Climate Scientists Behaiving Badly… Blandely?

Share Button

Haven’t done a climate post in a while. A couple of things caught my eye.

First, we have the ever entertaining William “The Wiki-Conqueror”  Connolley at it again.  This is a warmist was banned from editing Wikipedia because he was summarily deleting the profiles of people who didn’t tow the line on the alarmist version of climate science. The ban has since been lifted, but there was a stipulation. He was not allowed to make any changed to information on anyone who is still alive.


But people die. One such person was French Climatologist Marcel Leroux. He wrote a book critical of his peers called “Global Warming — Myth or Reality? : The Erring Ways of Climatology“. Connolley says the person was deleted because the page “just offensive“….

No, he doesn’t actually say that about Leroux’s Wiki page. He says this:

“But sometimes a page exists, about a real person or event, and there is doubt about whether the page is desirable or not”.



Do you see what I just did there?  I corrected the inaccurate information – I didn’t delete it. But people like Connolley fear and dissent  on the consensus. There can be no evidence that such a thing even exists. Which is why those that can’t get deleted from the web are labeled “deniers”, even if they are not deniers that CO2 has an effect of the atmosphere and can cause warming.


And speaking of consensus,  Kevin Trenberth, the head of the climate analysis section at the US National Center for Atmospheric Research, is bummed. Apparently the next IPCC report is not going to be nearly as alarmist as the last one.


“There are more people, it’s more diffuse, it’s harder to gain a consensus – quite frankly I find the whole process very depressing. The science is solid, but with a larger group it’s harder to reach a consensus, and updates every six years are just too slow. After the fifth assessment, we should push on with a different format.”

Note that he does say the science is “solid”….  So what is he complaining about?

Translated – Our guys are no in control of the IPCC process this time, so we can’t control what will be considered “consensus”. Information will be included that we don’t like, that doesn’t support our doom and gloom narrative.

The IPCC has always been as much about political control as anything. Other people are at the head of the process, and the old guard doesn’t like it.

He’s also upset that, as a result of “Climategate”, the political world is no longer jumping through hoops, or no longer pretending to really, on issues of climate.  From the last link:


Professor Trenberth believes it had a big impact on public debates about climate science. ”It made an immense difference – the level of vitriol and hate we received,” he said. ”Not only do we have waves of attacks when we publish and it ends up on a denialist website, but it has affected politicians.”

The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration recently had its climate change-related research budget slashed by a fifth, affecting Professor Trenberth’s peers, as a result of online campaigns against climate scientists, he said. He believes uncertainties in climate change models scientists rely upon is being falsely inflated as a general uncertainty about the status of climate science.

”With the links between weather and climate for instance – we know they are there, but the specific numbers need work,” Professor Trenberth said.

First. Yes Climategate did have an effect. But I find it interesting that Prof. Trenberth ignores a bigger reality – that, since the good times that were prevalent before “climategate”, pre 2008,  the wealthiest nations in the world have more immediate and pressing concerns, oh, like say the implosion of the EU and the resulting near term worldwide economic collapse, than far off predictions of doom and gloom.

And, one more thing, those who want to link the “crazy weather” to global warming, please note this last sentence from Mr Trenberth:

”With the links between weather and climate for instance – we know they are there, but the specific numbers need work”.

Translated – There is no proof that firmly establishes a link between any of the so called “unprecedented” weather events we’ve seen in the last few years, there is still only the hypothesis. Thing is, the extreme weather events that we see on the news are, as it turns out, not statistically increasing in number. The mid west drought this year is pretty bad, but, I must remind you, there is a long LONG way to go before it even gets close to the drought that occurred in the 1930’s. And no, I’m not talking about the poor farming practices that led to the dust bowl. I’m talking about the meteorological drought.


There are cycles of drought, but this was one of the worst ever recorded. The decade started with dry years in 1930 and 1931 especially in the East. Then, 1934 recorded extremely dry conditions over almost 80 percent of the United States. Extreme drought conditions returned in 1936, 1939 and 1940.



And The Winner Is…..

Share Button

I was in and out of the car tonight, and listened to some of the VP debate. Of course, the partisans on both sides are proclaiming victory.


From what I heard, I know who I will say won this one….


Anyone who didn’t bother to watch or listen to the thing!  It was atrocious.