BBC BLOGS - Richard Black's Earth Watch
IN ASSOCIATION WITH
« Previous | Main | Next »

Copenhagen Countdown: 10 days

Richard Black | 23:10 UK time, Friday, 27 November 2009

This was the week that saw the heavyweights come to town.

boer282.jpgThe EU had said it, UN climate convention chief Yvo de Boer had said it: without something firm on the table from China and US, together responsible for about 40% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions, it would be very difficult to reach agreement of any kind at the Copenhagen summit.

Unsurprising, then, that EU leaders and Mr de Boer applauded the announcements - within a 24-hour period - of commitments by both countries to constrain emissions, the latter saying the pledges "can unlock two of the last doors to a comprehensive agreement".

Depending on what impact the recession turns out to have had on US emissions, the target of a 17% cut from 2005 levels by 2020 may turn out to be a cut of about 12% from current levels; and it's only a few percent down from 1990 levels, the commonly-used baseline.

I've raised the question of whether developing countries will regard this as satisfactory before; and it's also unclear whether the US will put anything forward on finance, the other key ingredient of any Copenhagen deal.

China's target of reducing carbon intensity by 40-45% by 2020 has received more plaudits than the US pledge, though Reuters' Chris Buckley raises an intriguing question in an analysis article from Beijing, asking how willing China will be to see this plan independently verified - something that industrialised nations are liable to demand, in the end, as part of a legally-binding global climate treaty.

These two pronouncements were evidently facilitated by President Obama's recent visit to Beijing.

Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's visit to Washington this week, however, doesn't appear to have borne quite such meaty fruit.

The two governments signed a memorandum of understanding on climate change, clean energy and energy security - but nothing formal on curbing emissions.

As India's environment minister Jairam Ramesh acknowledged on Friday, China's announcement of a numerical pledge now leaves India as the only major greenhouse gas emitter not to put any firm numbers on the table:

"We've to think hard about our climate strategy now and look for flexibility... to avoid being isolated at Copenhagen."

Mr Ramesh is intending to put a carbon intensity pledge forward next week, according to the Times of India; though it'll be less ambitious than China's, as befits its lower per-capita GDP and emissions figures.

Chinese and US leaders didn't come forward with the travel plans that some had been hoping for.

Mr Obama will go to Copenhagen - but only en route to collect his Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo, meaning he'll not be there for the long and winding final hours when deals are done. And President Hu Jintao will not, as far as we know, be attending, leaving Prime Minister Wen Jiabao to lead China's delegation.

One explanation would be that both leaders are keeping their political powder dry for whenever and wherever a new treaty can be signed.

In the US itself, the "Climategate" issue - the batch of e-mails and documents apparently stolen from the Climatic Research Unit at the UK's University of East Anglia - appears to be emerging as an issue of some significance, at least in the Senate, where the Boxer-Kerry bill on capping and trading carbon emissions is being considered by a number of committees.

James Inhofe, a long-time "sceptic" and the ranking Republican senator on the crucial Environment and Public Works Committee, said:

"...lawmakers have an obligation to determine the extent to which the so-called 'consensus' of global warming, formed with billions of taxpayer dollars, was contrived in the biased minds of the world's leading climate scientists."

inhofe.jpgMr Inhofe sees the issue as not only lethal for the Boxer-Kerry bill, but at least highly toxic for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as it prepares to mandate action by businesses and public bodies based on a finding that carbon dioxide causes "endangerment".

Climategate - which, among mainstream media, we reported first here on the BBC News website - has also surfaced as an important ingredient of the political debate in Australia, where the government is desperate to pass cap-and-trade legislation through the Senate before the Copenhagen conference begins.

The issue is proving thorny enough to have split the opposition Liberal party, some of whose senators have rebelled against leader Malcolm Turnbull's pledge to support the measure; and the government is planning to have another go at passing the bill on Monday.

It could even lead to a general election, with Mr Turnbull warning that the party risks annihilation if the rebels hold sway:

"We would be wiped out... the vast majority of Australians want to see action on climate change."

As far as I've been able to ascertain, climate politics elsewhere remains unimpressed by allegations that the CRU documents undermine the very basis of the forthcoming negotiations; but it's a question that I will be asking when the Copenhagen talks open.

With the governments in Canberra and Washington DC now firmly signed up to chasing a deal in Copenhagen, some of the pressure that used to fall on the Howard and Bush administrations is now finding its way to Canada.

The government's target for Copenhagen is uncannily similar to the US figure - a 20% cut from 2006 levels by 2020, equating to about 3% from 1990 levels - an indication of how keen the Canadian government is to avoid losing competitiveness against its southern neighbour.

Environmental groups say this is woefully inadequate and - with support from former UK International Development Secretary Clare Short - are urging that Commonwealth Heads of Government, meeting this weekend in Trinidad, should expel Canada from the organisation because its climate inaction threatens other member countries.

Whatever the chances are of that happening, the meeting will also be a chance to see what Commonwealth leaders make of UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown's call on Friday for a $10bn fund to be established pretty much immediately to help developing countries constrain emissions and adapt to climate impacts.

This is the same size of pot that Yvo de Boer has been saying needs to be on the table at Copenhagen.

UN agencies recommend - and most parties appear to accept - that the eventual fund will need to disburse sums at least an order of magnitude bigger every year, but this is viewed as start-up money that can be deployed immediately - not only restraining emissions, but acting as a sign of good faith that industrialised governments are serious about a Copenhagen deal.

Amazon nations held a summit this week where all agreed this sort of money was essential to achieving a Copenhagen agreement.

But there was something of a mixed message from Brazil's President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva.

A couple of weeks ago he pledged to cut Brazil's carbon emissions by 36% by 2020, principally through reducing deforestation; but at the Manaus meeting he appeared to be saying this could only happen if Western countries made it happen:

"Let no gringo [foreigner] ask us to let an Amazonian starve to death under a tree... we want to preserve [the forests], but [other countries] have to pay for that preservation."

For the penultimate time, I type this phrase: if you think I've missed anything of significance that's happened over the last week, please post a comment.

Comments

or register to comment.

  • 1. At 09:04am on 28 Nov 2009, minuend wrote:

    Quote: "Ph D students are often tempted to tweak their data so as to fit the 'politically correct picture'", Eduardo Zorita, Scientist at the Institute for Coastal Research, specialist in Paleoclimatology.

    Zorita has called for those at the centre of Climategate, Mann, Jones and Rahmstorf, to be banned from the IPCC process.

    http://go2.wordpress.com/?id=725X1342&site=wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com&url=http%3A%2F%2Fcoast.gkss.de%2Fstaff%2Fzorita%2F



    Complain about this comment

  • 2. At 09:12am on 28 Nov 2009, minuend wrote:

    Quote: "The tribalism that some of the leaked emails display (Climategate) is something more usually associated with social organisation within primitive cultures; it is not attractive when we find it at work inside science. It is also possible that the institutional innovation that has been the I.P.C.C. has run its course. Yes, there will be an AR5 but for what purpose? The I.P.C.C. itself, through its structural tendency to politicise climate change science, has perhaps helped to foster a more authoritarian and exclusive form of knowledge production – just at a time when a globalising and wired cosmopolitan culture is demanding of science something much more open and inclusive.", Mike Hulme, University of East Anglia

    Complain about this comment

  • 3. At 09:22am on 28 Nov 2009, minuend wrote:

    Quote: "What has been noticeably absent so far in the ClimateGate discussion is a public reaffirmation by climate researchers of our basic research values: the rigors of the scientific method (including reproducibility), research integrity and ethics, open minds, and critical thinking. Under no circumstances should we ever sacrifice any of these values; the CRU emails, however, appear to violate them.", Dr Judith Curry, Cimate Scientist, Georgia Tech.

    Complain about this comment

  • 4. At 09:27am on 28 Nov 2009, minuend wrote:

    Quote: "I think the odds are no better than 50/50 that our present civilisation will survive to the end of the present century", Lord Rees, Royal Society, rumoured to head up the independent(?) investigation into Climategate.

    Complain about this comment

  • 5. At 09:28am on 28 Nov 2009, King_JG wrote:

    How to report a story, without reporting a story. Learn from the BBC.

    After being criticised around the world, and on their own blogs for their appalling non-reporting of Climategate, the BBC are forced to mention it again. But how to mention it without informing readers of the nasty details? Richard gives us a great example in this blog post.

    Quote "Climategate - which, among mainstream media, we reported first here on the BBC News website". Is a standard BBC response when caught out burying a story. "Look, we did report it, see link". But actually if you read that link, all it reports is the actual hack. While this is a part of the story, it is not Climategate. The Climategate story is based on the amazing stuff that the e-mails actually contain. Contents which you find little mention of on the BBC. They have touched on a couple of the mails (hide the decline & FOI requests) but the bulk of the contents have had no mention at all.

    Where is the in depth analysis of the mails Mr Black? The BBC gets billions from the TV tax every year, you would have thought someone in the vast organisation was capable of such an analysis. But we all know the real reason for the lack of depth in their coverage. The BBC has a new religion, AGW. Anything that might tarnish this new belief system must be avoided at all costs. And heaven-forbid that us poor TV-Tax payers should be given the full facts and left to make up our own minds.

    A truly shameful episode for the BBC, and one I hope the next government remembers come time for negotiations on BBC funding levels/models.

    Complain about this comment

  • 6. At 09:39am on 28 Nov 2009, david jenkins wrote:

    There is no analysis by the BBC since they do not employ any scientists in their environment reporting section - they are usually ex-members of green movement [all in love with AGW] or are arts graduates who could not find a job anywhere else

    Complain about this comment

  • 7. At 09:53am on 28 Nov 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    @Richard Black

    In the US itself, the "Climategate" issue - the batch of e-mails and documents apparently stolen from the Climatic Research Unit at the UK's University of East Anglia - appears to be emerging as an issue of some significance, at least in the Senate, where the Boxer-Kerry bill on capping and trading carbon emissions is being considered by a number of committees.

    At last the BBC acknowledge, the CRU email hack (if that is what it is) is an issue

    Climategate - which, among mainstream media, we reported first here on the BBC News website - has also surfaced as an important ingredient of the political debate in Australia, where the government is desperate to pass cap-and-trade legislation through the Senate before the Copenhagen conference begins.

    Wasn't it more like mentioned in passing?

    Even Mike Hulme thinks the IPCC should be disbanded:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/27/uea-climate-scientist-possible-that-i-p-c-c-has-run-its-course/

    Sorry, Richard, I believe you are a basically honest journalist, blogging on the things you believe are real issues, but it is time you and the BBC stopped accepting press releases from the likes of Mann, printing without criticism and calling it journalism. Here is the perfect example of this:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8381317.stm

    Complain about this comment

  • 8. At 10:20am on 28 Nov 2009, ScudLewis wrote:

    I'm inclined not to be too harsh on Richard, as we don't know all the facts.

    @minued Interesting quotes - esp. from Dr. E. Zorita:

    "Some, or many issues, about climate change are still not well known. Policy makers should be aware of the attempts to hide these uncertainties under a unified picture." - so much for the scientific consensus!

    http://coast.gkss.de/staff/zorita/myview.html

    Does this have elements of some public 'in the light of day' analysis of a clandestine Groupthink event/activity (I mean ClimateGate not Iraq Inquiry)?

    Also, to take a concept from Biology - perhaps independence turned to interdependence, mutualistic symbiosis turned to symbiogenesis (merging of two separate organisms to form a single new organism) - just thought, this happened to the banks and look what happened there!

    Complain about this comment

  • 9. At 11:52am on 28 Nov 2009, Neil Hyde wrote:

    Why the penultimate time Richard ?

    Complain about this comment

  • 10. At 12:10pm on 28 Nov 2009, vidl wrote:

    As per the comments above, yes the BBC reported a hack. NO the BBC has not analysed or reported the contents in any depth. Perhaps we need to take the stance demonstrated in Canada:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sZx90EH8N8

    Complain about this comment

  • 11. At 12:30pm on 28 Nov 2009, vidl wrote:

    Oh, the irony, you have to go to Russia to get reporting:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RykErh8G4jk
    Where as in what was "the free world" it's being stifled.

    Complain about this comment

  • 12. At 12:35pm on 28 Nov 2009, yertizz wrote:

    Just caught the local news headlines on BBC 1.

    It featured some guy introduced as Professor Peter Cox, '... a Mthematician who understands the complex issues in climatechange modelling...' 'He is one of 26 Climate Evperts who have made a report available to Heads of State to help them understand the threats to our environment by climate change'.

    Against a background video of the usual collapsing glacier and polar bears, the commentary went on to say that things are happening faster than was predicted and in future we can expext even more extreme weather events. Boscastle and Cockermouth were quoted as examples of what to expect.

    1. The Defra report after Boscastle stated categorically that '...it was nothing to do with climate change and was a 1-in-400-years' event.

    2. According to the BBC TV news last week, immediately following the Cockermouth floods, it was reported '...the Environment Agency said this was a 1-in-1000-years event.

    If a 1-in400-years event is nothing to do with climate chenge, how in the name of common sense can a 1-in-1000 years' event claim to be caused by climate change?

    In my correspondence with this bunch over the last 3 years, I have raised this and was told '...the footage was for illustrative purposes only...' (Yeah, right!)

    This is simply a further illustration of how desperate the BBC has become to push the AGW propaganda as hard as it can in the run-up to Copenhagen and, in my view, trying to bury Climategate!

    It seems we can expect more next week, according to the news reader.

    I Can't wait!

    Complain about this comment

  • 13. At 1:28pm on 28 Nov 2009, rossglory wrote:

    #12 yertizz

    quite right the bbc should push the agw 'message' (or if you define propaganda as informing the public about scientific discoveries - then propaganda). this is the most important global issue we face today.

    also quite right that they should ignore the usual hot air from the denialosphere. a miniscule group mostly with political or economic interests. it's only here that these emails are perceieved as significant.

    i look forward to significant progress at copenhagen.

    i can't wait!

    Complain about this comment

  • 14. At 1:32pm on 28 Nov 2009, infiniti wrote:

    The question is how should science deal with pseudo-skeptics. Pseudo-skeptics are not interested in understanding the actual science, they are interested only in flinging mud to discredit science they don't like on ideological grounds. For evolution the ideological grounds that generate so many pseudo-skeptics are religious, for manmade global warming it's political. The emergent behavior of the pseudo-skeptics is akin to a giant grass roots PR machine.

    This virtual PR machine is constantly on the look out for anything in the science they can spin, nitpick over or misrepresent. There are various blogs and websites online that do precisely this 24/7. With shades of the financial crisis, they take a number of poor arguments and package them into "toxic accusations". These accusations are baseless if you spend time scrutinizing the arguments they are built on, but due to their slick packaged nature they can sound convincing on the face of it. Psuedo-skeptics are well versed in firing out dozens of such toxic packages to overwhelm. They know even if someone points out one argument is false they can just sidestep and throw out some more.

    What the manmae global warming pseudo-skeptics mean by "ClimateGate" is a giant "toxic accusation" of their making. I've scrutinized a lot of the arguments pseudo-skeptics have bundled into "climategate" and found a lot of irrelevant nitpicks, misrepresentations, quite a lot of false reasoning based on ignorance. The accusations of "fraud" and "scientific misconduct" that are stamped on this toxic accusation are baseless.

    All the noise you hear from the psuedoskeptics demanding that their version of "ClimateGate" be reported, "where is richard??" "why isn't the BBC reporting this?" is part of their PR drive on this matter. Unfortunately for them I think the more reputable media outlets can see it for what it is, they must deal with this kind of stuff on a whole load of issues.

    But how can scientists deal with pseudo skeptics? CRU scientists decided not to waste time feeding the beast, limiting the spin and misrepresentation it could do by blocking it's requests for data. Not a wise move really as the beast then played the "honest skeptic" card and claimed CRU was deliberately withholding data. It's a rock and a hard place. Scientists have deadlines and wasting time releasing data to people you know only want it to accuse you of fraud merely by finding the scientific equivalent of typos seems counterproductive. However I think it is better to release all the data, even though this can waste a lot of time and feeds the beast. Then simply ignore the false accusations they make in public. That's a hit of course, but as the email leak shows you are going to get hit anyway when so many pseudoskeptics put their mind to it.

    Complain about this comment

  • 15. At 1:41pm on 28 Nov 2009, vidl wrote:

    @rossglory #13
    Yes, 31,486 scientists is a "miniscule group mostly with political or economic interests"
    http://www.petitionproject.org/

    Complain about this comment

  • 16. At 1:44pm on 28 Nov 2009, Rachel Blackburn wrote:

    "Climategate - which, among mainstream media, we reported first here on the BBC News website"

    Oh really? I can remember some stories emphasising the illegality of the (presumed) hack, some dismissals of "gossip taken out of context" and a few free-hits offered to CRU to spout their strawman cover-ups about "no signs of global conspiracy". What I can't remember is any actual *reporting* of it here.

    Where is the outrage about corruption of the peer review process which means we can't trust this "settled" science? Where is the pursuit and investigation of those who have conspired to break the law on Freedom of Information? Where is the contempt for those who threaten to delete publically-funded data rather than release it so other scientists can verify that nothing 'dodgy' has been going on? Where indeed is there any sign on the BBC that you don't share the CRU attitude that what matters is the man-made climate change message - and that the facts can be twisted to fit as needed?

    Sorry, but this climate too is now a-changing.

    Complain about this comment

  • 17. At 1:44pm on 28 Nov 2009, Jack Frost wrote:

    UK Met Office backpedals on Artic Ice - "unlikely that the Arctic will experience ice-free summers by 2020."

    But they do say that “first ice-free summer expected to occur between 2060 and 2080″. By then there will be nobody that remembers this forecast.

    Yet on the same day, bumbling Arctic explorer Pen Hadow says in a UK Telegraph interview:

    “To all intents and purposes the Arctic will be ice free in a decade. I do find the implications of this happening in my lifetime quite shocking.“.

    Gosh, who to believe? Somebody that fakes biotelemetry data or somebody that won’t hand over climate data for replication studies?

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/28/uk-met-office-backpedals-on-arctic-ice-unlikely-that-the-arctic-will-experience-ice-free-summers-by-2020/

    Complain about this comment

  • 18. At 1:49pm on 28 Nov 2009, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @minuend #2

    First of all I'm going to point out that the behaviour of some sceptics in all of this has been exemplary. Some of them have clearly stuck to the facts, and been prepared to listen to the defences of the accused.

    But as for you. Tribalism. Pot. Kettle. Black.

    Complain about this comment

  • 19. At 1:57pm on 28 Nov 2009, Lloyd wrote:

    Black sticks pencil up nose and shouts "wibble".

    Complain about this comment

  • 20. At 1:58pm on 28 Nov 2009, Yorkurbantree wrote:

    Of late, it's been difficult to tell the difference between this comments page and the one on the Daily Mail website - lots of angry old men ranting about their hatred of the BBC and taxes. At least the demands for everyone to be sacked seem to have stopped (I have a friend who works for an MP and I can assure you that letters ranting about BBC bias are the kind that are greeted with groans).

    The regular refrain seems to be that because the journalists at the BBC don't have science degrees, then they should'nt be covering science. Interesting point - should the military corrospondent be a member of the TA? I don't know to be honest, but it seems rather irrelevent because I have never seen any journalist covering this subject (with or without science qualifications) that is pro or anti climate change. Their job is to report the news and when the cannon of published research says 'x' then you can hardly be suprised when they say that 'x' is the widely accepted theory.

    Regardless, the suggestion that the BBC has been trying to supress 'climategate' (why does everything have to have a gate tacked on the end...) is ridiculous. They have had articles on it from the start. In fact, everytime I have had a look at the environment section of the website, since the story broke, there has been at least a couple of news or comment pieces on it. If skeptics on this comment page can show such a blatent disregard for reality on this point, it does call into question their analytical bias for this topic as a whole.

    Good article incidently. The Australian angle is fascinating.

    Complain about this comment

  • 21. At 1:59pm on 28 Nov 2009, yertizz wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 22. At 2:00pm on 28 Nov 2009, Jack Frost wrote:



    UK MET Office Forecast probabilities for precipitation over Northern Europe including the UK: Winter 2009/10

    Rainfail – either 30% Drier – 35% Near Average – or 35% Wetter

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/seasonal/2009/winter/

    Gosh thats really sticking your neck out.


    Good to see that multi million pound super computer is clunking away.

    Complain about this comment

  • 23. At 2:00pm on 28 Nov 2009, pph wrote:

    Maybe the BBC should inteview this guy to get some balanched views ;-)

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/the-price-of-dissent/story-e6frg7b6-1111118127677

    Quote from David Bellemy article:
    "There's no proof, it's just projections, and if you look at the models people such as Gore use, you can see they cherry-pick the ones that support their beliefs. To date, the way the so-called Greens and the BBC, the Royal Society and even political parties have handled this smacks of McCarthyism at its worst."

    Complain about this comment

  • 24. At 2:07pm on 28 Nov 2009, Yorkurbantree wrote:

    Vidl: 15 - You're not seriously stil trying to peddle the 'there was a petition' argument. A bunch of retired science teachers in the USA and people with economics degrees etc etc does not make for a particulalry credible piece of evidence. There are millions of people around the world with higher level scientific qualifications. I'm sure you could find 30,000 of them that said just about anything. Seriously, this is pretty desperate stuff if you are having to trot stuff like that...

    Complain about this comment

  • 25. At 2:08pm on 28 Nov 2009, King_JG wrote:

    You are missing the point infinity (No 14)

    The point I was trying to make in my post above is that it is not about Climategate proving or disproving one or other side of the AGW debate. It is the fact that the BBC have decided to bury the story. I am not demanding that anyone report "[my] version of the Climategate story", I just want to see it reported properly by our tax-funded state broadcaster, that means an analysis of what the e-mails and code contain, what this suggests, and what this actually adds-up to. You know, some proper journalism.

    Bishop Hill blog has a partial round up of the contents of many of the e-mails here
    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/11/20/climate-cuttings-33.html

    On that post there is no comment, just a summary of some of the e-mails. Now don't you think that some of the issues in those e-mails raise some questions that should be examined by anyone, sceptic or believer?

    I am a scientist, and have been a professional researcher for more than 20 years, and one of the most disturbing part of the contents that have been revealed is the seeming perversion of the scientific process undertaken by the people mentioned. Science is all about transparency, openness and repeatability. When new work is published we need to be able to examine how the conclusions were reached. That means access to the data & codes and the ability to publish papers which either agree or disagree with the original work. There is information in those e-mails which brings into question this process in relation to those involved in producing the work referred to.

    But I don't want to get into a debate about what the e-mails actually mean, the point is it should not be individuals or bloggers that have to do this analysis alone. The reason I was posting here was to point out the woeful reporting, and in my opinion deliberate burying of the full story here at the BBC.

    Complain about this comment

  • 26. At 2:13pm on 28 Nov 2009, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @Williebob #19

    If that's supposed to be a Blackadder reference, you've forgotten the second pencil and the pair of underpants.

    Complain about this comment

  • 27. At 2:15pm on 28 Nov 2009, Yorkurbantree wrote:

    Davblo where are you? The skeptics are machine gunning this page with drivel from the blogoshpere - your 'evidence based' graffiti cleaning paint is needed!

    Complain about this comment

  • 28. At 2:20pm on 28 Nov 2009, yertizz wrote:

    Yorkurbantree @ 20 says:

    '...In fact, every time I have had a look at the environment section of the website, since the story broke, there has been at least a couple of news or comment pieces on it. If skeptics on this comment page can show such a blatent disregard for reality on this point, it does call into question their analytical bias for this topic as a whole....'

    You completely miss the point! Only people who are acutely aware of the arguments visit these websites. Joe Public usually gets his information from TV and radio. It has to be said that Climategate has received ABSOLUTELY NO COVERAGE on these channels. That is suppression of information…..communism, if you like.

    You are also extremely patronising and completely dismissive of the older generation, of which I am one.

    Through almost 7 decades upon this speck of dust I have seen crusades, threats and campaigns come and go...crashing to the ground in flames. Those of my age have many years of experience of the machinations of mankind and are therefore in a unique position to transcend the spin, sophistry, obfuscation, mendacity and idiocy which ALWAYS feature in events such as these.

    We have the knowledge to understand that: If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and swims like a duck, it IS a DUCK!

    From your posts I wouldn't imagine you fall within my generation; if you do, however, you need to lose your infantile naïveté.

    Complain about this comment

  • 29. At 2:27pm on 28 Nov 2009, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @Yorkurbantree #20

    Perhaps it might help if the BBC site offered some HTML buttons. You know, bold, italics, and perhaps some new ones for colour.

    Imagine a website where comments could be posted in a choice of black, dark grey, dark blue and green. Imagine the impact of a post containing lots of Caps Lock and green ink.

    Complain about this comment

  • 30. At 2:30pm on 28 Nov 2009, vidl wrote:

    @Yorkurbantree
    I was just making a point, that using the "my dad is bigger than yours" arguement that was peddled by another postes was innane. We can all bring our numbers to suit any arguement. We had an "illegal" war in Iraq based on numbers of MPs who voted for it. It doesn't mean it was right.

    "If you’d asked any scientist or doctor 30 years ago where stomach ulcers come from, they would all have given the same answer: obviously it comes from the acid brought on by too much stress. All of them apart from two scientists who were pilloried for their crazy, whacko theory that it was caused by a bacteria. In 2005 they won the Nobel prize. The “consensus” was wrong."

    Complain about this comment

  • 31. At 2:33pm on 28 Nov 2009, vidl wrote:

    @pph #23
    Is that David Bellamy, OBE, who gets no coverage on the BBC any more as he diagrees with their AGW views? Thought so.

    Complain about this comment

  • 32. At 2:37pm on 28 Nov 2009, vidl wrote:

    @me #30
    argument, obviously ;-)

    Complain about this comment

  • 33. At 2:37pm on 28 Nov 2009, PAWB46 wrote:

    Yertizz and others are absolutely correct. The BBC has not covered Climategate. It has stuck its head in the sand and, with great biological difficulty, with its fingers in its ears shouted I can't hear any Climategate.

    Neither Richard nor any other BBC environmental correspondent has discussed the CRU emails and other "leaked/stolen" data (the attempts to breah the FOIA, the attempts to corrupt the peer-review process, the attempts to stifle other scientific studies; and worst of all, the absolute and scandalous mess that the CRU codes and data are in).

    It is a national disgrace that the BBC refuses to discuss this home-grown scandal which is receiving much more attention around the world. Some call it a cover-up ahead of Copenhagen.

    Complain about this comment

  • 34. At 2:39pm on 28 Nov 2009, cmdocker wrote:

    "As far as I've been able to ascertain"
    Woodward and Bernstein Stand Aside.

    Complain about this comment

  • 35. At 2:40pm on 28 Nov 2009, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @yertizz #28

    No coverage? You inside the UK? Can you watch iPlayer?

    Second question. Starts 21 minutes in. And as Dimblebly knows the questioner's name I presume that unlike the panel someone at the BBC knew the content of the question. Also note, Dimbleby asks Melanie Phillips to answer first.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00p36jw/b00p36hj/Question_Time_26_11_2009/
    Available until 11:34pm Friday 26th November 2010

    Complain about this comment

  • 36. At 2:40pm on 28 Nov 2009, infiniti wrote:

    28: "That is suppression of information…..communism, if you like."

    I think it's more similar to murdering nuns!

    Complain about this comment

  • 37. At 2:50pm on 28 Nov 2009, Johannah Bernstein wrote:

    This is a message for Richard. I very much appreciate your reporting on the climate change negotiations. I do however need to point out an important error that you made in your report today in which you refer to comments by the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon in his call for political leaders to seal the deal. You state that the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012. This is simply not correct. It is the first commitment period that expires, not the Protocol!! Parties are legally mandated to adopt an amendment to the Kyoto Protocol that would set out the terms of the second commitment period. Many developed country PArties, esp the US would like to dismantle the Protocol in hopes of replacing it with an instrument that would contain weaker targets for them and new targets for rapidly industrialising countries. This would be contrary to the fundamental principles of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. It is important to keep reminding your readers that the Protocol, despite all its flaws is the only legally binding instrument that contains reduction targets for industrialised countries. It is the cornerstone of the climate regime~

    Complain about this comment

  • 38. At 3:06pm on 28 Nov 2009, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @yertizz #28

    There is a lack of respect and trust on both sides. From my point of view that is what caused the problem in the first place.

    If you are offering your experience and wisdom of almost seven decades as a contribution to help fix the problem then that's fine, it's part of the solution. If however you are using it to say you are better than other people here that is not fine. Ageism in either direction is wrong. And nobody has a monopoly on truth.

    Complain about this comment

  • 39. At 3:07pm on 28 Nov 2009, yertizz wrote:

    JaneBasingstoke @ 35

    Age also brings with it the grace to admit you have made a mistake. In my post at 28 I SHOULD have said '...from TV and radio NEWS Bulletins...'

    The programme you refer to was 'Question Time' and I don't need i-Player to comment upon it, I saw the live broadcast and I have to say, apart from David Davis the rest of the politicians on the panel simply spouted the Party Line (aided and abetted by the (so-called) Comedian, Marcus Brigstock. To his credit, the Audience Member who posed the question put up a very cogent argument and won the biggest round of applause of the night!

    His peers said everything of which the BBC should take note.

    Having watched EVERY edition of this programme for over 20 years, I can tell you the subject of climate change has VERY RARELY featured in the programme's output and I would have to say this was simply a sop to the viewers.

    Complain about this comment

  • 40. At 3:36pm on 28 Nov 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    @all who think the emails have no relevance

    Mann has been quoted as follows:

    No researchers in this field have ever, to our knowledge, “grafted the thermometer record onto” any reconstruction. It is somewhat disappointing to find this specious claim (which we usually find originating from industry-funded climate disinformation websites) appearing in this forum.

    This article reveals what complete and utter rubbish this statement is:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/28/how-the-trick-was-pulled-off/#more-13328

    and also ties in with HARRY's version of events

    something in the atmosphere stinks to high heaven and it ain't that odorless, colourless, giver of life, CO2

    Complain about this comment

  • 41. At 3:55pm on 28 Nov 2009, Plato-says wrote:

    39 Can I just confirm that I have BBC Radio 5 on 24/7 and have not heard a single mention of Climategate at all.

    Not once. At all. In a whole week. Since it broke.

    Now, isn't that strange? A rolling news and sport station and not a peep.

    Complain about this comment

  • 42. At 4:06pm on 28 Nov 2009, PAWB46 wrote:

    David Jenkins #6 and yertizz #12 are right. We have a problem here in that a lot of the so-called "climate scientists" are not fit for purpose. The climate behaves following the laws of physics and so you have to be a physicist, specifically have expertise in thermodynamics, fluid flow, heat transfer, radiation etc etc to undertsand and model the climate. And you need great expertise in these branches of physics.

    Now Peter Cox is a mathematician and yet he is called a climate expert. Now mathematics is not a science, it is a tool used by scientists. People like Jones, Briffa, Mann etc are tree-ring counters (they go out and sample trees). They are not physicists and worse than that, they are not statisticians. So in their analysis of tree rings they use home-made statistics ang get it all wrong. Go look at the CRU website and see the background of these so-called climate scientists - they aren't any such thing. Same with the IPCC. You can count the number of scientists who study the physics of the climate on the fingers of one hand. That is why, whenever a physicist says to a warmist you have got the physics all wrong, they bluster but have no answer.

