What ever you do - do not get your science from the heartland institute

A short video here from heartland doing the usual :

• All climate scientists are communists
• All climate scientists want you to live in a fuel impoverished future
• All climate scientists want you all to die!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLZElcvkEDs


Has the most ridiculous graphic yet seen:

Now you see it

Now you don't

And these are scienists you are supposed to believe!

Good Lord - this is unbelievable.

From the Mending fences thread at wuwt:

Monckton of Brenchley says:

July 19, 2014 at 4:51 pm

Mr Eschenbach continues to be entirely unreasonable. I shall not reply to him further.
Mr Svalgaard will likewise not tempt me to make any replies here. The matter of his conduct is now with my lawyers for their advice and will in due course be drawn to the attention of his university.
Both these two have unjustifiably maligned Dr Evans in the most unpleasant and unjustifiable terms. That is a shame.


lsvalgaard says:

July 19, 2014 at 4:54 pm

Monckton of Brenchley says:
July 19, 2014 at 4:51 pm
Mr Eschenbach continues to be entirely unreasonable. I shall not reply to him further.
It seems you have found a willing stooge in the unpleasant ‘Richard D’.

Richard D says:

July 19, 2014 at 5:27 pm

Monckton of Brenchley says: July 19, 2014 at 4:51 pm
The matter of his conduct is now with my lawyers for their advice and will in due course be drawn to the attention of his university.
__________________________
Excellent

......

and on the blog that does not stop people posting:

....................

lsvalgaard says:

July 19, 2014 at 6:39 pm

[snip - OK enough of this pissing match, the thread is about mending fences, not bashing heads. Kindly dial it back please, and that's not just Leif, all of you. - Anthony]

Anthony Watts says:

July 19, 2014 at 6:56 pm

NOTE: Everybody take a time out. I’m closing this thread for awhile because it is just turning into a war of words about other people, not the science at hand.

-------------------

The Brenchleys, Mcintyres, and  Watts of this scene have thrown the "fraud" word about with abandon when they talk of climate scientists and climate research. But when it happens to one of their own then the courts will be used and the scientist's employers will be informed.

It's nice to know free speech is alive and kicking! 

A strange situation at wuwt - just who can defame and who can sue

The blog controlled by Watts with an iron hand against any "warmist" commenters has got completely out of hand on this thread with respect to his normal acolytes.:

A Cool Question, Answered?

Posted on June 28, 2014 by Guest Blogger

Guest essay by David Archibald

an example:
Monckton of Brenchley says:

July 2, 2014 at 10:54 am

...

However, I have been free to put the other side of the case and, in those circumstances, no action against the blog would be likely to succeed: nor, in those circumstances (nor in any foreseeable circumstances, for our kind host has been remarkably kind and generous to me) would I dream of suing the blog. 

One of the many features of this case that struck the lawyer was the persistence of the perpetrators of the libels when they had been warned off. The courts, he said, would start by taking particular umbrage at any allegation of criminality or dishonesty made against a scientist, whose reputation for honesty is part of his stock-in-trade. But they would be very angry indeed – and that anger would be reflected in the damages – on seeing the sullen determination of the perpetrators, even after it would have become blindingly obvious to the reasonable man that they had no basis for alleging dishonesty, to continue to allege it.
It may have come as something of a surprise to some here that the law applies just as much to widely-circulated blogs as it does to widely-circulated newspapers. But it does. If Dr Evans were minded to pursue this to court, and if he could spare the time from his research to do so, there is only one circumstance – a certain sensitivity in this affair which I came across on analyzing what the perpetrators had said about Dr Evans – in which a judge or jury might not award very substantial damages. And it is precisely to give the principal perpetrator the advantage of that circumstance, in the interest of justice, that I shall be writing to his university once the dust has settled.

(My bolding)

Brenchley has threatened Leif Svalgaard by writing to his university:


This matter now passes to the authorities at the university with which Mr Svalgaard is associated, whose policy on good conduct Mr Svalgaard has grievously breached. I am asking the university to intervene with Mr Svalgaard in the hope that he can persuade him to apologize to Dr Evans and to moderate his language in future.


He has threatened Leif and others with expensive defamation cases:
Monckton of Brenchley says:
July 2, 2014 at 2:02 am

The legal position is now clearer. A grave libel has been committed – not, as I had thought, by only one person here, but by several. It has been persisted in after warnings to desist. The libel is based on a failure to pay close attention to what has already been revealed of Dr Evans’ work, and on a failure to wait for the imminent full disclosure before making serious criminal allegations, which have already begun to be repeated by others.

and summarised by Leif:
lsvalgaard says:

