Respect is due: Mark Linkous

I'm absolutely stunned to hear that Mark Linkous, aka Sparklehorse, killed himself yesterday.

It is shaping up to be a very bad year for musicians I like. Vic Chesnutt killed himself at Christmas. Now Mark is also dead.

At least with Vic, he was always a bit dotty and his death didn't come as a massive surprise; but Mark seemed much more reconciled to the whole being a live thing. So it is a shock.



I'd thought that Mark had beaten his demons by the time the album It's A Wonderful Life was released - I didn't think there was anything ironic about the title. In fact, I felt it was less edgy and arresting than its predecessor, Good Morning, Spider, simply because Mark seemed more at ease and happy. Obviously, he hadn't shaken them as thoroughly as I'd thought.

1 - Video for 'Comfort Me,' a song by Sparklehorse/mark Linkous, from the album, It's A Wonderful Life. Posted on You tube by Ortelevision, 3rd of April, 2007.

SHOCK! HORROR! AGW deniers in lies and smears fiasco!

One reason given for the Climate Research Unit not meeting requests for its data set, made under the Freedom of Information Act, was that it did not actually own the data, as it doesn't actually own the weather stations that contribute data. While some of the institutions that compiled the raw data were happy for it to be reproduced by CRU, some were not, as per the New York Times:

But CRU has struggled to respond to numerous requests filed under Britain's Freedom of Information Act that seek raw temperature data from weather stations, including observations obtained from other countries under promise of confidentiality.

Jones said yesterday that CRU withheld raw data in part because "most scientists don't want to deal with raw station data, they want to deal with the derived product."

Some nations reluctant to release climate data

The University of East Anglia, with the assistance of the U.K. Met Office, is now trying to get countries that had provided weather station data under confidential agreements to release the information to the public.

So far, 58 of 170 meteorological services worldwide have given permission to do so, said Julia Slingo, the Met Office's chief scientist. Seven countries have said "no," including Canada, Russia, Poland and Sweden.

In some cases, Slingo said, "governments see this data as having commercial value" that may make them reluctant to make it available to the general public. (1)

In a (supposed) fresh twist, however, a institution calling itself the Stockholm Initiative For A Rational Climate Policy has called Jones a liar, claiming that no such restriction existed for the Swedish data. The english version is reproduced on wattsupwiththat.com:

Climate scientist delivers false statement in parliament enquiry

It has come to our attention, that last Monday (March 1), Dr. Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (CRU), in a hearing with the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee made a statement in regards to the alleged non-availability for disclosure of Swedish climate data.

Dr. Jones asserted that the weather services of several countries, including Sweden, Canada and Poland, had refused to allow their data to be released, to explain his reluctance to comply with Freedom of Information requests.

This statement is false and misleading in regards to the Swedish data.

All Swedish climate data are available in the public domain. As is demonstrated in the attached correspondence between SMHI (Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute), the UK Met Office and Dr. Jones (the last correspondence dated yesterday March 4), this has been clearly explained to Dr. Jones. What is also clear is that SMHI is reluctant to be connected to data that has undergone “processing” by the East Anglia research unit. (2)

Linked is a correspondence between Jones, the Met Office and the Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute. Astonishingly Predictably, it completely contradicts the claims made for it by the Stockholm Initiative For A Rational Climate Policy.

('Rational' in the name of organisations dealing in climate change matters should be viewed with the same doubt as the term 'democratic' in the name of a country)

The first cache are straight forward requests from the Jones and the Met Office for permission to publish the data obtained from SMHI (3). The response to this is a rejection:

SMHI has in a letter, dated November 30, from UK MetOffice, received your request regarding the release of data from the HadCRUT dataset.

Given the information that the version of the data from the SMHI stations that you hold are likely to differ from the data we hold, SMHI do not want the data to be released on your web site. (4)

The third letter in the correspondence is a revision of SHMI's position, where they give provisional permission for CRU to publish the 'homogenised' data:

Our response was based on your information that it was likely that the version held by you would most likely differ from our current holdings. It has never been our intention to withhold any data but we feel that it is paramount that data that has undergone, for instance, homogenisation by anyone other than SMHI is not presented as SMHI data. We see no problem with publication of the data set together with a reference stating that the data included in the dataset is based on observations made by SMHI but it has undergone processing made by your research unit. We would also prefer a link to SMHI or to our web site where the original data can be obtained. (5)

Now, before anyone gets to excited about the 'homogenisation' appears to refer to Jones's statement in his letter that the data set would be combined with other data from other sources.

So until that letter was written, CRU had NO PERMISSION to publish the data received from SHMI - whether in the raw or 'homogenised' form. This letter gives permission for the publication of the 'homogenised' data, with attribution and a link to the original dataset at SHMI.