    I could list physicists who are climate scientists, but I won't here, they mostly go by such names as Lindzen etc.

    And then you have the BBC, who do employ one or two scientists (Susan Watts for example), but in the arena here, we are looking at English graduates for example. It is no wonder they cannot comment on what the emails reveal. How many correspondents in the BBC understand the scientific methodology, or replication, or could look at the Fortran that has been released form CRU and make sense of any of it, or have even heard of Fortran? None I guess.

    It is over 40years since I was first introduced to Fortran, and the stuff we did then (as a student I should add) was better than the CRU code that I have seen.

    Come on BBC, clear out the old guard and get some people in who can understand the science and get a news item on Climategate.

    Complain about this comment

  • 43. At 4:07pm on 28 Nov 2009, PAWB46 wrote:

    Plato-says #41

    I confrim I have not seen it mentioned on any news bulletin I have heard or seen.

    Complain about this comment

  • 44. At 4:18pm on 28 Nov 2009, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @MangoChutneyUKOK #40

    You are aware that Phil Jones confessed to "grafting" back on Tuesday the 24th:

    http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2009/nov/homepagenews/CRUupdate
    (scroll down to bottom of screen for both versions of the graph)

    And yes, you appear to be right about the HARRY_READ_ME fudges with "real" (= directly measured) temperatures after 1960 applying to this graft.

    Phil McIntyre seems to approve of the new version of the graph

    "I think the graph speaks for itself, see especially "Keith's series" (green)."

    http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7810

    Complain about this comment

  • 45. At 4:36pm on 28 Nov 2009, manysummits wrote:

    \\\ Vanicshing Point - Multi-Year Arctic Sea Ice ///

    Hot off the presses, soon to be published in 'Geophysical Research Letters':

    Dr. David Barber, University of Manitoba (Canada); who holds "Canada Reasearch Chair in Arctic Science,", recently returned from a voyage to the Beaufort Sea:

    1) Multi-year ice used to cover ~ 90% of the Arctic Basin; now ~ 19%.

    2) Used to be ~ 10 meters thick; now ~ 2 meters.

    3) 2007 - record low ice-cover (satellite), but it was thought to be multi-year ice; now - not so - ephemeral and rotten thin-ice.

    4) Arctic Sea Ice thought to be virtually beyond repair.

    http://www.thestar.com/news/sciencetech/environment/article/732009---permanent-arctic-ice-vanishing

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/arctic-sea-ice-has-nearly-vanished-expert-fears/article1381174/

    \\\ Manysummits ///

    Complain about this comment

  • 46. At 4:39pm on 28 Nov 2009, manysummits wrote:

    I am encouraged by the continued spamming of this site by the 'business as usual' lobby.

    It means, without doubt, that Copenhagen may well be much more of a success than anticipated.

    - Manysummits -

    Complain about this comment

  • 47. At 4:59pm on 28 Nov 2009, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @MangoChutneyUKOK #40
    (@myself #44)

    (OK. Reposting with more care.)

    You are aware that Phil Jones issued a new version of the Hockey Stick graphs back on Tuesday the 24th:

    http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2009/nov/homepagenews/CRUupdate
    (scroll down to bottom of screen for both versions of the graph)

    And yes, you appear to be right about the HARRY_READ_ME comments about "real" (= directly measured) temperatures after 1960 applying to this situation.

    Phil McIntyre seems to approve of the new version of the graph. From an update to his "Mike's Nature Trick" piece:

    "I think the graph speaks for itself, see especially "Keith's series" (green)."

    Complain about this comment

  • 48. At 5:19pm on 28 Nov 2009, thinkforyourself wrote:

    Minuend at #1

    You’re cherry picking stuff again. This is what Mr. Zorita also says in that article:-

    ‘These words do not mean that I think anthropogenic climate change is a hoax.’

    And isn’t that what we’re discussing here. Not the smearing of some personalities – that would be so wrong, wouldn’t it, as you’re speaking anonymously, hidden safely away in a darkened room.

    Mr. Zorita also comments on the extremely low probability that the recent warm decade is natural. See here:-

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2008GL036228.shtml

    A previous blogger also cherry picked Roger Pielke Sr’s position. It is far more nuanced than described. Read this:-

    http://climatesci.org/2006/07/25/misquotation-of-my-views-on-climate-science/

    He also says: ‘As I have summarized on the Climate Science weblog, humans activities do significantly alter the heat content of the climate system’

    And also ’.... Indeed, I endorse the development of alternative energy and energy efficiency, both of which could save us money, reduce our dependence on foreign fossil fuel, as well as reduce emissions of gases and aerosols into the atmosphere, including CO2’

    Also minuend, source please for your alleged comments from Mike Hulme. I can only find a circular route to a strange web site called ’Heliogenic climate change’. If that is the source could you also let us know who is funding it, there’s a good chap.

    Poor Yertizz at #12. Says:

    ‘If a 1-in 400-years event is nothing to do with climate change, how in the name of common sense can a 1-in-1000 years' event claim to be caused by climate change?’

    Because, Yertizz, a 1:1000 year event is very much more improbable in nature, unless you accept that something other than natural forcing played a role.

    rossglory at #13 says: ‘...also quite right that they should ignore the usual hot air from the denialosphere. a miniscule group mostly with political or economic interests. It’s only here that these emails are perceived as significant. I look forward to significant progress at copenhagen.’

    And infinity at #14.

    Two great posts. I agree with both 100%.

    Yorkurbantree: #20. Your right. The sceptics could always get their information from Fox News – That’s a paragon of truth. Mind you that might be a bit upmarket. The Daily Star always has a few good cherry picked headlines for them.

    Yertizz at #21 says ‘Your version of '...scientific discoveries...' IS pure, unadulterated propaganda.....or Crap, if you like!’

    How did this get past the moderator?

    I think for that charming chappie, even the Daily Star would be too highbrow.


    pph #23. Come on, keep up. Don’t you know. It’s common knowledge that Bellamy left the Earth for Alpha Centauri many moons ago. Watch him fall apart on Channel four News a couple of years ago.

    Click on ‘Watch the report’ at:-

    http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/world/are%20the%20glaciers%20melting/107930

    Is Bellamy the cheerleader? Looks like the sceptics are fading away over the horizon....bye, bye, La La, bye bye, Po.

    Complain about this comment

  • 49. At 5:20pm on 28 Nov 2009, manysummits wrote:

    \\\ Thought 10 days before Copenhagen ///

    With the new movie out - "The Road", about a father and son in a post-apocalyptic world, with Wade Davis' new book, "The Wayfinders," about how ancient wisdom can help us in the modern world, with Copenhagen upcoming, with climate science reaching out to the world community - with all that and more, I find the present time incredibly rich and rewarding.

    John Steinbeck's "Song of the Family" ("The Pearl") is strong in my heart, and our denialists are in a state of panic.

    No matter the outcome, our collective life-force is gathering strength.

    Dancing with death is always a centering experience - it is what we need.

    - Manysummits -

    Complain about this comment

  • 50. At 5:44pm on 28 Nov 2009, JRWoodman wrote:

    I love this:

    "James Inhofe... said:

    "...lawmakers have an obligation to determine the extent to which the so-called 'consensus' of global warming, formed with billions of taxpayer dollars, was contrived in the biased minds of the world's leading climate scientists."

    So the lawmakers are going to determine whether the consensus of leading Climate Change scientists know what they're talking about? And how can they do that when they lack any understanding of the science? Of course I guess they prefer to listen to the mass of posters, bloggers, pundits, conspiracy theorists and the generally-misinformed who are so willing to impart their words of 'commonsense' gleaned from a skim through third-hand, cherry-picked data published on denialist and politically-motivated websites.

    Keep up the good work, Richard. I know you won't be put off by the mass of deniers now clustering round your blogspot like wasps round a honeypot.

    Complain about this comment

  • 51. At 6:10pm on 28 Nov 2009, PAWB46 wrote:

    manysummits #45

    Thanks for pointing out more evidence of natural changes in the climate. It would be very strange if these things didn't happen. The climate is an every changing system. Sometimes there's more ice, sometimes there's less ice. life goes on.

    Complain about this comment

  • 52. At 6:17pm on 28 Nov 2009, Yorkurbantree wrote:

    JaneBasingstoke: 35 - thanks for that link.

    Yertizz: 21 + 28 - swearing and accusing the BBC of being communists isn't going to strengthen your argument old boy! The age issue of skeptics is worth noting as it helps to explain, in part, why they have such contrarian attitudes. Retired people are statistically more conservative and are further from new developments in science and academia. All that goes without saying but I think psychology explains more than that. If you accept the principal of anthropogenically induced climate change and the wider environmental degradation mindset, then the older you are, the greater contribution you will have made to causing the problem (as a general rule). As all the well known skeptics are men, from the wealthy west, and are over 60 - the temptation to deny something, that you would otherwise feel rather guilty for, is clearly quite overwhelming.

    I don't buy your whole 'I've seen enough scams in my 70 years on the earth...' argument as the most obvious parallel with the current climate change thing is in the history of smoking legislation. The current reaction is very similar - those with corporate interests have an agenda in spreading confusion about the science and those 'addicts' don't want to face up to the changing reality.

    Yertizz:39 - You really just can't help yourself can you! I watched the Question Time clip and the biggest cheers were when the nut job from the Daily Mail was put in her place. A few people clapped the bloke who was suggesting it's all a scam but not many. Neither side came out of it well though. Both the Daily Mail journalist and the comedian sounded out of their depth on the science and I cringed when people in the audience started suggesting the recent floods were all down to CC...


    Complain about this comment

  • 53. At 6:59pm on 28 Nov 2009, Ben Vorlich wrote:

    Richard Black,
    you must remember that these climate models are digital astrology. Russel Grant, Jonathan Cainer,Mystic Meg and Shelley von Strunckel could produce equally valid predictions as the Hockey team. The only difference being they would let you see the code and data(Perhaps Mystic Meg wouldn't)!

    Complain about this comment

  • 54. At 7:02pm on 28 Nov 2009, lburt wrote:

    @manysummits #45 (vanishing ice)

    I've already told you and others about the extremely misleading practice of treating proxies as new evidence. Such "evidence" may not even be entirely related to the temperature (the proxy relationship you're implying) but even if it were your logic appears to be like this

    Skeptics: Its warmed but what is the cause of the warming?
    Alarmists: Ice melts when it's warmer, therefore man caused the warming.

    Now if you alarmists could run along and find actual evidence that we'll have warming that has never before been observed (as opposed to the harmless .4C warming we've had since 1940) it would really be helpful to your.

    Oh, and don't bother with the basic CO2 absorption math either. Even if it were true that the climate system showed 100% of this supposed "back radiation" from a region 60C colder than the ground...you still have the problem of feedbacks appearing to be negative in the general behavior of the interglacials, the ERBE data and the fact that the observational data shows insufficient warming to even meet CO2's supposed forcing.

    Complain about this comment

  • 55. At 7:34pm on 28 Nov 2009, ADMac wrote:

    manysummits #49

    "Wade Davis' new book, "The Wayfinders," about how ancient wisdom can help us in the modern world"


    I think Jones et al used this ancient source of wisdom to construct the datasets and computer models.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bfq5kju627c&feature=player_embedded

    Complain about this comment

  • 56. At 8:11pm on 28 Nov 2009, davblo2 wrote:

    Yorkurbantree #27: "Davblo where are you? The skeptics are machine gunning this page with drivel from the blogoshpere - your 'evidence based' graffiti cleaning paint is needed!"

    I thought it best to let some of the graffiti paint dry before trying to clean it up.

    The criticisms of leaked emails seems to be well covered by the "human element under pressure" and personal involvement of those concerned. Not an ideal situation. but just plain reality.

    One patch of nasty graffiti I'd like to clear up concerns the criticisms of the program code. Here led mainly by...

    PAWB46 #42: "It is over 40years since I was first introduced to Fortran, and the stuff we did then (as a student I should add) was better than the CRU code that I have seen."

    PAWB46 #51: "How wrong you are! You must be speaking from a position of zero knowledge. I spent many years in industry using Fortran codes. Code was not considered to be good or useable unless about 25% of it was comment. Checking (verification), validation, documentation and quality controls were vital. A large fraction of code development would be spent on the these activities. CRU obviously ignore this best practice, as you seem to think acceptable. Harry obviously thought the same way as me. He couldn't sort out the CRU code mess because of the lack of comment and zero quality."

    ...and other blog sites which I prefer not to visit.

    It seems to me that some have very "blinkered" views about the various ways in which software can be developed and used.

    I (like PAWB46) started out with the idea that all software development should follow clear and well documented procedures and result in thoroughly tested and well documented code. Then in my first job after university I received a shock, and had to struggle hard to achieve and maintain order in the apparently undisciplined development environment I found myself in.

    Over the years I've seen software development from all angles and come to terms with the different methodologies and disciplines in use. Each has it merits, pitfalls and potentials for use and abuse.

    I've looked briefly at some of the code which the likes of PAWB46 criticise out of hand. I say briefly because I know and accept that it would take a very long time to actually understand it fully, as witnessed by the much quoted "Harry" file.

    I've been in his position several times and I know what it's like. So that is one point. How can anyone condemn the work after just a few days when it took Harry months just to start figuring things out?

    What I see is very ordinary code. Sparse comments and no associated documentation. Does documentation exist? How would we know? Was the hacker selective in what he took? We don't know. But there are some comments in the code; and I see various program modules written for many different purposes.

    I see a tool-set.

    If you have an ideal project, where the goals are well defined, the time-scales are agreed, the expectations, performance, requirements are all understood; then if time permits, you can have the luxury of analysing the system, designing the solution, writing and reviewing specifications, implementing the software in code, having code reviews, testing the software, validating it, verifying it an finally delivering it and maintaining it.

    But in general life isn't like that and corners are cut. That doesn't mean that nothing works. We get by. I've written code in a hurry, straight "off the cuff", and it's actually something people can be good at; and it gets results. It's reality; it's how things are done.

    So what I see in the CRU code (and infer from criticisms) is that they have been using computers and software as a tool; as many research scientists and engineers do. You work day to day with data, thoughts, ideas. How to process this and that data from differently formatted files? How can I allow for this effect; for that effect; how can I reconcile these effects and interactions and maintain consistency? You write routines, functions, modules (depending on your terminology) and run tests and examine results interactively. You use tools (software) you create on the fly.

    There is no pre-defined software product. There is no requirement specification. They create software tools iteratively and test out various data processing operations; much is trial and error searching for workable solutions.

    The graffiti here picks on specific pieces of code and criticises them. But there is no knowing which pieces of code have actually been used in generating any particular result and which were just written to test out ideas. To know that you would have to locate a specific higher level program which invokes the underlying modules, or find a description of the sequence of processing operations used.

    It is the skill, knowledge and experience of the scientist in using there software tools which creates the result. Not the tools alone.

    So basically criticism is impossible without knowing exactly which processing sequence was used for what and why.

    So please. No more "bad code" graffiti.

    All the best; davblo2

    Complain about this comment

  • 57. At 8:13pm on 28 Nov 2009, Plato-says wrote:

    May I draw your to a TV programme from several months ago that seems to be telling us what has just happened re Climategate.
    There are nine parts and it lasts about an hour in total - it's really worth time, I watched several sections twice.
    I saved the first one here http://plato-says.blogspot.com/2009/11/climategate-swindel.html
    Go to here for the other bits - can't recommend it enough
    Related videos for the rest of the series are here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dzIMXGI6k8&feature=related

    Complain about this comment

  • 58. At 8:22pm on 28 Nov 2009, TJ wrote:

    I’ve been an intermittent contributor on this blog for a year or so and have had many an exchange around the subject of the R&D (research and development), primarily the R, and its use in making public policy. (Simon Swede may like to comment)

    I’m not surprised at all at the ‘ClimateGate’ revelations. In fact they are what I expected.

    I work much of my time as a project/program manager in product development (high tech and pharmaceuticals) and I see this behavior as par for the course. I agree that industry is far ahead of university/institutional R but has the same face. Every aspect of the ‘ClimateGate’ shenanigans is IMO norm for an R community. There are companies that specialize in R (particularly pharmaceuticals) and I can agree here with those posts about R adhering to best practices as their whole business depends on it.

    In the real world of business, the R is handed over to engineers who do the design and development. In those phases quality control, compliance and regulatory processes kick in. It’s at this point that folks start to get comfortable and confident about a product.

    The travesty here is that this part is missing. Here’s a bunch of university type R’s inputting into public policy. It’s lunacy. That’s why we have got folks like the Steve McIntyre’s (exposed hockey stick) in the real world. We should have a whole department of them doing quality/regulatory/compliance audits.

    R’s are by nature creative people and for them to work effectively they need to be free of constraints. R’s need as part of their team some engineers to watch their backs and at that point folks like us can start to have confidence in their output.

    Complain about this comment

  • 59. At 8:22pm on 28 Nov 2009, davblo2 wrote:

    poitsplace #54: "Oh, and don't bother with the basic CO2 absorption math either. Even if it were true that the climate system showed 100% of this supposed 'back radiation' from a region 60C colder than the ground...you still have the problem of feedbacks appearing to be negative in the general behavior of the interglacials, the ERBE data and the fact that the observational data shows insufficient warming to even meet CO2's supposed forcing."

    Could you re-phrase that amazing statement rather more coherently and preferable in one or two lines? I'd like to add it to my list.

    /davblo2

    Complain about this comment

  • 60. At 8:36pm on 28 Nov 2009, davblo2 wrote:

    timjenvy #58: "In the real world of business, the R is handed over to engineers who do the design and development. In those phases quality control, compliance and regulatory processes kick in. It’s at this point that folks start to get comfortable and confident about a product."

    That's the whole point (hi tim); in this case there is no pre-defined product. There is no handover from R to engineers. It's critical on the fly research and scenario evaluation. More research and improved evaluation, etc, etc...

    You can't impose restrictive quality control procedures on such a process. It's a dynamic evolving process.

    All the best; davblo2

    Complain about this comment

  • 61. At 8:38pm on 28 Nov 2009, davblo2 wrote:

    Plato-says #57: "May I draw your [attention] to ..."

    No thank you; you may not [waste my time].

    Complain about this comment

  • 62. At 8:57pm on 28 Nov 2009, JRWoodman wrote:


    Plato-says #57: "May I draw your [attention] to ..."

    The confusion of lies and misinformation called 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' has been debunked thoroughly here: http://www.climateofdenial.net/?q=node/3

    Complain about this comment

  • 63. At 9:30pm on 28 Nov 2009, MalMac wrote:

    I believe that the following series of videos provide a convincing explanation for the causes of the Climategate fraud.
    They are in 10 Youtube segments comprising a presentation in Minnesota by Christopher Monckton in October. (Not in order in the sidebar but numbered in mouseover pop-out)
    In his talk Lord Monckton peels away the layers of the problem and shows how it came about.
    For those who want to cut to the chase, please don’t miss watching the tenth segment.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zmi74qtACY&feature=related

    Our freedom is seriously under threat at the Copenhagen climate conference and all other issues are merely a distraction. Please spend an hour considering Monckton’s argument. He is an eloquent, passionate and serious scientist.

    Complain about this comment

  • 64. At 9:36pm on 28 Nov 2009, TJ wrote:

    Hi Davblo #60. You say:

    "You can't impose restrictive quality control procedures on such a process. It's a dynamic evolving process."

    So we enter into the business model of a company that does pure research.

    I have helped to set up processes in such a business and you put controls in place. You would not get the shenanigans we have seen in 'ClimateGate" in the delivered product. They would be dead in the water. They would not even get there research to the table.

    Best
    Tim

    Complain about this comment

  • 65. At 9:46pm on 28 Nov 2009, davblo2 wrote:

    MalMac #63: "He [Monckton] is an eloquent, passionate and serious scientist."

    Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley.

    "He was educated at Harrow School, Churchill College, Cambridge where he read classics and University College, Cardiff, where he obtained a diploma in journalism."

    Scientist?

    For some reason I don't quite trust you....

    Complain about this comment

  • 66. At 9:50pm on 28 Nov 2009, Neil Hyde wrote:

    Well at least one national newspaper is now covering the story:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6678469/University-of-East-Anglia-U-turn-in-climate-change-row.html

    Just been listening to John Piennar on 5 Live, doing an interview with the dear leader . Not one question about disputed science. In the same programme , the newspaper review for tomorrow came from the Observer desk.

    They were complaining that Nick Griffin will represent the EU at Copenhagen and how "digraceful" this was .

    I hold no brief for NG or his ilk, but he will put the view of 1.5 million voters who elected him to office , unlike the media gatekeepers of the BBC/Grauniad/Observer so called elite.

    Complain about this comment

  • 67. At 10:09pm on 28 Nov 2009, fairlyopenmind wrote:

    So we will have a bunch of politicians, most of whom have had a fleeting glimpse at science during a GCSE phase, but precious little afterwards, who will try and agree to how to "contain" CO2 output.

    While thousands of scientists wonder how you can combine a vast array of specialist studies into simplistic "computer models", using "adapted" data and use that as justification for massive social and economic change?

    What's new?

    Wind back. The "scientific concensus" rejected Gallileo's approach - even hough the ancient Greeks had postulated what he determined by observation.

    Einstein couldn't really accept quantum theory, because it didn't fit.

    How can anybody accept that a computer model is so sophisticated that it can accept input from a myriad branches of science (with compromises being made along the way at every instance) and say "That' the truth"?

    It's a nonsense.

    Stop pollution? Yep, no argument.

    Decrease dependence on fossil fuels? Good idea.

    Believe that the "scientists" actually know why the climate changes? That's a really, really big ask.
    Especially when the "we got it right" scientists are government funded. But people who "get it wrong" don't get funding.
    It stinks.

    How many scientists claim that we have accumulated genuine knowledge about the way the temperature (or CO2) levels, have changed over the South Atlantic/Pacific Oceans and Antarctica over the last 200 years?

    For goodness sake, it's hard to believe in the data collected across the USA in the last decade.

    Should we find alternatives to fossil fuel? Yep.

    Stop polluting the rivers and oceans? Yep.

    Believe computer models? Well, no. Loads of money was invested in models of the financial and economical environmen - totally man-made. But they were useless, even though masses of data were available.

    Why believe models that attempt to assimilate data about a much more complex - multiples more complex - about the environment and climate?

    Especially when some key (oddly governmentally funded) scientists attempt to deflect any data that don't really "agree with the model"?

    Complain about this comment

  • 68. At 10:09pm on 28 Nov 2009, davblo2 wrote:

    timjenvey #64: "...shenanigans we have seen in 'ClimateGate'"

    Can you elaborate?

    I've actually had jobs, where the brief was to impose order and control to processes and proceedings which had got out of hand. But the fact that there was a degree of chaos reigning before I got there didn't invalidate their results or products. It just meant it was too reliant on individuals and their knowledge of what had been done.

    I've also stepped in and solved critical problems by implementing on the fly uncontrolled solutions. Getting the job done by any means is sometimes more important than using quality controlled procedures.

    The often quoted point is that you can have perfect quality controlled procedures and documentation and produce perfect absolute rubbish.

    In the right hands; results sometimes count more than methods.

    All the best; davblo2

    Complain about this comment

  • 69. At 10:13pm on 28 Nov 2009, fairlyopenmind wrote:

    #60, davblo2 wrote:
    timjenvy #58: "In the real world of business, the R is handed over to engineers who do the design and development. In those phases quality control, compliance and regulatory processes kick in. It’s at this point that folks start to get comfortable and confident about a product."

    That's the whole point (hi tim); in this case there is no pre-defined product. There is no handover from R to engineers. It's critical on the fly research and scenario evaluation. More research and improved evaluation, etc, etc...
    You can't impose restrictive quality control procedures on such a process. It's a dynamic evolving process.

    Yes, davblo,

    Except, it seems that data that don't fit a model just don't get a look in...

    Now, if you tried to justify that in an industrial process, you'd be out on your ear PDQ.

    The dynamic evolving process, in this case, appears to be "OK - as long as it fits", it can evolve. That hardly seems like good science, does it?

    Complain about this comment

  • 70. At 10:13pm on 28 Nov 2009, thinkforyourself wrote:

    I thought, amongst the sceptic hysteria, they might have missed this:-

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11074-us-climate-scientists-pressured-on-climate-change.html

    Maybe others reading this blog might be very interested.

    Pretty much confirms that most so called ‘sceptics’ of man made climate change are proxies for big business. The rest are either deluded or pathological arguers.

    Complain about this comment

  • 71. At 10:14pm on 28 Nov 2009, lburt wrote:

    @Davblo2 #59
    "Could you re-phrase that amazing statement rather more coherently and preferable in one or two lines? I'd like to add it to my list."

    Should I use smaller words too?

    Don't bother quoting the HALF equation that is the math for CO2 absorption. It assumes a slab-like atmosphere that does not exist here on earth. Other things need to be taken into account like convection. Water vapor's impact also needs to be taken into account and it doesn't have the impact people seem to think...it has more of a moderating effect on temperatures. Also they need to take into account that the layers doing the absorbing (the tropopause) will in fact be the ones warming up most. For some idiotic reason the IPCC and the bungling Mannian climatologists seem to think CO2 in the tropopause is going to COOL when it absorbs more energy and all other parts of the atmosphere are throwing disproportionately high amounts of energy in that direction.

    Then we get to feedbacks and your case looks no better.

    The recent studies of the actual outgoing radiation (some using the ERBE satellites) indicates that energy output goes up far in excess of that suggested by the simple surface warming, indicating a strongly negative feedback (probably cutting any actual forcing in half).

    The very behavior of the holocene seems to indicate that feedbacks must be far weaker (if not opposite) than those of the glacial-interglacial transition periods. There is no way any system could be that stable with high feedbacks. You find this behavior in most systems in which the feedback changes due to conditions. When feedbacks are high the action of the feedbacks rams the system to one extreme or the other...where feedbacks once again drop to low levels. This is why so few feedbacks in nature are positive, much less strongly positive.

    And finally even the recent temperature data leaves little room for doubt. Feedbacks must be weak or negative or else we'd have warmed by far more. Even as alarmists continue to sound the alarm on how what they perceive as "powerful positive feedbacks" are manifesting (like ice albedo) the climate continues to respond weakly. We have not had the warming indicated by CO2 forcing even though it's likely an existing (and unrelated) warming trend has continued.

    Is there reason to believe CO2 may cause an increase in temperatures? Perhaps.

    Is there reason to believe CO2 will cause 2C or more warming? No, and there never has been.

    Complain about this comment

  • 72. At 10:29pm on 28 Nov 2009, thinkforyourself wrote:

    Fairlyopenmind at #67 says:-

    ‘Believe computer models? Well, no. Loads of money was invested in models of the financial and economical environment - totally man-made. But they were useless, even though masses of data were available.’

    But, fairlyopenmind, the reason nobody questioned the financial models was that it suited the very rich who run the banks and own big business. They knew that if it all went ‘pear-shaped’ they couldn’t lose and the general public would pick up the tab. Thus it generated no noise in the right wing blogosphere which is generally financed by those same people.

    We now have a situation which is the polar opposite and ...whad dya know? The conservative funded blogosphere is buzzing with conspiracy theories.

    Complain about this comment

  • 73. At 10:50pm on 28 Nov 2009, davblo2 wrote:

    poitsplace #71: "Should I use smaller words too?"

    Yes please; and a lot less hand waving; and a few reference wouldn't go amiss.

    You say "...the layers doing the absorbing (the tropopause)"

    Is that where the extra CO2 is then?

    /davblo2

    Complain about this comment

  • 74. At 10:55pm on 28 Nov 2009, Sparklet wrote:

    Re#65. At 9:46pm on 28 Nov 2009, davblo2 wrote:
    MalMac #63: "He [Monckton] is an eloquent, passionate and serious scientist."

    Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley.

    "He was educated at Harrow School, Churchill College, Cambridge where he read classics and University College, Cardiff, where he obtained a diploma in journalism."

    Scientist?

    For some reason I don't quite trust you

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Davblo
    Your entry is straight from WIKIPEDIA where entries are adjusted with a pro AGW slant by William M Connolley (who is one of the Real Climate team as mentioned in the CRU mails).
    http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=446&filename=1102687002.txt

    Here is an alternate biography
    http://www.webcommentary.com/php/bio.php?authid=moncktonc
    I'd be interested to know which of this biography you can disprove if any?


    Complain about this comment

  • 75. At 10:56pm on 28 Nov 2009, Neil Hyde wrote:

    @72

    .....and you accuse realists of being conspiracy theorists ?

    Complain about this comment

  • 76. At 11:04pm on 28 Nov 2009, Sparklet wrote:

    Re#72. At 10:29pm on 28 Nov 2009, soveryodd wrote:
    "whad dya know? The conservative funded blogosphere is buzzing with conspiracy theories".

    Conservative funded blogosphere ??? what an amazing claim - surely you don't mean the BBC blogs - care to elaborate

    Complain about this comment

  • 77. At 11:05pm on 28 Nov 2009, bandythebane wrote:

    It is becoming increasingly surreal to read Richard's regular spiel which blathers on a bit about his fairly pointless conference and all the various bigwigs with 0 level physics or no qualification at all ..... all going to save the world from something they feel strongly about but which they do not understand at all.

    Then you read the comments none of which have even noticed what Richard said debating in what seems to be an increasingly well informed way about the realities and unrealities of the science.

    Complain about this comment

  • 78. At 11:24pm on 28 Nov 2009, davblo2 wrote:

    Sparklet #74: "I'd be interested to know which of this biography you can disprove if any?"

    I can't disprove any of them.

    But then I don't have to because the so called biography on the link you posted (Christopher Monckton ) doesn't show him to be a scientist either; in fact it says nothing of his education.

    [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]

    Complain about this comment

  • 79. At 11:40pm on 28 Nov 2009, davblo2 wrote:

    Elizabeth Watt #77: "Then you read the comments none of which have even noticed what Richard said..."

    Richard? Who's Richard...

    Elizabeth Watt #77: "...in what seems to be an increasingly well informed way..."

    Thank you!

    Elizabeth Watt #77: "...to save the world from something they feel strongly about but which they do not understand at all."

    I wonder, would you be prepared to stand in front of them and tell them that? How would you enlighten them?

    Complain about this comment

  • 80. At 11:42pm on 28 Nov 2009, Researcher 14175758 wrote:

    ...So, John, are the BBC are still onside? Has this disgusting theft of data that "the stock", (well at least the ones with brains), are calling 'Climategate' got out of control, or can the MSM be relied upon to keep it quiet until after Copenhagen?

    Yes sir, I believe it can be contained until after Copenhagen. The BBC has mentioned it, but only in passing, they've not gone into detail about what the e-mails say or what the previously hidden data shows, neither have most of the UK press. Lucky for us - if the BBC and the rest of the MSM had consisted of proper journalists our cause would have been lost. The green fools at the BBC are acting exactly as we expected to when we put them in place, (let's face it, Tamsin, who" loves seals" gets a job as an environmental researcher, and doesn't question why someone with her limited brain capacity does so is hardly likely to protest against a cover up of this magnitude). They are so wrapped up in spreading their green message that they haven't realised that they are walking back into slavery. It's another story overseas though.

