Research and background of what Psuedoscience is and what it isn't.

Distinguishing Science and Pseudoscience *(1)

*(1) http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html
Further explanations can be found here:
(2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience
(3) http://www.chem1.com/acad/sci/pseudosci.html
(4) http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/pseudo/scipseud.htm
Rory Coker, Ph.D.

(Try changing the words psuedoscience for global warming and see what the results are. My comments in brackets and underlined at the end of each title - Mike SBT Busby).

The word "pseudo" means fake. The surest way to spot a fake is to know as much as possible about the real thing—in this case, about science itself. Knowing science does not mean simply knowing scientific facts (such as the distance from earth to sun, the age of the earth, the distinction between mammal and reptile, etc.) It means understanding the nature of science—the criteria of evidence, the design of meaningful experiments, the weighing of possibilities, the testing of hypotheses, the establishment of theories, the many aspects of scientific methods that make it possible to draw reliable conclusions about the physical universe.

Because the media bombard us with nonsense, it is useful to consider the earmarks of pseudoscience. The presence of even one of these should arouse great suspicion. On the other hand, material displaying none of these flaws might still be pseudoscience, because its adherents invent new ways to fool themselves every day. Most of the examples in this article are related to my field of physics, but similar beliefs and behavior are associated with iridology, medical astrology, meridian therapy, reflexology, subluxation-based chiropractic, therapeutic touch, and other health-related pseudosciences.

Pseudoscience displays an indifference to facts. (Just about every cAGW paper presented contains some of these elements)
Instead of bothering to consult reference works or investigating directly, its advocates simply spout bogus "facts" where needed. These fictions are often central to the pseudoscientist's argument and conclusions. Moreover, pseudoscientists rarely revise. The first edition of a pseudoscience book is almost always the last, even though the book remains in print for decades or even centuries. Even books with obvious mistakes, errors, and misprints on every page may be reprinted as is, over and over. Compare this to science textbooks that see a new edition every few years because of the rapid accumulation of new facts and insights.

Pseudoscience "research" is invariably sloppy. (CRU/IPCC - Hockey Stick as an example there are many more)
Pseudoscientists clip newspaper reports, collect hearsay, cite other pseudoscience books, and pore over ancient religious or mythological works. They rarely or never make an independent investigation to check their sources.

Pseudoscience begins with a hypothesis—usually one which is appealing emotionally, (Every press release claiming every natural disaster is caused by cAGW)
and spectacularly implausible—and then looks only for items which appear to support it.
Conflicting evidence is ignored. Generally speaking, the aim of pseudoscience is to rationalize strongly held beliefs, rather than to investigate or to test alternative possibilities. Pseudoscience specializes in jumping to "congenial conclusions," grinding ideological axes, appealing to preconceived ideas and to widespread misunderstandings.

Pseudoscience is indifferent to criteria of valid evidence. (Tree rings anyone - sea level records etc)
The emphasis is not on meaningful, controlled, repeatable scientific experiments. Instead it is on unverifiable eyewitness testimony, stories and tall tales, hearsay, rumor, and dubious anecdotes. Genuine scientific literature is either ignored or misinterpreted.

Pseudoscience relies heavily on subjective validation. (We believe we are right so we must be)
Joe Blow puts jello on his head and his headache goes away. To pseudoscience, this means jello cures headaches. To science this means nothing, since no experiment was done. Many things were going on when Joe Blow's headache went away—the moon was full, a bird flew overhead, the window was open, Joe had on his red shirt, etc.—and his headache would have gone away eventually in any case, no matter what. A controlled experiment would put many people suffering from headaches in identical circumstances, except for the presence or absence of the remedy it is desired to test, and compare the results which would then have some chance of being meaningful. Many people think there must be something to astrology because a newspaper horoscope describes them perfectly. But close examination would reveal that the description is general enough to cover virtually everyone. This phenomenon, called subjective validation, is one of the foundations of popular support for pseudoscience.

Pseudoscience depends on arbitrary conventions of human culture, rather than on unchanging regularities of nature. (We create CO2 so we must be at fault)
For instance, the interpretations of astrology depend on the names of things, which are accidental and vary from culture to culture. If the ancients had given the name Mars to the planet we call Jupiter, and vice versa, astronomy could care less but astrology would be totally different, because it depends solely on the name and has nothing to do with the physical properties of the planet itself.

