The Middle Fiddle (Faddle)

--by Horatio Algeranon

Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-Dum,
Were going nowhere, hum-dee-dum,

When Tweedle-Dum to Tweedle-Dee
Said "The middle is the place to be!",

Then Tweedle-Dee to Tweedle-Dum
Said "Look how popular we've become!

"Our phone is ringing off the hook,
And all that cash from your new book!"

Don't look so glum, my Tweedle-Dum,
Let's celebrate and have some fun".

But Tweedle-Dum replied in turn,
"Dear Tweedle-Dee, you never learn."

"Our fifteen minutes is nearly spent,"
"Our day in the sun just came and went."

I originally posted the above 6 months ago anonymusely in the comments at Rabett Run after an earlier article by NY Times writer Andrew Revkin, "unveiling" the "Silent Middle" with regard to climate science.

"Eureka, I have found it! The Silent Middle!"

Everyone loves to claim the middle ground, tantamount to claiming the high ground, in American politics.

There is just one slight problem. The "Silent (and Reasonable) Middle " -- as represented by the IPCC climate science consensus-- was there all along. And they had hardly been silent!

In their pursuit of faux "balance" (dueling left and right wing think tanks), journalists themselves helped create and support a false dichotomy of opposing "camps" in the "Climate war", so much so that the reasoned position of the vast majority of scientists in the IPCC was nearly drowned out in the mainstream press by the cacophony of cackling hens.

The extreme groups -- those who claimed that climate change would bring the end of the world and those who denied climate change even existed -- never represented anything close to the consensus on either climate science or climate policy and the "Middle" was never defined by the "midpoint" of some imaginary line extending between these extreme groups.

Revkin's "discovery" that the IPCC represented the most reasonable (and reasoned) position was obvious to anyone who was paying attention, but he was not content to restate the obvious. Hardly. He had to flesh out the "Reasonable Middle" with names of his own choosing -- thereby effectively defining not only the "Middle Science" but the "Middle Policy".

Now, he is further defining what he considers to be the "Middle Policy" with new names (old, actually) -- Newt Gingrich and Bjorn Lomborg. What valid rationale does Revkin have for placing Gingrich and Bjorn Lomborg at the center?

None that I can see. Neither Gingrich nor Lomborg is a real scientist (political "science" does not count) and the IPCC still offers the most extensive and reasoned analysis on the science and policy. If there is a "Middle" or "Center" in the "Climate debate", the IPCC is still very much it.

Nothing Newt Gingrich or Bjorn Lomborg say in their new books (for sales?) changes that one bit.

Some nonsense is timeless. Revkin seems to be recycling his articles, changing only the Tweedle Dees and Dums. I suppose it's easier that way.

Climate Change "Skeptic" Sighting

- by Horatio Algeranon

I sighted a Climate-Change "Skeptic,"
A breed as rare as Sasquatch,
I saw him at the edge of the woods,
In a nearby pumpkin patch.

I knew he was a "Skeptic,"
The moment I glimpsed his shirt,
Emblazoned with Al Gore's likeness,
And two words: "Red Alert!"

I heard him yell across the patch,
"Al Gore is a big fat liar",
"The nanny government should leave us alone",
"All Hail to McIntyre".

This startled the wife and kids.
As you can well appreciate,
It even unsettled me a bit,
An' I'm not easy to intimidate.

When I noticed the broken hockey stick,
The man had been chewing on,
I decided maybe we ought to leave,
Make hay, high tail, be gone.

I added him to my "Life List",
When I got home that night,
Obsessa hockeysticka,
My friends'll be jealous, all right.


The above was inspired by a blog post by Andrew Dessler, a climate scientist who is looking for a few good skeptics to debate (though probably not the kind my poem describes), but not having much luck finding any.

A Tale of Two Surface Stations*

--by Horatio Algeranon

We’ve heard conversations,
Of surface stations,
“Quite worthless, without reservations.”

“The tennis courts,
We must report,
Have made thermometers jump and snort.”

“The barbecues,
Have made the news,
The station managers have no clues.”

"Their AC units here and there,
Have heated surface station air,
But Hansen does not seem to care."

"And burning trash?
How very rash
The surface record’s quite a hash.”

“The definitive test?
Use only 'The Best,'
You may as well just chuck the rest.”

So John V** sat,
And did just that,
And warming "skeptics" gasped “Oh, drat!”

“The result's the same,
How very lame,
Now, what ever shall we blame?”

*The title refers to two US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) weather stations -- at Orland, CA and Marysville, CA -- featured prominently on the homepage of surfacestations.org. From the corresponding captions and temperature records, one might be tempted to conclude that "well maintained and well sited USHCN stations" show a cooling trend over the 20th century, while "not-so-well maintained or well sited USHCN stations" show warming.

But avoid the temptation. Just two sites are hardly representative of the entire USHCN network. The USHCN station at Geneva, NY, a well sited and well maintained station run by Cornell University shows a warming trend over the twentieth century, as do many other "well sited and well maintained" stations across the country. Furthermore, superficial appearances are not always what they seem, as Tamino's analysis of the Orland and Marysville sites indicates.

**John V = John Van Vliet, author of OpenTemp.org "An Open Analysis of the Historical Temperature Record", which basically validates the results of NASA GISTEMP (James Hansen et. al.) for the US Lower 48, much to the chagrin, I am sure, of those who have claimed that the historical US surface temperature record was so "contaminated" by barbecues, air conditioners, blacktop, etc as to be unreliable at best -- and worthless, at worst.

For yet another take on the surfacestations.org effort, read this little ditty.