Don’t sell your coat!

Harold Ambler’s book  Don’t Sell Your Coat: Surprising Truths About Climate Change contains twelve chapters, each containing details of bad science or bad practice to demonstrate the “dirty pool” the alarmists are prepared to play to keep the scam alive. The saddest part of the story is the fact that the chief culprits are securely based in well funded and prestigious “flagships” of the scientific establishment.

First he provides some perspective on the cycles of climate change. For about three million years the earth has been in a cooler period (an Ice Age), although we are very lucky to be located in a warmer phase, called the Holocene interglacial period which started about 12,000 years ago. The Holocene Optimum, from 8K to 6K years ago was even warmer than the present period. The majority of life forms thrive during these optimums (as indeed will happen if we do get more warming right now). There was a harsher period for about 500 years up to AD 1000 which marked the start of the Medieval Warm Period. The ice melted around Iceland and the Vikings colonised Greenland for 350 years. Then came the Little Ice Age from 1300 to 1850, and then the climate warmed up again.

To keep the current doomsday reporting in perspective he produced a battery of headlines over a period of 100 years to demonstrate that the press has always been beating up stories of impending climate-related disasters, even in this relatively short period, some of these were expected to be caused by cooling, others by warming. Take your pick! Rising CO2 enjoyed a vogue as a harbinger of disaster, but then it turned out that CO2 is not leading temperature trends, but trailing.

Ambler is something of a climate junkie, all his life the Weather Channel was compulsive viewing for him. He notes that the channel has become a huge booster of clarmism, especially by its coverage of  extreme weather events and the relantless barrage of  image of  gigantic pieces of ice falling off glaciers. A few years ago people became concerned about the number of murders the average child sees on TV by age ten, now it would interesting to count the comparable footage on glacial calving, compete with serious if not sinister voiceover.

He has an interesting para on the Maldives. Nils-AxlMorner, a contributing member of the IPCC, measured the sea level on repeated trips to the island and found that in 1970 the sea levels fell 20 cm, almost all at once. Local fishermen confirmed that this was correct, showing him how the contours of the harbours and channels had changed. He recorded no increase in the 39 years since that time.

Has Venice been submerged? asks Ambler. A rhetorical question because he reports that the water comes to the edge of St Marks Square as it has done for centuries. There is concern about the land under the city because Venice may be subsiding but that is a different story.

A recent scare kicked along by Bloomberg News concerns malaria and dengue fever, that are supposed to be on the rise sdue to warming. Paul Reiter, an expert on these matters, felt obliged to resign from the IPCC due to the uncritical treatment of this claim.

In a chapter on the “vanishing ice caps” he explains some of the dynamics of ice movement at the poles, so it is quite possible to have different tendencies at different locations. “But lets stick with the facts. Antarctic sea ice is increasing, and has been during the entire period of satellite measurement. Here’s another fact: the temperature at the South Pole is falling“.

He has a chapter on the gigantic computer models that are used to get a grip on the complexity of climate systems. “Deep Black” in the UK Met Office is one of the largest electricity customers in the nation, consuming 1.2 Metawats, enough power for 100o homes. (Though not homes like the one occupied by Al Gore).

To be continued.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

25 Responses to Don’t sell your coat!

  1. JM

    > found that in 1970 the sea levels fell 20 cm, almost all at once

    That is an extraordinary claim. And it requires extraordinary evidence.

    Where is it? (And no, fisherman’s anecdotes don’t count)

    Rafe, if you want to believe nonsense that’s your business but don’t expect me to take you seriously.

  2. wreckage

    That is an extraordinary claim. And it requires extraordinary evidence.

    Presumably the claim that the level hasn’t changed since is ordinary and hence to be believed in the absence of extraordinary counter-evidence, then, hmm?

    Certain types of island and atoll sink or rise as part of their natural geological life-cycle. Such information is cunningly concealed in books and on the internet, so it’s easy to see how you could have missed it.

  3. Abu Chowdah

    And so it continues. ABC’s headline takes one possible conclusion from a TEN YEAR study on lowering cloud levels.

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-02-25/clouds-dropping-closer-to-earth/3852530

  4. Gab

    Clouds have never ever, in the history of the world parts I, II, III, been this low. I nearly ploughed through a soufflé of clouds tonight on my way home.

  5. mareeS

    We had to drive through awful clouds that had dropped close to earth yesterday between Cowra and Bathurst. I would have said it was rain, but no, it must have been unusually low clouds.

  6. Winston Smith

    I hurt my head running into those clouds last night on the way home from the pub. It could have been the doorframe, but using Occams razor, it must have been ice in the clouds.

  7. Adrien

    I don’t comment much on these anti-AGW threads Rafe. I don’t agree with them, I think it’s propoganda. But I also think it’s useless to argue; and of course my knowledge is not authoratative, I have no real inisght into the the facts of anthropogenic global warming. You might well be right about the science. You’re certainly right about the policy.

    But if the denial of AGW as anything more than a neo-Communist conspiracy is proved to be a PR scam in the furtherance of the short term interests of resource concerns than I wonder what honour such ‘loyal’ posts as these will do to the cause of the philosophical position of such as Karl Popper in the ensuing decades.