    Well, John, as we both know, most of "the stock", the brainless cattle that we own and control, are too busy fiddling with their stupid little mobile phones and watching mind numbing rubbish like The X Factor to be looking on the internet for a hushed up story about climate change being a scam. Even then, we can still rely on some marginally intelligent greens to go on blogs saying that there's nothing going on, there's nothing to see here - they are so desperate to save Gaia that they'd say black was white or that excrement tastes like chocolate. The poor pathetic clowns that they are, they don't know they're willingly walking back into the unending indenture that their grandparents fought their way out of. If only all of our stock were so gullible!

    As we have been saying for some years now, we let "the stock" have far too much freedom after the Second World War, we should have kept them under better control, like we did after World War One. We took our eye off the ball and now they don't have any respect for their masters. It's time to give them back that respect - it's time to remind them that they belong to us, it's time to let them know what they are - Stock, for us to use and dispose of as we see fit. It's time to make 'Domestic Servant' one of the most popular jobs again.

    Now, in terms of Copenhagen, we've got fervent greens in most countries, who'll believe any crap we sell them about saving the planet, and in the UK, Tony and Gordon have done a superb job of dumbing down "the stock". But without China it's meaningless. It's so annoying that they already have control of their "Stock", so they don't need climate change to reassert that control. We'll just have to make do with them supposedly making a commitment - we know these commitments mean nothing anyway. Hopefully by the time we start taking back control of "the stock" it'll be too late for any of them to do a damn thing about it.

    And remember John, we must stay in the shadows. We can only come out when the scales have tipped in our favour.

    THE STOCK MUST ONLY SEE THEIR MASTERS AFTER THEY ARE IN CHAINS.

    Complain about this comment

  • 81. At 11:44pm on 28 Nov 2009, davblo2 wrote:

    Spooks again; there was no URL at the end of #78; just...

    All the best; davblo2

    Complain about this comment

  • 82. At 11:54pm on 28 Nov 2009, Sparklet wrote:

    Re #78. At 11:24pm on 28 Nov 2009, davblo2 wrote:
    " I can't disprove any of them.

    But then I don't have to because the so called biography on the link you posted (Christopher Monckton ) doesn't show him to be a scientist either; in fact it says nothing of his education."

    Then perhaps WIKIPEDIA can enlighten you - this time with the definition of 'scientist'

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientist

    Certainly the IPCC seem to have recognised his expertise even if you don't

    ie

    His contribution to the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report in 2007 - the correction of a table inserted by IPCC bureaucrats that had overstated tenfold the observed contribution of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets to sea-level rise - earned him the status of Nobel Peace Laureate. His Nobel prize pin, made of gold recovered from a physics experiment, was presented to him by the Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Rochester, New York, USA.

    source:
    http://www.webcommentary.com/php/bio.php?authid=moncktonc

    Complain about this comment

  • 83. At 00:07am on 29 Nov 2009, thinkforyourself wrote:

    Sparklet #74

    Do me a favour!!

    And who do you think was the author of your webcommentary link? Yes, that’s right, it was Viscount Monckton!! Quite a modest man at the very least......

    At the bottom it says ‘Copyright © 2009 by Christopher Monckton (Viscount Monckton of Brenchley)’!!!.

    Here’s an article on poor Mr. Brenchley from the Telegraph.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1312292/Puzzle-inventor-sells-1m-home-to-Chanel-model.html

    and here at the ‘Scotsman’

    http://news.scotsman.com/latestnews/Aristocrat-admits-tale-of-lost.3340554.jp

    It’s Bellamy with knobs on.

    Complain about this comment

  • 84. At 00:13am on 29 Nov 2009, thinkforyourself wrote:

    toughNeilHyde at # 75

    No it’s not just my conspiracy theory. Conspiracy it is nonetheless. See this:-

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11074-us-climate-scientists-pressured-on-climate-change.html

    Complain about this comment

  • 85. At 00:14am on 29 Nov 2009, Researcher 14175758 wrote:

    ...So, John, are the BBC are still onside? Has this disgusting theft of data that "the stock", (well at least the ones with brains), are calling 'Climategate' got out of control, or can the MSM be relied upon to keep it quiet until after Copenhagen?

    Yes sir, I believe it can be contained until after Copenhagen. The BBC has mentioned it, but only in passing, they've not gone into detail about what the e-mails say or what the previously hidden data shows, neither have most of the UK press. Lucky for us - if the BBC and the rest of the MSM had consisted of proper journalists our cause would have been lost. The green fools at the BBC are acting exactly as we expected to when we put them in place, (let's face it, Tamsin, who" loves seals" gets a job as an environmental researcher, and doesn't question why someone with her limited brain capacity does so is hardly likely to protest against a cover up of this magnitude). They are so wrapped up in spreading their green message that they haven't realised that they are walking back into slavery. It's another story overseas though.

    Well, John, as we both know, most of "the stock", the brainless cattle that we own and control, are too busy fiddling with their stupid little mobile phones and watching mind numbing rubbish like The X Factor to be looking on the internet for a hushed up story about climate change being a scam. Even then, we can still rely on some marginally intelligent greens to go on blogs saying that there's nothing going on, there's nothing to see here - they are so desperate to save Gaia that they'd say black was white or that the BBC doesn't have an agenda which seeks to scare it's funders into demanding that the government create a tax that people pay to help save the world.

    The poor pathetic clowns that they are, they don't know they're willingly walking back into the unending indenture that their grandparents fought their way out of. If only all of our stock were so gullible!

    As we have been saying for some years now, we let "the stock" have far too much freedom after the Second World War, we should have kept them under better control, like we did after World War One. We took our eye off the ball and now they don't have any respect for their masters. It's time to give them back that respect - it's time to remind them that they belong to us, it's time to let them know what they are - Stock, for us to use and dispose of as we see fit. It's time to make 'Domestic Servant' one of the most popular jobs again.

    Now, in terms of Copenhagen, we've got fervent greens in most countries, who'll believe any crap we sell them about saving the planet, and in the UK, Tony and Gordon have done a superb job of dumbing down "the stock". But without China it's meaningless. It's so annoying that they already have control of their "Stock", so they don't need climate change to reassert that control. We'll just have to make do with them supposedly making a commitment - we know these commitments mean nothing anyway. Hopefully by the time we start taking back control of "the stock" it'll be too late for any of them to do a damn thing about it.
    And remember John, we must stay in the shadows. We can only come out when the scales have tipped in our favour.

    THE STOCK MUST ONLY SEE THEIR MASTERS AFTER THEY ARE IN CHAINS.

    Complain about this comment

  • 86. At 00:20am on 29 Nov 2009, Howard Graham wrote:

    So now the "men of science" work together as a group to ignore the proverbial elephant in the room (those emails) and we will press ahead with the same old garbage... a true victory for junk science!!

    Complain about this comment

  • 87. At 00:21am on 29 Nov 2009, lburt wrote:

    @davblo2
    poitsplace #71: "Should I use smaller words too?"

    Yes please; and a lot less hand waving; and a few reference wouldn't go amiss.


    I'm sorry...I didn't think anyone here was intellectually challenged enough that they didn't know hot air rises generally rises, that energy moves from areas of greater concentration to lower concentration or that when something absorbs energy that IT heats up more.


    You say "...the layers doing the absorbing (the tropopause)"

    Is that where the extra CO2 is then?


    No, it's just that the limiting factor on emission within the CO2 spectrum is in the tropopause. You can tell because CO2's absorption is obviously saturated and hugging the black body curve for about -60C, the temperature of the tropopause. You DID evoke laws involved in spectroscopy, did you not?

    You don't even seem to be aware that the bulk of the radiation in that part of earth's spectrum isn't even from the ground. Its mostly from that cold layers of CO2. That's why its not below the black body curve for -60C. You didn't think it was like a black hole for its own spectrum, did you? Perhaps instead of demanding that everyone else prove a negative (that you're wrong) you should maybe...I dunno...learn something and then defend your own assertion.

    Complain about this comment

  • 88. At 00:33am on 29 Nov 2009, pph wrote:

    davblo2 #56:

    davblo2..."I've been in his position several times and I know what it's like. So that is one point. How can anyone condemn the work after just a few days when it took Harry months just to start figuring things out?"

    me...While I understand fully that code being passed from one author to another can be a nightmare, at what point would you include in an IF/ENDIF block loaded variables that live outside of that block?

    me...'HARRY_READ_ME' seems to, on a... 'probably':

    'HARRY_READ_ME'..."So what is this mysterious variable 'nf' that isn't being set? Well strangely,
    it's in Mark N's 'rdbin.pro'. I say strangely because this is a generic prog
    that's used all over the place! Nonetheless it does have what certainly looks
    like a bug:"

    me...Part of the code:

    'HARRY_READ_ME'..."
    64 ; check file size and work out grid spacing if gridsize isn't set
    65 if keyword_set(gridsize) eq 0 then begin
    66 info=fstat(lun)
    67 if keyword_set(quiet) eq 0 then print,'yes'
    68 nlat=sqrt((info.size/nf)/4.0)
    69 gridsize=180.0/nlat
    70 if keyword_set(quiet) eq 0 then print,'filesize=',info.size
    71 if keyword_set(quiet) eq 0 then print,'gridsize=',gridsize
    72 endif
    73 if keyword_set(seas) then nf=6.0 else nf=12.0
    74 if keyword_set(ann) then nf=1
    "

    me...Now we arbitrarily add into the IF/ENDIF that which (for some reason, initially fell outside of it!

    'HARRY_READ_ME'...
    "In other words, 'nf' is set in the first conditional set of statements, but in
    the alternative (starting on #62) it is only set AFTER it's used
    (set #73,#74; used #68). So I shifted #73 and #74 to between #64 and #65, and..
    with precompiling to pick up the local version of rdbin, too.. it worked!
    Er, perhaps."

    me...My problem here is: "this is a generic prog that's used all over the place!". If these 'corrected' lines of code are correct (and HARRY_READ_ME has logically assesed that for the given code, -if on the other hand they are set by another routine...disaster-, then what previous sets of data are in the wild that used this original 'generic prog'?




    Complain about this comment

  • 89. At 00:37am on 29 Nov 2009, davblo2 wrote:

    Sparklet #82 "...the correction of a table inserted by IPCC bureaucrats that had overstated tenfold the observed contribution of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets to sea-level rise - earned him the status of Nobel Peace Laureate."

    Funny, I don't see his name on the list.

    "Correction of a table?" Some of us had to work hard for many years to earn our scientific qualifications. You insult us.

    /davblo2

    Complain about this comment

  • 90. At 00:44am on 29 Nov 2009, Researcher 14175758 wrote:

    ...So, John, are the BBC are still onside? Has this disgusting theft of data that "the stock", (well at least the ones with brains), are calling 'Climategate' got out of control, or can the MSM be relied upon to keep it quiet until after Copenhagen?

    Yes sir, I believe it can be contained until after Copenhagen. The BBC has mentioned it, but only in passing, they've not gone into detail about what the e-mails say or what the previously hidden data shows, neither have most of the UK press. Lucky for us - if the BBC and the rest of the MSM had consisted of proper journalists our cause would have been lost. The green fools at the BBC are acting exactly as we expected to when we put them in place, (let's face it, Tamsin, who" loves seals" gets a job as an environmental researcher, and doesn't question why someone with her limited brain capacity does so is hardly likely to protest against a cover up of this magnitude). They are so wrapped up in spreading their green message that they haven't realised that they are walking back into slavery. It's another story overseas though.

    Well, John, as we both know, most of "the stock", the brainless cattle that we own and control, are too busy fiddling with their stupid little mobile phones and watching mind numbing rubbish like The X Factor to be looking on the internet for a hushed up story about climate change being a scam. Even then, we can still rely on some marginally intelligent greens to go on blogs saying that there's nothing going on, there's nothing to see.

    The poor pathetic clowns that they are, they don't know they're willingly walking back into the unending indenture that their grandparents fought their way out of. If only all of our stock were so gullible!

    As we have been saying for some years now, we let "the stock" have far too much freedom after the Second World War, we should have kept them under better control, like we did after World War One. We took our eye off the ball and now they don't have any respect for their masters. It's time to give them back that respect - it's time to remind them that they belong to us, it's time to let them know what they are - Stock, for us to use and dispose of as we see fit. It's time to make 'Domestic Servant' one of the most popular jobs again.

    Now, in terms of Copenhagen, we've got fervent greens in most countries, who'll believe any crap we sell them about saving the planet, and in the UK, Tony and Gordon have done a superb job of dumbing down "the stock". But without China it's meaningless. It's so annoying that they already have control of their "Stock", so they don't need climate change to reassert that control. We'll just have to make do with them supposedly making a commitment - we know these commitments mean nothing anyway. Hopefully by the time we start taking back control of "the stock" it'll be too late for any of them to do a damn thing about it.
    And remember John, we must stay in the shadows. We can only come out when the scales have tipped in our favour.

    THE STOCK MUST ONLY SEE THEIR MASTERS AFTER THEY ARE IN CHAINS.

    You have now blocked this two times. Have I hit a raw nerve? Does the BBC fear for the life of it's employees if it dares to let someone say that the masses are stock?

    Block this again and I'll know for sure, whereafter I'll post this elsewhere on the internet. Sorry to point out that you and your masters have no control over me.

    Complain about this comment

  • 91. At 00:56am on 29 Nov 2009, pph wrote:

    soveryodd: #83

    soveryodd..."It’s Bellamy with knobs on."

    me...I'd listen to Bellamy rather than some of the brain-washed posters here!

    Get youself a copy of 'COOL-IT", and try to understand, at least some, of it!

    Complain about this comment

  • 92. At 01:10am on 29 Nov 2009, pph wrote:

    davblo2 #89

    davblo2...Some of us had to work hard for many years to earn our scientific qualifications. You insult us."

    me...I'm sure you did peeps did, but is this debacle not making worthless your efforts?

    Complain about this comment

  • 93. At 01:11am on 29 Nov 2009, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @sparklet #74 #82
    (@davblo2 #78, #89)
    (@soveryodd #83)

    His contribution to the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report in 2007 - the correction of a table inserted by IPCC bureaucrats that had overstated tenfold the observed contribution of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets to sea-level rise - earned him the status of Nobel Peace Laureate.

    http://www.webcommentary.com/php/bio.php?authid=moncktonc

    Sorry sparklet, I'm confused. Monckton is only a Nobel Peace Laureate in the same way that all the other IPCC contributors are Nobel Peace Laureates. Which is not 100% clear from Monckton's text.

    http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/lists/all/
    http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2007/

    Also the IPCC got the prize for "efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change." Monckton seems to be playing this down. Yet he's proud of the prize?

    http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2007/press.html

    Complain about this comment

  • 94. At 01:14am on 29 Nov 2009, davblo2 wrote:

    poitsplace #87: "...learn something and then defend your own assertion"

    I haven't made any assertions; you made them in #59 & #71.

    I'm just saying that I'm not stupid, despite the fact that you insult me; but I have no idea what you are trying to explain.

    First you say the tropopause is doing the absorbing, then you say it isn't and talk of "limiting factors" and "hugging curves".

    Part of my learning in science was about how to explain things to people in the simplest most logical and straightforward manner. In that respect you are failing miserably.

    /davblo2

    Complain about this comment

  • 95. At 01:15am on 29 Nov 2009, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @soveryodd #84
    @toughNeilHyde #75

    Not the only Bush era cover up

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/26/climate-change-obama-administration

    Complain about this comment

  • 96. At 01:24am on 29 Nov 2009, davblo2 wrote:

    pph #88: "...what previous sets of data are in the wild that used this original 'generic prog'?"

    Well, Harry may have found a bug. It wouldn't be the first bug to be found in a piece of software and it won't be the last. But the point is you have no idea of the significance of the bug. I could easily be a simple formatting parameter which gets a default value instead of a chosen value. There is no reason to suppose it had any serious effects; if it did it would probably have been detected earlier. Would you demolish the whole principle of AGW because of that one bug of unknown effect? By all means figure out what the effect was; but I expect you'll be disappointed.

    /davblo2

    Complain about this comment

  • 97. At 01:27am on 29 Nov 2009, Researcher 14175758 wrote:

    Ooh, I have hit a raw nerve, haven't I?

    Referred to moderation before anyone had a chance to read my posts.

    Thanks for letting me know that my theory about your impartiality is true.

    Complain about this comment

  • 98. At 01:43am on 29 Nov 2009, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @rootundular #97

    That happens to all of us. Most posts get "referred to the moderators" during initial moderation rather than later. What it means is that your post is slightly more difficult to check than normal and the normal moderators want the big guns to check your post is safe to publish.

    Sometimes you don't have long to wait, particularly if the difficulty is a problem link like a PDF. (I keep forgetting you can't link to PDFs on BBC threads.)

    Complain about this comment

  • 99. At 02:21am on 29 Nov 2009, thinkforyourself wrote:

    pph at #91. You believe in Mr. Bellamy??

    Click on ‘Watch the report’ at:-

    http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/world/are%20the%20glaciers%20melting/107930

    See also Bellamy’s foreword to the 1989 book ‘The Greenhouse Effect’ where he says:-
    "The profligate demands of humankind are causing far reaching changes to the atmosphere of planet Earth, of this there is no doubt. Earth's temperature is showing an upward swing, the so-called greenhouse effect, now a subject of international concern. The greenhouse effect may melt the glaciers and ice caps of the world causing the sea to rise and flood many of our great cities and much of our best farmland."
    Not sure what Bellamy believes.

    Complain about this comment

  • 100. At 02:24am on 29 Nov 2009, pph wrote:

    davblo2 #96

    If there were generations of lives at stake, I think this code MUST BE CORRECT because failure at the keyboard translated into opportunity for politicians and makes a big difference to Joe-public!

    Complain about this comment

  • 101. At 07:18am on 29 Nov 2009, Beejay wrote:

    Come on you 'Academics' put your handbags away and stop this petty squabbling. Anyone with a few brain cells knows that politicians [all lower capitals] are obsessed with having Power over the masses. Global Warming/Climate Change [notwithstanding scant evidence of its reality!] and the Media's desperation for "Breaking News" has led to yet another version of the previously debunked Tulip Trading/Fool's Gold/South Sea Bubble/Witchcraft/Dragons/Alchemy..... Anthropogenic Global Claptrap is just repetition of mass hysteria.

    My tasty vine tomatoes are grown in CO2 levels way above the present average of around 385 ppm. People happily work in the same atmosphere and if past levels [many times todays] produced both hot and cold Earth environments then why are we having more meaningless "Summits" like Copenhagen where the Gordon Browns of this world will pretend to be concerned about "Tipping Points" and other such inanities when what should happen is to scrap the IPCC [bunch of incompetents - from the top down], stop all taxpayers money being thrown away on 'Renewables', use our fossil fuels more efficiently and build as many nuclear power stations as a reliable source of low pollution electrical power. Follow France and cut down on sourcing power generation materials from unreliable overseas countries. Of course money is needed to fund future power generation sources but we must avoid the previous hysteria led, taxpayer susidised, utterly unreliable, inefficient Wind Farm power generation as a classic example of the blind leading the blind.

    "In the country of the blind, the one eyed man is King. That King should be accurate scientific data available to all scientists to use/dispute/disprove/agree and not to where we are at present with a cadre of manipulators of scientific data to prove their grant gobbling aims.

    If the UK Government [sorry government] were to scrap the majority of its very expensive quangos, around 70 Billion Pounds Sterling and 700,000 civil servants would be freed!
    And that is Taxpayers money!

    Complain about this comment

  • 102. At 07:50am on 29 Nov 2009, Sparklet wrote:

    Re #83. At 00:07am on 29 Nov 2009, soveryodd wrote:
    "Sparklet #74

    Do me a favour!!

    And who do you think was the author of your webcommentary link? Yes, that’s right, it was Viscount Monckton!! Quite a modest man at the very least......

    At the bottom it says ‘Copyright © 2009 by Christopher Monckton (Viscount Monckton of Brenchley)’!!!.

    Here’s an article on poor Mr. Brenchley from the Telegraph.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1312292/Puzzle-inventor-sells-1m-home-to-Chanel-model.html

    and here at the ‘Scotsman’

    http://news.scotsman.com/latestnews/Aristocrat-admits-tale-of-lost.3340554.jp

    It’s Bellamy with knobs on."

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

    So, I asked if you could disprove any his biography and you couldn't.
    What on earth do the links you've given have to do with Monckton's ability as a scientist.
    More obfuscation.

    Complain about this comment

  • 103. At 08:15am on 29 Nov 2009, PAWB46 wrote:

    Is the news of Richard's ill-health still valid, or has he died?

    Where is the mystery man?

    Indeed, where is the BBC?

    BBC and Climategate - never

    Complain about this comment

  • 104. At 08:38am on 29 Nov 2009, lburt wrote:

    @davblo2

    Oh, right...you're mister "I make no assertions." Well that's great. We obviously have no disagreement then. You make no assertion and I'm apparently just pointing out flaws in someone else's asertion so no need to do anything. As you were :D

    Complain about this comment

  • 105. At 09:12am on 29 Nov 2009, Jack Frost wrote:

    SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

    It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

    The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

    The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.

    The admission follows the leaking of a thousand private emails sent and received by Professor Phil Jones, the CRU’s director. In them he discusses thwarting climate sceptics seeking access to such data.

    In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”

    The CRU is the world’s leading centre for reconstructing past climate and temperatures. Climate change sceptics have long been keen to examine exactly how its data were compiled. That is now impossible.

    More

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece

    Complain about this comment

  • 106. At 09:12am on 29 Nov 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    @soveryodd #99

    See also Bellamy’s foreword to the 1989 book ‘The Greenhouse Effect’ where he says:-

    "The profligate demands of humankind are causing far reaching changes to the atmosphere of planet Earth, of this there is no doubt. Earth's temperature is showing an upward swing, the so-called greenhouse effect, now a subject of international concern. The greenhouse effect may melt the glaciers and ice caps of the world causing the sea to rise and flood many of our great cities and much of our best farmland."
    Not sure what Bellamy believes.


    It's quite clear about Bellamy, in the early days of the global warming scare, he believed, as many of us did, the evidence pointed towards AGW. On examining the evidence further, and as more evidence came to light, he changed his view. Nothing wrong with that, except, Bellamy's courage cost him his job.

    When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?
    John Maynard Keynes, 1st Baron Keynes of Tilton (5 June 1883 – 21 April 1946)


    Complain about this comment

  • 107. At 09:25am on 29 Nov 2009, ScudLewis wrote:

    @poitspace I could work out what you were saying. Think davblo2 is just being 'difficult'. As you said in previous posts, CO2 is a potent GHG but doubling it has not the same effect on temperature, due to it being a non-linear relationship.

    CO2 looks to be the 'low-hanging' fruit in the climate change debate, the theory looks simple so the answer is simple. What if the theory is oversimplified, as research suggests - so the answer is not so simple (or even pointless).

    People get too excited/aggressive when they hear people saying 'what if that's not correct'. Why the instant quoted 'the science is settled' or 'Are you saying CO2 isn't a GHG...you must be an idiot, everyone knows it's a GHG?'.

    It's short-hand thinking / a cognitive catch-all / a misconception. Hey, the BBC have a tv programme called 'QI' all centered on common misconceptions, there are many.

    I'm agnostic these days - neither extreme side of the debate is right - the truth is somewhere in between the two (maybe) - LOL!

    Complain about this comment

  • 108. At 09:40am on 29 Nov 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    @poitspace & ScudLewis

    I've been pointing out to davblo2 and his ilk that CO2 is incapable of raising the temperature significantly, since i started coming to Richards blog. They usually counter with the well worked argument of "define significant"

    Complain about this comment

  • 109. At 09:46am on 29 Nov 2009, PAWB46 wrote:

    It's pointless interacting with davblo2 and soveryodd. They are true believers. They are of the faith. They ignore facts and evidence.

    Just like the BBC correspondents I suppose. I still hold out hope for the BBC correspondents. It must be very difficult for them to admit that their beliefs are based on what they have been told by their buddies at places like CRU who have now been shown to be deceiving everyone, including themselves.

    It can't be easy to change a lifetime of belief in something false. Give them time. But give them a hard time for not reporting the truth.

    Complain about this comment

  • 110. At 09:56am on 29 Nov 2009, JunkkMale wrote:

    20. At 1:58pm on 28 Nov 2009, Yorkurbantree wrote:
    Of late, it's been difficult to tell the difference between this comments page and the one on the Daily Mail website


    Says it all really. Perhaps not quite in the way intended.

    Perhaps the suggestion is only Guardian CiF readers should have access to the fruits of the unique funding that is the licence fee?

    Makes sense if the reporting is designed exclusively to satisfy that audience.

    Hardly very democratic, though.

    Complain about this comment

  • 111. At 10:05am on 29 Nov 2009, ScudLewis wrote:

    @pawb46 mangochutney

    Climate Change is real, temperatures have been going up, but I will be honest in saying that I don't know if 'Man' is totally responsible. The evidence (totally centered on CO2) seems incongruous with the already published science.

    There is a germ of truth there - but is Climate Science in an 'inchoate' stage?

    Complain about this comment

  • 112. At 10:15am on 29 Nov 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    @scudlewis #111

    Absolutely, and i have said on many occassions, i do accept man is part of climate change through land use etc, but CO2 simply cannot be the culprit

    Complain about this comment

  • 113. At 10:22am on 29 Nov 2009, JunkkMale wrote:

    Careful what you say… or do… job wise (unless it's for the boys).

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=na2W38tLp_Q

    Personally, I’m less keen on being governed, or informed by folk who seem to have a hive mind and deem fair questions to be resistance..

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZEJ4OJTgg8&feature=player_embedded#at=22

    I think the climate is changing, and 'man' isn't helping. Which is why I try and bone up wherever and whenever I can.

    However the BBC seems to be taking its watertight oversight a tad far, however. Especially the lock down aspect of making things watertight. And I have always wondered about the potential double meaning of 'oversight'.

    And serving up Sen. Inhofe, Mel Bel on QT or, now, Nick Griffin as the voices of what 'they' are up against by way of 'balance, is counter-productive.

    Complain about this comment

  • 114. At 10:50am on 29 Nov 2009, JohnRS wrote:

    The story has now moved on again....now the UAECRU has been shamed into publishing its data (Report in Daily Telegraph today). Although of course they've hedged it around with conditions and given themselves even more time to carry on fiddling the figures.

    Where's the BBC's report on this? I thought you had a duty to inform?

    The Information Commissioner is now formally investigating the UAECRU based on the leaked emails. Does the fact the the FOI Act was apparently breached on several occaisions not worthy of an article?

    The BBC's "Global Cooling" denial is now so out of step with events in the outside world that you may also be in breach of your own charter!!

    Complain about this comment

  • 115. At 10:51am on 29 Nov 2009, bowmanthebard wrote:

    I welcome the BBC's failure to cover the story, as I think it's a significant "own goal".

    The official statement from the University of East Anglia said that it was impossible to tell what proportion of the emails were genuine. This suggests that some of the emails were made up. The general public reads this as example of habitual mendacity. The BBC's "keep the lip zipped and stay on-message" is a clear example of much the same.

    Complain about this comment

  • 116. At 11:03am on 29 Nov 2009, davblo2 wrote:

    pph #100: "...I think this code MUST BE CORRECT..."

    There is no such thing as 100% bug free software.

    The best we can do is to test it thoroughly and ensure that the bugs remaining are as innocuous as possible.

    I know, it's what I do for a living at the moment.

    Complain about this comment

  • 117. At 11:07am on 29 Nov 2009, davblo2 wrote:

    Sparklet #102: "So, I asked if you could disprove any his biography and you couldn't. What on earth do the links you've given have to do with Monckton's ability as a scientist."

    I'll just remind you.

    You referred to him as a scientist.

    You presented two links to his "biographies".

    I pointed out that neither of them show him having any academic scientific qualifications.

    Judging from what you have presented he is not a qualified scientist.

    /davblo2

    Complain about this comment

  • 118. At 11:11am on 29 Nov 2009, davblo2 wrote:

    poitsplace #104: "We obviously have no disagreement then"

    Your lack of understanding makes me trust you even less.

    We do have a disagreement.

    You made claims (see #59 & #71) purporting to invalidate AGW.

    I questioned your claims and you have failed to present them in a clear an logical scientific manner. (Something you all demand fiercely of the proponents of AGW)

    Therefore your claims are invalid.

    Feel free to try again if you wish.

    /davblo2

    Complain about this comment

  • 119. At 12:02pm on 29 Nov 2009, Sparklet wrote:

    Davblo,
    I know you like lists.
    I was going to publish a list of the BBC claims re global warming but there were so many and they're coming out so frenziedly in the run-up to Copenhagen that I simply didn't have the time to collate. However I did come across an even better list here which I know you'll appreciate!!!

    http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

    Enjoy!

    Complain about this comment

  • 120. At 12:08pm on 29 Nov 2009, yertizz wrote:

    Yorkurbantree @ 52.

    Ah, yes, paranoid rantings and psychopathic bullying designed to suppress dissent.

    The favourite tools of terrorists throughout history; Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, the MauMau, Amin, Mugabe et al (lost you with the MauMau, have I? Try reading up on African history). The closer they come to defeat, the more hysterical they become. Yes, I know Mugabe is still there but he will eventually fall.

    Enjoy your hysteria whilst you can because the day of reckoning is not too far off now.

    Oh, and any further diatribes aimed at me will be treated with total disdain.

    Complain about this comment

  • 121. At 12:09pm on 29 Nov 2009, bowmanthebard wrote:

    davblo2 wrote:

    "You referred to him as a scientist."
    "I pointed out that neither of them show him having any academic scientific qualifications."

    Was Einstein a "scientist"?

    Complain about this comment

  • 122. At 12:16pm on 29 Nov 2009, Sparklet wrote:

    Oh and re your #117 interesting that you've now moved from 'scientist' to 'qualified' scientist.
    And Roger Pielke SR seems to recognise his expertise even if you don't

    http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2008/04/08/has-the-ipcc-inflated-the-feedback-factor-a-guest-weblog-by-christopher-monckton/

    Perhaps you would like to refute his paper there?

    Complain about this comment

  • 123. At 12:21pm on 29 Nov 2009, Sparklet wrote:

    And following on from my #122 Don't fall into the trap of believing that only those with academic qualifications can have any expertise. Some of the most intelligent and knowledgeable people I've ever met have no formal qualifications.

    Complain about this comment

  • 124. At 12:25pm on 29 Nov 2009, davblo2 wrote:

    bowmanthebar #121: "Was Einstein a 'scientist'?"

    You mean this guy; Albert Einstein?

    "Albert Einstein was born at Ulm, in Württemberg, Germany, on March 14, 1879. Six weeks later the family moved to Munich, where he later on began his schooling at the Luitpold Gymnasium. Later, they moved to Italy and Albert continued his education at Aarau, Switzerland and in 1896 he entered the Swiss Federal Polytechnic School in Zurich to be trained as a teacher in physics and mathematics. In 1901, the year he gained his diploma, he acquired Swiss citizenship and, as he was unable to find a teaching post, he accepted a position as technical assistant in the Swiss Patent Office. In 1905 he obtained his doctor's degree."

    At first glance... I'd say yes.