But - repeat - prior to that, there was no such permission for either raw or 'homogenised' data existed.

The date on the letter? 4th of March, 2010.

1 - "'Climategate' Scientist Admits 'Awful E-Mails,' but Peers Say IPCC Conclusions Remain Sound," by Lauren Morello. Published in The New York Times, 2nd of March, 2010. (http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2010/03/02/02climatewire-climategate-scientist-admits-awful-e-mails-b-66224.html?pagewanted=all)
2 - "Climate scientist delivers false statement in parliament enquiry," unattributed press release by the Stockholm Initiative For A Rational Climate Policy. Reproduced on wattsupwiththat.com, 5th of March, 2010.(http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/05/swedes-call-out-jones-on-data-availability/#more-17014)
3 - The link is to a pdf copy of the letters from the Met Office, dated the 30th of November, 2009, and from Phil Jones of CRU, undated, to the Swedish Metrological & Hydrological Institute. Reproduced on wattsupwiththat.com, 5th of March, 2010. (http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/doc111209.pdf)
4 - The link is to a pdf copy of a letter from Marcus Flarup of the Swedish Metrological and Hydrological Institute to Phil Jones, dated the 21st of December, 2009. (http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/request_from_professor_phil_jones_regarding_the_release_of_data_from_the_hadcrut_dataset__dnr_smhi_.pdf)
5 - The link is to a pdf copy of a letter from Marcus Flarup of the Swedish Metrological and Hydrological Institute to Phil Jones, dated the 4th of March, 2010. Reproduced on wattsupwiththat.com, 5th of March, 2010. (http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/data_from_the_hadcrut_dataset_100304.pdf)

Respect is due: Michael Foot

A former leader of the British Labour party has died (1). He was 96, so not exactly unexpected. Still, always a shame to see those legendary figures shuffle off. Best remembered for overseeing Labour's route by Thatcher in 1983, post-Falklands. Pity that that disaster over shadows his other achievements. Until a few hours ago, a living anachronism - a figure from another era, when there were things like principles and values in the British Labour Party. Some might now need explanations as to what these words mean.

1 - "Former Labour leader Michael Foot dies," unattributed BBC article, published 3rd of March, 2010. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/8547366.stm)

Just a thought

Official figures reveal that overall crime in England & Wales fell 8% in the last quarter of 2009, compared to the same quarter in 2008:

Crime in England and Wales fell 8% in the third quarter of 2009 compared with the year before, the Home Office says.

The latest figures on recorded offences show there was an 8% drop in burglaries.

Car crime fell by a fifth and the number of robberies showed a reduction of 9%.

Ministers say the British Crime Survey's separate study reveals that the risk of being a victim of crime has reached its lowest recorded level.

According to the quarterly crime figures covering July to September 2009, there were falls in all categories of recorded crime over the period, with the exception of sexual offences which rose 5%.

Home Office experts say they do not know why sexual offences rose although police chiefs have been encouraging more women to come forward to report complaints. (1)

Which is great, of course, because less crime is always a good thing. But the 'expert' opinion on why sexual offences rose did prompt me to wonder - as I am sure many have before - why is it that a drop in crime rates is always attributed to better policing, but a rise is explained by better reporting?

1 - "Crime figures show 8% fall in England and Wales," by Dominic Casciani. Published by the BBC, 21st of January, 2010. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8472007.stm)

The Tories answer to Alastair Campbell?

It seems that the prime requirement for being a 'communications manager' - or the editor of the News of the World - is a very flexible moral code. Obviously, employing a louse in human form requires a similarly ambivalent attitude on the part of the employer. From the Indie:

David Cameron's communications director, Andy Coulson, will come under fresh pressure to defend his editorship of the News of the World and his knowledge about the illegal activities of his journalists amid new allegations about the paper's involvement with private detectives who broke the law.

The Guardian has learned that while Coulson was still editor of the tabloid, the newspaper employed a freelance private investigator even though he had been accused of corrupting police officers and had just been released from a seven-year prison sentence for blackmail.

The private eye was well known to the News of the World, having worked for the paper for several years before he was jailed, when Coulson was deputy editor. He was rehired when he was freed.

Evidence seen by the Guardian shows that Mr A, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was blagging bank accounts, bribing police officers, procuring confidential data from the DVLA and phone companies, and trading sensitive material from live police inquiries.

Coulson has always insisted he knew nothing about the illegal activity which took place in the News of the World newsroom, telling MPs last year: "I have never had any involvement in it at all."

Mr A cannot be named now because he is facing trial for a violent crime, but his details will emerge once he has been dealt with by the courts. Coulson tonight refused to say whether he was aware of Mr A's criminal background, or of his return to the paper following his prison term. He said: "I have nothing to add to the evidence I gave to the select committee." (1)

Good to see that the Tories, confronted with a chance to make the decisive difference between them and Labour one of decent versus immoral corrupt spin obsessed dishonest corrupt wank off merchants, decide to try to beat Labour at their own stinking game.

