PAGES2017: New Cherry Pie

Climate Audit

Rosanne D’Arrigo once explained to an astounded National Academy of Sciences panel that you had to pick cherries if you wanted to make cherry pie – a practice followed by D’Arrigo and Jacoby who, for their reconstructions, selected tree ring chronologies which went the “right” way and discarded those that went the wrong way – a technique which will result in hockey sticks even from random red noise.  Her statement caused a flurry of excitement among Climategate correspondents, but unfortunately the NAS panel didn’t address or explain the defects in this technique to the lignumphilous paleoclimate community.

My long-standing recommendation to the paleoclimate community has been to define a class of proxy using ex ante criteria e.g. treeline black spruce chronologies, Antarctic ice cores etc., but once the ex ante criterion is selected, use a “simple” method on all members of the class.  The benefits of such a procedure seem…

View original post 528 more words

liberal democracy and its apparent paradoxes


I’m sad to see one of my favorite philosophers associated publicly with a stupid idea he never held. The philosopher is Karl Popper and the idea is that “we must not tolerate the intolerant”. If you like that dumb idea, you should read Herbert Marcuse’s drearily authoritarian essay “Repressive Tolerance” instead.

Here is what Popper actually wrote, notably in a footnote (4, to chapter 7), in The Open Society and its Enemies, Volume 1:

Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument…

View original post 661 more words

Spatio-temporal chaos

Climate Etc.

by Tomas Milanovic

There are scientists who equate chaos to randomness. I’d put that category at 90%.

There are scientists who equate chaos with Lorenz. They have seen the butterfly attractor picture one day or the other. They know that chaos is not randomness but not much more. I’d put that category at 9%.

There are then scientists who know what is chaos and really understand it. I’d put that category at 1% and much less for the climate scientists.

The chaos one could and should we be talking about as far as climate is concerned is spatio-temporal chaos.

View original post 2,039 more words

Arctic Sea Ice: Self-Oscillating System

Science Matters

The Climate System is Self-Oscillating: Sea Ice Proves It.

Scientists have studied the Arctic for a long time at the prestigious AARI: Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute St. Petersburg, Russia. V. F. Zakharov has published a complete description supported by research findings under this title: Sea Ice In the Climate System A Russian View (here)

Below I provide excerpts from this extensive analysis to form a synopsis of their view: Component parts of the climate system interact so that Arctic Sea Ice varies within a range constrained by those internal forces.

Self-Oscillating Sea Ice System Self-Oscillating Sea Ice System

The most probable regulator of the physical geographical process can be found from analysis of the relationships between the components of the climate system. It is not necessary to investigate the cause-effect relationships between all these components in succession. It is sufficient to choose one of them, let us say sea ice, and…

View original post 546 more words

What do we know about Arctic sea ice trends?

Climate Etc.

by Dr. Ronan Connolly & Dr. Michael Connolly

Satellite observations indicate that the average Arctic sea ice extent has generally decreased since the start of the satellite records in October 1978. Is this period long enough to assess whether the current sea level trend is unusual, and to what extent the decline is caused by humans?

View original post 2,497 more words

Should there be Nazi or white supremacist speech bans? No!

Why Evolution Is True

I have to say that I’ve been pretty disappointed the past few days with those readers who have said that Nazi and white supremacist speech should be banned, and that the U.S. should enact “hate speech” laws, similar to those in Canada and some European countries, making certain sentiments simply illegal to express in public. Likewise with symbols like Nazi flags with swastikas. The reasons offered were that such “hate speech” is likely to cause violence, either now or in the future. These people were, in effect, asking for a reinterpretation of the First Amendment, which allows all public speech save that that constitutes personal harassment in the workplace, is defamatory, or is a direct instigation of violence on the spot: “fighting words”.

How quickly liberals become authoritarians and opponents of free speech when they hear speech that they consider vile!

Well, what happened in Charlottesville was not a violation…

View original post 1,902 more words