June 30, 2014 at 9:04 am

Here is a collection of comments [unbecoming a gentleman] by Mr Evans’ sidekick:
Monckton of Brenchley says:
June 28, 2014 at 2:44 pm
He is a quack, not a scientist. This was not inadvertence on his part: it was plain wickedness. Nothing he ever says again on any scientific subject can or will be taken seriously. He is finished, dead by his own hand.
Monckton of Brenchley says:
June 28, 2014 at 6:16 pm
Mr Svalgaard can no longer be taken seriously as a scientist.
Monckton of Brenchley says:
June 29, 2014 at 12:47 pm
There are certain minimum standards in scientific discourse, and Mr Svalgaard, here as all too often before, has fallen well below them.
Monckton of Brenchley says:
June 29, 2014 at 2:24 pm
Mr Svalgaard is using incorrect data. Plainly he has an agenda.
Monckton of Brenchley says:
June 30, 2014 at 8:23 am
the rude, hate-filled comments of Mr Svalgaard.


the whole thread is a larf and well worth reading.!!!!!!!!!!! (before the post removal starts!)
---------------------------------------------------------------




Now all this seems so like the Mann defamation actions. Mann is simply defending his reputation as a scientist - his livelihood depends on this. Just how often has the watts blog called him a fraud?
So how can Watts accept the machinations of Brenchley but then write so many articles critical of Manns actions?

Why has the UHI effect stopped for 15+ years?

The Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect.
According to Guru Watts the UHI accounts for a large part of the temperature increase seen since the 1970s ...
Using WUWT as a resource of facts!

(update 2013/10/22 - To find the posts just do a search on watts site.)

Climate Craziness of the week – with the physical signature of UHI staring them right in the face, Mann & Borenstein go with their ‘gut’ instincts

Posted on April 12, 2013 by Anthony Watts  

 

A new paper showing how UHI and energy consumption are linked to long-term temperature change in China

Posted on October 2, 2012 by Anthony Watts

 

 

Recent paper demonstrates relationship between temperature and population density in the UHI of New Delhi

Posted on August 31, 2012 by Anthony Watts  

 

Spencer shows compelling evidence of UHI in CRUTem3 data

Posted on March 30, 2012 by Anthony Watts  

 

UHI in South Korea – responsible for over half of the warming

Posted on December 29, 2011 by Anthony Watts  

 

+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=

And much more!!!!!

BUT....

 

 the same impeccable resource says

Update and confirmation of ‘Global warming stopped 16 years ago’ aka ‘the pause’

Posted on October 21, 2012 by Anthony Watts  

 

The Met office responds to ‘Global warming stopped 16 years ago’

Posted on October 15, 2012 by Anthony Watts  

 

Svensmark: “global warming stopped and a cooling is beginning” – “enjoy global warming while it lasts”

Posted on September 10, 2009 by Anthony Watts  

 

Sticking it to the Mann

Posted on August 26, 2013 by Anthony Watts

Global warming has stopped. Get over it.  A response to Michael Mann in the Richmond Times Dispatch By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley The collapsed global warming scare certainly has some odd characters coming to its defense in this paper

 

Digital Signal Processing analysis of global temperature data time series suggests global cooling ahead

Posted on September 11, 2013 by Anthony Watts  

 

Russian Scientists say period of global cooling ahead due to changes in the sun

Posted on April 29, 2013 by Anthony Watts

 

 

+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=

And much more!!!!!

BUT....

there have been 16 years of global temperature standstill (according to Watts and his sources). So what stopped the Urban heat island effect 16 years ago. Did the population stop growing? Were no more carparks/roads/offices built?

We need to be told!

 

 Watts and co seem to sometimes believe in temperature increase due to UHI and sometimes to suggest that there is no increase.

 

Watts and co seem to sometimes believe in temperature measurements ("there is no temperature increase")  and sometimes state categorically that accurate temperature measurements are impossible.

The heartland institute

Not a bad income for some :
Latreece Reed $91,164
Eli Lehrer $155,150
Vince Galbiati $125,000
Jim Lakely $81,113
Sam Karnick $92,700
Diane Bast $96,512
Joseph Bast $160,000
Kevin Fitzgerald  $113300
etc

How much do CRU employees make:
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2011/12/02/71-of-cru-salaries-paid-by-grants/
Academic, Teaching and Research

Professor £54133 to £125000
Reader £45336 to £57431
Research and Analogous 9 £45336 to £57431
Research and Analogous 7 £29972 to £37990
Research and Analogous 6 £23661 to £31798

But their total Cost of Salaries and Employment
Academic,teaching and research £231945
Research and analogous £298755
====================

$88,000 Surface Stations Project (Anthony Watts of WUWT)
Payments to ItWorks/IntelliWeather to create web site featuring data from NOAA’s new network of surface stations. First payment of $44,000 in January, second of same amount contingent on fundraising around mid-year.