Pseudoscience always achieves a reduction to absurdity if pursued far enough. (The cAGW meme is brainwashing the public and the longer it goes on the inverse occurs. People get sick and tired of hearing it.)
Maybe dowsers can somehow sense the presence of water or minerals under a field, but almost all claim they can dowse equally well from a map! Maybe Uri Geller is "psychic," but are his powers really beamed to him on a radio link with a flying saucer from the planet Hoova, as he has claimed? Maybe plants are "psychic," but why does a bowl of mud respond in exactly the same way, in the same "experiment?"

Pseudoscience always avoids putting its claims to a meaningful test. (No release of raw data - maybe to hide the facts, maybe because they don't want to be embarrassed).
Pseudoscientists never carry out careful, methodical experiments themselves—and they also generally ignore results of those carried out by scientists. Pseudoscientists also never follow up. If one pseudoscientist claims to have done an experiment (such as the "lost" biorhythm studies of Hermann Swoboda that are alleged basis of the modern pseudoscience of biorhythms), no other pseudoscientist ever tries to duplicate it or to check him, even when the original results are missing or questionable! Further, where a pseudoscientist claims to have done an experiment with a remarkable result, he himself never repeats it to check his results and procedures. This is in extreme contrast with science, where crucial experiments are repeated by scientists all over the world with ever-increasing precision.

Pseudoscience often contradicts itself, even in its own terms. (cAGW has slowed, has increased, has sped up etc)
Such logical contradictions are simply ignored or rationalized away. Thus, we should not be surprised when Chapter 1 of a book on dowsing says that dowsers use newly cut twigs, because only "live" wood can channel and focus the "earth-radiation" that makes dowsing possible, whereas Chapter 5 states that nearly all dowsers use metal or plastic rods.

Pseudoscience deliberately creates mystery where none exists, by omitting crucial information and important details. (Claiming record tempratures/droughts/floods/etc)
Anything can be made "mysterious" by omitting what is known about it or presenting completely imaginary details. The "Bermuda Triangle" books are classic examples of this tactic.

Pseudoscience does not progress. (30 years of study and the reports/models are still the same)
There are fads, and a pseudoscientist may switch from one fad to another (from ghosts to ESP research, from flying saucers to psychic studies, from ESP research to looking for Bigfoot). But within a given topic, no progress is made. Little or no new information or uncovered. New theories are seldom proposed, and old concepts are rarely modified or discarded in light of new "discoveries," since pseudoscience rarely makes new "discoveries." The older the idea, the more respect it receives. No natural phenomena or processes previously unknown to science have ever been discovered by pseudoscientists. Indeed, pseudoscientists almost invariably deal with phenomena well known to scientists, but little known to the general public—so that the public will swallow whatever the pseudoscientist wants to claim. Examples include firewalking and "Kirlian" photography.

Pseudoscience attempts to persuade with rhetoric, propaganda, and misrepresentation rather than valid evidence (which presumably does not exist). (Just with every press release, interview, opinion piece and conference)
Pseudoscience books offer examples of almost every kind of fallacy of logic and reason known to scholars and have invented some new ones of their own. A favorite device is the non sequitur. Pseudoscientists also love the "Galileo Argument." This consists of the pseudoscientist comparing himself to Galileo, and saying that just as the pseudoscientist is believed to be wrong, so Galileo was thought wrong by his contemporaries therefore the pseudoscientist must be right too, just as Galileo was. Clearly the conclusion does not follow! Moreover, Galileo's ideas were tested, verified, and accepted promptly by his scientific colleagues. The rejection came from the established religion which favored the pseudoscience that Galileo's findings contradicted.

Pseudoscience argues from ignorance, an elementary fallacy. (Refuse to accept that the science isn't in or that it never was)
Many pseudoscientists base their claims on incompleteness of information about nature, rather than on what is known at present. But no claim can possibly be supported by lack of information. The fact that people don't recognize what they see in the sky means only that they don't recognize what they saw. This fact is not evidence that flying saucers are from outer space. The statement "Science cannot explain" is common in pseudoscience literature. In many cases, science has no interest in the supposed phenomena because there is no evidence it exists; in other cases, the scientific explanation is well known and well established, but the pseudoscientist doesn't know this or deliberately ignores it to create mystery.