    /davblo2

    Complain about this comment

  • 125. At 12:26pm on 29 Nov 2009, rossglory wrote:

    singer, bellamy and monckton?? hard to believe these guys are back on the agenda. not complaining mind you, it makes the true scientific pitch so much easier.

    i also think it's time to reclaim the term 'sceptic'. i see no glimmer of scepticism in most of the nonsense here.

    i'm extremely sceptical to the point of being cynical. but where were our true 'sceptics' scepticism when these emails came out? all i noticed was a lot of whooping and hollering and jumping on a bandwagon. in fact i could sense people queueing up to jump even before the bandwagon appeared.

    i'm sceptical of individual claims, that would include people like michael mann, phil jones, gavin schmidt etc. however, when virtually all climate scientists line up in a consensus my scepticism is assuaged.

    however, the claims of inhofe, marano, mcintyre, bellamy, monckton, spencer et al form a wonderful consensus but not built on science. it is essentially a right wing political/economic/religious consensus. therefore my scientific scepticism kicks in and is reinforced when you can see the bias and mistakes in their work.

    so i hereby reclaim scientific scepticism for those that are sceptical of the nonsense touted by these guys and their followers.

    warmist (and sceptical) regards,
    ross

    Complain about this comment

  • 126. At 12:31pm on 29 Nov 2009, minuend wrote:

    Mainstrean media finally get the message.

    "The great climate change science scandal" - The Times, Sunday, Nov 29th 2009.

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936289.ece

    Key quote: "This weekend it emerged that the unit has thrown away much of the data. Tucked away on its website is this statement: “Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites ... We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (ie, quality controlled and homogenised) data. If true, it is extraordinary. It means that the data on which a large part of the world’s understanding of climate change is based can never be revisited or checked."

    HADCRUT v3 data-set the gold standard of climate science that underpins the UN's IPCC reports and gives credence to climate models is not 'scientifically verifiable'.

    The deletion of raw data at CRU reveals the scale of this growing scandal. Finally that is beginning to dawn on the main stream media.

    We are witnessing the greatest ever scientific fraud in history. This has the power to topple governments.

    Complain about this comment

  • 127. At 12:32pm on 29 Nov 2009, davblo2 wrote:

    Sparklet #123: "Some of the most intelligent and knowledgeable people I've ever met have no formal qualifications."

    Do you call them scientists?

    Complain about this comment

  • 128. At 12:36pm on 29 Nov 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    Lists? How about, guys an gals, Spencers top ten annoyances?

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/11/my-top-10-annoyances-in-the-climate-change-debate/

    Complain about this comment

  • 129. At 12:40pm on 29 Nov 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    @rossglory #125

    but where were our true 'sceptics' scepticism when these emails came out?

    if you recall, i was sceptical these emails were real and i did not condone the theft of this information, but after CRU, Mann, Scmidt, McIntyre all confirmed the their correspondance was real, I accepted i was wrong

    can you do that Ross?

    Complain about this comment

  • 130. At 12:46pm on 29 Nov 2009, davblo2 wrote:

    rossglory #125: "reclaim the term 'sceptic'"

    Indeed.

    I've tried to point out many times before.

    Our self "professed" sceptics find it just to hard to stop at pure scepticism.

    They just can't resist clutching at the nearest available counter-claim and presenting that as irrefutable truth. No hint of scepticism of the counter-claim.

    Even as counter-claimants they ignore the fact that many of their claims are mutually exclusive. They should be disagreeing with each other.

    They therefore not only loose the right to call themselves sceptics, but display a disorganised shambles of incompatible beliefs.

    And even worse they don't admit any of it.

    I don't really know what would be the best label for them.

    All the best; davblo2

    Complain about this comment

  • 131. At 12:54pm on 29 Nov 2009, minuend wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 132. At 1:06pm on 29 Nov 2009, bowmanthebard wrote:

    "In 1905 he obtained his doctor's degree."

    "At first glance... I'd say yes."

    So according to your criterion, Darwin was not a scientist. That's the sort of conformism and respect for authority that gives "climate change science" a bad name.

    People like you judge judge what the CRU were doing as "science" because the people involved have doctor's degrees, and "that's good enough for you" -- with the result that what they do goes unquestioned.

    The Irish priesthood enjoyed a similar immunity from scrutiny because people like you decided they were beyond criticism because "they're priests". Yuck.

    Complain about this comment

  • 133. At 1:11pm on 29 Nov 2009, davblo2 wrote:

    Sparklet #119: "I know you like lists."

    A complete list of things caused by global warming

    Thanks for that. I checked a few. Some are tongue in cheek blog items, others are actual news reports.

    I notice also that it covers general "global warming" not "AGW" so I'm not sure of your view on that. Some of you say there is warming, some of you say there is not. It's one of the thing you don't seem to be agreed upon.

    I liked (?) this one...Flies on the world’s rooftop

    "The base camp for attempts to climb the Mount Everest is situated at 5,360 meters above sea level – an altitude previously uninhabitable to insects. Yet, expedition crews now see black house flies here."

    "The permanent ice above our village now melts at about 5,500 meters, but it used to be 3,750 meters. Our village is seeing prolonged droughts. They used to last a few months. Now we can go seven months without rain"

    /davblo2

    Complain about this comment

  • 134. At 1:26pm on 29 Nov 2009, manysummits wrote:

    Vanishing Arctic Sea Ice & the Link to Methane on the Tundra

    Sorry to intrude on the to and fro with empirical evidence!

    I feel out of place discussing facts. But for those who might be interested, the first link has embedded in it some nice graphs and further links to the relationship between rapidly melting Arctic Sea Ice events and the threat of methane and CO2 evolution from the Arctic tundra regions, and the second is the latest offering from Scientific American from Katey Walters Anthony, our intrepid Arctic methane specialist:

    1)"Arctic ice reaches historic seasonal low; “We are almost out of multiyear sea ice in the northern hemisphere."
    November 8, 2009

    http://climateprogress.org/2009/11/08/arctic-multiyear-sea-ice-nsidc-david-barber/

    2) "Arctic Climate Threat--Methane from Thawing Permafrost"

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=methane-a-menace-surfaces

    - Manysummits -

    Complain about this comment

  • 135. At 1:32pm on 29 Nov 2009, infiniti wrote:

    re #105:
    "SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

    It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years."

    This is false. NASA GISS and the NOAA managed to produce their own temperature records of the past 150 years. How does the Times explain that?

    Hadley didn't lose the raw station data, they lost their copy of it. If someone wants the raw station data they can go and request it from the various different countries met office's. Or more conveniently I think some of it is available from the GHCN website.

    Complain about this comment

  • 136. At 1:32pm on 29 Nov 2009, Sparklet wrote:

    Re 127. At 12:32pm on 29 Nov 2009, davblo2 wrote:
    Sparklet #123: "Some of the most intelligent and knowledgeable people I've ever met have no formal qualifications."

    Do you call them scientists?

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

    I would if any of them fitted the criteria, now what was that definition again, oh yes
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientist

    Complain about this comment

  • 137. At 1:36pm on 29 Nov 2009, infiniti wrote:

    @87 poitsplace

    "You don't even seem to be aware that the bulk of the radiation in that part of earth's spectrum isn't even from the ground. Its mostly from that cold layers of CO2."

    And that's precisely why co2 causes warming. The more co2 that is added to the atmosphere, the more emissions into space are from a higher altitude. As it's colder up there the emissions into space reduce. Ie increasing co2 reduces emissions into space. The result of that is the planet warms to increase the rate of emissions back to equillibrium.

    Complain about this comment

  • 138. At 1:38pm on 29 Nov 2009, infiniti wrote:

    #Re 107: "As you said in previous posts, CO2 is a potent GHG but doubling it has not the same effect on temperature, due to it being a non-linear relationship."

    If he was just saying that then he is just repeating what climate scientists, climate models, and the IPCC have been saying for decades. So why phrase it like an argument against climate models when it's what climate models show?

    Complain about this comment

  • 139. At 1:40pm on 29 Nov 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    @manysummits #134

    Sorry to intrude on the to and fro with empirical evidence!

    Sorry to interrupt with a hint of reality:

    How is this evidence of AGW? Warming, yes, but it doesn't tell us what caused the warming does it? You have to explain how this shows evidence of AGW before you can claim it is evidence.

    Complain about this comment

  • 140. At 1:42pm on 29 Nov 2009, infiniti wrote:

    #130 davblo2

    "I don't really know what would be the best label for them."

    Pseudo-skeptics

    Complain about this comment

  • 141. At 1:43pm on 29 Nov 2009, Sparklet wrote:

    133. At 1:11pm on 29 Nov 2009, davblo2 wrote:
    "I notice also that it covers general "global warming" not "AGW" so I'm not sure of your view on that. Some of you say there is warming, some of you say there is not. It's one of the thing you don't seem to be agreed upon."

    My view is that climate is changing all the time and has done for millions of years. So whether you say the earth is warming or cooling rather depends on how far back in time you go.

    And those who claim they can 'manage climate' are arrogant in the extreme.

    Complain about this comment

  • 142. At 1:49pm on 29 Nov 2009, infiniti wrote:

    Sparklet #136:

    Give it up, Monkton is clearly not a scientists anymore than me. Your attempt to widen the scope of what a scientist is would make half the people on Earth scientists. Oh and it would make Al Gore a scientist.

    Complain about this comment

  • 143. At 1:51pm on 29 Nov 2009, Paul Biggs wrote:

    De Boer is a another know-nothing - as I already pointed out on another thread - China's 'commitment' is a con - China's emissions will increase from the 2007 level of 6.1GtC to 9.6GtC by 2020 - business as usual - hardly a 'cut.' As for other countries 'targets' - let's see the 'emissions reductions' mapped out on a year on year basis demonstrating how they will be achieved. It's easy to pluck arbitrary targets on arbitrary time scales out of the air - not so easy or even impossible to actually achieve, particularly without the consent of the people, who haven't been given any chance to vote for or against our leaders writing blank cheques with our money. Any 'Treaty' should be the subject of a referendum in individual countries.

    Complain about this comment

  • 144. At 1:55pm on 29 Nov 2009, pph wrote:

    Here was me thinking that the BBC had totally ignored this issue:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/the_daily_politics/8374523.stm

    OK a lunchtime slot may not have got shown to a massive audience but at least it got on the air.

    I do wonder why it was not followed up after that though, given the way the interview went?

    Complain about this comment

  • 145. At 2:01pm on 29 Nov 2009, Paul Biggs wrote:

    Infinity - the GISS, CRU and NCDC temperature data sets have a 90 to 95% overlap of station data. Legal action has been launched in the US against NASA GISS for failure to comply with FOIA requests over the past 3 years. It's the 'raw' data that is sought, which is 'adjusted.'

    Complain about this comment

  • 146. At 2:04pm on 29 Nov 2009, Paul Biggs wrote:

    Manysummits - you're in fantasy land:

    http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2009/10/08/the-ups-and-downs-of-methane/

    Complain about this comment

  • 147. At 2:15pm on 29 Nov 2009, Sparklet wrote:

    Re 142. At 1:49pm on 29 Nov 2009, infinity wrote:
    "Sparklet #136:

    Give it up, Monkton is clearly not a scientists anymore than me. Your attempt to widen the scope of what a scientist is would make half the people on Earth scientists. Oh and it would make Al Gore a scientist."

    But I'm not 'attempting' anything - simply given a recognised definition of the term 'scientist'.

    And isn't it a shame that Gore, the Head Priest of the AGW religion has refused to take on Monckton in debate. Gore knows his limits - he tends to get a little confused

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/16/gore-has-no-clue-a-few-million-degrees-here-and-there-and-pretty-soon-were-talking-about-real-temperature/

    Complain about this comment

  • 148. At 2:25pm on 29 Nov 2009, infiniti wrote:

    Re 145 Paul Biggs: "the GISS, CRU and NCDC temperature data sets have a 90 to 95% overlap of station data"

    Which is a problem how? You'd expect them to be maximizing the use of temperature station data around the world and to therefore be largely using the same stations.

    In fact isn't that precisely what psuedoskeptics are demanding? They want the same station data (100% overlap).

    As I said before, a large amount of this data can be downloaded from GCHN. I know full well that psuedoskeptics aren't interested in the data, they just want to generate a "fuss". GISTEMP and GISS ModelE climate model source code has been available to download from the GISS website for well over a year now..

    Complain about this comment

  • 149. At 2:32pm on 29 Nov 2009, infiniti wrote:

    Re 147: The obvious reason Gore doesn't want to live debate Monckton is because the setup is merely a platform to make Monckton more famous. Live debate has nothing to do with science. Hucksters and tricksters can run rings around the truth in a live debate.

    This is the same reason Richard Dawkins and other scientists refuse to live debate creationists.

    Complain about this comment

  • 150. At 2:57pm on 29 Nov 2009, bowmanthebard wrote:

    "The obvious reason Gore doesn't want to live debate Monckton is because the setup is merely a platform to make Monckton more famous. Live debate has nothing to do with science."

    Al Gore is a politician who makes movies with a political agenda. Monckton is a politician who gives speeches with a political agenda.

    The real reason Al Gore doesn't want to debate Monckton is he's a bit thick, and realizes he would probably lose some political momentum. Get real.

    The suggestion that Al Gore is a hotshot scientist with "too much science to do to lower himself to Monckton's level" is just ridiculous. It's a cover for the usual authoritarian policy to give "no platform" to those whom you disagree with.

    Complain about this comment

  • 151. At 3:00pm on 29 Nov 2009, Grant Carlson wrote:

    Davblo2

    "The criticisms of leaked emails seems to be well covered by the "human element under pressure" and personal involvement of those concerned".

    That doesn't explain at all why they were under any pressure. Surely they should be able to go about their scientific research without any pressure whatsoever.

    Who do you think was applying this pressure in order to mislead the public?

    Complain about this comment

  • 152. At 3:05pm on 29 Nov 2009, PAWB46 wrote:

    I have it on peer-reviewed authority that we won't be seeing Richard Back yet (OK it's Sunday anyway):

    "...there is ”all hell breaking loose” among news producers and presenters at the BBC over the corporation’s censoring of the Climagate story."

    The BBC has three versions of handling controversial stories:
    1,) Cover it in full, e.g. sending 35 staffers just to cover a 2-day event in Copenhagen.
    2.) Let someone else "break" the story, then just quote them.
    3.) Ignore it and hope it goes away, e.g. if it embarrasses the BBC, its staff or Alistair Campbell.

    We are in version 3, at the moment, though it's hard to say how long they can carry on pretending it's all "business as usual".

    Complain about this comment

  • 153. At 3:11pm on 29 Nov 2009, thinkforyourself wrote:

    #101. Says:
    ‘If the UK Government [sorry government] were to scrap the majority of its very expensive quangos, around 70 Billion Pounds Sterling and 700,000 civil servants would be freed! And that is Taxpayers money!’
    Freed to do what exactly? Wouldn't taxpayers still have to fund them on jobseekers allowance, income support, and council tax benefit? Who would administer all this? Or would you just let them starve? Ah, the brave (but highly simplistic) new world. What shall we call it? Terminator 4?
    Wouldn’t it be more appropriate that, rather than attacking people on low wages (The majority), we took back the millions paid to all the banking and business elites who are squeezing everyone so relentlessly? Do these people actually need £100 million?
    #102. Says:-
    ‘So, I asked if you could disprove any his biography and you couldn't.
    What on earth do the links you've given have to do with Monckton's ability as a scientist?
    More obfuscation.’
    As far as I’m aware Monckton is neither a scientist nor a Nobel Laureate (for what?) and he did n’t contribute to the IPCC. I think he mainly contributes to Christopher Monckton. See:
    http://news.scotsman.com/latestnews/Aristocrat-admits-tale-of-lost.3340554.jp
    Could you point us to a source to confirm his claims to the above?
    #103. Just plain nasty!
    What a new age sensitive guy you are. The more I read the ‘sceptic’ blogs the more they confirm they are right wing proxies. How could anyone with an ounce of decency say such a thing?
    #106 Says:-
    ‘It's quite clear about Bellamy, in the early days of the global warming scare, he believed, as many of us did, the evidence pointed towards AGW. On examining the evidence further, and as more evidence came to light, he changed his view. Nothing wrong with that, except, Bellamy's courage cost him his job.’
    So why did he fall apart on channel four news when asked to justify his ‘sceptical’ position. I mean you think he’d have so much ‘evidence’ to share with us. It just looked sad. See here:-
    Click on ‘Watch the report’ at:-

    http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/world/are%20the%20glaciers%20melting/107930
    Comments please.
    #107 says:
    ‘I'm agnostic these days - neither extreme side of the debate is right - the truth is somewhere in between the two (maybe) - LOL!’
    So we do nothing ‘ScudLewis’? Doesn’t that make you a sceptic?
    #113 says:-
    ‘And serving up Sen. Inhofe, Mel Bel on QT or, now, Nick Griffin as the voices of what 'they' are up against by way of 'balance, is counter-productive.’
    Agreed. But include Bellamy, Monckton and Wishart (NZ) though.
    #118 Davblo2:
    ‘I questioned your claims and you have failed to present them in a clear a logical scientific manner. (Something you all demand fiercely of the proponents of AGW) ‘
    Spot on, Davblo2. They have made no comment either about this:
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11074-us-climate-scientists-pressured-on-climate-change.html

    #121 says:-
    ‘Was Einstein a "scientist"?’
    Einstein vs Monckton? Hmmm. Talk about massaging Monckton’s huge ego! Aren’t global positioning and communications satellites adjusted for time dilation stemming directly from Einstein’s work on Relativity? Monckton on the other hand fibbed to sell a puzzle. I think history will be the judge of that comparison.
    #123 says:-
    ‘...And following on from my #122 Don't fall into the trap of believing that only those with academic qualifications can have any expertise. Some of the most intelligent and knowledgeable people I've ever met have no formal qualifications.’
    But the thousands of scientists round the world finding evidence of AGW are wrong? Is that your conclusion?
    Still nothing from minuend (see#48) re; his alleged Mike Hulme quote. Source please or retract. Thank you.


    Complain about this comment

  • 154. At 3:22pm on 29 Nov 2009, davblo2 wrote:

    PAWB46 #152: "all hell breaking loose"

    You couldn't go so far as to post a link to the message you quote... could you?

    Complain about this comment

  • 155. At 3:28pm on 29 Nov 2009, Paul Biggs wrote:

    Infinity - Pielke Sr on the temp data:

    http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/11/28/news-release-in-the-sunday-times-by-jonathan-leake-climate-change-data-dumped/

    “In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”

    This is an absurd claim that the new data is “value-added”. Indeed, we document a number of unresolved issues with the surface temperature data, which CRU now prevents anyone from assessing in our paper

    Pielke Sr., R.A., C. Davey, D. Niyogi, S. Fall, J. Steinweg-Woods, K. Hubbard, X. Lin, M. Cai, Y.-K. Lim, H. Li, J. Nielsen-Gammon, K. Gallo, R. Hale, R. Mahmood, S. Foster, R.T. McNider, and P. Blanken, 2007: Unresolved issues with the assessment of multi-decadal global land surface temperature trends. J. Geophys. Res., 112, D24S08, doi:10.1029/2006JD008229.

    The claim in the article that this elimination of the data up to the 1980s, however, suggests that raw data since that time period is available. This data needs to be independently scrutinized (i.e. not by GISS or NCDC) and each step of their “quality control” and “homogenization” quantitatively assessed [of course, GISS and NCDC should have the raw data prior to the 1980s].

    Complain about this comment

  • 156. At 3:30pm on 29 Nov 2009, bowmanthebard wrote:

    "Einstein vs Monckton? Hmmm. Talk about massaging Monckton’s huge ego!"

    My point was not to compare Monckton and Einstein but to get to the bottom of davblo2's criterion of being a "scientist". According to davblo2, a scientist is "someone with a doctor's degree" (in science, presumably).

    So no matter how corrupt, dishonest, medacious, greedy, coercive, pseudo-scientific or anti-scientific the behaviour of such a person-with-a-doctor's-degree may be, he's still doing science, apparently.

    No wonder the scandalous behaviour of "climate change scientists" goes unquestioned -- they're scientists after all, because they've got doctor's degrees.

    Complain about this comment

  • 157. At 3:43pm on 29 Nov 2009, davblo2 wrote:

    bowmanthebard #132: "So according to your criterion, Darwin was not a scientist."

    What are you talking about. It's not for you to tell me what my criteria are. First you try with Einstein, then having been wrong try Darwin.
    All I said was that the links to Monckton's biographies didn't say he was a scientist.

    bowmanthebard #132: "People like you judge [judge] what the CRU were doing as 'science' because the people involved have doctor's degrees, ... The Irish priesthood enjoyed a similar immunity from scrutiny because people like you decided they were beyond criticism because 'they're priests'."

    So I prefer qualified scientists to conduct scientific work and suddenly I'm responsible for the immunity of the Irish priesthood. Who would you like to see doing scientific research and who would you like to see being priests?

    I can criticise all and sundry as well, if not better, than most; but what I try not to do is make false or unsupported claims.

    /davblo2

    Complain about this comment

  • 158. At 3:49pm on 29 Nov 2009, PAWB46 wrote:

    davblo2 #154:

    No, it's raw data that I lost or is adjusted or is covered by FOIA. Take your pick.

    Complain about this comment

  • 159. At 3:56pm on 29 Nov 2009, infiniti wrote:

    Paul -

    Pielke has misdirected a little. His paper shows that raw data contains various errors. Therefore according to that paper the Hadcrut adjustments are value-added because they at least profess to correct at least some of those errors.

    If Pielke doubts they did a good enough job he's always free to do a better job himself. The station data are available from GCHN's ftp site. There is no need for him to have all of HadCrut's files and source code to do this, in fact if he believes their methods are wrong why would he want what he percieves as incorrect source code?

    All he has to do is take the raw station data, apply whatever corrections for errors he thinks are needed, and produce a global temperature record from it.

    That result can then be comared with the hadcrut, GISTEMP and NOAA global temperature products, as well as compared somewhat with the RSS and UAH lower troposphere temperature records.

    This is how scientists reproduce others results. They don't do a code review of the source code the other scientists used.

    It's because skeptics weren't interested in this approach that many of the scientists at CRU concluded they weren't after the truth at all, but were just trying to smear the science.

    Complain about this comment

  • 160. At 3:59pm on 29 Nov 2009, manysummits wrote:

    To 'rossglory' et al:

    The Sun has just risen here in Calgary, and a fine Chinook wind is blowing. The temperature has been rising throughout the night.

    The clouds are many-colored, most of them soft pastels, and a great Chinook Arch is prominent in the west. The mountains are covered in small grey roll clouds.

    I had a friend in the Canadian oilpatch in the early eighties - K.T. was his name. A great rolling man, a drilling foreman in the classic mold. He used to love the expression:

    It's a Runaway !!

    It was never entirely clear whether he was referring to the rig burning down, or his own propensity to, how shall we say, tiplerdom?

    I just returned home from my Sunday morning coffee, and it was dot connecting time. Three dots, to be specific:

    Dot #1:

    Arctic Sea Ice of the permanent kind (last million plus years), appears to have virtually vanished to all intents and purposes, according to Dr. David Barber:

    http://climateprogress.org/2009/11/08/arctic-multiyear-sea-ice-nsidc-david-barber/

    Dot #2:

    Alaska's Dr. Katey Walter Anthony, one of the emerging world specialists in Arctic methane, has reported on methane and CO2 evolution in the circumpolar regions of the Arctic in the December 2009 Scientific American, and has quantified the expected contribution to global warming from the tundra:

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=methane-a-menace-surfaces

    Dot #3:

    The 'GISS' global instrumental temperature record is looking very disturbing this last year and these last few months. It looks more serious in light of Dots #'s 1 & 2.

    Conclusion:

    The real possibility of a major runaway positive feedback loop having just closed is, I think, worthy of consideration.

    I wonder how many delegates to Copenhagen are scientifically aware of these developments, and courageous enough to comment?

    - Manysummits -

    Complain about this comment

  • 161. At 4:03pm on 29 Nov 2009, Grant Carlson wrote:

    Dr. Eduard Wirths, Dr. Aribert Heim, Dr. Hans Eppinger, Dr. Carl Clauberg, Albert Neisser and Joseph Mengele (among many others) all had degrees and all conducted, or headed, scientific experiments.

    This is not to say that those scientists who put these global warming theories forward on inexact data are Nazis. It's only to say that few people, scientist or not, are beyond corruption. That's especially so when great sums of money, and/or a fierce ideology, are involved.

    Complain about this comment

  • 162. At 4:07pm on 29 Nov 2009, davblo2 wrote:

    bowmanthebard #156: "According to davblo2, a scientist is 'someone with a doctor's degree' (in science, presumably)"

    You misquote me.

    I said that someone (Einstein) with a doctorate was a scientist. That's not the same thing.

    bowmanthebard #156: "So no matter how corrupt, dishonest, medacious, greedy, coercive, pseudo-scientific or anti-scientific the behaviour of such a person-with-a-doctor's-degree may be, he's still doing science, apparently"

    Again you are making things up which I didn't say.

    Corruption is possible almost anywhere.
    Scientists are people trained and (possibly) working in science.

    Its as simple as that. Why do you persist in creating unjustified, perverted, illogical and insulting inferences?

    If that's the way you think then what does it show about your reasoning and beliefs?

    /davblo2

    Complain about this comment

  • 163. At 4:16pm on 29 Nov 2009, Sparklet wrote:

    148. At 2:25pm on 29 Nov 2009, infinity wrote:
    "I know full well that psuedoskeptics aren't interested in the data, they just want to generate a "fuss". "

    What a complete misrepresentation. The sceptics are certainly very interested in the data which they need to verify the claims of the AGW proponents. In fact NASA were forced to admit that the hottest year on record in the US was 1934 and not 1998 as they had claimed through the efforts of a 'sceptic' digging out the data.

    http://townhall.com/columnists/AmandaCarpenter/2007/08/17/nasa_blocked_climate_change_blogger_from_data

    In fact the more the sceptics look at the data the more they find that casts doubt on the IPCC report.
    See the exchange between Professor Karlen and Trenberth re CRU and IPCC results where Karlen comments
    "It is also difficult to find evidence of a drastic warming outside urban areas in a large part of the world outside Europe. However the increase in temperature in Central Europe may be because the whole area is urbanized (see e.g. Bidwell, T., 2004: Scotobiology – the biology of darkness. Global change News Letter No. 58 June, 2004). I find it necessary to object to the talk about a scaring temperature increase because of increased human release of CO2. In fact, the warming seems to be limited to densely populated areas. The often mentioned correlation between temperature and CO2 is not convincing. If there is a factor explaining a major part of changes in the temperature, it is solar irradiation. There are numerous studies demonstrating this correlation but papers are not accepted by IPCC. Most likely, any reduction of CO2 release will have no effect whatsoever on the temperature (independent of how expensive)."

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/29/when-results-go-bad/

    Another exchange -

    [Karlen] I have noticed that major cities often demonstrate a major urban effect (Buenos Aires, Osaka, New York Central Park, etc). Have data from major cities been used by the laboratories sending data to IPCC? Lennart Bengtsson and other claims that the urban effect is accounted for but from what I read, it seems like the technique used has been a simplistic

    [Trenberth] Major inner cities are excluded: their climate change is real but very local."

    Yet this latter claim was found to be untrue by Willis Eschenbach after a FOI request revealed that many of the brightest (most densely populated) cities had indeed been included.

    The more one digs the more apparent it becomes that the CRU and IPCC have manipulated data for their own political purposes. The actual 'science' has been a very low priority.




    Complain about this comment

  • 164. At 4:16pm on 29 Nov 2009, manysummits wrote:

    Addendum To post # 160:

    I forgot to post the GISS table data link:

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts.txt
    ---------------

    Here is a brief summary, compiled by yours truly:

    Decade Temp Anomaly in deg C: (base period 1951-1980)

    1881-1890 -0.17
    1891-1900 -0.28
    1901-1910 -0.27
    1911-1920 -0.21
    1921-1930 -0.09
    1931-1940 -0.03
    1941-1950 0.02
    1951-1960 0.00
    1961-1970 -0.04
    1971-1980 0.04
    1981-1990 0.28
    1991-2000 0.38
    2001-2008 0.64 [8 year record]


    September 2009 anomaly: 0.86 deg C
    October 2009 anomaly: 0.76 deg C

    - Manysummits -

    Complain about this comment

  • 165. At 4:16pm on 29 Nov 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    @manysummits #160

    You must be living in a parallel universe if you think melting ice is evidence of AGW, you really should brush up on what constitutes evidence before posting such drivel

    apologies in advance for the robustness of my language

    Complain about this comment

  • 166. At 4:27pm on 29 Nov 2009, Kamboshigh wrote:

    Infinity,Soveryodd,davblo2 and the rest. I admire your religious belief and in some points very well argued and well support.

    There is a slight problem for you all and it has taken me 5 hours to read the context of the matter in conjunction with the said emails that go back over 10 years. There is also the matter of the code which quite correctly will take time to sort out.

    It clearly appears that data and temperature were deliberately altered to further a political agenda. The data sets were edited to meet certain requirements. People have lied, in several cases committed criminal acts which carry 10 years plus prison sentences. Taxpayers money has been used in ways that can only be described as fraud.

    But biggest is the IPCC AR3 has been totally and utterly destroyed scientifically. The extension of this would mean that AR4 is also debunked.

    Now as this unfolds and your darling BBC ignores the fact I would suggest you do some research. Your religion is falling apart so fast it beggers disbelieve. The main player Michael Mann who spent so long trying to hid the MWP know acknowledges its existance, sounds like jumping ship to me.

    I would like you to prove your theory is in no way the same as Eugenics.

    Complain about this comment

  • 167. At 4:29pm on 29 Nov 2009, Sparklet wrote:

    153. At 3:11pm on 29 Nov 2009, soveryodd

    So why don't you provide the link to the report that shows that Anthropological CO2 emission has caused global warming?

    Complain about this comment

  • 168. At 4:42pm on 29 Nov 2009, Kamboshigh wrote:

    Manysummits: GISS data states nothing. Jim Hansen works in the same building, same floor, next door office to Real Climate. Working at RC is Gavin "the gnome" Schmit. Michael Mann Eric Stieg etc.

    They are not an honest bunch of people Gavin in one post states "he does not have any knowledge of GISS NASA temp data". But if you read Prof. Pielke Sr's account of how he was removed from the presentation for AR4 you will see that the representive on the commitee for NASA/GISS is GAVIN SCHMIT

    Sorry but this is all lies your mountains will still be there the Artic ice will still be there along time after the evils of man (Mann) have gone from this planet

    Complain about this comment

  • 169. At 4:42pm on 29 Nov 2009, lburt wrote:

    @davblo2
    "You made claims (see #59 & #71) purporting to invalidate AGW.

    I questioned your claims and you have failed to present them in a clear an logical scientific manner. (Something you all demand fiercely of the proponents of AGW)"


    Look who's being insulting now. My mistake was thinking you might occasionally take something seriously. Perhaps the others don't see through your silly little games, but I do. Its always "I made no claims. Make of it what you will." with you. You say things that can only be meant to imply one position but make sure to word it so you can weasel your way out of if it with that same, tired excuse. I'm not playing the game.
    On the off chance there was a hint of sincerity in your post I'll leave you with a cryptic answer. What would the outgoing spectrum of earth look like if the entire atmosphere were somehow at the same temperature as the ground (assuming the ground was a black body)?

    Complain about this comment

  • 170. At 4:43pm on 29 Nov 2009, manysummits wrote:

    More Good News - of the Anthropogenic Kind !

    "ScienceDaily (Nov. 25, 2009) — The annual rate of increase in carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels has more than tripled in this decade, compared to the 1990s, reports an international consortium of scientists, who paint a bleak picture of the Earth's future unless "CO2 emissions [are] drastically reduced."

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091124174622.htm
    --------------

    "These CO2 emissions increased at a rate of 3.4% per year from 2000 to 2008, in contrast to 1% each year in the previous decade, scientists from the Global Carbon Project report in the current issue of Nature."
    ---------------

    Since both Canada and the United States are proposing the extravagant reduction of ~ 3 percent from ~ the 2005 level of emissions, we are left to wonder at the virtual sanity of those proposing these reductions?

    Is it fun they are having, as they play God with our future, or are they pathologically inclined?

    - Manysummits -

    Complain about this comment

  • 171. At 4:44pm on 29 Nov 2009, Sparklet wrote:

    Re. #164. At 4:16pm on 29 Nov 2009, manysummits

    You need to bear in mind just how the temperature data has been collected - see the attached

    http://www.surfacestations.org/

    Page down to the bottom to see the difference between the trend lines in a surface station that has not been surrounded by urbanisation and one that has and then consider just what exactly is being reported here - climate or increased urbanisation.

    Read the attached regarding the placement and counts of the temperature monitoring stations

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/10/24/ghcn-california-on-the-beach-who-needs-snow/

    And again here

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/11/01/ghcn-mexico-a-megathermal-vacation-band/

    Where the conclusion was
    "Finally, there is again evidence for a significant deliberate “fudge” of the thermometer locations in the 1990 (plus or minus a few years) time period. While Canada and the USA have there thermometers gutted, Mexico gets a significant gain in numbers. And in a part of Mexico that looks to be over represented anyway.

    There can be no scientific rational for that behaviour. There can be a political one."







    Complain about this comment

  • 172. At 4:48pm on 29 Nov 2009, infiniti wrote:

    Re #163 Sparklet

    The GISTEMP correction had no impact on the IPCC report whatsoever. 1934 and 1998 in the US record were a few hundredths of a degree apart before and after the correction.

    Your example here is precisely the kind of "fuss" I was talking about.

    Complain about this comment

  • 173. At 5:02pm on 29 Nov 2009, lburt wrote:

    @infinity #159

    "If Pielke doubts they did a good enough job he's always free to do a better job himself. The station data are available from GCHN's ftp site. There is no need for him to have all of HadCrut's files and source code to do this, in fact if he believes their methods are wrong why would he want what he percieves as incorrect source code?"

    I see you're using the CRU definition of "peer review".

    Complain about this comment

  • 174. At 5:05pm on 29 Nov 2009, infiniti wrote:

    Kambos 166:

    "It clearly appears that data and temperature were deliberately altered to further a political agenda."

    Is this really what "clearly appears" or is it what you clearly want to believe?

    I would point out this - if there is a genuine case of fraud for political reasons in the emails, why isn't that being raised? Why instead do we see pseudoskeptics churning out hundreds of nitpicks, quote mines and downright misrepresentations of emails?

    There will be a proper investigation into the context and meanings of many of the emails, an investigation done by competent investigators. That may or may not determine scientific malpractice or FOI violations.

    However your conclusion that TAR (not "AR3") and AR4 have been scientifically destroyed is both bizzare and ludicrous.

    Complain about this comment

  • 175. At 5:14pm on 29 Nov 2009, manysummits wrote:

    Addendum to post # 170:

    Correction:

    "Since both Canada and the United States are proposing the extravagant reduction of ~ 3 percent from ~ the 2005 [should be ~ the 1990 level] of emissions, we are left to wonder at the virtual sanity of those proposing these reductions?"

    - Manysummits -

    Complain about this comment

  • 176. At 5:14pm on 29 Nov 2009, infiniti wrote:

    The surfacestations project site simply documents some humerous station surroundings and more importantly suggests more funding is needed to maintain a better quality network.

    However what it doesn't do is show this affects the global temperature record. The global temperature records are compiled knowing that indivudal sites may contain microsite biases. This is why the data of neighbouring stations is compared in the analysis.

    To go from surfacestations project to doubt of the global temperature record you need a middle step of actually carrying out some analysis to show the surface record is incorrect. Why hasn't this been done?

    Furhtermore note that the sateliite records show about as much warming as the surface records over the past 30 years, so again I consider this doubt in surface temperature records to be yet more of the "fuss" pseudoskeptics are trying to make to discredit the science.

    Complain about this comment

  • 177. At 5:26pm on 29 Nov 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    @manysummits #170

    "These CO2 emissions increased at a rate of 3.4% per year from 2000 to 2008, in contrast to 1% each year in the previous decade, scientists from the Global Carbon Project report in the current issue of Nature."


    And yet temperatures have remained flat, possibly fallen. Even the Team can't explain this according to the emails.

    What does that tell you about the ability of CO2 to raise the temperature significantly? Try to think logically

    Complain about this comment

  • 178. At 5:27pm on 29 Nov 2009, lburt wrote:

    @Rossglory RE:Where's the skepticism about the emails

    Skeptics noticed a problem with the behavior of climate scientists. We pointed it out. We were treated like tinfoil hat wearing loonies for doing so. NOW you're saying we should be skeptical after a large portion of the contributing authors of the IPCC report were caught doing the sort of things we noticed???

    The time for skepticism about their academic (and sometimes legal) misconduct is over. They admitted these were the real emails. The motive makes little difference at this point as they've been caught. However, the fact that they're not denying the emails and seem oblivious to the misconduct contained within tends to point to them just being incredibly thick. An alternative way to look at it is that they think those in the public are too thick to notice the misconduct. There just aren't any good ways many of these emails (and the data) can be taken.

    One would think that the faithful among the AGW supporters would be shaken by the verification of a theory they once thought was utter insanity.

    Complain about this comment

  • 179. At 5:28pm on 29 Nov 2009, RobWansbeck wrote:

    Quote from the excellent BBC series 'Weather':

    “Hadley was an amateur; he was so amateur that no image exists”

    Also classification of clouds, rainfall records, atmospheric moisture and much more all the work of amateurs.

    Any chance of this series being repeated?

    Complain about this comment

  • 180. At 5:34pm on 29 Nov 2009, mrgrump wrote:

    "Climategate" stuff shows that what some Climate Experts said about the IPCC assessments being "sexed up" was correct.

    Apparently "sexing up" the Iran Weapons of Mass Destruction assessments warrants headline news, and an army of BBC investigative reporters.

    Strange times ahead for the BBC, if your editorial beliefs fall apart what are you going to do?

    Complain about this comment

  • 181. At 5:35pm on 29 Nov 2009, Grant Carlson wrote:

    Infinity - "Your example here is precisely the kind of "fuss" I was talking about".

    There are possibly trillions of dollars involved here, as well as unelected bureaucrats of every stripe having potential control over all our lives.

    Certainly people should be skeptical and make a "fuss", as should all scientists. That's what science is all about.

    We dont vote on scientific theories, we can't blindly accept what one group of scientists say which contradicts that of others and transfer the kind of money and power that is being sought in the Copenhagen get-together without substantial and clear evidence.

    We cannot accept their word as fact. It must be demonstrably proven beyond any doubt and only then should there be any meetings to work at some sort of international solution, as well as who gets to be involved in any decision making process.

    But what's happening now is a scam, which is why those who stand to profit are in such a hurry to press their views on others.

    I don't believe there is any way I should send my tax dollars to fund the unproven theories of these charlatans, though I'd certainly be willing to contribute once the facts are widely acknoowledged to be true. But the world, depite what Ban Ki-moon and Prince Charles might predict, should relax until all the facts are in or, like previous claims of imminent destruction, just regard it as more Chicken Little nonsense and move on.

    Complain about this comment

  • 182. At 5:54pm on 29 Nov 2009, Sparklet wrote:

    172. At 4:48pm on 29 Nov 2009, infinity wrote:
    "Re #163 Sparklet

    The GISTEMP correction had no impact on the IPCC report whatsoever. 1934 and 1998 in the US record were a few hundredths of a degree apart before and after the correction.

    Your example here is precisely the kind of "fuss" I was talking about."

    Enough to give lie to the headlines claiming 1998 was the hottest year on record. It seems there was a great deal of "fuss" made about that in the AGW camp. I also suggest you actually read the information provided about the placement of the monitoring stations - odd you don't seem to care if they're located next to air-conditioning units and carparks.

    Another example in New Zealand where the weather station is located next to the exhaust from an conditioning unit and this time NIWA being very cagey about their data adjustments.
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/27/more-on-the-niwa-new-zealand-data-adjustment-story/

    Complain about this comment

  • 183. At 5:58pm on 29 Nov 2009, infiniti wrote:

    re 181.
    The 1998 vs 1934 US temperature error had no bearing on any scientific theories. But pseudoskeptics decided to make a big deal out of it anyway, ie create a "fuss", because they knew it could be exploited as propaganda to spread doubts about scientific theories in general.

    Complain about this comment

  • 184. At 6:07pm on 29 Nov 2009, infiniti wrote:

    Re 182

    "Enough to give lie to the headlines claiming 1998 was the hottest year on record. It seems there was a great deal of "fuss" made about that in the AGW camp."

    There were no such headlines. In fact the GISTEMP record at that time showed 1998 cooler than 1934 in the US.

    There were headlines about 1998 being the hottest year *globally*, the error correction didn't change that. IIRC 2005 overtook 1998 as the hottest year on record in GISTEMP anyway.

    As I have already pointed out, simply noting that there is some weird surroundings of some temperature stations doesn't demonstrate how, if at all, microsite biases affect the surface temperature records. The surface temperature records are designed to detect and fix individual station discrepancies by comparing them with neighbouring stations.

    Complain about this comment

  • 185. At 6:18pm on 29 Nov 2009, Sigurdur wrote:

    As a US citizen, I would like to clarify:
    1. President Obama has no legal authority to make any pledge etc involving the US as a whole at the summit. He may make a personal pledge to reduce his co2 emmissions, that is his right, but legally that is all he has the power to do.
    2. Cap and Trade is dead in the US Senate. The leaked CRU data is so very incriminating that it is mind boggling in its facts.
    3. The leaked CRU data will probably make our Watergate or Pentagon Papers look like small fish in the grand scheme.
    4. There seems to be a sudden flooding of papers that have been disregarded in journals concerning botony, chemistry and physics that have, each on their own merit, shown AGW by co2 to be impossible.

    Best Regards from the Frisky folks accorss the ocean. WE have this stubborn streak that requires actual documentation and not fabricated documentation.

    Good Day.

    Complain about this comment

  • 186. At 6:26pm on 29 Nov 2009, RobWansbeck wrote:

    “The surface temperature records are designed to detect and fix individual station discrepancies by comparing them with neighbouring stations.”

    With emphasis on 'fix'?

    Complain about this comment

  • 187. At 6:26pm on 29 Nov 2009, PAWB46 wrote:

    If you want to see how IPCC cooked the books to create global warming, see the exchanges between Trenberth and Karlen at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/29/when-results-go-bad/#comments

    Complain about this comment

  • 188. At 6:35pm on 29 Nov 2009, bowmanthebard wrote:

    davblo2 wrote:

    "Corruption is possible almost anywhere.
    "Scientists are people trained and (possibly) working in science."

    The term 'science' is a powerful term of approval, especially now that Western religions are in decline, and scientists occupy a position in society once held by priests. They are widely thought to be trustworthy, intelligent people who have a unique insight into our future, unlike astrologers and others who push mere superstitions.

    Given such a lofty and admirible calling, it is rather important that ordinary people have some means of telling the difference between genuine scientists and mere charlatans who fake data, sell snake oil, or who are otherwise liable to take advantage of the general run of humanity's ignorance. George Moinbiot, for one, sounds very very annoyed at the moment because he was foolish and gullible enough to hand it to others to make judgements on his behalf -- others whose credentials involve "peer review", "doctoral degree", what have you.

    If we simply say that "anyone who is recognized as a scientist by other scientists counts as a scientist", we hand decision-making powers over to a priesthood. That is unacceptable.

    Complain about this comment

  • 189. At 6:36pm on 29 Nov 2009, infiniti wrote:

    Re 182 Sparklet again:

    Note that the original allegations made by the self-named "New Zealand Climate Science Coalition" were based on, and this is their wording:

    "There are no reasons for any large corrections."

    Now read your link again and you see they now admit there are valid reasons for large corrections afterall. No acknowledgement that their original charges against the NIWA were wrong. Instead they've shifted to demanding to know how the data is corrected. This is a clear sign they are now winding down - they've loudly and unjustifably damaged the NIWA's public reputation with a set of ignorant charges, and now they are slowly winding the issue down.

    And you wonder why the NIWA is being cagey.

    But let me ask you this - given that their original error shows they obviously know very little about what they are talking about, why is it people like me are supposed to be amazed and convinced by this kind of stuff blogs like WUWT parrot?

    Complain about this comment

  • 190. At 6:40pm on 29 Nov 2009, Sparklet wrote:

    "176. At 5:14pm on 29 Nov 2009, infinity wrote:
    The surfacestations project site simply documents some humerous station surroundings and more importantly suggests more funding is needed to maintain a better quality network.

    However what it doesn't do is show this affects the global temperature record. The global temperature records are compiled knowing that indivudal sites may contain microsite biases. This is why the data of neighbouring stations is compared in the analysis.

    To go from surfacestations project to doubt of the global temperature record you need a middle step of actually carrying out some analysis to show the surface record is incorrect. Why hasn't this been done?

    Furhtermore note that the sateliite records show about as much warming as the surface records over the past 30 years, so again I consider this doubt in surface temperature records to be yet more of the "fuss" pseudoskeptics are trying to make to discredit the science."

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

    Infinity,
    This is far from 'humerous' but is in fact pretty serious.
    And in answer to your question analysis was done -

    [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
    It was found that adjustments had been done to exaggerate the warming trend.

    The 'science' has already been discredited.


    There are none so blind as those who will not see!!

    Complain about this comment

  • 191. At 7:02pm on 29 Nov 2009, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 192. At 7:03pm on 29 Nov 2009, davblo2 wrote:

    bowmanthebard #188: "The term 'science' is a powerful term of approval..."

    I don't have too much problem with what you say.

    But as I understand it scientists and not paid anywhere near the levels associated with such "lofty and admirable calling" you ascribe to them.

    Maybe something is amiss there.

    Also, I wonder how you would apply the concerns you describe to politicians, financial companies, big business etc? Haven't we "we hand[ed] decision-making powers over to a priesthood" in those cases already?

    /davblo2

    Complain about this comment

  • 193. At 7:09pm on 29 Nov 2009, Sparklet wrote:

    Re.189. At 6:36pm on 29 Nov 2009, infinity

    I suggest you read the link more carefully.

    "My question remains, however: is applying a temperature example from 15km away in a different climate zone a valid way of rearranging historical data?

    And my other question to David Wratt also remains: we’d all like to see the metholdology and reasoning behind adjustments on all the other sites as well."


    In science all data is supposed to be made available for verification. What the so called climatologists are providing us with is not science - they're asking us to 'have faith' and not question their methodology or data and I can see that you are a 'True Believer' Infinity so enjoy your religion but don't try and impress it on the rest of us, nor ask us to pay for it either!!!




    Complain about this comment

  • 194. At 7:18pm on 29 Nov 2009, fluffytale wrote:

    grany carlson
    you are the scam.
    what has soros got to do with the price of eggs in china?


    The world is flat so obviously global warming can't happen because the heat would go up. Basic science.
    all the heat generated would be lost.
    the world is also not warming because as a planet only 3000 years old that would be impossible, because the galapogos Islands exist we have all the proof that God is wonderous and evolution is a myth.
    Think about tit.


    If you think this makes no snse then don't complain to me. most that believe it also seem to think america is Free and invented the wheel.

    Complain about this comment

  • 195. At 7:24pm on 29 Nov 2009, fluffytale wrote:

    It must be demonstrably proven beyond any doubt .


    Bull
    tyhen adopt euro standards in the USA to force companies PROVE their plastics don't screw with fertility.
    Make the Coal ndustry PROVE it is "clean" same with all.
    why is it that always we hear this cry from those that are desperate to prove they are not sucking the life out of the planet(vampires).

    there was no Proof offered when people said" wait that might be dangerous"

    Create make sell DDT. It doesn't harm animals.
    Oh but tit does.
    "prove it" and while you try we will wait and see if there is anything to rescue when you are finnished.
    Sorry is it too late.
    Prove it. then we will consider debating it.


    TOO LATE.

    You prove that we need your latest crap for sale.
    do we really need a blackberry you can't eat?

    Complain about this comment

  • 196. At 7:29pm on 29 Nov 2009, lburt wrote:

    @infinity
    "There are no reasons for any large corrections."

    Now read your link again and you see they now admit there are valid reasons for large corrections afterall.


    LOL, were the adjustments to cover the fact that someone installed special cooling on the thermometers? Almost all of the warming was due to the corrections. Unfortunately, my oblivious friend, the corrections that you need to make for having a thermometer on top of a building...are adjusting DOWN (not ever upward). Much of Australia's warming has the same problem. Hansen's meddling with the temperature record is so blatant that we can tell he's doing it WITHOUT seeing his original data. That's why 1998 started out VERY high, then suddenly, in retrospect it was colder and another, more recent year was warmer...then it and the more recent year were both colder and a more recent year was warmer. But no...there's no reason to believe he's cooking the books.

    There is not so much more warming than the previous warming period that a small amount of fudging (reducing the previous warm period and increasing the recent one) wouldn't completely account for all additional warming.

    And with respect to your "pseudoskeptics" name calling. Talk about denial. Look, even the example you gave is a clear case of the kind of manipulation the skeptics are talking about.

    Complain about this comment

  • 197. At 7:29pm on 29 Nov 2009, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    (right, try and summarise my post above (#191) in a moderator friendly format)

    OK, any of you sceptics still think HARRY READ ME is about fudging HADCRUT3?

    Quote from RealClimate's Gavin Schmidt

    "HARRY_read_me.txt. This is a 4 year-long work log of Ian (Harry) Harris who was working to upgrade the documentation, metadata and databases associated with the legacy CRU TS 2.1 product, which is not the same as the HadCRUT data (see Mitchell and Jones, 2003 for details). The CSU TS 3.0 is available now (via ClimateExplorer for instance), and so presumably the database problems got fixed. Anyone who has ever worked on constructing a database from dozens of individual, sometimes contradictory and inconsistently formatted datasets will share his evident frustration with how tedious that can be."

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack-context/

    I looked to see if I could supply you sceptics with some evidence to support Gavin's claim.

    Firstly I found evidence that HADCRUT3 and CRU TS 3.0 are different data sets

    http://badc.nerc.ac.uk/data/cru/

    I then checked HARRY READ ME. I can't find any reference to HADCRUT3. I did however find numerous references to CRU TS 2.0, CRU TS 2.1, CRU TS 3.0 and cruts.

    Complain about this comment

  • 198. At 7:32pm on 29 Nov 2009, infiniti wrote:

    Sparklet, I did read it carefully.

    The original claim was "There are no reasons for any large corrections."

    Now they admit there are valid reasons for adjustments. So they were wrong and are just moving on to some other arguments.

    Seeing as I knew there were valid reasons for large corrections in station data, how come the "NZ Climate Science Coalition" didn't know that? Are they that ignorant of the subject.

    I recommend they read a few books, papers or even good websites on the matter before throwing around erroneous charges of fraud at people who are actually doing science (the NZ Climate Science Coalition after googling it looks yet like another political group giving itself a sciency sounding name)

    As for their first new question, the reason applying temperatures 15km away works is because it isn't in a different climate zone. The temperature trends between nearby sites are very close. Look up 'teleconnection'.

    As for verification, why don't the skeptics take the raw data and correct it themselves? That way they can be confident in the adjustments they have made and therefore be confident in the result and compare it to the NIWA one.



    Complain about this comment

  • 199. At 7:43pm on 29 Nov 2009, xtragrumpymike2 wrote:

    "In the public mind the science of the 1960s was about Certainty—maths, physics and engineering. In 2010 science is about Uncertainty—ecology, global climate, human reproduction, nutrition and disease, regenerative medicine, genetic modification, viral epidemics, nanotechnology."
    Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, November 26th. 2009

    The above is an excerpt from a lecture given by the Scientific Adviser to the Prime Minister of New Zealand.

    Sir Peter has never claimed to be an expert on "global climate" or even a climatologist ( I query how many people making exorbitant statements on this site are genuine climate scientists) but at least he knows the difference between areas of science where "Certainty" is appropriate and areas where it isn't!

    I raise this point as most of the anti-AGW lobby are still demanding "Certainty".

    This could explain why "decision makers" like our Prime Minister and heads of other governments, are still listening to the likes of Sir Peter and ignoring the likes of the majority of anti-AGW lobby and will continue to do so despite all the attacks on the pro-AGW lobby (personally) and their "so-called" "pseudo-science".

    I'm still betting that when all the "horse trading" is over..........Copenhagen will come out with some agreement on dealing with AGW and its potential. Whether anyone on either side of the debate will be happy remains to be seen.

    Complain about this comment

  • 200. At 7:56pm on 29 Nov 2009, infiniti wrote:

    Re 196: You are avoiding the fact that the NZCSC claimed there was no reason to adjust the raw data. Anyone familiar with the subject knows there is. Either the NZCSC was ignorant of this, or the other option is not so kind. In either case their actions smack of making accusations first and then trying to fit a case around it.

    Re 197: thanks, I suspected it wasn't HadCRUT3 when I saw very large non-temperature values being processed. Wasn't familiar with CRU TS before.

    Complain about this comment

  • 201. At 8:17pm on 29 Nov 2009, Paul Biggs wrote:

    Latest on CRU global temperature data - a new email exchange between a Climategate CRU scientist and Pielke Jr, plus good comments:

    http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/11/cru-on-global-temperture-data.html#comments

    Complain about this comment

  • 202. At 8:17pm on 29 Nov 2009, Sparklet wrote:

    [Re my #190
    Sorry Mods forgot I couldn't post a PDF file.]

    Re 176. At 5:14pm on 29 Nov 2009, infinity

    The siting of the suface stations is far from 'humerous' Infinity but actually pretty serious and in answer to your question yes an analysis was done summarised here and called "Correct the Corrections"
    which showed that the adjustments far from compensating for urbanisation actually exaggerated a warming trend.

    And summarises -
    Satellite data is free of urbanization effects and provide truly global coverage continually.
    Previous problems with satellite drift affecting temperature calculations have been corrected.
    Newer satellites have station keeping capability and do not drift. The satellite data is much
    superior to land measurement. The satellite global temperature trend from 2002 to May 2008 is a
    decline of 0.25 Celsius per decade, significant global cooling for over 6 years.

    http://friendsofscience.org/index.php?cx=012135493227025700499%3A27xlkp2iec8&id=387&cof=FORID%3A11%3BFCOL%3Ablue%3B&q=urban+adjustment&sa=Search&siteurl=www.friendsofscience.org%252Findex.php%253Fid%253D226%2526start%253D10#1003

    For those who are interested here is a site showing the satellite trend

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

    As I've said before whether you consider the earth to be warming or cooling depends on where you put the start and end dates and 1934 was hotter than 1998 - the attached graph certainly doesn't show the steep ramp upwards that the CRU team would like to have us believe even despite the fact our CO2 emissions are actually increasing with the ongoing development of China and India.

    Dr Spencer provides an excellent summary and his site is well worth visiting

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-natural-or-manmade/


    Complain about this comment

  • 203. At 8:20pm on 29 Nov 2009, thinkforyourself wrote:

    Sparklet # 167 says:-
    ‘So why don't you provide the link to the report that shows that Anthropological CO2 emission has caused global warming?’
    I think the word you are struggling for is ‘Anthropogenic’. This is where Yertizz fell down. In his case he didn’t understand probability.
    Clearly you guys are not scientifically informed in any way. Are you journalists? Or maybe involved in Marketing?
    No answers to any of my questions have been forthcoming about such obvious matters as Monckton’s CV, claiming he has a Nobel Laureate. Or why Bellamy used a fake website to postulate that glaciers were not melting. Or where minuend got his quote to do with Mike Hulme at CRU. Or why you haven’t been able to comment on this:-
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11074-us-climate-scientists-pressured-on-climate-change.html

    Address these issues and we can move on.

    Complain about this comment

  • 204. At 8:29pm on 29 Nov 2009, lburt wrote:

    @infinity

    I'm not avoiding the fact that he claimed there's no reason to adjust the data. I'm pointing out that there was CLEARLY no reason to adjust many sites as they do. If you'll look you'll find that almost all long term adjustments to the temperature record have the rather odd side effect of increasing linearity of the record and most recent adjustments showing warming. (and in the case of NZ, correcting up so much that it creates a strong warming trend when no statistically significant warming has occurred).

    So sure, win the "battle" over there ever being need for corrections...lose the "war" on the corrections being valid.

    Complain about this comment

  • 205. At 8:36pm on 29 Nov 2009, Grant Carlson wrote:

    "grany carlson
    you are the scam".

    How so, Fluffytale? How can I possibly profit on this global warmimng scare? What would be my motive?

    "If you think this makes no snse then don't complain to me. most that believe it also seem to think america is Free and invented the wheel".

    Would that be the same people who invented the global warming idea?

    Complain about this comment

  • 206. At 8:43pm on 29 Nov 2009, Sparklet wrote:

    Re #203. At 8:20pm on 29 Nov 2009, soveryodd

    So still no proof of any direct link between 'anthropogenic' CO2 emissions and Global warming.

    This has been frequently requested on this board but none of you seem able to provide.

    Enjoy your predictions of doom and catastrophe but don't expect the rest of us to follow suit.

    Complain about this comment

  • 207. At 8:45pm on 29 Nov 2009, Grant Carlson wrote:

    "Address these issues and we can move on".

    Its really not much of an issue, Soveryodd.

    "According to The Guardian newspaper, Piltz described how Cooney had personally edited out a key section of an Environmental Protection Agency report to Congress on the dangers of climate change, calling it "speculative musing".

    Phil Cooney appears to have been correct.

    Complain about this comment

  • 208. At 9:03pm on 29 Nov 2009, thinkforyourself wrote:

    For information on man made (anthropogenic) global warming, this is a really good link for people interested in finding out more. Read, especially the Q&A (1 to 21) a bit further down:-
    http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/10/02/q-and-a-responses-to-climate-skeptics-arguments/
    and then this:-
    http://bravenewclimate.com/spot-the-recycled-denial-series/
    If they don’t work, copy and paste them into your URL.
    The author is Professor Barry Brook who holds the Foundation Sir Hubert Wilkins Chair of Climate Change and is Director of Climate Science at The Environment Institute, University of Adelaide.

    Complain about this comment

  • 209. At 9:04pm on 29 Nov 2009, infiniti wrote:

    re 202 Sparklet:

    So now you are saying skeptics *knew* raw data had to be adjusted? So why did the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition claim, and I quote again:

    "There are no reasons for any large corrections."

    Dishonesty perhaps? Or what?

    One of the summaries you give says:
    "Satellite data is free of urbanization effects and provide truly global coverage continually."

    You don't seem to realize that the satellites records show similar warming as the CRU surface record over the past 30 years. Put the two together and this suggests urbanization effects are not the explaination for the surface record warming.

    Another reason against urbanization explaining the surface warming is that the oceans show warming too (no urban effects there) and the fastest warming areas are fairly remote (arctic, antarctic peninsula)

    Furthermore the Earth wasn't warmer in 1934. Lookup any of the global surface records to see that.

    Complain about this comment

  • 210. At 9:08pm on 29 Nov 2009, Yorkurbantree wrote:

    Junkmal: 110 - You don’t get satire do you! The Guardian and Mirror are notoriously biased (left) and the Daily Mail and Express are notoriously biased (right). The BBC is trusted worldwide for its balance and therefore is it disappointing to see such extreme ideologically driven nonsense all over its message boards. In the words of the BBC: “half the complaints about are coverage of Israel say we are biases towards the Israelis and the other half say we are biased towards the Palestinians”. Says it all really…

    Yertizz: 120 - Appears to be suggesting that:
    a) the contemporary heterogeneous systems of global governance are akin to the Nazi regime of Germany during the 1930s-1940s.
    b) the canon of climate change science is in its dying phase.

    With ‘challenging’ views like these you can see why the only politicians that are in interested in the sceptics cause are of the calibre of Nick ‘white people are the master race’ Griffin and Roger ‘there is no such thing as homosexuality’ Helmer. (For the Americans: how about that picture of sanity Sarah Palin!

    Even your little piece of historiography leaves a lot to be desired. You list dictatorships that were toppled and include: Robert Mugabe – who is still in power, the Mau Mau – who never were in power and Stalin – who remained in power till his death.

    Complain about this comment

  • 211. At 9:10pm on 29 Nov 2009, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @soveryodd #203

    Monckton's Nobel Peace Laureate claim is potentially misleading and definitely amusing. See my post at #93.

    Complain about this comment

  • 212. At 9:10pm on 29 Nov 2009, infiniti wrote:

    Re 204: "no statistically significant warming has occurred"

    You can't know that. If you write off the official NZ temperature record, then there is no temperature record remaining to make such a conclusion. We know we can't use the raw temperature record - valid adjustments are needed.

    I recommend if the NZCSC genuinely want to approach this issue scientifically, they should take the raw data, adjust it how they see fit and then present the results. Who knows, in doing so they might discover upward adjustments are needed afterall. Or not.

    Complain about this comment

  • 213. At 9:13pm on 29 Nov 2009, ER_Tiger wrote:

    #13. also quite right that they should ignore the usual hot air from the denialosphere. a miniscule group mostly with political or economic interests. it's only here that these emails are perceieved as significant.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------

    Do you mean this miniscule group

    http://www.petitionproject.org/signers_by_last_name.php

    I think if you removed your blinkers as to the content of the e-mails you would see how just a few scientist hijacked, lied and made a very good living out of covering up that lie. Don't forget, also, the many other scientists who use the climate change card to gain funding. The 'Big Oil' accusation is often used but 'Big Alternative Energy Industry'
    can be used the same way for the so called consensus.

    As for the political interests, is the UN IPCC not a political organisation? Do national governments not have political motives? Is the green party not a political party?

    Complain about this comment

  • 214. At 9:57pm on 29 Nov 2009, ADMac wrote:

    There is an interesting article on Climategate on The National Association of Scholars website.

    (NAS is an independent membership association of academics working to foster intellectual freedom and to sustain the tradition of reasoned scholarship and civil debate in America’s colleges and universities.)

    http://www.nas.org/polArticles.cfm?Doc_Id=1102

    "The Climategate Scandal (extract)

    It showed researchers willfully distorting data to promote their own views, collusion aimed at suppressing or marginalizing discrepant material, including attempts to prevent the publication of competing scientific ideas, and a general attitude of zealotry for a cause. The CRU files have already blossomed into fetid international scandal.

    The National Association of Scholars has never taken an official position on anthropogenic global warming.

    The discovery that numerous scientists at CRU have distorted data, misled the public, and behaved in numerous ways counter to principles of academic and scientific integrity must be weighed very seriously.

    Broadly speaking, this scandal will alter the burden of proof. From this point on, proponents of global warming theory will receive no benefit of the doubt. Wanton extrapolations, reliance on models in which data can be endlessly readjusted to fit the thesis, and attempts to stigmatize critics as scientifically illiterate will have to stop.“

    Should anybody doubt the worldwide interest in what is happening at CRU, an advanced search with Google, for Climategate over the last week, generates 38.3 millions pages.

    Complain about this comment

  • 215. At 10:01pm on 29 Nov 2009, thinkforyourself wrote:

    Grant Carlson #207 says:
    ‘Phil Cooney appears to have been correct.’
    According to whom? Source please. (Note: is this the Phil Cooney who left the Whitehouse in 2005 and went on to work for oil giant ExxonMobil)
    Have you read the link at #208?
    Should answer most of your ‘sceptic’ questions.
    Could you ‘sceptics’ justify your position on each of the 21 questions, with sources please?
    I’ll be checking your answers in the week.

    Complain about this comment

  • 216. At 10:33pm on 29 Nov 2009, Sparklet wrote:

    Re #208. At 9:03pm on 29 Nov 2009, soveryodd wrote:
    For information on man made (anthropogenic) global warming, this is a really good link for people interested in finding out more. Read, especially the Q&A (1 to 21) a bit further down:-
    http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/10/02/q-and-a-responses-to-climate-skeptics-arguments/
    and then this:-
    http://bravenewclimate.com/spot-the-recycled-denial-series/

    =========================================================

    Thanks for the links soveryodd and they worked fine BUT
    really you can't be serious - this is your proof!!!

    For example - the statements
    1. The IPCC is a political body and its reports are scientifically unreliable
    False.

    This has proven to be TRUE with the revelations by in his blog by Roger Pielke SR who resigned in protest (link already given). Similarly Chris Landsea who resigned because of politicisation link below
    http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/LandseaResignationLetterFromIPCC.htm
    and the testimony of Zorita (link already given)

    2. Science is not about consensus – Galileo was ridiculed by the authorities and the scientific establishment
    True – but misleading [??????]

    There are many many very emminent Scientists who disagree with the AGW theories - Read "The Deniers"


    5. Climate change has been happening throughout geological and human history. What is happening now is not outside the bounds of natural climatic variability.
    Mostly true – but irrelevant.

    IRRELEVANT !!!!! How convenient!

    8. It was warmer during medieval times
    Probably false, but irrelevant anyway.

    Accompanied by Mann's infamous and utterly discredited hockey stick graph!!!
    Oviously hasn't been amended yet for Mann's 'rediscovered' MWP
    Nor can they have seen this
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/29/the-medieval-warm-period-a-global-phenonmena-unprecedented-warming-or-unprecedented-data-manipulation/#more-13397

    9. Climate models are unreliable
    False.

    Despite failing to predict the cooling since 1998 and wasn't it mentioned somewhere in those e-mails that they thought this was a 'travesty' - but oh how true is the statement that "For any chaotic or complex system it is not possible to construct a simulation that will precisely predict the future time path of the system, except under very strict conditions such as complete, accurate knowledge of all initial parameters and a short prediction horizon. "
    I'm afraid it is this complete, accurate knowledge of all parameters that is so lacking in current climate science.

    11. Global warming ended around 1998 anyway – it’s been cooling since then.
    False. [!!!!!!]

    Obviously haven't checked out the satellite data (link given earlier) and "Scientists don’t cherry pick data like that because it is meaningless" Better tell Briffa that with his Yamal tree series
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/30/yamal-treering-proxy-temperature-reconstructions-dont-match-local-thermometer-records/

    17. Climate change is due to the effects of cosmic rays.
    False

    Hmmm - they really do need to catch up with svensmark
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/10/svensmark-global-warming-stopped-and-a-cooling-is-beginning-enjoy-global-warming-while-it-lasts/

    and so it goes on......................

    In fact the gist of this whole report seems to be that "The overwhelming, broad consensus of the world’s climate scientists is that we cannot explain observed climate changes without taking into account human influence"

    Sorry but this does absolutely NOTHING to convince me and the more that Climategate goes on the more we discover that there is far from being an 'overwhelming broad consensus'.

    Complain about this comment

  • 217. At 10:43pm on 29 Nov 2009, SamuelPickwick wrote:

    "if you think I've missed anything of significance that's happened over the last week, please post a comment."

    After several minutes of rolling around on the floor laughing, yes there is just one tiny little detail that Richard Black seems to be in denial about.
    Even other journalists are now commenting on the BBC's refusal to mention it.
    So a week after the story broke, there is, at last, a mention of it, hidden away in the middle of some boring drivel repeating old news about who is going to the jamboree in Copenhagen.

    "In the US itself, the "Climategate" issue - "
    Huh? In the US? Maybe Richard Black doesn't know this but CRU is in the UK and it is a hugely important story over here, everywhere except on the BBC. UK scientists have been caught 'hiding the decline' in their data, coming up with feeble excuses for not releasing data, and then having to admit that in fact they threw it away.

    And their latest attempts to explain is still hiding stuff, see latest post at climate audit.

    Complain about this comment

  • 218. At 10:54pm on 29 Nov 2009, Grant Carlson wrote:

    "According to whom? Source please".

    Cooney referred to "speculative musings" and judging from what we've discovered this past week, though there was much earlier evidence of fraud, he appears to have been too kind.

    What harm do you think was done by dropping these "musings"?

    "(Note: is this the Phil Cooney who left the Whitehouse in 2005 and went on to work for oil giant ExxonMobil)"

    Aha, so it's all a grand conspiracy theory is it? Despite the clear evidence that we know who the genuine conspirators were. I thought the tiresome "It's all about oil" refrain had been put to bed long ago.

    "I’ll be checking your answers in the week".

    LOL~~~!

    Complain about this comment

  • 219. At 11:05pm on 29 Nov 2009, davblo2 wrote:

    ADMac #214: "The Climategate Scandal"

    You forgot to quote this part...

    "The revelations in the emails are certain to be seized by global warming skeptics as proof that the theory is entirely mis-founded. That is, of course, not necessarily the right conclusion. Shoddy science and dubious behavior on the part of some global warming proponents doesn’t mean that the theory itself is specious."

    I'm sure you'll bear that in mind...

    /davblo2

    Complain about this comment

  • 220. At 11:20pm on 29 Nov 2009, pph wrote:

    I am no scientist and feel small amongst so many giants...BUT:

    Are all of the science communities so arrogant that they ALL refuse to listen to logic?

    Maybe the ideas from Pol Pot' took things a TAD too far, but the scientific community needs a WAKE-UP call here.

    I remember watching Carl Sagen, on UK TV ~1970/80, telling me that we were all going to freeze to death soon. As a young 'loon' I found the whole thing intriguing but nothing happened.

    I am sure 'Gavin' is proud of this 'Nostradamus type' prediction (in 2005):
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/climatepredictionnet-climate-challenges-and-climate-sensitivity/

    My advice to those who think themselves to high in rank, -scientifically-, to discuss with those whom they consider to be below them; do yourselves a favour and don't get sucked into politics....ever!

    In financial terms this episode may be considered a debasement, in that the politicians don’t need you any longer, they have what they want, so goodbye.

    Complain about this comment

  • 221. At 11:57pm on 29 Nov 2009, Grant Carlson wrote:

    Tim Flannery, Chairman of the Copenhagen Climate Council and long-time global warming alarmist, said last Tuesday that-

    "When we come to the last few years when we haven’t seen a continuation of that (warming) trend...we don’t understand all of the factors that create earth’s climate. We just don’t understand the way the whole system works… See, these people work with models, computer modelling. So when the computer modelling and the real world data disagree you’ve got a very interesting problem… Sure for the last 10 years we’ve gone through a slight cooling trend".

    So why the panic? Why are we being told that the world will self-destruct in a few years unless huge steps (and vast sums of our money) are taken?

    I'd say that these "scientists", who apparently know as much about computer programming as they do of the world's climate, might look at their "computer modelling" for any possible glitches. It seems clear that's where this "interesting problem" lies.

    Complain about this comment

  • 222. At 00:47am on 30 Nov 2009, Terry wrote:

    Mr Richard Black. Please be more careful of how you report percentages without proper explanation...
    You quote "China and the US together responsible for about 40% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions"

    What you DONT say is that the total MAN MADE emissions for the earth is about 3% of all greenhouse gases. Your 40% is of this 3%..... Not alot!!

    Facts please accurate facts.

    Complain about this comment

  • 223. At 03:47am on 30 Nov 2009, Lars Nelson wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 224. At 07:13am on 30 Nov 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    @soveryodd #208

    (and picking up from Sparklet #216 - good answers btw)

    For information on man made (anthropogenic) global warming, this is a really good link for people interested in finding out more. Read, especially the Q&A (1 to 21) a bit further down

    The CO2 section fails to address more recent observational evidence which suggests climate sensitivity is low, rather than high as assumed by the IPCC

    8 - Mann has also recently "discovered" the MWP

    11 - Of course temperatures have been falling or level, why else would The Team, complain in their emails that they couldn't explain why temperatures were falling?

    @davblo2 #219

    ADMac #214: "The Climategate Scandal"

    You forgot to quote this part...

    "The revelations in the emails are certain to be seized by global warming skeptics as proof that the theory is entirely mis-founded. That is, of course, not necessarily the right conclusion. Shoddy science and dubious behavior on the part of some global warming proponents doesn’t mean that the theory itself is specious."

    I'm sure you'll bear that in mind...


    I agree and acknowledge that shoddy science and dubious behavior has been carried out by some alarmists, although I still think CO2 is not the culprit here.

    Complain about this comment

  • 225. At 07:16am on 30 Nov 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    @terry #222

    I understand what you are saying, but i think, by now, most of us would read Richards statement and assume he means man-made green house gas emissions, not including natural emissions (or at least i would hope)

    Complain about this comment

  • 226. At 07:52am on 30 Nov 2009, PAWB46 wrote:

    Jane #197;

    Your continued gullibility is amazing. You don't think the crap Fortran of one program would not be symptomatic of all the programs when they don't have any quality management system in place, no archive system and no real programmers?

    Perhaps the expalanation of by Dr Mick Kelly, a visiting Fellow might give you a clue; "The greenhouse gases absorb the outgoing terrestrial energy, trapping it near the Earth's surface, and causing even more warming. This is the ‘greenhouse effect.’ Without it the planet would be too cold to support life as we know it."

    Perhaps you can explain how a greenhouse gas can "trap energy"? That is the quality of CRU science!!! Amazing!!! Do these people all have degrees in tree ring counting and no knowledge of basic physics?

    Jane, you tell us.

    Complain about this comment

  • 227. At 08:02am on 30 Nov 2009, ScudLewis wrote:

    @soveryodd "So we do nothing ‘ScudLewis’? Doesn’t that make you a sceptic?" - no just interested in the facts / the science.

    @Sparklet - cheers for the links - excellent reading.

    "The eventual response to doubling pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 likely would be a nearly ice-free planet, preceded by a period of chaotic change with continually changing shorelines...Humanity’s task of moderating human-caused global climate change is urgent. Ocean and ice sheet inertias provide a buffer delaying full response by centuries, but there is a danger that human-made forcings could drive the climate system beyond tipping points such that change proceeds out of our control....Paleoclimate evidence and ongoing global changes imply that today’s CO2, about 385 ppm, is already too high to maintain the climate to which humanity, wildlife, and the rest of the biosphere are adapted."

    From: 'Target Atmospheric CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim?' in
    The Open Atmospheric Science Journal, 2008, 2, 217-231
    http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2008/2008_Hansen_etal.pdf

    Complain about this comment

  • 228. At 08:12am on 30 Nov 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    very interesting image of the globe complete with temperature graphs as roll overs, so you can see exactly where the warming is.

    Warning: Includes the MWP!

    http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/MedievalWarmPeriod.html

    Complain about this comment

  • 229. At 08:18am on 30 Nov 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    anybody else noticed the usual posters on this forum seem to have less to say these days (except to post additions to that hilarious list, irrelevant ice melt = AGW screams and sniping)? I'm sure they will say it's because the sceptics have taken over every blog with tales of ClimateGate, but surely ClimateGate is the biggest story to hit AGW since er.... alarmists first announced AGW

    Complain about this comment

  • 230. At 08:34am on 30 Nov 2009, Roland D wrote:

    All the people saying that the BBC are censoring "Climategate" are being ridiculous. Large corporations can't afford to do that sort of thing, as they would lose their reputations.

    The BBC censoring Climategate is about as likely as Google, of whom Al Gore is, I believe, a Board member, removing the word from their autocomplete function when carrying out a search.

    Complain about this comment

  • 231. At 08:56am on 30 Nov 2009, PAWB46 wrote:

    Nice one Aretherenonamesleft!

    Perhaps Richard is back in at work and can tell us why the BBC is refusing to report Climategate as a news item since it is the biggest scientific scandal of all time.

    We want to hear what's going on behind the scenes (screens) at the BBC to explain this gigantic cover-up.

    Complain about this comment

  • 232. At 09:06am on 30 Nov 2009, PAWB46 wrote:

    There is a good analysis by Prof Philip Stott of the whole climategate affair at http://web.me.com/sinfonia1/Clamour_Of_The_Times/Clamour_Of_The_Times/Entries/2009/11/29_From_Warmergate_to_Copenhagen_Storms_Gather_over_Global_Warming.html

    Well worth a read.

    Complain about this comment

  • 233. At 09:42am on 30 Nov 2009, Wayne job wrote:

    I have spent much time reading all the comments on this blog it saddens me some what that so many gullible people fall for the latest mantra or pseudo religion.Some years back the genetic code threw up a gene that was dubbed the Jesus gene, those who have it get sucked in to a faith based irrational belief system.The money spent on this Co2 nonsense would be better spent on finding a cure for this, what could only be termed as, rather strange, I am right die in hell behavior.The science is far from in,it proves nothing, many scientists have very conflicting provable and demonstrable and repeatable data, the puts paid to this nonsense, that is our fault pay up or die garbage.Main stream science took many wrong turns in the last 100 years and are now bogged down in a quagmire of quantum mechanics and a standard model that is to say the least useless.Truth lays in all of the universe that everything is reduced to a minimum that causes all things to happen.Four pieces of code in genetics give rise to the myriad of possibilities for all life.Yet main stream science has invented more than a hundred imaginary particles to try and make their theory work.Four is enough,scientists all, that have disagreed with the herd and had real provable alternatives have been derided, pilloried and refused publication.Anybody see a repeat performance with this, it is all your fault nonsense.If Co2 is a bad pollutant,I hope all the followers of this scam are practicing a safe contraceptive procedure as every new human breathes in, absorbs oxygen and breathes out Co2,The sad thing is Co2 is a good safe commodity to have in the atmosphere, it promotes plant growth and heathy forests.More food and bigger trees a huge plus.The world your Gaia has been trying desperately to shake off its mantle of ice and be temperate and tropical, as is her normal state.20000 years ago England was mostly buried under miles of ice.The civilization of humans can be traced back to this time,I do believe that they would be delighted that at last our world is almost how it should be.The thing and the only concern that I have is that by all the facts from the real scientists, Europe may be entering a period of cold such as they have endured before in historic times.This is a real possibility from the data and the records.Do not take my word for it let your fingers do the walking on the net and find the real scientists, who have been reduced to the net, by stupidity of those who hold the keys to the purse. Science in all its forms is the pursuit of truth and knowledge, many it would seem have sold their souls for tenure and fleeting fame.The world at this time spends billions on scientists in the pursuit of proving fairy tales.I ask science what is electricity,magnetism gravity what is light,what indeed is matter.They have non but 100 year old text book answers, that explain nothing.Renaissance in science, even a revolution is needed for the science that is required to fix the sickness that permeates main stream scientific thought.A believer that Co2 is a problem I think not. GETTINGGRUMPIER

    Complain about this comment

  • 234. At 09:57am on 30 Nov 2009, sensiblegrannie wrote:

    I notice that there are now adverts on TV to encourage car users to reduce their car usage.

    When are the public transport systems going to improve to take up the potential extra public transport users?

    What are the implications of the Dubai financial situation on the global warming debate?

    Complain about this comment

  • 235. At 10:41am on 30 Nov 2009, minuend wrote:

    The internet has turned sceptical on man-made global warming.

    Google Hits:

    Global Warming: 10,300,000

    Climategate: 13,100,000

    Climate Change: 21,800,000

    Climate Fraud: 26,400,000

    Complain about this comment

  • 236. At 11:09am on 30 Nov 2009, JunkkMale wrote:

    210. At 9:08pm on 29 Nov 2009, Yorkurbantree wrote:
    Junkmal: 110 - You don’t get satire do you! The Guardian and Mirror are notoriously biased (left) and the Daily Mail and Express are notoriously biased (right). The BBC is trusted worldwide for its balance and therefore is it disappointing to see such extreme ideologically driven nonsense all over its message boards.


    Ah, but I can cut and paste, which should make me a shoo-in as a 'reporter' for any entity trusted worldwide with a keen eye to accuracy. Though any recruited from the Grauniad (not so many via the others cited I'd hazard, for some reason... and hence leading to a few other questions now I have this 'peer' review thing top of mind) may be excused for being a tad lax in certain areas.

    It does seem the level of disquiet in certain quarters is directly proportional to their desire to tackle the player and not the ball. And mis-typing names must get extra props from all those in the treehouse.

    Complain about this comment

  • 237. At 11:26am on 30 Nov 2009, ADMac wrote:

    bowmanthebard #156:

    "According to davblo2, a scientist is 'someone with a doctor's degree' (in science, presumably)"

    Not according to the Climate and Health Council, a collaboration of worldwide health organisations including the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of Physicians and the Royal Society of Medicine.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/6683770/GPs-should-offer-climate-change-advice-to-patients.html

    “They believe that offering patients advice on how to lower their carbon footprint can be just as easy and achievable as helping them to stop smoking or eat a healthier diet.”


    The lunatics are running the asylum.

    Complain about this comment

  • 238. At 11:45am on 30 Nov 2009, manysummits wrote:

    To sensibleoldgrannie #234:

    Here in Calgary, oil capital of Canada, city council is cutting back on public transport routes. We don't watch TV, so I can't say whether there are ads to encourage the use of public transport.

    I don't know about you, but seeing the spamming by the denial lobby these last few blogs, I am reminded of a hockey game I once was at, where the bloodthirsty crowd were chanting in unison for the destruction of an opposition player. The rabid crowd - our dark side.

    As for Dubai - and once upon a time having been a stockbroker for a year, well, I've been wondering when the other shoe was going to drop following last year's financial crisis, which in my mind is only beginning.

    It seems to me these are the cracks in the dam.

    Pent up behind this dam are five hundred years of colonial rule and exploitation, most by Christian countries.

    To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, "I shudder to think that God is Just."

    - Manysummits -

    Complain about this comment

  • 239. At 11:55am on 30 Nov 2009, JunkkMale wrote:

    234. At 09:57am on 30 Nov 2009, sensibleoldgrannie wrote:
    I notice that there are now adverts on TV to encourage car users to reduce their car usage.

    When are the public transport systems going to improve to take up the potential extra public transport users?


    I think ploughing bazillions into 'awareness' ticks a few easier boxes.

    http://actonco2.direct.gov.uk/actonco2/home.html

    I was actually bemused by the premise of 'drive 5 miles less' when they first came out, and remain so.

    I already drive, on business, and socially, as little as I can, mainly because being in a car sucks and every mile costs me.

    Hence for all the good it did that money would have been better 'invested' elsewhere.

    Speaking of which, a cut and paste inspired another BBC blog on this very topic, http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/susanwatts/2009/11/insuring_against_climate_chang.html which may also apply here:

    Considering the scale and complexity of what is possibly/probably to be confronted, I too was a tad intrigued by this:

    investing in green technology projects that could help avert the worst effects of climate change

    Which of those listed are they investing in... specifically?

    I just ask as I have an ongoing interest in details, especially when it comes to 'averting climate change', as where the money comes from, goes to and is meant to achieve seems pertinent.

    Investing can suggest multiple things, of course. So there could be investing in loss-making projects that do ease GHG reductions that could serve to ease (A)GW impacts.

    Or there's investing in some lobby-fuelled, over-subsidised, box-ticking, target-meeting piece of 'green' BS that actually serves my kids' improved futures not a jot. But might score a load of dough down the line for the 'investors'.

    There's a difference. Which is why I look at the enviROI. And remain less than thrilled at the utterances of many pols and supportive media press release reprinters when all I still tend to get is 'Act! or else...' without much clarity of what lies behind that call.

    A message still poorly drafted by its authors, and even less well conveyed, thus far, by messengers seemingly frustrated not so much by their inability to share it, but by the audience's inability to either understand or take willingness to take what they put out on board.

    If you are stuck in broadcast only mode there's no certainty that you are being received. And turning it up to 11 won't make it any more likely to sound better.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbVKWCpNFhY

    It's all in the numbers.

    Complain about this comment

  • 240. At 12:09pm on 30 Nov 2009, infiniti wrote:

    #233 waynejob is skeptical of paragraphs

    Complain about this comment

  • 241. At 12:13pm on 30 Nov 2009, LabMunkey wrote:

    Aaaaannnd you're back in th room...

    "As far as I've been able to ascertain, climate politics elsewhere remains unimpressed by allegations that the CRU documents undermine the very basis of the forthcoming negotiations; but it's a question that I will be asking when the Copenhagen talks open." quote from your piece richard.

    May i suggest that relying on opinion from those who have the most to loose from the climategate scandal, is perhaps not they best example of investigational journalism.

    I/We (sceptics) are less interested in hearing you put questions to the politicians than we are YOU doing some investigational journalism into the matter yourself.

    Have you looked at the emails? Have you looked at the data? Surely, you must have to be able to ask questions on the matter... surely.

    And in that case, don't you think they're slightly... well, odd? to say the least?

    The case, inyour own words, could lead to a general eleciton in australia. Surely that's worth front page news? No? Just going to keep ignoring it and hope it goes away? ok....

    Complain about this comment

  • 242. At 12:19pm on 30 Nov 2009, LabMunkey wrote:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html

    telegraph again- not, obviously, the bbc

    Complain about this comment

  • 243. At 1:00pm on 30 Nov 2009, LabMunkey wrote:

    wow.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/27/told-ya-so-more-upside-down-mann-in-his-latest-paper/

    Complain about this comment

  • 244. At 1:01pm on 30 Nov 2009, LabMunkey wrote:

    and

    http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/11/29/lawrence-solomon-climategate-the-investigations-begin.aspx

    Complain about this comment

  • 245. At 1:07pm on 30 Nov 2009, LabMunkey wrote:

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/100018066/bbcs-paleo-news-site-finally-runs-a-real-scoop-story-on-climategates-michael-mann/

    Complain about this comment

  • 246. At 1:10pm on 30 Nov 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    Wiki now hsa a ClimateGate page:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident

    Judging from the data posted, the hack was done either by an insider or by someone inside the climate community who was familiar with the debate, said Robert Graham, CEO with the consultancy Errata Security. Whenever this type of incident occurs, "80 percent of the time it's an insider," Graham said.

    Complain about this comment

  • 247. At 1:19pm on 30 Nov 2009, minuend wrote:

    Today is the day that the University of East Anglia said it would announce the details of an independent inquiry into the leaking of the CRU emails and data. So far nothing.

    Today is also the day that the University of East Anglia said it would announce the details of plans to release all data, programs and methodologies that CRU scientists use to construct global temperature records. So far nothing.

    Every delay just adds to the suspicion that UEA-CRU have something to hide. Only 7 days to Copenhagen.

    Complain about this comment

  • 248. At 1:27pm on 30 Nov 2009, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @PAWB46 #226

    Agreed that after seeing HARRY READ ME I'd want to check the history of HADCRUT3 related software.

    Wonder where it is. Perhaps it wasn't worth leaking.

    Complain about this comment

  • 249. At 1:30pm on 30 Nov 2009, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @PAWB46 #226

    Oh and maybe some of the explanations of greenhouse gases are a bit simplistic. However I gather that without any atmospheric greenhouse gases the average temperature of the Earth's surface would be below freezing.

    Frankly, with you claiming to have a PhD in a physics related subject I am surprised to hear this hoary old chestnut coming from you. There are areas of global warming theory that are up for debate, but the basic greenhouse effect isn't one of them.

    Complain about this comment

  • 250. At 1:35pm on 30 Nov 2009, heage40 wrote:

    Maybe we should see leaked emails from the oil and coal companies too.
    http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1389
    makes interesting reading. I'm just glad I don't have children and grandchildren who will ask me what I did to stop global warming.

    Complain about this comment

  • 251. At 1:53pm on 30 Nov 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    @JaneBasingstoke #249

    You are quite correct, the temperature would be below freezing - thank goodness for GHG I say! Water vapour, however, is a much more important player in the atmosphere than CO2. CO2 is only really significant below around 100ppmv.

    As you say, this is not disputed amongst pro-AGW and sceptics

    @heage40 #250

    another playing the emotional card again i see

    you're link doesn't seem to work, but i do recall a memo from Exxon (I think) that told us how good carbon tax would be for energy companies bottom line and backing Clinton / Gore administration

    Complain about this comment

  • 252. At 2:19pm on 30 Nov 2009, ScudLewis wrote:

    Had a chance to read the docs (thanks Sparklet) - this is what Hansen et. al. say:

    "The current rate of atmospheric CO2 increase is ~2 ppm/year, thus an annual increase of climate forcing of about +0.03 W/m2 per year. Therefore, if solar irradiance stays at its recent minimum value, the climate forcing would be offset by just seven years of CO2 increase. Human-made GHG climate forcing is now increasing at a rate that overwhelms variability of natural climate forcings." - well there's something to watch! Something we can all observe and check!

    "Climate models are another source of uncertainty in climate projections. Our present paper and our estimated target CO2 level do not rely on climate models, but rather are based on empirical evidence from past and ongoing climate change. However, the limited capability of models to simulate climate dynamics and interactions among climate system components makes it difficult to estimate the speed at which climate effects will occur and the degree to which human-induced effects will be masked by natural climate variability." - at least they are honest! Bit of a caveat there. I guess one side will still see weather events as evidence. They are pretty certain it is one way and is AGW.

    From: 'Target Atmospheric CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim?' in
    The Open Atmospheric Science Journal, 2008, 2, 217-231
    http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2008/2008_Hansen_etal.pdf

    Complain about this comment

  • 253. At 2:32pm on 30 Nov 2009, rossglory wrote:

    #160 manysummits

    Just another wet and windy day here in the uk :o) not unusual for november so not claiming it's due to agw (those in Cumbria may feel a bit differently though!).

    I have been reading through the Copenhagen Diagnosis which is an update to IPCC 1007 especially for Copenhagen and the numbers are pretty depressing. They have picked up some of the potential for tipping points in a number of systems (including arctic sea ice and methane emissions).

    So hopefully, those going to the summit will have the very latest scientific updates with which to make their decisions.......let's hope we make good progress because we're leaving this very late now.

    Complain about this comment

  • 254. At 2:36pm on 30 Nov 2009, Kamboshigh wrote:

    Mango If we are all in the pay of big oil then how come I always seem to be paying them. What gets me is the big winners out of these lies is actually Big Oil, they haven't complained that much about the supposed change over from fossel fuel. Interestingly Warren Buffet a couple of days ago took massive stock holdings in US coal firms,WHY?

    See Hopenhagen took another kick in the teeth today Brazil South Africa China and India will walk if the West doesn't comply with their agenda. That is also supported by that political correct Sudan gov't.

    Complain about this comment

  • 255. At 2:37pm on 30 Nov 2009, rossglory wrote:

    #249 JaneBasingstoke

    personally i take no notice of any claims of knowledge or qualifications on anonymous comment boards. i go solely on content and would hope others do the same wrt to my comments.

    i also get the feeling that many of those in the denial camp live under chestnut trees.

    Complain about this comment

  • 256. At 2:40pm on 30 Nov 2009, sensiblegrannie wrote:

    manysummits,
    I started thinking and linking the ideas of 'global warming', HINI and all of its variants, the U Tube link you gave us and the new economic meltdown situation in Dubai. I can't help thinking that it is all connected and that Copenhagen has another agenda as well as 'The Environment.'
    Don't you all feel a sense of doom and gloom at the moment? I do and I think there are some 'interesting' times ahead as the monopoly game intensifies. Global warming debates appear to me to be a ruse for much more ominous goings on. Perhaps I am just having a 'bad hair day' and someone can reassure me that us blimps are going to survive this latest eco/germ domino knocking-over financial tremor.

    Complain about this comment

  • 257. At 2:47pm on 30 Nov 2009, rossglory wrote:

    #229 mangochutneyukok

    if you think the scientific lobby (the true sceptics) on these boards have gone quiet you may be right. it's clear the political momentum for change is building up and this (and other) denialist talking shops don't really hold much interest these days (for me personally anyway).

    just for old time's sake how about this red rag. since the head of the met office, nerc and the royal society have made a joint statement that is totally at odds with your 'no evidence' mantra, do you consider them crooks or idiots? when viscount monckton, fred singer and david bellamy head up these bodies i'll concede every point to you.

    Complain about this comment

  • 258. At 3:03pm on 30 Nov 2009, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @rossglory #255

    You're missing out on a golden opportunity. PAWB46 also appeared to get the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics wrong in post #65 on the previous thread (see my comment #68) on that same thread.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2009/11/a_fair_bit_of_the.html

    Complain about this comment

  • 259. At 3:07pm on 30 Nov 2009, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @PAWB46 #226
    (@Wayne Job #233)
    (@rossglory #255)

    PAWB46. As a physicist with a PhD and an alumnus of Imperial College, perhaps you might have a take on Wayne Job's description of quantum mechanics and the standard model. His criticisms seem to go rather beyond Feynman's.

    Main stream science took many wrong turns in the last 100 years and are now bogged down in a quagmire of quantum mechanics and a standard model that is to say the least useless.Truth lays in all of the universe that everything is reduced to a minimum that causes all things to happen.Four pieces of code in genetics give rise to the myriad of possibilities for all life.Yet main stream science has invented more than a hundred imaginary particles to try and make their theory work.Four is enough,scientists all, that have disagreed with the herd and had real provable alternatives have been derided, pilloried and refused publication.

    Complain about this comment

  • 260. At 3:10pm on 30 Nov 2009, minuend wrote:

    Still no annoucement for the University of East Anglia.

    It looks like they'll miss their own deadline of providing information on an independent inquiry and release of data.

    Complain about this comment

  • 261. At 3:15pm on 30 Nov 2009, Roland D wrote:

    257. At 2:47pm on 30 Nov 2009, rossglory wrote:
    "... this (and other) denialist talking shops ..."


    Now I'm confused. Are denialists those who deny global warming is man-made or are they those who deny the leaked e-mails indicate anything amiss? Or perhaps we're all denialists now.

    Complain about this comment

  • 262. At 3:17pm on 30 Nov 2009, Kamboshigh wrote:

    ROSSGLORY Thats a nice little report written by the same people who have:

    1) Deliberately with held data from the scientific community
    2)Doctored their own data they didn't like
    3)Deleted data that provided the manner of their calculation
    4)Hide data from the analysis as it did not fit the theory
    5)Perverted the peer-review process
    6)Prevented any other views reaching the IPCC with threats and bullying
    7)Lied about over scientist's qualifications
    8)Lied in front of the US congress
    9)Had editors removed from scientific journals as they published other and opposite articles/views
    10)Provided false data to allow for legislation to benefit themselves
    11)Broke Laws on both sides of the Atlantic
    12)Deliberately and knowingly destroyed data subject to freedom of information requests

    This is get like a Davblo2 list, terrible thing about it though is it is all 100% true

    Complain about this comment

  • 263. At 3:31pm on 30 Nov 2009, andrew9999 wrote:

    @JaneBasingstoke
    Back again i couldn't resist.

    Thought I'd let you know that the head of department at Imperial College physics department is an atmospheric physicist and has published papers on climate change. I think someone was going on about the lack of physicists in climate science.

    http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/newsandeventspggrp/imperialcollege/naturalsciences/physics/newssummary/news_18-11-2008-10-47-20?nesid=49494

    Whats the world coming to. ;)

    Complain about this comment

  • 264. At 3:59pm on 30 Nov 2009, PAWB46 wrote:

    JaneBasingstoke #249 & 259

    "Oh and maybe some of the explanations of greenhouse gases are a bit simplistic". I would prefer to use the word 'misleading' or 'false' rather than 'simplistic'. The explanation by CRU is I am sure, meant to deceive, or it is written by someone who should no better than to talk about gases trapping energy.

    I did not get the 2nd law wrong.

    Now as far as the temperature of the earth in the absence of "greenhouse gases" (dominated by H2O) is concerned, well that's a silly one, it seems to me, because the earth is dominated by H2O, so why bother? Without greenhouse gases, all the earth's energy is radiated from the ground, but convective effects will cause some atmospheric heating. In reality, if you calculate the average temperature at which the earth radiates to space (it gets tricky, because some of the radiation is radiated directly from the ground at one temperature and some from the tropopause at a lower temperature from water vapour, well you then have a temperature at the tropopause to work from. Using the ideal (perfect) gas law you can work out a surface temperature, which is about 13C (from memory), thus the effect of "greenhouse gases" other than H2O on the surface temperature has to be very small. It gets even worse if you try to add in convective effects. The bottom line is the earth's surface temperature is dominated by the ideal gas law and radiation from the ground and from water vapour.

    I ain't going to get bogged down in quantum mechanics, not my field.

    Complain about this comment

  • 265. At 4:48pm on 30 Nov 2009, rossglory wrote:

    hey, don't worry guys. you will have a representative at copenhagen after all. that paragon of virtue and all round nice guy nick griffin (leader of the british nationalist party).

    so that's bush, cheney, inhofe, klaus and griffin. what balanced political representation you have.......if i were you i'd be a little more sceptical of the origins of the memes you keep parroting. nothing wrong with scepticism, everything wrong with right-wing anti-science propaganda. just an idea.

    warmist regards,

    Complain about this comment

  • 266. At 4:48pm on 30 Nov 2009, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @PAWB46

    "I did not get the 2nd law wrong" does not constitute a defence. Reminds me of a Monty Python sketch.

    You applied the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics to the Earth's atmosphere. But the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics only applies to closed systems. The Earth's atmosphere is not a closed system. It receives relatively high energy electromagnetic radiation from the sun and emits relatively low energy electromagnetic radiation to space.

    Complain about this comment

  • 267. At 4:49pm on 30 Nov 2009, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @Kamboshigh #262
    (@rossglory)

    Kamboshigh, I'm amazed the mods let you get away with that list. Most of those are accusations and not proven.

    PS, I think you've got the editors example the wrong way round. The story I heard was about pro-AGW editors resigning in protest after not being able to implement new editorial controls after the publication of a sceptic article that they felt was substandard.

    http://coast.gkss.de/staff/storch/CR-problem/cr.2003.htm

    Here is a list of what I think is obvious from the emails and related admissions.

    1. Fudged the presentation of Hockey Sticks to downplay divergence.
    http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2009/nov/homepagenews/CRUupdate

    2. Did not trust Stephen McIntyre to remain scientific.

    3. Did not trust other sceptic scientists to remain scientific.

    4. C***-ups preparing CRU TS 3.0 (Not to be confused with HADCRUT3). As documented in HARRY READ ME.
    This needs proper investigation, as it implies that there may be problems with other software issues.

    5. Considered illegal deletion of material subject to an FOI request.
    This needs proper investigation. Luckily this was recent and it is impossible to totally scrub a hard disc clean.

    6. Exerted pressure on sceptic scientists.
    This needs proper investigation. It may have been through entirely legitimate means such as open debate. But because of the seriousness of some potential methods (you mention perverting peer review, bullying and threats) it needs proper investigation.

    7. Resisted FOI requests.
    This needs proper investigation.

    Complain about this comment

  • 268. At 5:03pm on 30 Nov 2009, lburt wrote:

    @all the warmers

    I don't think you people quite get how much water vapor has to do with EVERYTHING and how little CO2 has to do with anything. The nonsensical "greenhouse gas" calculations make assumptions about the behavior of the earth that are quite simply not true.

    Let's look at our closest neighbor, shall we? During the day, the moon the surface of the moon manages to reach over 100C. At 100C the daytime radiant output of the moon (as infrared) is over twice as high (per square meter) as that of the earth. At night the temperatures rapidly fall as there is no incoming energy from the sun to replace the radiated energy.

    On earth, however...we have a different thing happen. The propaganda tells us that CO2's overall forcing raises the temperature by as much as 30C. However...this would impact daytime temperatures as well as night time temperatures. When exactly is the last time you had to switch on the old air conditioner to cool down on a day when the mercury pushed up to a staggering 130C? No? How about 100C? Hmmm. That IS curious, isn't it?

    Earth's temperature is never allowed to reach 130C or even 100C because of the dynamic atmosphere and MOSTLY because of...the phase changes of water. Instead of bleeding off twice as much energy (as it currently does) during the day, the water on earth's surface vaporizes and stores this energy as latent heat. Until the water vapor condenses its energy cannot be radiated. So how much energy is stored as latent heat every day? About 30% is...enough to vaporize about 1300 cubic kilometers of water per day!

    So...where exactly does this heat go? Well its released as temperatures cool, of course. Starting in the late afternoon the water vapor begins to condense. By morning the grass and trees are covered with a fine layer of dew, which immediately begins to evaporate once the sun rises...starting the cycle anew.

    Most of the information about the "greenhouse gas" hypothesis on the other hand...is wrong. The error is due to a misunderstanding. Basically they use only part of the equation (only the absorption formula) and ignore various other, equally well established concepts (convection, thermodynamic laws, etc). The lack of anthropogenic global warming's tell-tale "hot spot" is actually proof that there is something wrong with the hypothesis. The hot spot was necessary to create the new temperature gradient across the atmosphere. Without that gradient we can't feel any significant forcing from CO2 forcing on the ground. It was an assumption of the models and a requirement for the hypothesis. The fact that it doesn't exist invalidates the hypothesis AND the models.

    Complain about this comment

  • 269. At 5:08pm on 30 Nov 2009, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @PAWB46 #265

    "dominated by H2O"

    Yes, dominated by water vapour. But not totally dominated by water vapour, carbon dioxide is the next most important greenhouse gas in the Earth's atmosphere.

    And the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere is related to temperature. So water vapour can act to amplify temperature changes in both directions caused by other factors.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

    Here we get into positive and negative feedbacks, some of which are a legitimate topic of debate covered clearly in the IPCC literature.

    "which is about 13C (from memory)"

    Er, given other sources quote a number significantly lower than that, perhaps you'd like to hint at your source?

    http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/edu/dees/V1003/lectures/solar_radiation/
    http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/radiation/

    Complain about this comment

  • 270. At 5:12pm on 30 Nov 2009, PAWB46 wrote:

    Jane #266:

    You must have forgotten that I already told you what the closed system was.

    Regards

    Complain about this comment

  • 271. At 5:12pm on 30 Nov 2009, lburt wrote:

    @me :D
    Oops, I forgot to toss in the "of course the earth rotates" bit (which yes...I know...would lower maximum temperatures :D

    Complain about this comment

  • 272. At 5:32pm on 30 Nov 2009, Kamboshigh wrote:

    Jane the answer to your points

    1)Deliberately attached actual temp records to 1960 temp devergence for Yamel to "hide the decline" also done by M.Mann

    2)McIntyre published and had peer-review on the original hockey stick graph forcing Mann to make a written correction. They ain't giving him anything else after upsetting Mann.

    3) Wrong they deliberately went after Pat Michaels PhD by calling the University of Wisconson VC

    4)Agreed but why hide data from everybody include Pielke. It doesn't apply FOI requests are legal requirements

    5)Come on think out of the box a bit your a scientist is it acceptable behaviour?

    6) To get rid of an editor they and others are believed to have bought the Journal (that sounds a bit daft) but most certainly said editor was fired after the team went to work on him. I'll find the details

    7) Clearly shown by the emails they deliberately refused McIntyres and others such as Warwick Hughes FOI requests, trying to hid behind IPR. Thats rubbish as they work in the public sector namely grants the data is publicly owned.

    It is also in the public domain even the BBC covered that many points, ABC in states has said the same thing. US senators 2 at least have launched enquiries, Wegman report covers some as well as NAS report on Mann.

    This is not science it is a political scam to earn big money


    Complain about this comment

  • 273. At 5:35pm on 30 Nov 2009, PAWB46 wrote:

    Jane #266:

    I explained to you already what the closed system was.

    Complain about this comment

  • 274. At 5:36pm on 30 Nov 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    @rossglory #257

    if you think the scientific lobby (the true sceptics) on these boards have gone quiet you may be right

    So you're trying to re-claim the term sceptic are you?

    I wonder if you recall my comment on another of Richards posts, when I asked all alarmists what it would take to change their minds on AGW. I don't recall an answer from you, which is hardly the position of a true sceptic. Perhaps you could remind me, what would it take to change your mind on AGW?

    Complain about this comment

  • 275. At 5:36pm on 30 Nov 2009, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @poitsplace #268

    That's a nice description of temperature damping.

    You do know how cold the moon gets at night, don't you, and how cold it is at its poles. I wonder what the mean temperature of the surface of the moon might be...

    http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/moon_worldbook.html

    Complain about this comment

  • 276. At 5:47pm on 30 Nov 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    i've just watched a recorded edition of Have I got News For you, the BBC topical news comedy programme with Paul Merton and Ian Hislop. This edition featured Bob Crowe and Jimmy Carr and was broadcast on 28th Npvember 2009 (please correct me if it was a repeat, but considering they mentioned Blairs failure to become EU President, i am assuming it wasn't a repeat).

    Not a single mention of ClimateGate

    Perhaps the BBC really have banned all mention of ClimateGate everywhere that they can?

    Complain about this comment

  • 277. At 6:10pm on 30 Nov 2009, PAWB46 wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 278. At 6:11pm on 30 Nov 2009, PAWB46 wrote:

    Mango # 276

    No doubt Richard will reveal all when (if) he returns to his blogs.

    Complain about this comment

  • 279. At 6:20pm on 30 Nov 2009, PAWB46 wrote:

    Jane:

    You know and I know that even the most alarmist warmist admits that CO2 has minimal warming potential and that the only way the GCMs can get warming is to assume positive feedback from water vapour, something that has not been proven and certainly has not happened in the past. So why are we arguing?

    Complain about this comment

  • 280. At 6:25pm on 30 Nov 2009, lburt wrote:

    @JaneBasingstoke RE:damping

    Water vapor also dominates the lapse rate across the troposphere...should have included that chart as well :D It appears that water vapor is what deprives the upper atmosphere of its energy in the first place.

    http://www.lsu.edu/comarge/795px-Emagram.gif

    Water vapor does funky stuff...but in this range of temperatures and orientation of continents the earth seems to be stuck in an energy well of sorts. It doesnt' seem to have anywhere near enough energy to get over the hump (so to speak) to get water vapor to high enough latitudes to keep them warm.

    Complain about this comment

  • 281. At 6:26pm on 30 Nov 2009, PAWB46 wrote:

    It gets worse. Another week without a sunspot. Get the snow shovel ready. My freezer is full, the log store is full and the oil tank is full.

    Complain about this comment

  • 282. At 6:29pm on 30 Nov 2009, bowmanthebard wrote:

    MangoChutneyUKOK wrote #276:

    "Perhaps the BBC really have banned all mention of ClimateGate everywhere that they can?"

    I'm very interested in this sort of censorship, but I suspect it's more likely to result from the "tyranny of the majority" than an edict from on high at the BBC.

    Most people are happy to pay lip service to "freedom of speech" -- but nearly everyone baulks at allowing expression of views they regard as genuinely immoral. (But of course, that is exactly the sort of expression we must "bite the bullet" and allow, however much it sickens us.)

    My feeling is that most people regard climate-change sceptics as immoral nutters who want to destroy the planet -- unlike the decent, upright, moral folk who are trying to "save the planet".

    It seems to me that moralistic self-congratulation of the sort that coined the phrase 'save the planet' is quite capable of rationalizing all sorts of censorship, at the same time as allowing "the priesthood" to police themselves -- the idea being "they're scientists, after all, so how could they do wrong"?

    Self-righteousness combined with gullibility in the face of "authoritative" opinion has done untold damage, generation after generation.

    Complain about this comment

  • 283. At 6:49pm on 30 Nov 2009, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @Kamboshigh #272

    "your a scientist"

    Do you mean "you're a scientist"? I would not call myself a scientist.

    Complain about this comment

  • 284. At 6:49pm on 30 Nov 2009, bowmanthebard wrote:

    PAWB46 #281 wrote:

    "Another week without a sunspot. Get the snow shovel ready."

    Not to worry -- top men at the BBC are on the case. Richard Black Himself wrote:
    "solar activity... is something I will cover between now and Copenhagen"

    He also wrote:
    "climate politics elsewhere remains unimpressed by allegations that the CRU documents undermine the very basis of the forthcoming negotiations; but it's a question that I will be asking when the Copenhagen talks open."

    Rejoice!

    Complain about this comment

  • 285. At 6:50pm on 30 Nov 2009, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @Kamboshigh #272

    1. Yes, your point 1 looks like a reword of my point 1 and UEA's own discussion of "hide the decline". Perhaps I should have said that I am less than happy with their behaviour on this one, and that their own new graph goes some way to fixing the problem.

    2. I deliberately didn't go into details as to either the causes or consequences of their distrust of Stephen McIntyre. But I do believe that both need looking into.

    3. I deliberately didn't go into details as to either the causes or consequences of their distrust of other sceptic scientists. But I do believe that both need looking into. Distrust of Pat Michaels would definitely have contributed to anything they did to hurt his professional standing.

    And I'm going to make a point here. Regardless of what happens to the scientists at the centre of the row we need to fix the lack of distrust between scientists. It is liable to cause more problems in the future.

    4. Your point 4 seems more relevant to my point 7.

    5. Firstly I would not call myself a scientist. Secondly I described deleting such material as illegal, which should at least imply "not acceptable". Thirdly when someone is accused of doing something seriously wrong it has to be investigated properly.

    6. Your point 6 seems more relevant to my comment about journal editors at the top of my post.

    7. When someone is accused of doing something wrong it has to be investigated properly. What people say they want to do and what they actually end up doing can be very different.

    Complain about this comment

  • 286. At 6:51pm on 30 Nov 2009, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @PAWB46 #270, #273 (and #102 on previous thread)

    "You must have forgotten that I already told you what the closed system was." #270

    Actually I hadn't noticed your reply on the previous thread. Sorry.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2009/11/a_fair_bit_of_the.html

    "Let's see what our closed system is. It has to include the earth and sun, obviously." (#102 on previous thread)

    No. Your original statement only made sense if you were applying it to the Earth's atmosphere. As soon as you include the sun in the system the Earth has a source of free energy that can be used to maintain temperature gradients and do other work that would otherwise violate the 2nd Law.

    Complain about this comment

  • 287. At 7:08pm on 30 Nov 2009, bowmanthebard wrote:

    JaneBasingstoke #286 wrote:

    "we need to fix the lack of distrust between scientists"

    I couldn't agree more. There is nothing more healthy than constant cross-checking and trying-to-catch-each-other-out among scientists. That is what ensures that genuine science always, always goes back to tests.

    The filthy, greasy secrecy of the priesthood of the so-called "scientists" in this scandal was all about wink-wink instead of test-test. Then test again, because someone else has forced you to. Try to catch the other guy out. That way, the real world will inevitably impose itself on abstract, competing theories.

    Complain about this comment

  • 288. At 7:37pm on 30 Nov 2009, LarryKealey wrote:


    @Richard,

    Reality check - there IS NO COMMITMENT BY THE US TO DO ANYTHING. Any "announcement or proclamation" that you are referring to is meaningless. It is interesting to note that there was no announcement of anything related to "commitment on climate change" on the news here.

    Anything you might have heard was said by someone who does not have the authority to make such a statement. Fortunately, before the US makes any commitments, there is a process which must be followed. Legislation must be enacted by the duly elected representatives of the people in the US. This has not happened. Any treaty must be approved by a 60% majority of the Senate - this has not happened either. I have serious doubts that any legislation will be passed or treaties ratified related to climate change. It doesn't even make the news here.

    Tell me, do your stories have to pass the 'fact checkers' at the BBC? Or does the BBC even have fact checkers? Is it just political censors?

    I do really look forward to when we can put this silliness behind us and return our focus to real issues.

    Kealey

    Complain about this comment

  • 289. At 8:00pm on 30 Nov 2009, xtragrumpymike2 wrote:

    Six days and counting!

    Still no-one prepared to bet on Copenhagen and the outcome?

    However, I do see the "heat" building up! On this blog, that is.

    Complain about this comment

  • 290. At 8:03pm on 30 Nov 2009, xtragrumpymike2 wrote:

    287. At 7:08pm on 30 Nov 2009, bowmanthebard wrote:
    "The filthy, greasy secrecy of the priesthood of the so-called "scientists" in this scandal was all about wink-wink instead of test-test."

    Hardly the words of an adult, more like some childish repartee in a school playground.

    Complain about this comment

  • 291. At 8:04pm on 30 Nov 2009, thinkforyourself wrote:

    I’m confused.
    It seems that almost all the ‘sceptics’ sources come through the ‘Wattsupwiththat’ (WUWT) website.
    This is run by weatherman Anthony Watts who is employed by the far right and morally bankrupt KPAY-FM radio in northern California. This radio station is a Fox News affiliate (As we know, Fox News is owned by billionaire Rupert Murdoch). I say morally bankrupt as they also employ Hannity who fakes the news on Fox News (See Hannity’s apology on Youtube) and Rush Limbaugh who is a racist bully (see his rants on Youtube).
    Anthony Watts has no peer reviewed literature on Climate Science and publishes his sceptic nonsense through the right wing ‘Heartland Institute’.
    Hello Anthony, which one are you?
    So should the general public believe the nonsense from the above people? Or should they look at this link:-
    http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/10/02/q-and-a-responses-to-climate-skeptics-arguments/
    from Professor Barry Brook who holds the Foundation Sir Hubert Wilkins Chair of Climate Change and is Director of Climate Science at The Environment Institute, University of Adelaide.
    Scroll down and click on one of the 21 commonly raised arguments. You will see further down that each item is cross referenced to hundreds of papers by scientists all round the world working in all fields of science that have a bearing on the Earth’s climate.
    You decide.

    Complain about this comment

  • 292. At 8:13pm on 30 Nov 2009, infiniti wrote:

    If the climate contains no feedbacks and co2 levels in the atmosphere double the result is about 1 degree C warming. That's a very significant amount of warming in comparison to:

    -The 1998 super el nino which raised global temperature by 0.6 degrees C and that was very short lived.
    -The 1991 Pinatubo erruption which lowered global temperature by about 0.5C, again short lived.
    -The total 20th century warming was about 0.8 degrees C.

    Humans have therefore the remarkable ability to cause a temperature change greater than any of the above. In respect to the first two examples the human act will be even more impressive because the temperature change will be sustained far longer than is typical for an el nino or a volcanic event.

    Humans are a very powerful force in climate now, perhaps not as powerful as certain microbes billions of years ago that terreformed the planet with their emissions, but we are definitely contenders!

    Complain about this comment

  • 293. At 8:21pm on 30 Nov 2009, bowmanthebard wrote:

    "Hardly the words of an adult, more like some childish repartee in a school playground."

    Apart from saying "I'm a boring old fart", what is your point?

    Complain about this comment

  • 294. At 8:35pm on 30 Nov 2009, Paul Kerr wrote:

    The skeptical critique of colleagues in science is essential to the scientific method. That is the whole point of peer review journals.If you deny people access to the peer review literature your work does not give you enough confidence to allow free debate obviously.
    However when an argument becomes so exciting that the media exagerate it beyond all reason there is a problem. So it is now..

    Simple logic without prejudice is all that is required sometimes. Whether you be a believer or skeptic ask...

    What is the percentage of CO2 that is anthropogenic?
    Is it possible to reduce this enough to alter the worlds climate?
    Is Copenhagen going to produce an agreement that would reduce anthropogenic CO2?

    Now without any assumptions on multiply the three estimated probabilities and what are you left with? then ask is it really worth paying for all those people to go to Copenhagen
    (this must a bit like climate science .. sorry I couldnt resist)

    If you believe the result of the above is on balance more likely than not you might then say is the evidence really convincing?

    You will not get the answer to any on the BBC website by the way!

    Complain about this comment

  • 295. At 9:05pm on 30 Nov 2009, ghostofsichuan wrote:

    As the competition for resources increases difficulties will ensue. The more separation in the population the more bank/business interest and their political allies gain advantage. The rise of the conspiracy groups and their anit-change agenda groups the more power gained by wealth and politics. It is always interesting that those who are often negatively impacted by the misdeeds of conservative politics and their big business allies are their biggest supporters. Like the pre-war average German they are pumped with false praise and provided with imaginary enemies to do the bidding for those who play them as fools. When the real agenda surfaces, they are already in uniform and the chains of conformity require courage to break, and they have none. Standing on others so that you will not drown is only a temporary solution. So much energy on academic conversations in Australia yet so little concern about politicans and bankers in New York and London....there is a connection.

    Complain about this comment

  • 296. At 9:15pm on 30 Nov 2009, PAWB46 wrote:

    soveryodd #291. It's a no-brainer. It's got to be WUWT. Best science blog.

    Whereas the link you gave led to something written by Dr Brett Parris, Chief Economist, World Vision Australia Research Fellow, Monash University

    Now what's that joke about economists?

    Complain about this comment

  • 297. At 9:37pm on 30 Nov 2009, pph wrote:

    #291: soveryodd
    That's a fair point soveryodd, but I think that is exactly what makes it important that other news media, -are you listening BBC?-, report on this same issue.

    If all current science is conducted in the same manner, -that these scientists have conducted this program-, then I have no trust in anything that modern science is telling me, for that too surely cannot be relied upon. And this would be based on my own reading of the emails/code, not other people’s interpretations.

    This is why I would like some reporting about the issue from the publically funded BBC, if only to convince me that all the tax funded science that I contribute towards are not all conducted in the same way, and maybe make me a bit less sceptical.

    Currently I have a rainbow of ‘wheelie-bins’, apparently based on this science.
    My Government is likely to commit me to an array of future taxes, apparently based on this science.
    Our education system is teaching our children this as truth, apparently based on this science.
    …etc.

    If this science is in not based on replicable experimental data by other scientists, then it’s not science to me.

    Science without debate is no more than propaganda!

    Complain about this comment

  • 298. At 9:59pm on 30 Nov 2009, lburt wrote:

    @infinity

    If the climate contains no feedbacks and co2 levels in the atmosphere double the result is about 1 degree C warming. That's a very significant amount of warming in comparison to:

    That amount of warming would at least fit the data. Everyone is pretty much agreed that 1C is not going to do much at all...especially considering everyone was complaining about how cold it was in the 50s, 60s and 70s. That 1.2C is the TOTAL anomaly, by the way and we should have had about 40% of it already.

    We start to see everyone have a big difference of opinion though when you look at the crazy IPCC (and even crazier, more recent) scenarios. The data actually supports that it MIGHT be warming trivially by CO2 (less than total forcing by CO2). It does not and never has supported the outlandish projections of the IPCC though. During the last warming period it never even warmed fast enough to get much past a 2C anomaly. Since there are quite obviously underlying patterns of natural warming/cooling it would be foolish to assume that all of that was from the warm period though. Again, factoring in these fluctuations (by simply measuring from the smoothed peak of the previous warm period to the smoothed peak of this one) we find that the rate is indeed only enough to reach about 1C total anomaly by 2100.
    -------------------------

    -The 1998 super el nino which raised global temperature by 0.6 degrees C and that was very short lived.

    -The 1991 Pinatubo erruption which lowered global temperature by about 0.5C, again short lived.


    Yep and this pretty much tells us the whole "heat in the pipe" concept is hogwash. If we were going to warm up more it would have already done it and temperatures certainly wouldn't have flat-lined for the last decade.
    -----------------------

    -The total 20th century warming was about 0.8 degrees C.

    Yes and no. According to Hadley (not that I'm saying those are great results) we've had about .6C of warming since the 1880's (the previous warm spike). It looks like GISS would give about the same result if it went back far enough to include the 1870s-1880s spike.
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/mean:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/mean:12

    You can also notice that the GISS temperatures are a lot more linear (or possibly adjusted to a curve). Hansen has been "adjusting" century old temperatures as well as recent ones...in ways that almost always increase the linearity of GISS. It's likely he'll also be found guilty of cooking the books. This is "speculation" on my part but the fact that the data has been so systematically "tweaked" to produce this result makes it rather obvious (especially the repeated scaling of the warm period peaks in the 1998-present period).

    Anyway, there MAY be a case for CO2 causing some warming...but if you'll notice ALL the press releases it seems the reason for action is to limit CO2 to levels that would supposedly keep temperatures below 2C. This level of increase is where the evidence is entirely lacking. If it was just the 1C or so the data suggests MIGHT be possible there would be no summit in Copenhagen and we'd just continue with business with usual. Copenhagen is because those moronic CRU scientists (among others) are trying to tell everyone that it's warming at 4C per decade! That's almost TEN TIMES the observed rate.

    Do YOU see a reason to shell out hundreds of trillions of dollars to prematurely overhaul our power infrastructure as quickly as possible...so it is constructed almost entirely of what is quite obviously immature and unreliable technologies...just to avoid an additional .5C of warming???

    Complain about this comment

  • 299. At 10:08pm on 30 Nov 2009, thinkforyourself wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 300. At 10:25pm on 30 Nov 2009, thinkforyourself wrote:

    pph #297.
    Yes pph, but all science is based on probability. If you take that thought experiment to its logical conclusion it just becomes philosophy.
    After all you cannot ‘prove’, with absolute certainty, Darwin’s theory of evolution. The evidence is overwhelming but many still chose to believe otherwise.
    We can’t ‘do’ science or engineering in the world of absolute certainty you describe. There simply would be no ‘built environment’...there would be no action.
    All action is risk based and therefore probabilistic. At some point we have to act.

    Complain about this comment

  • 301. At 10:42pm on 30 Nov 2009, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @PAWB46 #277

    Actually I was hoping that they would give you the explanation that I wasn't qualified to give.

    However I have spotted a difference between them that might explain your +13 C.

    The first of my links in #269 actually gives the black body temp of the Earth at +10 C (283 K). Which is as close as d*** it to your +13 C.

    http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/edu/dees/V1003/lectures/solar_radiation/

    The second gives the black body temp of the Earth as -18 C (255 K), which is more in line with the astronomy text books.

    http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/radiation/

    The difference between the two is that the first calculation is for a black black body (ignores albedo) and the second takes account of the Earth's albedo (about 0.3).

    Complain about this comment

  • 302. At 10:52pm on 30 Nov 2009, thinkforyourself wrote:

    My post #299
    Sorry BBC, I thought I was merely quoting back ‘in speech marks’ the bad language used by post #277 which I found unacceptable. Not the gentleman farmer he leads us to believe.

    Complain about this comment

  • 303. At 10:54pm on 30 Nov 2009, pph wrote:

    #300: soveryodd
    'guess #299 didn't make it then :)

    soveryodd:...but all science is based on probability.
    _______me:..I cannot disagree, my problem is that that probability, in this case, cannot be replicated!

    soveryodd:..it just becomes philosophy
    _______me:..Should we start with the philosophy then, rather than the science?

    _______me:..Can you at least agree that this particular science project is not in a position to have itself recreated by other scientists. I'm no scientist but I can read and cross-check numbers, if I believe them I'll buy it, if I don't I won't.

    _______me:..My main point was my last line: "Science without debate is no more than propaganda!"
    _______me:..Would you agree with that?

    Complain about this comment

  • 304. At 10:54pm on 30 Nov 2009, pph wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 305. At 11:32pm on 30 Nov 2009, pph wrote:

    #301: JaneBasingstoke

    “The difference between the two is that the first calculation is for a black black body (ignores albedo) and the second takes account of the Earth's albedo (about 0.3).”

    So, there is a model that assumes, -through some arithmetic/mathematics/algorithms-, that that is how it is, -and has been accepted as true...no question asked?-,...based on someone else’s science?

    Given what I have seen from the CRU as science, I would doubt the original modal in the first place!

    The problem here seems to me to be the peer review system; if you get a group of similar thinkers to peer review your paper, you are more likely to get a positive result, is that correct?

    ...you are doing nothing for my confidence in science!

    Complain about this comment

  • 306. At 11:41pm on 30 Nov 2009, pph wrote:

    While being 'peer reviewed', I'll try this:

    #295: ghostofsichuan

    Interesting thoughts ghostofsichuan, -after adding some CR/LF's-, maybe you would expand?

    Complain about this comment

  • 307. At 11:51pm on 30 Nov 2009, infiniti wrote:

    @ poitsplace (298)

    Knowing how much warming will occur from doubling co2 doesn't tell us how fast that warming will take. If we double co2 now, even without feedbacks it would take some time for the Earth to warm up 1C because of the thermal inertia of the oceans.

    The IPCC are reporting, not generating, scientific results. A lot of scientific studies have found high sensitivity, the bulk of studies fall into a range about 1.5 - 4.5 degrees C warming from a doubling of co2. The IPCC would be negligent to ignore this and report instead that climate sensitivity is low.

    Recent instrumental record data cannot constrain climate sensitivity well, mainly for the reason given above but also because of uncertainty in some of the forcings (aerosols mainly). In fact the highest and lowest warming scenarios all look the same in recent decades, they only diverge in coming decades - so we can't use the magnitude of late 20th century warming to pin down which ones are right.

    Complain about this comment

  • 308. At 11:54pm on 30 Nov 2009, andrew9999 wrote:

    @janebasingstoke
    #301

    I think the earths effective black body temperature should be approx 250K





    Complain about this comment

  • 309. At 11:54pm on 30 Nov 2009, manysummits wrote:

    To rossglory #253:

    "I have been reading through the Copenhagen Diagnosis which is an update to IPCC 1007 especially for Copenhagen and the numbers are pretty depressing. They have picked up some of the potential for tipping points in a number of systems (including arctic sea ice and methane emissions)."
    -------

    Arctic Sea Ice and Methane tipping points !! (my post #160)

    I have a paper recommended by 'ghostofsichuan' on the mathematics of bifurcation identification ahead of time. I don't have it with me as I write this, but I was wondering if the 'Copenhagen Diagnosis' you referred to uses this approach in any way?

    - Manysummits -

    Complain about this comment

  • 310. At 11:56pm on 30 Nov 2009, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @pph #305

    The models are for two different things.

    The first is for a perfectly dark black object that reflects no light whatsoever.

    The second is for an object of any colour, provided you know how much light is reflected (the albedo). You could say that the first model is a special case of the second model.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albedo

    Complain about this comment

  • 311. At 00:00am on 01 Dec 2009, manysummits wrote:

    To sensibleoldgrannie # 256:

    I just received this from Dr. James Hamsen (link below):

    "Any Hope of Cutting Global Carbon Emissions?