$75,000 K-12 Climate Education Project
Payments to David Wojick for K-12 Global Warming Lesson Plan modules plus a Website featuring the same. Estimate quarterly payments of $25,000 in June, September, and December.
=====================
So called peer review (how much faith can be placed in a review of sombody whose reward is paid by an organisation with strong anti science beliefs?)
Willie Soon contributor - paid by review - assume $1500/year
Craig Loehle contributor - paid by review - assume $1500/year
David Watkins contributor - paid by review - assume $1500/year
=====================

The story here is not so much the funding (which is not great) nor the amounts. It shows, in my opinion, the two faced opinions of Watts and followers. Its good to hack CRU, it's not illegal but heartland - that's totally differnt!
More here together with the documents:
http://www.desmogblog.com/heartland-insider-exposes-institute-s-budget-and-strategy
A good report here
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i1OHQWK4TJALYxaP8WjUijdBq0rg?docId=b8b17e53a4e041a9b742a79a3f2be5f1

WUWT Revisionism double standards - updated

Richard Allan says: September 20, 2011 at 9:27 am

I was surprised that this paper was mis-interpreted as suggesting negative cloud feedback. This is a basic error by the author of the post that has been highlighted by many contributors including Roy Spencer.

REPLY: Dr. Allan, thank you for visiting and for your correction. Please note that I’ve made an update to the post, removing the word negative from the headline and including why I interpreted the paper to demonstrate a negative feedback for clouds. I welcome your thoughts. It seems to me that if clouds had a positive feedback, the dips in 1998 and 2010 in your figure 7 would be peaks rather than deep valleys.
...- Anthony



Bishop Hill and the skeptical cookbook


Posted on September 20, 2011 by Anthony Watts

Oh this is fun, Bishop Hill catches John Cook’s “Skeptical Science” in a revisionism gaffe using The Wayback Machine.
===========================

And of course the factual post converted to a "learning" exercise:
Its snowing CO2 in the antarctic!!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/09/co2-condensation-in-antarctica-at-113f/


My post on Curry point out that watts and his ilk have been demanding peer review by blog. They get it with Best ... and then complain bitterly about Best  pre-publishing - you just cannot win!

thefordprefect | November 1, 2011 at 9:07 am |

Watts
you/your accolytes have been calling for peer review by blog for a very long time (recent postings):
Peer review is dead, long live blog review
Posted on September 21, 2011 by Anthony Watts
By Marc Hendrickx writing in ABC’s The Drum
An opportunity for online peer review
Posted on March 27, 2011 by Anthony Watts
I have been asked to present this for review by readers here, and to solicit critical comments for the purpose of improving the presentation.
Now, apart from the press release what is the difference with the BEST release?
From my reading the press release is all about try to stop them misrepresenting the information (as happened with the CRU emails).
Why are you so critical of best when they seem to be doing what you want (e.g. listening to McIntyre)?

How "much" data must UEA retain - about 4 cu metres! and 3 tonnes

Assumptions:
Most early records would have been on paper. Perhaps one sheet/month?
1000 stations (out of perhaps 5000)for 50 years to 1980s (i.e. the first record produced in the 1930s on average)
Making no allowance for dividers for filing or shelves etc. Just the paper:

50 years
12 months/y
1 A4 sheet/month
1000 Stations
5 cm/ream (measured)
500 sheets/ream
21 width A4
29.5 height A4

sheets total 600000
reams 1200
height 60 metres
volume 3.717 cu metres

Taking this a step further
using 80 gsm paper
total area 37170.00 sq metres
total weight 2.97 tonnes

I do rather wonder where McIntyre would have kept all that paper!

So to preserve raw data would take a storage space of a lot more than 4cu metres.
These sheets would have been transcribed into computer format, possibly with errors added and errors corrected so the first computer record is NOT the raw data.
If you had to move office and you thought that you would never go back to your 4 metres^3 of raw data because your computer data was correct. And you had admin complaining that there was not room for your tatty bits of paper,. And it needed sorting and indexing to be useful. I think binning it would be a sensible option.

And if you wanted raw data the NMCs (National Meteorological Centres) would still have a copy so nothing is lost

Now if someone comes along and demands that you provide the raw data. What do you give them - your modified computer data, or the raw data?
Well they asked for the raw so how much will that cost:
£1800 @ £1.5 per ream.
+time+photocopy cost

and how long will that take:

600000 sheets of perhaps dog-eared paper (would require manual feeding)
5 seconds per sheet
6.5 working hours per day
is about 128 days photocopying

Probably manageable but would the recipients be happy with your 4 cu metres and 3 tonnes of data???????????

It is also interesting that with all these £1000000s being paid to UEA for climate research that they JUST purchased a new scanner in 2008 for a project and they were going to use it to ILLEGALLY(?) scan a document to satisfy McIntyre:

. This email came to CRU last night.
From: Steve McIntyre [[1] mailto:stephen.mcintyre@utoronto.ca]
Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 5:09 PM
To: [2]alan.xxxxxx@uea.ac.uk
Subject: Farmer et al 1989
Dear Sir, Can you please send me a pdf of the Farmer et al 1989, cited in Folland
andPArker 1995, which, in turn is cited in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. Thanks,
Steve McIntyre...
CRU has just the one copy of this! We've just got a new scanner for a project, so someone here is going to try this out - and scan the ~150pp. I'm doing this as this is one of the project reports that I wished I'd written up. It's got all the bucket equations,

-----------------------------
A reply!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Jeff Alberts
Posted Mar 14, 2010 at 9:25 PM | Permalink | Reply
Something a few grad students could knock out. What’s the big deal?