Pseudoscience argues from alleged exceptions, errors, anomalies, strange events, and suspect claims—rather than from well-established regularities of nature. (Glaciers melting, artic ice flows dissappearing, polar bears drowing, coral bleaching etc)
The experience of scientists over the past 400 years is that claims and reports that describe well-understood objects behaving in strange and incomprehensible ways tend to reduce upon investigation to deliberate frauds, honest mistakes, garbled accounts, misinterpretations, outright fabrications, and stupid blunders. It is not wise to accept such reports at face value, without checking them. Pseudoscientists always take such reports as literally true, without independent verification.

Pseudoscience appeals to false authority, to emotion, sentiment, or distrust of established fact. (We have to be at fault because it can't be anything else that is causing the increases in CO2 and Scientists know everything)
A high-school dropout is accepted as an expert on archaeology, though he has never made any study of it! A psychoanalyst is accepted as an expert on all of human history, not to mention physics, astronomy, and mythology, even though his claims are inconsistent with everything known in all four fields. A movie star swears it's true, so it must be. A physicist says a "psychic" couldn't possibly have fooled him with simple magic tricks, although the physicist knows nothing about magic and sleight of hand. Emotional appeals are common. ("If it makes you feel good, it must be true." "In your heart you know it's right.") Pseudoscientists are fond of imaginary conspiracies. ("There's plenty of evidence for flying saucers, but the government keeps it secret.") And they argue from irrelevancies: When confronted by inconvenient facts, they simply reply, "Scientists don't know everything!"

Pseudoscience makes extraordinary claims and advances fantastic theories that contradict what is known about nature. (Climate Change as being caused soley by mankind)
They not only provide no evidence that their claims are true. They also ignore all findings that contradict their conclusions. ("Flying saucers have to come from somewhere—so the earth is hollow, and they come from inside." "This electric spark I'm making with this electrical apparatus is actually not a spark at all, but rather a supernatural manifestation of psycho-spiritual energy." "Every human is surrounded by an impalpable aura of electromagnetic energy, the auric egg of the ancient Hindu seers, which mirrors the human's every mood and condition.")

Pseudoscientists invent their own vocabulary in which many terms lack precise or unambiguous definitions, and some have no definition at all. (Meh google anything that they come up with, there are too many to list)
Listeners are often forced to interpret the statements according to their own preconceptions. What, for for example, is "biocosmic energy?" Or a "psychotronic amplification system?" Pseudoscientists often attempt to imitate the jargon of scientific and technical fields by spouting gibberish that sounds scientific and technical. Quack "healers" would be lost without the term "energy," but their use of the term has nothing whatsoever to do with the concept of energy used by physicists.

Pseudoscience appeals to the truth-criteria of scientific methodology while simultaneously denying their validity. (We can't accept that water vapour is the major feed back in increased tempratures so it must be mankind that is the cause of climate change).
Thus, a procedurally invalid experiment which seems to show that astrology works is advanced as "proof" that astrology is correct, while thousands of procedurally sound experiments that show it does not work are ignored. The fact that someone got away with simple magic tricks in one scientific lab is "proof" that he is a psychic superman, while the fact that he was caught cheating in several other labs is ignored.

Pseudoscience claims that the phenomena it studies are "jealous." (Just every model that they use)
The phenomena appear only under certain vaguely specified but vital conditions (such as when no doubters or skeptics are present; when no experts are present; when nobody is watching; when the "vibes" are right; or only once in human history.) Science holds that genuine phenomena must be capable of study by anyone with the proper equipment and that all procedurally valid studies must give consistent results. No genuine phenomenon is "jealous" in this way. There is no way to construct a TV set or a radio that will function only when no skeptics are present! A man who claims to be a concert-class violinist, but does not appear to have ever owned a violin and who refuses to play when anyone is around who might hear him, is most likely lying about his ability to play the violin.

