p. 25, footnote 25: Given Plimer’s past interactions with religious groups, choosing the Washington Times as a source of his climate data seems strange.
p. 112: IPCC computers don’t do clouds — totally unsurprising — IPCC computers don’t do climate modelling — presumably they do things like e-mail, desktop publishing, accounting etc. The climate modelling used by the IPCC is done by major research groups using models that do include clouds — see item 68.
151. p. 437: Item 109 notes misrepresentation of the authorship of WG1 chapter 5 in the IPCC R4 as well as misrepresentation of content.
p. 444: The IPCC claims that its reports are written by 2500 scientists.
In fact they are
written by 35 who are controlled by an even smaller number.
s described on page 49,
the IPCC gives specific directions as to who should be acknowledged as the authors. This is far fewer than 2500 people — the IPCC reports make no such claim as 2500. However, these acknowledged authors total far more than 35 people. The ‘control’ is unspecified. The real control on IPCC authors is the knowledge that their work will be widely read by
scientific peers and that any errors will be widely publicised. — [also in TL list].
153. p. 445 the growth of the global warming industry has replaced the collection of primary field data, measurement and experiment. — essentially a repeat of the risible claim noted in item 146.
p. 454: On the subject of tide data: it is hard to market a publication to a journal editor on the basis that nothing has happened. The one time that a ‘nothing happened’ result is readily ‘marketable’ is when there is a wide-spread expectation that something would happen. The Michelson-Morley experiment (failure to detect Earth’s motion through the ether) is a famous example. If the tide-gauge data really cast significant doubt on the mainstream view of human-induced climate change, then publication would be much easier.
p. 454: No scientific journal today would have published a paper submitted by an unknown patent clerk on a fundamental breathtaking new concept of physics. Einstein did have a few things going for him, beyond being an unknown patent clerk when he submitted his paper on relativity:
i: he had several papers previously published; ii: much of the mathematics already existed — Einstein’s great insight was to understand what it meant. Indeed so much of the mathematics already existed that (a) the equations still carry the name ‘Lorentz transformations’; (b) one strand of ‘ ryan Science’ argued that relativity was discovered by Lorentz rather than the Jewish Einstein (although the more common ‘ ryan Science’ view was to dismiss relativity as ‘Jewish superstition’); iii: Einstein had under simultaneous consideration a paper on the photo-electric effect that appeared less confronting, but of a quality that gained Einstein the Nobel Prize in
35The ‘less confronting’ was only appearance — quantum mechanics, which followed from work such as Ein- stein’s analysis of the photo-electric effect, was so weird that Einstein never fully accepted it.