    Just a speculatin’

  8. Is “clarmism” a word now?
    If it is, can we also have “clepticism”.
    I’m a “cleptic”.

  9. Blogstrop

    Adrien, that comment is an abdication from exercising discriminating judgement.

  10. duncan

    JM.. do your own research.

    Try looking up Nils-Axel Morner

  11. Rafe

    Adrien, this guy has some points to make. Call that propaganda if you like, after all the original meaning of propaganda is just information. He is a person with a life-long fascination with the weather, a solid left-liberal who for years accepted the orthodox view on AGW until he noticed some details that did not add up. Then like a person pulling on a loose thread of a woollen garment, the whole thing unravelled.

    JM would you like to record your answers to the questions on scientific credibility?

    Incidentally the summary of The Climate Caper is getting steady readership on my website, I hope it is selling copies as well!

  12. Eyrie

    Adrien, You just showed your knowledge is non existent.
    Come back when you’ve learned some physics and meteorology. AGW is the largest pile of horseshit dumped on humanity since organised religion.

  13. Entropy

    I find it hard to believe sea level would drop 20 cm. if true, a more likely scenario is that the land rose 20 cm.

  14. MACK1

    “Surprising Truths About Climate Change” – the sad part is that anyone who has been reading the science throughout will not be the least surprised. For example, a number of infectious diseases experts got together and refuted the dengue fever nonsense a few years ago:
    http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/190_05_020309/rus10887_fm.html
    It is cut and dried, black and white – there is no increased risk. This is an excellent example of people talking pure politics.

  15. Rabz

    The central pillar of catastrophic AGW is that ‘warming’ is a bad thing.

    However, that’s your biggest problem right there – all the historical evidence suggests the exact opposite.

    Funny that.

    But, hey yeah, as we all know the science is settled, deniers should be locked up and or shot and more laws, taxes, regulations, less individual freedom etc is the only way we can stop this looming climate catastrophe.

    “the largest pile of horseshit dumped on humanity”, indeed.

  16. ar

    And so it continues. ABC’s headline takes one possible conclusion from a TEN YEAR study on lowering cloud levels.

    Well, duh. It makes sense the clouds are getting lower since sea levels are rising.

  17. papachango

    I love the ominous pic of threatening low clouds over a city – almost looks like the big bad alien spaceship in ‘Independence Day’

    So the clouds will lower by a few centimeters, and this will offset any CO2 caused temperature increases?

    This is a bad thing how? Will it confuse some brids who will them migrate too late and freeze to death or something?

    It sounds more like a self-regulating mechanism, whoch runs counter to the tipping point theory of runaway global warming, heating us to hell at exponentially increasing rates.

    In other news, BBC reckons horses will be smaller as a result of AGW. Sheesh.

  18. Gab

    …and the latest “research”: humans are getting shorter due to climate change. (I’m not making this up, btw).

  19. johno

    How can you call yourself a real climate change scientist if you don’t make stuff up. Really1 Have a good look at yourself. 🙂

  20. papachango

    Well thats good then Gab- we’ll shrink in proportion to the horses, so we will still be able to go for pony rides…

  21. duncan

    The good thing about shrinking, is that we won’t get our feet wet and have our heads stuck in the clouds at the same time.

    Its clearly the human species evolving to changing conditions.

  22. Rafe
    I think your comments about “imaginative criticism” on the rathouse are quite true and profound. On my investigations the level of socialism within a democracy do not indicate much at all. Every democracy has socialism and capitalism but the degrees differ and it comes down to government management moreso than to the type of system. There are quite successful countries that are more socialist than us like Sweden using taxes as % of GDP just as there are unsuccessful ones like Greece. Australia and US according to CIA world fact book have the same consumption share for the lowest 10% of people by income. But then if you look at the poverty rate “6.7 percent of all people, or 20.5 million people, lived in deep poverty (had income below one-half the poverty threshold, or $11,157 for a family of four)” which is less than one person recieving full newstart allowance in Australia it indicates some of that share might be public services which at the moment we can do far more cheaply like education and healthcare. So Australia’s socialism versus US socialism is far better even though they are both at equal levels. The primary concern is good government or bad government not the type of government. Sweden which is far more socialist at least can balance a budget unlike us or the US at the moment. Of course this is not to say that excessive socialism is bad which it is but that socialism should improve the lives of those who for whatever reason can’t take care of themselves not to support corporate welfare as is more the case in the US than with us. It should also be realised it will be cheaper to take care of your poor rather than let them degenerate too much turning into theives etc. Too many arguements are had about socialism versus capitalism not management which is the key.

  23. jtfsoon

    Too many arguements are had about socialism versus capitalism not management which is the key.

    Kelly, not to be snarky, but remind us again why you support Ron Paul and not Mitt Romney then?

  24. Soon
    Mainly because I believe Ron Paul would be a better manager most likely to balance the budget. The most pressing issue is war which the US wants to continuously be in and Mitt Romney if his rhetoric is to be believed will run the deficit up higher by attacking Iran. I am also almost totally against corporate welfare and Ron Paul is the only one to even recognise that. I don’t actually believe all the free market rhetoric that much because looking at efficiencies with health or education it comes to government management not the type of system as to the outcomes.

Comments are closed.