Pseudoscientific "explanations" tend to be by scenario. (Have you ever seen anything in the form of doom and gloom that doesn't use exactly this?)
That is, we are told a story, but nothing else; we have no description of any possible physical process. For instance, Immanuel Velikovsky (1895-1979) claimed that another planet passing near the earth caused the earth's spin axis to flip upside down. This is all he said. He gave no mechanisms. But the mechanism is all-important, because the laws of physics rule out the process as impossible. That is, the approach of another planet cannot cause a planet's spin axis to flip. If Velikovsky had discovered some way that a planet could flip another's spin axis, he would presumably have described the mechanism by which it can happen. The bald statement itself, without the underlying mechanism, conveys no information at all. Velikovsky said that Venus was once a comet, and this comet was spewed out of a volcano on Jupiter. Since planets do not resemble comets (which are rock/ice snowball-like debris with connection whatsoever to volcanoes) and since Jupiter is not known to have volcanoes anyway (or even a solid surface!), no actual physical process could underlie Velikovsky's assertions. He gave us words, related to one another within a sentence, but the relationships were alien to the universe we actually live in, and he gave no explanation for how these could exist. He provided stories, not genuine theories.

Pseudoscientists often appeal to the ancient human habit of magical thinking. (Not applicable in this case)
Magic, sorcery, witchcraft—these are based on spurious similarity, false analogy, false cause-and-effect connections, etc. That is, inexplicable influences and connections between things are assumed from the beginning—not found by investigation. (If you step on a crack in the sidewalk without saying a magic word, your mother will crack a bone in her body; eating heart-shaped leaves is good for heart ailments; shining red light on the body increases blood production; rams are aggressive so someone born in the sign of the ram is aggressive; fish are "brain food" because the meat of the fish resembles brain tissue, etc.)

Pseudoscience relies heavily on anachronistic thinking. (Not applicable in this case)
The older the idea, the more attractive it is to pseudoscience—it's the wisdom of the ancients!—especially if the idea is transparently wrong and has long been discarded by science. Many journalists have trouble in comprehending this point. A typical reporter writing about astrology may think a thorough job can be done by interviewing six astrologers and one astronomer. The astronomer says it's all bunk; the six astrologers say it's great stuff and really works and for $50 they'll be glad to cast anyone's horoscope. (No doubt!) To many reporters, and apparently to many editors and their readers, this would confirm astrology six to one!

As the climate changes, extreme weather isn't that extreme any more

With the US heatwave and Europe's rain, records are tumbling. Formerly rare occurrences are becoming the new normal

Britain and northern Europe are dripping their way into what is already being called a "lost summer". We have had our wettest April and June and our coldest spring, and there is no end in sight of the abnormal weather. But we can take some comfort in the fact that we are not alone.

In the US, 100 million people in 17 states have now had to be warned about the dangers of one of most intense heatwaves of the last century. Life in many US cities has become unbearable, with temperatures well over 100F (38C) lasting for many days now. More than 40,000 temperature records have already been set in the US this year and freak storms, record rainfall and giant forest fires have left millions suffering. Many old people will certainly die in the heatwave and food prices are bound to rise.

But this extreme weather is far more widespread than just northern Europe or the US. May was the second warmest ever recorded worldwide and the warmest on record for the northern hemisphere. The link between a warming atmosphere and individual climatic events is unclear but no one should doubt the physical turmoil. In the last few weeks we have seen the Arctic sea ice melting at a record pace, the Amazon reaching its highest level on record, massive forest fires in Siberia and the Russian east, temperatures climbing to a barely imaginable 48C in northern India, and an abnormally strong monsoon which has so far left many hundreds dead and nearly 7 million people homeless from floods in Assam and southern Bangladesh.

There's always been freak weather, but climatologists increasingly think these events are becoming less unusual. Instead of taking place every 10 or 20 years, they are happening every two or three. This, they are beginning to say, is the new normal, a taste of the future as the planet warms.

Last year was the 35th consecutive year since 1976 that the yearly global temperature was above average. Since 2000 we have had 11 of the 13 warmest years in 132 years and the patterns of global warming that scientists warned about – such as more droughts, sudden downpours, more widespread wildfires, volatile heat, violent storms and more frequent heatwaves – are all here now. This, say the scientists with increasing conviction, is what the early stages of global warming looks like.

So how much more extreme weather does it take for governments and individuals to act, or for the oil companies to withdraw from the Arctic, or the media to link global warming with the events now being witnessed around the world? Must the sea boil, the Seine run dry, New York flood and the London Olympics be consumed by fire before countries are shocked into taking concerted action? The reality is that even as the world experiences increasing numbers of weather-related disasters and extreme events, climate change has dropped off the rich countries' political and media agendas, and public concern is said to be waning – to the cheers of the sceptics and industry.