I suppose the counter argument would be that, if Labour can employ someone as sulphurous as Alastair Campbell, why shouldn't they? Which is effectively saying that if Labour can be corrupt, useless, incompetent, dishonest spin mongers who lie and cheat and steal, why not us?

Following that line of 'reasoning' just a little bit further, it become apparent that all the frothing righteousness provoked whenever the names Campbell or Mandelson are mentioned, the reason for the outrage isn't that they are venal, dishonest weasels, but because they aren't venal, dishonest Tory weasels - a tacit admission that it is all tribal, about making sure your team wins, and any silly notions about principles, giving people something positive to vote for, or what is best for Britain aren't a relevant consideration.

Seriously, how could anyone bare to vote for the Tories if it wasn't for Labour? How could anyone countenance voting Labour if it wasn't for the Tories?

1 - "Andy Coulson hit by new tabloid trick charges," by Nick Davies. Published in The Independent, 24th of February, 2010. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/feb/24/andy-coulson-news-of-the-world)

Why are we so concerned over 'Climategate' and the IPCC 'blunders'

... and less worried about the everyday misrepresentations and lies about the climate rreproduced by the media? Take this, for example - a headline from CNSNews:

Fifteen Years With No Global Warming Doesn't Mean There's No Global Warming, Says EPA Chief

Of course, once you actually read the article, you discover the rather important bits that have been left out of the headline.

Fifteen years with no statistically significant increase in global temperatures does not mean that the human race is not causing the climate to change, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson told CNSNews.com on Tuesday.

Note how "Fifteen years with no global warming" becomes "Fifteen years with no statistically significant increase in global temperatures".

This might seem a minor gripe, but it is headlines that get remembered.

the justification for the question is comments made by Phil Jones, referred to later in the article - beyond the point where a lot of readers would have stopped paying attention, I suspect:

In a Feb. 13 interview with the BBC, Prof. Phil Jones, ex-head of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia and among the world’s leading experts on global warming, was asked: “Do you agree that from 1995 to the present that there has been no statistically significant global warming?”

“Yes,” said Jones, “but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period from 1995-2009. This trend (0.12 per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95 percent significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.”

It's worth noting that Phil Jones, for obvious reasons, is using the HADCRUT data set. Real men GISS.

However, even with that in mind, claiming he said there had been no warming trend for 15 years is disingenuous - there was a warming trend, just under the certainty threshold he used, and, over that short a time frame, you probably wouldn't expect to see a significant warming trend.

By concentrating on such a short time frame, the elepant in the room is ignored. There might not have been a 'statistically significant' global temperature increase in the last fifteen years, but that obscures the far more noteworthy fact that these fifteen years have - individually and collectively - been the warmest we have a reliable instrumental record of. 2005 is the warmest year on record, according to the best data (2). 1998 and 2009 are the join second place warmest years.

Of the last fifteen years - 1994-2008 - according to the NOAA rankings, only two (1994 and 1996) are ranked outside the top 15 (coming in at 18th and 20th, respectively). The other thirteen places are crammed with the years between 1995 and 2008. The interlopers, from outside that range, by the way are 1990 and 1991, appearing at 13th and 15th on the list, so that is hardly bucking the trend.

And of course, the best way to look at the data is by viewing the rolling average - Hansen's paper includes the usual 5 year and 11 year rolling averages, which show a very clear, sustained, long term warming trend.

GEDDIT?

1 - "Fifteen Years With No Global Warming Doesn't Mean There's No Global Warming, Says EPA Chief," by Karen Schuberg. Published by CNSNews.com, 24th of February, 2010. (http://cnsnews.com/news/article/61804)
2 - "If It’s That Warm, How Come It’s So Damned Cold?," by James Hansen, Reto Ruedy, Makiko Sato, and Ken Lo, 2010. (http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2010/20100115_Temperature2009.pdf)
3 - As per the Wikipedia article, "Temperature record since 1980," viewed on the 26thof February, 2010. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record_since_1880)

Billy Bragg at Speaker's Corner

Mentioned on teh (sic) radio the other day, so I thought I'd check it out(1).



I've always admired Billy Bragg for the gusto that he set about pursuing a singing career even though he couldn't sing - not in a Tom Waitsy can't sing sort of way, but in a genuine can't sing sort of way - and because he's always been staunchly left.

This clip seems to be part of a longer sequence. Just as well he left the guitar behind, though.

1 - "Billy Bragg at Speaker's Corner," posted on You Tube by photoandpolitics, 10th of february, 2010. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMftdDvXWYk)