Archive for the ‘blogger’ Category

Paul Homewood

Bio….

……….

……….

……….

anonymous blogger of notalotofpeopleknowthat

started blogging as early August 2011 but has since reached global interest with two features in arch denialist Christopher Booker’s Telegraph column in February 2014.

Climategate, the sequel: How we are STILL being tricked with flawed data on global warming
Something very odd has been going on with the temperature data relied on by the world’s scientists, writes Christopher Booker

 

The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever
New data shows that the “vanishing” of polar ice is not the result of runaway global warming

Paul has also posted on WUWT

No bio is supplied but judging from his blog he is British and has some training in statistics although not the vigorous kind where bias and cherry picking is avoided. James Delingpole however is able to flesh out Paul mentioning he is a retired accountant.

The wording used for blog titles:

Massive Tampering With Temperatures In South America
Temperature Adjustment Scandal Goes Viral

would indicate that he believes in a conspiracy by the scientific establishment.

Paul also dislikes wind turbines.

NASA being at the centre of the ‘scandal’ have a FAQ that deals with adjusting raw data.

 
A big question is whether or not Paul should be dismissed as a crank or if he has stumbled on a couple of anomalies. Clearly the language used by Paul in his blog would indicate he is in denial concerning AGW however there may be a case that temperature records in some locations need further investigation to explain anomalies. A peer reviewed paper even in Energy and Environment would at least open up his research to more qualified criticism.
 

Advertisements

Willis Eschenbach

Willis Eschenbach, blogger with a certificate in massage and a B.A. in Psychology.Has worked recently as an Accounts/IT Senior Manager with South Pacific Oil. A profile can be found at desmogblog.com/willis-eschenbach. Has produced no peer-reviewed papers on climate science according to the criteria set by Skeptical Science- although see Willis Eschenbach comment [at the bottom].

[I’m a] Heretic. I am neither an anthopogenic global warming (AGW) supporter nor a skeptic, I believe the entire current climate paradigm is incorrect. from WUWT

Willis speaking at Heartland conference.

Islands float! From WUWT

Willis explains how Floating Islands work, and he should know, he spent a lot of time working on one. He also explains why CO2 isn’t an issue. He writes:

Does increased CO2 cause increased sea level rise?

Short answer, data to date says no. There has been no acceleration the rate of sea level rise. Sea level has been rising for centuries. But the rate of the rise has not changed a whole lot. Both tidal stations and satellites show no increase in the historic rate of sea level rise, in either the short or long term.

A summary of his views can be found at WUWT from 2010 although Willis is complex, he believes that there has been an increase in temperature in the last century yet sets about proving that Australia is cooling. Take any one of his views on climate change and it is easily adapted into something slightly different in his numerous blogs.

A comment on Judith Currie’ blog revealing deeper insight into Willis’ attitude to mainstream climate change science-

This comparison, of people objecting to bogus science and the kind of trickery exposed by Climategate on the one hand, to tobacco companies on the other hand, is a pile of reeking crap that has no place on a scientific website.

Judith, your guest posts were just getting ridiculous. Now they are getting downright insulting. Trying to peddle this “skeptics = tobacco companies” claim is not only anti-scientific. It is a slap in the face to honest scientists and interested researchers like myself.

This is the lowest you’ve gone, trying to disguise this shameless attack as science. This is scraping the bottom, not of the pool, but of the septic tank.

This congenital idiot truly thinks climate alarmists have standing to accuse skeptics of misusing the science? After the alarmists have indulged in turning off the air conditioning to convince Senators that it’s warming, after their cherry picking and the obstruction and packing peer-review panels and trying to intimidate editors and the publication of meaningless papers and the subversion of the IPCC process by the Jesus paper and everything else the alarmists have done, this unpleasant fool compares me and the other skeptic to the tobacco companies, and not Jones, Mann, and company?

 

Blogger main claim to fame is being the drop off for the ‘climategate’ emails which included a visit by the police concerning the cyber theft. However he did feel victimised leading to his acting solicitor to post a statement [12/18/2011]

Roger has been publicly libelled and abused across the world to the detriment of his reputation and has suffered distress, inconvenience and damage to property. The worst such offender appears to have been a contributor at ‘Scienceblogs’.

His privacy has been invaded and he and his family have been intimidated.

It is possible that treatment of that nature could be meted out to any persons expressing sceptical views about the so called climate consensus.

A clear signal needs to be sent out that such treatment is an abuse of process and a negation of free speech and democratic freedoms.

Which was reproduced by the kindly Delingpole in his Telegraph post it was issued by Stephen P R Wilde. LLB (Hons.), Solicitor.[and meteorologist!]

In Roger’s ‘About Me’ he says

I’m a qualified engineer and a graduate of the History and Philosophy of Science. I’m interested in finding out how the solar system works and how Earth is affected by changes in it.

Although his blog is mainly about AGW denial but he does a few long term weather predictions based on his new science.

Beliefs centre on CO2 GHG theory being all wrong and holds Ferenc Miskolczi as a hero.

Links concerning Tallbloke and the ‘climategate’ crime [theft of emails that is] are here and the Guardian.

Maurizio Morabito is a [self proclaimed] banking consultant, journalist and blogger although on a lowly rung of public exposure and opinion.

Frequently found on the Met Office blog posting opinion and disinformation under blog name Omnologos. His Website / Blog

From a purely logical point of view, AGW (and especially, catastrophic AGW) can almost certainly be disproved using the argument ad providentiam.

That’s a concept I have mentioned sometimes in the past in some part of the web, not under that name of course. Very briefly, it goes like this: philosophically speaking, an interpretation of the world is fallacious when it implies the existence of divine, or divine-like intervention.

And so for example, AGW is logically fallacious as it has providential undertones. In other words, for (catastrophic) AGW to be upon us right now, something akin to a God or gods (or god-like creatures) has/have to be taking care of us. Because for (catastrophic) AGW to be happening, several amazing coincidences must have recently happened:

[66 reasons [and growing] or 66 common fallacies feature as part of his argument on his website]

All in all, belief in AGW implies belief in a highly-improbable series of lucky discoveries, developments and various other incidents to happen (or not to happen) just at the right time. That is called “Providence” and it is strong evidence for the existence of a Divine Being. But since such “evidence” is a contradiction in terms, then for catastrophic AGW to be happening right now, that’s a logical impossibility.

His sophist argument that AGW (and potential human catastrophe that may follow) is similar to religious belief because it requires a divine influence to -read the signs and save us- rendering all research into the science of climate illogical and therefore false. This makes a curious counter-point to an argument of his [now deleted] but referenced here that says you can’t logically be an atheist because if you you don’t believe in god you switch that belief to the other divine power of luck.

Guest post on WUWT. appearing to defend the honour of climate sceptics.

Article from Spiked online – about the consensus on global cooling being covered up. The best check of the 70s global cooling ‘consensus’ is to research the number of science papers from the period [not newspaper articles] concerned with global cooling and compare them with the number of papers concerned with global warming of the period. The same article appeared in Spectator making Maurizo a real journalist back in 2009. UPDATE– Maurizio with relentless journalistic doggedness tracked down a killer document- the CIA wrote a report with their concern of climate change back in the  1970s that dealt with global cooling……….     ……   …  .

UPDATE Nov. 2012 Maurizio hits the mainstream- following on from a non-news conspiracy of the BBC seminar withholding the names of the attendees Maurizio usurped the refusal of a FOI by using the WAYBACKMACHINE and coming with the 28 names [28gate (yawn)] thus guaranteeing favour with James Delingpole in the Telegraph blog and Anthony Watts at WUWT

The rather dull tale of intrigue can be found here the Harmless Skies blog the only curiosity is an interview with an attendee Richard D North, not to be confused with Richard North who hangs with Christopher Booker, Richard D is a climate change skeptic sceptic and spoke scathingly of the BBC judgement that they shouldn’t give equal airtime to dissenting opinion, so why didn’t someone ask him who else attended? It seems the chance was missed [or ignored] read Richard D’s account of BBC dealings at….Harmless Sky.

Dr. David Stockwell (Ecological Modeler) who has published research articles on climate change in international journals, author of a 2006 book on “niche modeling”. After receiving his Ph.D. degree in Ecosystem Dynamics from the Australian National University in 1992, he worked as a consultant until moving to the San Diego Supercomputer Center at University of California San Diego in 1997. There he continued his work developing computational and data intensive methods of ecological niche modelling using museum collections data.

“The increase in temperature due to the greenhouse effect has a maximum. At this maximum, additional greenhouse gas absorbers do not increase the temperature to the limits detectable in this setup.”

“Two claims made in the IPCC Chapter 3 Section 3.4 p40 of WG1 are obviously false.”

“My position is that anthropogenic global warming is an artifact of dodgy modeling and statistics. All of my publications discrediting extreme claims have been vindicated. (Many more claims of AGW have been discredited, these are just mine.)” Clearly if they were vindicated it would change scientific thinking, what he actually means is that criticisms of other papers i.e. peer-review, has led to corrections being made.- not the abandonment of scientific theory.

His Blog

despite being extremely critical of AGW has joint authored papers such as

BioScience 57(3):227-236. 2007
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1641/B570306

Forecasting the Effects of Global Warming on Biodiversity

Although most papers are on ecology [computer] modelling a few delve into climate science such as

Key Evidence for the Accumulative Model of High Solar Influence on Global Temperature

Authors: David R.B. Stockwell

Here we present three key pieces of empirical evidence for a solar origin of recent and paleoclimate global temperature change, caused by amplification of forcings over time by the accumulation of heat in the ocean. Firstly, variations in global temperature at all time scales are more correlated with the accumulated solar anomaly than with direct solar radiation. Secondly, accumulated solar anomaly and sunspot count fits the global temperature from 1900, including the rapid increase in temperature since 1950, and the flat temperature since the turn of the century. The third, crucial piece of evidence is a 90$^{\circ}$ shift in the phase of the response of temperature to the 11 year solar cycle. These results, together with previous physical justifications, show that the accumulation of solar anomaly is a viable explanation for climate change without recourse to changes in heat-trapping greenhouse gasses.http://vixra.org/pdf/1108.0032v1.pdf

Except the temperature has still increased despite decreased solar radiation. None the less one of the few sceptics with real and appropriate qualifications.

UPDATE- Guest Post on WUWT [instant fail!]

The validity of the homogenization process is also being challenged in a talk I am giving shortly in Sydney, at the annual conference of the Australian Environment Foundation on the 30th of October 2012, based on a manuscript uploaded to the viXra archive, called “Is Temperature or the Temperature Record Rising?”

The Australian Environment Foundation is a skeptic front organisation.

Nigel Calder

Nigel Calder, science writer, blogger who contributed to the flawed Great Global Warming Swindle- skeptic who believes the ice-age is the real threat and that cosmic rays are the cause of GW.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigel_Calder

http://calderup.wordpress.com for his blog