This is a most dangerous period. We still have a very good chance of avoiding the worst of climate change but the collective will to try to do anything appears to be weakening and confidence in politicians is at rock bottom. Unless the climate of opinion changes, the present economic storms may seem as nothing.
link

Instead of huge unconvincing posts on what is this and what is that, show us all the proofs that CO2 increase cause positive feedbacks overiding negative feedbacks, and we will take notice, otherwise all your long fancy black and red posts are not worth reading really. They are just thoughts, anyone can have, worth little.

Here's all the science in one easy to find and read location BD. It will answer all of your questions.

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html

You kill me CB, what a joke!..I said, show us all the proofs that CO2 increase cause positive feedbacks overiding negative feedbacks, and we will take notice!..........There are no proofs in that mostly non peer reviewed ramble!

Answer all my questions or create new ones as to the veracity of the information it purports to contain? I don't trust the IPCC to produce anything but dogma and doctrine, not scientific facts.

Your claim that the IPCC Working Group I Report "The Physical Science Basis" consists of mostly non peer reviewed science is untrue.

I suggest you read through this list of the peer reviewed science that the report is based on if you don't believe me.

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch1s1-references.html

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-references.html

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch3s3-references.html

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch4s4-references.html

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch5s5-references.html

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch6s6-references.html

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch7s7-references.html

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch8s8-references.html

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-references.html

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-references.html

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch11s11-references.html

Hundreds if not thousands of peer reviewed papers went into making the PCC Working Group I Report "The Physical Science Basis".

All the peer reviewed science you'd ever dreamt of is listed there BD. Enjoy!

You had better read "The Deliquent Teenager by Donna Lafamboise which in detail truthfully exposes all the non-peer reviewed IPCC data such as WWF quotes, green quotes, quotes from papers and quotes from many dubious sources that fill the IPCC report plus many chapters done by science graduates, Himalaya ice, Brazil forecast, etc, etc, scandalous wrong information, large peieces of good science left out and rejected by the teenage or almost main editors of some sections. And, as well U must have been living in a dream world not to hear the various IPCC bad reports on the information being innaccurate over the years. Spare me the rubbish mate! Enjoy!!! More like reading a extreme fiction horror terrible story, mate!!!

Plus, I said, "show us all the proofs that CO2 increase cause positive feedbacks overiding negative feedbacks, and we will take notice!..........There are no proofs in that mostly non peer reviewed ramble!" You have not answered the question, just tried to change tack!

I have changed my mind about something anyway, I am actually enjoying replying to your posts, as your answers do actually "crack me up" often really!
"Enjoy" (Reading the IPCC report, quote CB) LOL! Mate that has me almost in tears, great joke, I like it CB!

BD and Ceebee - please take your personal tit for tat off this forum - it is incredibly boring for everyone else. No further similar posts will be accepted.

Thanks

Kev

Kev(BNE), I was actually trying to be friendly and talk to CB on a friend to friend basis, to get the threads a bit happier, but when one can't see someone's face it can be misinterpreted I guess...And I thought CB was actually enjoying the banter also, but anyway your the boss here, so I will obey.

We heard from Joe recently, and now his partner pops up, good old Joe pops up...

From Joe D’Aleo via email:

It will be remembered for the heat wave and dryness in a large area, but some facts may surprise you.

June actually ended up cooler than the normal in BOS (Boston) (-1.25F) and even NYC (Central Park -0.4F) and southeast despite the heat blast the end of the month (-2.0F in Jacksonville). Dulles despite the late month heat wave was SLIGHTLY BELOW NORMAL (-0.6F) while DCA nearer the White House and Congress was (+1.1F) and Atlanta despite the all time record was just +0.1F.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/03/mo...ons/#more-66759


In the west, predictably with the cold PDO eastern Pacific, it was another cool start to summer. Seattle ended up -2.6F, Portland -2.4F, Spokane -2.5F.

The preliminary Climate Prediction Center temperature analysis for the month showed the core of the heat was over the central Rockies with +7.6F in Denver. The heat nosed in a few plumes to the east most notable relative to normal over the Great Lakes (Green Bay +5.8F and ORD (Chicago O’Hare) +5F)."
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/03/mo...ons/#more-66759

Interesting article from JoNova;

Weather from before coal fired power stations — shock — not perfect?

