other emissions to zero, and it wouldn’t make a difference to world air equality or global warming. (I 100% categorically dispute any CO2-warming connection.)

      I agree with you on the ice cores. All proxies make assumptions. With tree rings the assumption is what, specifically? That rainfall is a constant. This is so patently false no one who is asked the question, “Is rainfall a constant over the years and centuries?” could answer in the positive. But they let dendroclimatologists claim that every day – and get away with it. Without that assumption, dendroclimatology doesn’t even exist. But look at biologists: They do the opposite. They assume that temperature is a constant, so that they can use tree rings as a proxy for precipitation. When you have two variables A and B, no one on Earth can possibly distinguish past history of trees and which tree rings represent how much rainfall and how much temperature.

      With ice cores – first of all the first decades of any ice core are worthless. So they start at some point already in the past and compare one ice core to another they believe they have nailed. But if that other was in another valley, that valley’s snowfall is very likely to be different. Look at ANY rainfall map for ANY day or year for ANY region of even flat areas, and what do you see? Great variations within a 10-mile radius. Extrapolating from one location to another is a fool’s errand. Extrapolating from Antarctica or Greenland (both of which disagree mightily with each other) to the entire world is a farce.

      But they also make assumptions about the air in the ice core, that it is virgin air. Jawaworski, who is an ice core expert, in that same paper explains all the vagaries that are just all assumed to never occur.

      IMHO, climatology is a cocktail of assumptions, all made by an inside group to make their science seem more important than it is. They tried global cooling scares back in the ‘170 , and those made no impression anywhere. Then they found that global warming got some attention – and more importantly, MONEY. So they have been barkers in a side show ever since, duping the ignorant marks in every town they’ve passed through.

      Few of them seem to care that they are whores for the money. As long as the money keeps flowing in, who cares about scientific integrity?

      I’ll close with this Feynman quote I found today:

      “The scientist has a lot of experience with ignorance and doubt and uncertainty, and this experience is of very great importance, I think. When a scientist doesn’t know the answer to a problem, he is ignorant. When he has a hunch as to what the result is, he is uncertain. And when he is pretty darn sure of what the result is going to be, he is in some doubt. We have found it of paramount importance that in order to progress we must recognize the ignorance and leave room for doubt. Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty — some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain.”

      — Richard Feynman

  5. Tony –
    (I have now posted my own Callendar – Slocum post, which was in my drafts. I had thought I’d posted it a bit a go.)

    I have been involved in kiln, paint curing oven, heat treating ovens, drying ovens and catalytic oxidizer (incinerator) designs, though only occasionally the top man on any projects. I am familiar with some of what they would have been doing, back in the early 1800s. In ovens it is important to take measurements of air flow and gases. Local measurements might or might not have been done with portable sensors. Today we would just spring for the money and put sensors in fixed locations. If the sensors are properly designed they will do what you ask them to do, portable or fixed. I am impressed that early on they were able to refine the accuracy so much.

    I don’t trust Keeling’s measurements, especially at Mauna Loa – see my comment on your post at AV. No curve can be that regular. Except if it is coming from a model with simple assumed base values. That curve is fake.

    I accept Jaworowski’s criticisms of the ice cores – that if those things are not considered and accounted for the measurements are simply based on guessed-at assumptions.

    Add to that this: One of the things I really got into about the time of Climategate 2 was tree-rings as proxies. OY VEY is that a problem area. The only time there was correlation even was from about 1880 to 1940. Since 1940 – and unavoidably obvious from 1960 – there not only has there not been correlation, but the tree-rings have been going downward at as steep an incline as the temps going up. The Climategate 1 “hide the decline” using “Mike’s Nature trick” was exactly about this particular issue. Add to that the very real fact that tree-rings are also used as proxies for precipitation. Anyone with a lick of sense knows that a single measured value over time cannot be a proxy for more than one ’cause.’ Why not? Because they would have to be able to discern how much of each ’cause’ was occurring at every point in time – and this is literally impossible.

    May I ask you to continue this commenting at that other post?

    Steve Garcia

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s