...from an article published in the Sydney Morning Herald ...dated 3rd May 1860 (it's easier to read the reprinted version in the right-hand pane)

Australians are spending $77 million a week to try to replicate the stable climate we had with CO2 at 280ppm. So just how ideal was that climate? Newspaper reports of the times were filled with stories of droughts, then floods, bitter cold, and fires that wasted the land.

During the “perfect” climate of the preindustrial climate apparently there were still floods and storms.

“To begin with British observations. 1697-98-99 were three bad years—years of floods and storms. 1700 proved hot and dry during sum- mer, and 1703 was the last of what are technically termed the seven dear years. 1740 was memorable for its great flood, and was distinguished as the rainy harvest (wetty harvest). 1701-02-03 came in as dear years again. Next 1768, and its great floods, in which year Britain imported 1,300,000 quarters of wheat. 1769 was noted for its mild winter ; 1782 as the snowy harvest in Scotland, and 1784 as the year of abundance. 1799 brings another great flood, and 1800 a dry year, with wheat 110s. a quarter. 1802 is remarkable for the great shake of September 10th, and severe frost of the 13th following. February 14th of 1811 is recorded as the coldest in a century, the thermometer falling two degrees below 0. 1822 is famous for a general snow storm, and 1828 as a most abundant year for Scotland, but very dry in England. Then we note 1829 as the recurring great flood, and next mention the three bad years of 1837-38-39, fore- told by Captain McKenzie six years before their advent.

“For hurricanes of wind, the great gale of October 10th, 1838, and of January 8th, 1839, have only been matched by the wind storms on the British coast in 1859. At midday, previous to the gale of 1839, the barometer fell to 26½.

“In course of our flood predictions, reports of floods in 1856 were anticipated years ago over Europe and Britain. Nor were our forebodings unfulfilled. To beg or borrow a term, some of these form the greater phenomena, and other observers may be able to fill up gaps which, very probably, have been overlooked or omitted in the compiler’s memoranda.

I wonder if anyone has done a energy useage study on how much extra electrical(Green or otherwise) power/manpower/trees cut down and turned into paper/transportation and postage costs etc is required to investigate, bill and process the carbon tax rorts? Might be an interesting if slightly out of left field news story that one of our regular reporters who reads these forums could investigate and report on.

No need to use real figures, you can just follow current government trends and call in an "expert" and then just pluck the figures out of your backside. I wouldn't bother with asking the leader of Greens for comment because that might embarrass her.

Maybe an interview with Brumbies might be in order seeing as they are presently under investiagtion for daring to claim that their price rises are a direct result of teh carbon tax. Might be a tad one sided though.

University of Nebraska claims record drought in the USA? Not so fast…

Posted on July 5, 2012by Anthony Watts

(1) http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/05/uu...ast/#more-66852
(2) http://newsroom.unl.edu/releases/2012/07...anse+of+drought

From the University of Nebraska-Lincoln (2) comes a news release about the 12 year old U.S. Drought Monitor dataset, proclaiming “record worst ever” as if this has some relevance in history. Sorry, I have to call BS on this. Take June 1934 for example:

Well over half of the USA then was in moderate to severe to extreme drought.NOAA wrote in 2002 describing the summer drought then:

The most extensive national drought coverage during the past 100 years (the period of instrumental record) occurred in July 1934 when 80 percent of the contiguous United States was in moderate to extreme drought.



Compare that to June 2012 where UNL claims 47 percent of the CONUS is experiencing “some level of drought”:




Color me unimpressed with the University of Nebraska’s PR fear mongering which can easily be dispelled in a few seconds of Internet search. Source: NCDC here.

Now let’s see how many feckless reporters pick up this UNL press release from Eurekalert and run with it as “worst ever” without bothering to check history.

US Drought Monitor shows record-breaking expanse of drought across US

Nearly 47 percent of nation experiencing some level of drought, officials say

More of the United States is in moderate drought or worse than at any other time in the 12-year history of the U.S. Drought Monitor, officials from the National Drought Mitigation Center at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln said today.

Analysis of the latest drought monitor data revealed that 46.84 percent of the nation’s land area is in various stages of drought, up from 42.8 percent a week ago. Previous records were 45.87 percent in drought on Aug. 26, 2003, and 45.64 percent on Sept. 10, 2002.

Looking only at the 48 contiguous states, 55.96 percent of the country’s land area is in moderate drought or worse – also the highest percentage on record in that regard, officials said. The previous highs had been 54.79 percent on Aug. 26, 2003, and 54.63 percent on Sept. 10, 2002.

“The recent heat and dryness is catching up with us on a national scale,” said Michael J. Hayes, director of the National Drought Mitigation Center at UNL. “Now, we have a larger section of the country in these lesser categories of drought than we’ve previously experienced in the history of the Drought Monitor.”

The monitor uses a ranking system that begins at D0 (abnormal dryness) and moves through D1 (moderate drought), D2 (severe drought), D3 (extreme drought) and D4 (exceptional drought).

Moderate drought’s telltale signs are some damage to crops and pastures, with streams, reservoirs or wells getting low. At the other end of the scale, exceptional drought includes widespread crop and pasture losses, as well as shortages of water in reservoirs, streams and wells, creating water emergencies. So far, just 8.64 percent of the country is in either extreme or exceptional drought.

“During 2002 and 2003, there were several very significant droughts taking place that had a much greater areal coverage of the more severe and extreme drought categories,” Hayes said. “Right now we are seeing pockets of more severe drought, but it is spread out over different parts of the country.

“It’s early in the season, though. The potential development is something we will be watching.”

The U.S. Drought Monitor is a joint endeavor by the National Drought Mitigation Center at UNL, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and drought observers across the country.

###

To examine the monitor’s current and archived national, regional and state-by-state drought maps and conditions, go to http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu.

This entry was posted in drought and tagged Contiguous United States, Drought, National Drought Mitigation Center, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Drought Monitor, United States, United States Department of Agriculture, University of Nebraska–Lincoln. Bookmark the permalink.


(So if they can't even get the facts of this story straight why would you believe them when they keep sprouting "news" about natural weather being caused by cAGW - SBT)

http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/wor...i-1226418458019



Natural climate change killed off reefs

A PERIOD of intense, natural changes in climate caused coral reefs in the eastern Pacific to shut down thousands of years ago, scientists have said.

And human-induced pollution could worsen the trend in the future, they warned today.

The study in the US journal Science points to sea temperature fluctuations - brought on by the same phenomenon that causes El Nino and La Nina events every several years - as the main cause for the coral die-off near the Panama coast.

The reef shutdown began 4000 years ago and lasted about 2500 years, said the research led by the Florida Institute of Technology and including experts from China and France.

"We were shocked to find that 2500 years of reef growth were missing from the frameworks," said lead author Lauren Toth of FIT.

"That gap represents the collapse of reef ecosystems for 40 per cent of their total history."

Researchers did their analysis by driving five-meter-long hollow pipes into dead frameworks of the coral reefs along Panama's Pacific coast.

They pulled out cross-sections of the reefs, and using radiocarbon dating and mass spectrometry techniques they were able to see what they described as a period of "hiatus" in their growth.

An examination of reef records in Australia and Japan showed similar gaps in growth, which Toth and co-authors believe is due primarily to historical changes in a phenomenon known as El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO).

"For Pacific reefs to have collapsed for such a long time and over such a large geographic scale, they must have experienced a major climatic disturbance. That disturbance was an intensified ENSO regime," Ms Toth said.

Very strong El Nino events, bringing higher sea temperatures across the east-central equatorial Pacific, would likely have caused the initial collapse of the Panama corals due to bleaching-related die-off.

This ENSO activity began some 4200 years ago and peaked about 3000 years ago. Frequent abnormalities in water temperature would have made it impossible for the coral populations to recover, the study said.

The past may offer a hint of what is to come in the future, with eastern Pacific coral reefs again on the verge of collapse, but this time the situation is made worse by human-induced climate change.

"Climate change could again destroy coral-reef ecosystems, but this time the root cause would be the human assault on the environment and the collapse could be longer-lasting," said co-author Richard Aronson of FIT.

"Local issues like pollution and overfishing are major destructive forces and they need to be stopped, but they are trumped by climate change, which right now is the greatest threat to coral reefs."

However, researchers are hopeful that the world will take measures to curb pollution, allowing the reefs - which have already proven their resilience - to recover once more.

(And yet another beat up. They really are getting worse every day now. A natural occurance has been linked to climate change and because we are supposed to be responsible for the present(?) cAGW blamed climate change us nasty humans are at fault yet again - You will see more and more of this rubbish as they lose more and more public support - SBT)

You forgot this 'peer reviewed' paper in your list:

300,000 dollars and three years to produce a paper that lasted three weeks: Gergis :- JoNova

The paper might have been scientifically invalid, but it was a box-office success.

The headlines were everywhere

“1000 years of climate data confirms Australia’s warming” said the press release from University of Melbourne. It was picked up by The Guardian: “Australasia has hottest 60 years in a millennium, scientists find”; The Age and The Australian led with “Warming since 1950 ‘unprecedented’. The story was on ABC 24 and ABC news where Gergis proclaimed:” there are no other warm periods in the last 1000 years that match the warming experienced in Australasia since 1950.” It was all over the ABC including ABC Radio National, and they were “95% certain“! On ABC AM, “the last five decades years in Australia have been the warmest. ” Plus there were pages in Science Alert, Campus Daily Eco news, The Conversation, Real Climate* and Think Progress.

Blog review is where the real science gets tested

Skeptics have been looking through the paper, and three weeks after it was published a team at Climate Audit (kudos to Jean S and Nick Stokes) uncovered a problem so significant that the authors announced that this paper is “on hold”. It has been withdrawn from the American Meteorological Society website. Bishop Hill has probably the best summary of what this means, and how it unfolded.

When Steve McIntyre asked for the full data, she refused. Gergis has an activist past which she has recently tried to hide. She was proud to mention in her biography that her data has been requested from 16 nations: So requests from Tunisia, Cuba, and Brazil are OK; but Canada — not so much. Apparently she didn’t appreciate his expertise with statistics and told him to get the data himself from the original authors, and added ”This is commonly referred to as ‘research’. We will not be entertaining any further correspondence on the matter.“

(all links available on original JoNova page)

Heat wave, fires have climate change activists going on the offensive

Record-breaking heat across the country and catastrophic wildfires in Colorado are giving environmentalists a rare opening to regain the political offensive on climate change.

While scientists caution against chalking up specific weather events to climate change, they say generally that heatwaves, wildfires and other extreme weather is expected with increasing frequency and intensity in a warming world.

Skeptics of climate change often point to winter blizzards as evidence that the planet is not warming; now those who say climate change is a fact are using the miserable heat wave along the East Coast to make their point.

More scorching weather is forecast for Washington, D.C., this weekend, and the environmental advocacy group 350.org plans to mark the occasion with an ice sculpture of the word “hoax?” in front of the Capitol in coming days.

The melting sculpture will be a jab at Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), who calls global warming a hoax, and other Republicans who dispute widely held scientific views on climate change.

But it also represents a wider effort by activists to use this summer’s extremes as the basis for calls for action on climate change.

For the green movement, the wild weather is a chance to show that oppressive heat and dangerous storms — and maybe even big winter snowstorms — are what experts believe nature has in store.

“This is another sad chapter in connecting the dots, and there will be more chapters, unfortunately, and hopefully the story won't get too much worse before we finally do something,” said Bill Snape of the Center for Biological Diversity.

“We have to talk about it. This is, unfortunately, an opportunity to do that,” said Snape, the group’s senior counsel.

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, surveying wildfires in Colorado Springs earlier this week, remarked on the “pattern” evident in the weather.

“You have to look at climate change over a period of years, not just one summer,” Napolitano said. “You could always have one abnormal summer. But when you see one after another after another then you can see, yeah, there’s a pattern here.”

June saw 2,284 daily maximum temperature records broken, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, while 820 had already fallen for July as of Thursday afternoon.

“The heatwaves, wildfires and drought are a further reminder of what global warming will look like and hopefully nudge public opinion towards further action,” said Daniel J. Weiss of the liberal Center for American Progress Action Fund.

link

Does this mean that as we have had a lot of frosts and cold this winter that CO2 will keep giving us more and more frosts and more coldness from now on...
as that is the assumption from all these articles...That whatever one is having weather wise of late, it is due to AGW CO2 and will continue or get worse?!