    Absolutely. It is possible – if we give politicians a cold hard slap in the face. The fraudulence of the Copenhagen approach – “goals” for emission reductions, “offsets” that render even iron-clad goals almost meaningless, an ineffectual “cap-and-trade” mechanism – must be exposed. We must rebel against such politics-as-usual. Science reveals that climate is close to tipping points. It is a dead certainty that continued
    high emissions will create a chaotic dynamic situation for young people, with deteriorating climate conditions out of their control, as described in my book Storms of My Grandchildren."

    http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/ (see "Never Give Up Fighting", Nov 30/09)

    - Manysummits -

    Complain about this comment

  • 312. At 00:01am on 01 Dec 2009, who said what wrote:

    These may be a two stupid questions, but please bare with me as I have no idea about the science involved in climate change. I am however doubtful of all the media coverage and exactly what’s happening.

    1, why would temperatures need to be adjusted, If the thermometer says its 13c why would you need to change it to something else?

    2, what’s the definition of a climate scientist?

    The first one is what I’m really struggling to understand.

    Thanks

    Complain about this comment

  • 313. At 00:04am on 01 Dec 2009, infiniti wrote:

    re 301: JaneBasingstoke

    Yes the first link they've calculated the effective temperature of an Earth shaped giant black ball in space. Then again they did say "without an atmosphere", which I guess taken literally an Earth without an atmosphere has no clouds and I guess no water (or there would become an atmosphere) so no ice. So the albedo would be lower, but no way near zero.

    That's why for explaining the 33K greenhouse effect I prefer to compare our Earth with an Earth in which the atmosphere doesn't absorb longwave. That way you still get to keep the reflective properties of ice and clouds.

    Complain about this comment

  • 314. At 00:08am on 01 Dec 2009, Jack Hughes wrote:

    Peer-review is busted.

    We can see from the emails that "peer-review" has turned into a secret squirrel club where they rubber-stamp their chums.

    Complain about this comment

  • 315. At 00:10am on 01 Dec 2009, manysummits wrote:

    To ghostofsichuan #295:

    "It is always interesting that those who are often negatively impacted by the misdeeds of conservative politics and their big business allies are their biggest supporters."
    ---------

    Funny you should mention that! I have noticed this same psychological fault myself.

    In trying to understand human nature, I have just today finished Carlos Casaneda's "A Separate Reality," about a Yaqui 'brujo's' (shaman) worldview. The book and Carlos Castaneda are both controversial - no matter - some of the insights reported as the musings of Don Juan Matua are so close to my own experience it is literally inconsequential whether Don Juan exists or existed.

    One line seems to bear repeating in light of your observation on human nature:

    "Once a man learns to 'see' he finds himself alone in the world with nothing but folly." (Don Juan Matua)

    - Manysummits -

    Complain about this comment

  • 316. At 00:22am on 01 Dec 2009, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @pph #305
    (@ myself #310)

    As an example of the cooling effects of high albedo, think of the white clothes worn in summer sports like tennis and cricket.

    Complain about this comment

  • 317. At 00:27am on 01 Dec 2009, Jack Hughes wrote:

    @who said what

    Ernest Rutherford said that science is either physics or stamp-collecting.

    He meeat the differences between the HARD sciences and the SOFT sciences.

    HARD means both strong and also difficult. The hard sciences deal in numbers, laws, and predictions. The hard sciences put man on the moon. They knew where the moon was going to be, built the right rockets, and pointed them in the right direction. Hard sciences are physics, chemistry, engineering, astronomy.

    The SOFT sciences are biology, geography and their offshoots. They can collect and label plants and butterflies, describe other countries and river flows. But there are no laws and no predictions.

    Sadly most climate scientists have started inthe soft end - but they think they can make predictions. This is bizarre because they have not discovered any laws yet.

    Wrong and failed predictions can bring a "law" crashing down. Many repeated and repeatable predictions can in the end build support for a law - but never prove it.

    Complain about this comment

  • 318. At 00:37am on 01 Dec 2009, infiniti wrote:

    re 312 who said what:

    If the thermometer reads 13C then it is recorded as 13C. For climate purposes though we are interested in the temperature change over many decades. To make that comparison correctly we need every one of the measurements over those decades to be taken in the same conditions. Ie every measurement should be taken at the same time of day. Every measurement should be taken from the same location. Every measurement should be taken from a thermometer in the same condition.

    Ideally that would be the actual case, but in reality most temperature stations were designed for weather reporting, which doesn't require such strict rules to be obeyed over many decades.

    So there is a history at some stations of the thermometer being moved to a different nearby site, or of the measurements suddenly being taken at a different time of day. And some types of sensors even become more innacurate over time.

    In order to make this data fair for climate purposes, all these problems have to be corrected so the data is fair. These corrections are the adjustments.

    Complain about this comment

  • 319. At 00:43am on 01 Dec 2009, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @who said what #312

    Not a stupid question. But of course you knew that. However a decent answer involves a lot of explanation.

    The simple stuff.

    Anomalies.

    Firstly the temperature data sets that we are talking about aren't raw temperatures because it is more interesting to look at the difference between today's temperature and the average temperature at the same time of year some time in the past. These are called "anomalies".

    So for instance if the thermometer says 13 and the normal temperature for the time of year is 15 then the anomaly is +2. If the thermometer says 13and the normal temperature for the time of year is 12 then the anomaly is -1.

    Averages

    Your thermometer won't be stuck bang on 13 for the whole month. So they take averages.

    More detailed manipulation.

    When HADCRUT3 came out (and this applies to all the other major temperature anomaly data sets) they published a paper saying exactly what they did to the raw data and why they did it.

    Unlike some of the raw data this is not secret in any way. You can see their description here, although you will have to follow some of the links for the detail:

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/

    Complain about this comment

  • 320. At 00:45am on 01 Dec 2009, pph wrote:

    #310: JaneBasingstoke
    So these 'models', -once in place-, are what all future science is based upon?

    Once a 'peer-reviewed' principle is set then that's it!?

    Complain about this comment

  • 321. At 00:56am on 01 Dec 2009, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @Jack_Hughes_NZ

    You would write off all these people?

    http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/

    Complain about this comment

  • 322. At 01:00am on 01 Dec 2009, who said what wrote:

    @jack @infinity

    Thanks for the answers, but those open up so many other questions. I think is where most of the confusion comes from for the wider public and certainly me.

    If these scientists are qualified in soft sciences what the hell qualifies them to make such major predictions that will affect all of us, this just doesn’t fill me with any confidence. Secondly if temperatures are adjusted, how do we know that mistakes aren’t made or they have been adjusted in the wrong direction?

    It all screams to me of “we don’t actually know what’s really happening”

    More confused about what is really true than ever.

    Complain about this comment

  • 323. At 01:04am on 01 Dec 2009, pph wrote:

    #307: infinity
    "The IPCC are reporting, not generating, scientific results."

    So, they blame the scientists, from their point of view because they report what the scientist says?

    Complain about this comment

  • 324. At 01:15am on 01 Dec 2009, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @Jack_Hughes_NZ

    You would write off this man, the inspiration for Sherlock Holmes, as being associated with "soft sciences"?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Bell

    Complain about this comment

  • 325. At 01:17am on 01 Dec 2009, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @pph #320

    Peer review is only the start. Science can be overturned at any time by better science.

    Complain about this comment

  • 326. At 01:32am on 01 Dec 2009, pph wrote:

    #320: JaneBasingstoke
    Given that (#320) then, you are happy to allow these rascals to BS both you and me!?

    Just a Y/N is required here.

    Complain about this comment

  • 327. At 01:34am on 01 Dec 2009, who said what wrote:

    Thank you Jane, that makes sense

    Complain about this comment

  • 328. At 01:52am on 01 Dec 2009, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @pph #326

    A simple Yes or No won't do. Your question comes in two parts, one of them disguised as a statement.

    Firstly I don't like being b*** s***ed by rascals.

    Secondly I don't know how much of this b****y awful mess is b*** s***. Neither is anyone else. Unless you claim to be psychic. I want the mess investigated first.

    Complain about this comment

  • 329. At 01:58am on 01 Dec 2009, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @who said what
    @Jack_Hughes_NZ

    Reference physics in climate science.

    I would refer you both to andrew9999's comment at #263, where he provides an extremely good example of a climate scientist who is a physicist. Click through and you'll find the climate science department is part of physics.

    I don't know the details of your backgrounds, but please believe me when I say that Imperial College is on a par with Oxbridge when it comes to science.

    Complain about this comment

  • 330. At 02:56am on 01 Dec 2009, Sigurdur wrote:

    319:
    You do not adjust the RAW DATA. You can make an anomily from raw data, but one never adjusts raw data. IF the raw data is an outlier, you discard said data.

    Now.....when you throw the outliers out, you also have to use an LSD.

    Normal anomolies would have an lsd of 10%. So if your temp shows 10C, the lsd indicates that over 9.0C is acceptable and also 11.0C is acceptable. Statistically, an anomoly of .3C, when the base temp is 15C.....is insignificant.

    But, it doesn't make any diff, because you fools have thrown out all the raw data. Which makes the anomolies worthless from a scientific point of view.

    Ok..a bit harsh when I said you fools. I only meant the parasites at CRU. I know there have to be a few honorable Englishmen/women left on the Planet.

    Complain about this comment

  • 331. At 02:59am on 01 Dec 2009, lburt wrote:

    @infinity

    The IPCC are reporting, not generating, scientific results. A lot of scientific studies have found high sensitivity, the bulk of studies fall into a range about 1.5 - 4.5 degrees C warming from a doubling of co2. The IPCC would be negligent to ignore this and report instead that climate sensitivity is low.

    And these have already diverged from reality. The only ones that are close to having their error bars touch real temperatures are the lowest range of estimates. All that crazy 2C+ stuff is off in lala land. It doesn't matter how you slice it, the error bars are there for a reason. The error bars are the model's criteria for being proved/disproved. We're already outside those error bars and the ones that are even close to being right.

    All the NEWER models are now forced to fit the modern temperature record (because they must be) and start at a lower point. But how do you know the NEW predictions are meaningful when they're essentially based on the old models? They still make the same meaningless high end predictions. This is not unlike the predictions used for solar cycle 24. The die-hard users of one method of prediction kept on assuming the cycle was just starting a little later. Here's how that worked out for them.

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/19/SSN_Predict_SWPC.gif

    Complain about this comment

  • 332. At 03:11am on 01 Dec 2009, lburt wrote:

    @JaneBasingstoke #316 Albedo

    Of course, the finely divided forms of water (snow/clouds) are odd. While the albedo of most things is roughly proportional to its ability to emit...snow/water vapor are actually very good at emitting IR.

    Complain about this comment

  • 333. At 07:33am on 01 Dec 2009, PAWB46 wrote:

    who said what:

    One thing you can be certain of is that tree-ring counters, as at CRU, are not climate scientists. They don't understand the physics of the climate. They just try, and very badly in the case of Jones, Mann et al, to tell us what the climate might have been like in the past. Jane is right in that climate science should be done in physics departments.

    And don't forget that any climate model prediction (or projection) is not science; it's more like astrology. If you can't test your model, you can't prove it has any validity. And as we know so little about the details of what drives the climate, the basics of the models have little validity.

    Hence when David Shukman (degree in English) tells us on the news this morning that it is worse than we thought and that the oceans are going to rise 4ft because the models tell us that West Antarctic is going to melt, you know it's political spin ahead of Copenhagen.

    Congratulations to the Australians by the way.

    Complain about this comment

  • 334. At 07:39am on 01 Dec 2009, PAWB46 wrote:

    And in addition to my last post, that vanishing man Richard Black has surfaced to tell us more of the same this morning http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8387137.stm

    Sea levels to rise 4ft 6in (1.4m). To quote, "A number of research teams have come up with similar projections". There you have it in black and white "PROJECTIONS". Computer models = Bull S**t

    Complain about this comment

  • 335. At 08:04am on 01 Dec 2009, PAWB46 wrote:

    News Flash from Richard Black:

    "100 leading scientists from various disciplines say the Antarctic is fine and is behaving just as it has for thousnads of years. In a surprise statement the scientists (whose statement has been reviewed by a further 200 leading scientists) said 'the Antarctic is fine, the science is settled and there is no need to continue funding our work'. On the basis of this statement from 100 leading scientists, the freed-up funding can be used to help alleviate starvation and poverty. In addition, since the Copenhagen jamboree is no longer required, additional billions will be available to put to good use".

    End of statement.

    Complain about this comment

  • 336. At 08:19am on 01 Dec 2009, PAWB46 wrote:

    For anyone foolish enough to believe that, because of the goings on at CRU, GIStemp (which we are told is in broad agreement with HADCRU) is a good alternative, I suggest a quick read at http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/11/09/gistemp-a-human-view/ (written before Climategate didn't hit the BBC). It only takes a couple of minutes.

    Anyone still believe in thermomter-based global temperatures?

    Complain about this comment

  • 337. At 08:21am on 01 Dec 2009, infiniti wrote:

    Re 330: Sigurdur
    "You do not adjust the RAW DATA."

    Yet scientists do, worldwide, in all fields of science.

    Raw data often contains errors that can be corrected. For example raw satellite data is affected over many years by satellite orbital drift. That can be calculated and therefore corrected for.

    Put down the kool aid and actually learn something.

    Complain about this comment

  • 338. At 08:23am on 01 Dec 2009, Roland D wrote:

    Memo from Richard Black

    "Don't mention Climategate. I did once but I think I got away with it."

    Complain about this comment

  • 339. At 08:26am on 01 Dec 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    @xtragrumpymike2 #289

    Six days and counting!

    Still no-one prepared to bet on Copenhagen and the outcome?


    I predicted a deal would be made at the 11th hour on Richards very first "n days and counting post"

    @soveryodd #291

    I’m confused. It seems that almost all the ‘sceptics’ sources come through the ‘Wattsupwiththat’ (WUWT) website. This is run by weatherman Anthony Watts who is employed by the far right and morally bankrupt KPAY-FM radio in northern California....

    So should the general public believe the nonsense from the above people? Or should they look at this link from Professor Barry Brook who holds the Foundation Sir Hubert Wilkins Chair of Climate Change and is Director of Climate Science at The Environment Institute, University of Adelaide.


    I've already commented on your links inability to engage with sceptics who find climate sensitivity to be low through observational methods and his comments being out of date, so i won't repeat here.

    It's not about the source, it's about the science. Try playing the ball and not the man. Can you fault the science behind sceptics understanding or can you show that Jones didn't say he would delete the data rather than hand it over?

    @soveryodd #300

    Yes pph, but all science is based on probability.

    No, science is based on evidence and the interpretation of that evidence, until some other evidence comes to light to disprove the original theory

    @manysummits #311

    How would you say Hansens advocacy sits within the context of his job as a government employee at NASA?

    @who said what #312

    1, why would temperatures need to be adjusted, If the thermometer says its 13c why would you need to change it to something else?

    2, what’s the definition of a climate scientist?


    there's no such thing as a stupid question.

    1 - because the urban landscape changes over time, adjusting the temperatures is a legitimate tool to make allowance for the build up of cities etc. Unfortunately, if you look at surfacestations website, you will find all sorts of problems with the siting of weatherstations.

    2 - good question

    Complain about this comment

  • 340. At 08:28am on 01 Dec 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    @PAWB46 #335

    wow! the Antarctic not melting!

    could you link please for the benefit of the global warm-mongers?

    thanks

    Complain about this comment

  • 341. At 08:32am on 01 Dec 2009, infiniti wrote:

    Poitsplace @331:

    For high and low end amounts of warming the temperatures diverge is in coming decades, not the recent past. 2C warming by 2100 is still a credible possibility. Temperature saw a big rise 1996-2002, faster than mean model projections and then flat since 2002. Ie the temperature rise has not been linear. Overall it will require more data to assess which scenario temperature it is following.

    PAWB46: So on one hand you demand physicists work on climate science, but when they do and inevitably produce physics based models of the climate you dismiss their work. An objective observer might wonder if you are just trying to find excuses to ignore the science.

    Complain about this comment

  • 342. At 08:41am on 01 Dec 2009, Wayne job wrote:

    Complain about this comment

  • 343. At 08:45am on 01 Dec 2009, Jack Frost wrote:

    The debate is certainly not over:-

    Himalayan glaciers' 'mixed picture'

    A scientific debate has been triggered over the state of glaciers in the Himalayas.

    Some recent findings seem to contradict claims that the glaciers are retreating rapidly. Some glaciers are even said to be advancing.


    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8355837.stm



    Merry Winterville

    Complain about this comment

  • 344. At 08:47am on 01 Dec 2009, Wayne job wrote:

    240 Infinity, Thank you, it is not that at all.The BBC normal" have your say" has a character limit, so that space is a premium. Here space is not important obviously. But real science is ! GETTINGGRUMPIER

    Complain about this comment

  • 345. At 08:58am on 01 Dec 2009, PAWB46 wrote:

    Mango #340:

    From Richard's article at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8387137.stm "Indeed, the continent's largest portion, East Antarctica, appears to have cooled, bringing a 10% increase in the sea ice extent since 1980."

    Infinity #341:

    "So on one hand you demand physicists work on climate science, but when they do and inevitably produce physics based models of the climate you dismiss their work. An objective observer might wonder if you are just trying to find excuses to ignore the science."
    Yes. As I keep repeating, the models may be physics-based (not sure how many are produced by physicists - perhaps you can help out), but they are incomplete and cannot be tested. Not to mention, the problems with scale, non-linearities, unsubstantiated assumptions embedded in them and the problems of a chaotic system with unknown initial conditions.

    Complain about this comment

  • 346. At 09:03am on 01 Dec 2009, bowmanthebard wrote:

    soveryodd #300 wrote:

    "all science is based on probability"

    I don't know what this is supposed to mean. It might mean that "all scientific claims are claims say something about relative frequency", in which case it's false. There is nothing "statistical" about Newton's Laws, for example. If the claim means that science expresses how much its own claims ought to be believed, then it's false again. Claims such as "it's 99% certain that global warming is happening" are just expressions of half-baked epistemology, which is a branch of philosophy. Science can never, ever tell us "how much a theory ought to be believed", and the idea that such a thing can be measured with a number is extremely dubious.

    Finally, if the claim means that science never claims certainty, then it's right but wholly uninteresting. The claims of no discipline, including mathematics, can ever be made with certainty, and few ever do.

    The apparent rigour of the expression 'based on' in the above phrase is a good example of unclear thinking masquerading as something profound.

    Complain about this comment

  • 347. At 09:14am on 01 Dec 2009, xtragrumpymike2 wrote:

    339. At 08:26am on 01 Dec 2009, MangoChutneyUKOK wrote:

    @xtragrumpymike2 #289

    Six days and counting!

    Still no-one prepared to bet on Copenhagen and the outcome?

    I predicted a deal would be made at the 11th hour on Richards very first "n days and counting post"

    Yup! I know you did........haven't forgotten. One of several points (but not all) that we agree on.Just wondering when the others will realise the inevitable.

    However, bit concerned about your comment here:-

    "@manysummits #311

    How would you say Hansens advocacy sits within the context of his job as a government employee at NASA?"

    From what I understand about Jim, it was the government (Bush and co) who tried to silence him! Obviously wasn't dancing to the right drum! And as another byword re-Jim, I believe he has been trumpeting the pro-AGW cause from WAY back..........not to mention of course that he is one of those "hard scientists"(that should please Jack) ...a physicist indeed (that would upset PAWB46)

    However, tomorrows another day and there's bound to be more exciting happenings. Wonder how many "experts" predicted the Dubai debacle?

    Complain about this comment

  • 348. At 09:20am on 01 Dec 2009, LabMunkey wrote:

    I'd like to re-iterate a few points, and clear up some confusions as this debate has decended into a he-says, she-say debacle and i feel some people are getting stick for misunderstandings. Specifically jane, who i think is genuinley trying to debate the issue, but seems to be getting some grief over it.

    Firstly, i'm a scientist. I work with important data daily, i'm fully aware of the statisitical methods one should use, the modifications you CAN do to raw data, and those you cannot.

    To the RAW data, there is very little you can actually do. Outliers can be removed, but only one per data set, and this has to be fully documentated. ANY adjustments (including the very good example of satellite drift) have to be fully documented and the raw data MUST be kept and reported alongside it. If this is not the case, you can question the data and it's finidings.

    Anyone using psychological methods to back their arguments up- use of intentionally derogative terms, i.e. warmer/denier/sceptic (although in my opinion being a sceptic is a good thing), generally have little to bring to a discussion and should be ignored.

    If anyone mentions 'think of our childrens children' re: climate change, just point them to the hundreds of thoushands of starving children RIGHT NOW. It is a moot argument.

    Ok- to the meat of the discussion.
    The climategate issue i fear, is being ignored. People are hoping it will blow over and that they can ignore the issue completely. Citing the IPCC (which relied heavily on the CRU data) and other climate scientists as proof that the CRU incident is without consequence is plain daft. It's like asking a criminal if he really did it. no? really? off you go then son...

    Models. Worthless. Especially with regard to climate. The models cannot reliably predict PAST events. So cannot be used to predict future ones. I can supply numerous sources for this. The IPCC itslef has stated, in one of it's reports, that it is IMPOSSIBLE to predict what will happen with our climate given current understandings. Yet they still rely on models. Anything suggested by a climate model can therefore be dismissed.

    Temperature readings. Despite the CRU debacle, there was already significant doubts over the reliability of the temperature records. HIE effect is improperly adjusted for and the satelite vs ground data was incorrectly analysed.

    Finally. SEA LEVELS ARE NOT RISING ABOVE NORMAL RATES.

    I have linked data for this. i have shown antarctica is GAINING ice. this, i'm afraid is as close to scientific fact as you can get. Therefore any predictions on future sea rises are pointless.

    So what do we have left? very little actually regarding MMCC.

    To clarify, i couldn't care less about the politics of climate change. What i do care about is the science. It's name is being dragged through the mud over this, brittish science has been seriously tarnished and i'm sorry to say this, but i think people are being lied to on a large scale.

    The BBC has been given ample evidence to warrant an investigation into this issue (CRU) yet feel trumping up the copenhagen talks will 'sell more copy'.

    Richard, i can't decide why you're not covering this issue more. You may just be incredibly busy, i don't know, but i feel you are letting your readers down, and the brittish public down (melodrama alert), and i feel you're not doing your job.

    You are either compromised due to your beliefs, or not doing your job. Either way- i am less than impressed.

    This mornings selection- that obviously, the bbc didn't cover.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748703939404574566124250205490.html

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/30/crugate_analysis/


    sorry- couldn't resist the last one. OPINION PIECE, not to be taken seriously

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/100018373/climategate-the-phil-jones-university-could-break-into-childrens-television-big-time/

    Oh, and someone commented that 'sceptics' got all their info from one source- go over my back catalogue of posts. You'll find plenty of reputable sources- including papers, articles and decent analysis. Always good to try to cast your net as wide as possible.

    Complain about this comment

  • 349. At 09:21am on 01 Dec 2009, LabMunkey wrote:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1231763/BBC-weatherman-ignored-leaked-climate-row-emails.html

    Complain about this comment

  • 350. At 09:24am on 01 Dec 2009, LabMunkey wrote:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2009/10/whatever-happened-to-global-wa.shtml

    i appear to have done paul a disservice with my last post. this post is actually very balanced. Well done Paul, shame richard can't be bothered.

    Complain about this comment

  • 351. At 09:35am on 01 Dec 2009, Jack Frost wrote:

    The Times of India

    Copenhagen conference: India, China plan joint exit.

    The four countries, which include Brazil and South Africa, agreed to a strategy that involves jointly walking out of the conference if the developed nations try to force their own terms on the developing world.

    http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/china/Copenhagen-conference-India-China-plan-joint-exit/articleshow/5279771.cms



    Merry Winterville

    Complain about this comment

  • 352. At 09:48am on 01 Dec 2009, PAWB46 wrote:

    Further to #345:

    Note the subtle use of language where Richard said "Indeed, the continent's largest portion, East Antarctica, appears to have cooled, bringing a 10% increase in the sea ice extent since 1980."

    Warmists claim with certainty that warming and melting are occurring but they can't force themselves to be certain about anything contrary. Thus the East Antarctic hasn't cooled, it only APPEARS TO HAVE COOLED. They can't really say it has ACTUALLY COOLED.

    Complain about this comment

  • 353. At 10:17am on 01 Dec 2009, GeeDeeSea wrote:

    @soveryodd #302

    Bad language. More to come. Have u heard this new Aussie politician on climate change? And maybe the first climate change election coming up in Oz.

    Complain about this comment

  • 354. At 10:18am on 01 Dec 2009, Jack Frost wrote:

    @352 PAWB46

    You're spot on, the same applies exactly in the link I posted at #343. Notice the choice of words to cleverly steer the reader in one direction in the sentence below. Not that its fact but 'seems' to the case.



    Some recent findings 'seem' to contradict claims that the glaciers are retreating rapidly. Some glaciers are even 'said' to be advancing.


    Complain about this comment

  • 355. At 10:23am on 01 Dec 2009, minuend wrote:

    Still nothing from the University of East Anglia.

    Still no news about the promised independent inquiry.

    Still no news about the promised release of data.

    Rumours abound that CRU deleted all the raw data a few months ago.

    Complain about this comment

  • 356. At 10:51am on 01 Dec 2009, PAWB46 wrote:

    Colonel:

    Is it a conscious bias in the language or is it a deliberate attempt to cast doubt in the mind of the reader/listener?

    One side of the argument is certain and the other side is portrayed as not certain. Always biased one way.

    Still no news from the BBC about Climategate.

    The BBC's reputation as an impartial news source gets worse by the day.

    People know where else to go to get news.

    Complain about this comment

  • 357. At 10:55am on 01 Dec 2009, LabMunkey wrote:

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geoffreylean/100018431/climate-e-mails-topple-australian-opposition-leader/

    he misses the point about the emails and the data- but, opposition leader in aus taken down by climategate. Is it news yet BBC?

    Complain about this comment

  • 358. At 11:52am on 01 Dec 2009, manysummits wrote:

    \\\Major sea level rise likely as Antarctic ice melts [~ 1.4 m by 2100]///
    By Richard Black
    Environment correspondent, BBC News website (December 1, 2009)

    "Launching the SCAR [Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research] report in London, lead editor John Turner from the British Antarctic Survey (BAS) suggested that observations on the ground [read empirical evidence - bolding by manysummits] had changed that picture, especially in parts of the West Antarctic ice sheet."
    ------------------------------------------

    This news is not unexpected by those of us who have been keeping close track of developments in the polar regions and in the mountain glacier regions.

    I would like to remind all reading this who have an open mind that the most consistent pattern this observer (manysummits) has observed over the last year of empiirical data collection and result presentation has been the conservative nature of the scientific reporting.

    In every notable case that I can recall, the real situation on the ground has exceeded, i.e. been worse, than the predictions made in the scientific literature. (see my post # 160 for an example)

    My best personal theory is that the Arctic Sea Ice and the Arctic Tundra have both passed their tipping points in any realistic scenario which combines both politics and science. By that I mean that in the next two or three years of virtual inaction, we will be headed for a planetary global average temperature more than the supposedly 'safe' two degrees of warming.

    This translates to a situation of high danger, which, if unchecked within a very few years (2015 - 2020), will lead to catastrophic climate change, which may or may not be reversible.

    In his latest public letter, Dr. James Hansen has ststed that we may have to take to the streets.

    "Are we going to stand up and give global politicians a hard slap in the face, to make them face the truth? It will take a lot of us – probably in the streets. Or are we going to let them continue to kid themselves and us, and cheat our children and grandchildren?"

    - Dr. James Hansen
    http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/ (Nov. 30, 2009: Never-Give-Up Fighting Spirit)
    ----------

    - Manysummits -



    Complain about this comment

  • 359. At 12:00pm on 01 Dec 2009, rossglory wrote:

    #348 LabMunkey

    Thankyou for clearing up those confusions. However, from my perspective although you claim to understand these scientific processes so well I haven't the vaguest idea who you are or what you do.

    Now I'm not a scientist or a climatologist but I have a degree in the relevant subject and understand statistics pretty well.

    But since I'm not willing/able to repeat several decades of detailed research I am going to put my faith in those hundreds of (non-anonymous) scientists that have done the research and are willing to put their names to the literature, some of which I've read and find pretty convincing.

    So though the debate here is interesting to some, as is the hype over emails, I find none of it convincing or confusing, just a bit pointless.

    Complain about this comment

  • 360. At 12:13pm on 01 Dec 2009, LabMunkey wrote:

    @ manysummits.

    I've posted data that contradicts that.

    @ rossglory

    true, you do have no idea who or what i am. And i'd urge everyone to lean on the cautious side when taking the advice from peoples posts.

    I try to post links to back my claims, in fact as far as i can tell i haven't claimed anything without backing it up, and as far as i can tell my assertions re: raw data manipulation are right and proper. If you care to debate this feel free.

    The point i am making is that even before the cru emails AND DATA (don't forget the data- thats more important than the emails) emerged, significant doubts were being cast over the validity of the data used to support MMCC. I have outlined these points, but can do so again should if you need.

    The email leaks highlight an issue many 'sceptic' scientist have been voicing for some time, yet were dismissed as 'nonesense' by the AGW camp- namely a disproportionate representiation, in the scientific journals/community for PRO agw papers/theories.

    Regardless of your stance- this bears investigation.

    As does the allegations on the bastardisation of the peer review process.

    As does the allegations on the intentional manipulation of data to support agw hypothesis.

    Finally i'd like to re-iterate, again, the example that was outlined earlier. Consensus in science means nothing. Less than nothing. It can be a good indication you are heading in the right direction, but it can also mean you, and many others, have missed something.

    the example of the stomach ulcer scientists illustrates this point beautifully.

    Finally, you may wish to rely on those thousands of 'scientists' who have done all the work for you, but as it's emerging that a significant proportion of them relied on suspect data- it's hardly an encouraging start.

    Complain about this comment

  • 361. At 12:15pm on 01 Dec 2009, ScudLewis wrote:

    @PAWB46 BBC have something up now: 'Harrabin's Notes: Debating the IPCC'

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8387365.stm

    @ Manysummits - you sound happy - am I correct?

    Dr. Hansen = "Just as when Abraham Lincoln faced slavery and when Winston Churchill faced Nazism, the time for compromises and half-measures is over"

    ...oh dear....

    Complain about this comment

  • 362. At 12:16pm on 01 Dec 2009, rossglory wrote:

    #309 manysummits

    i recall the discussion on the 'bifurcation' paper from a while ago. the 'copenhagen diagnosis' which is an update for decsion makers points to the recent rapid change in arctic sea ice and the unexpected(?) increase in methane after a static decade as signs of clear positive feedbacks in the climate systems (i.e. tipping points - once you start them they're difficult to stop!).

    in fact, i'd be interested in how many negative feedbacks have been documented in the research. i know there's rumours about cloud cover increasing and increased photosynthesis as permafrost thaws but the main ones (like co2 fertilisation and co2 absorbtion by oceans) look as if they've only been temporary. the ozone hole has also kept antarctica cool and will be reversing soon and like the temporary cooling of aerosols has only hidden the problem (having briefly given the contrarians a few straws to grasp).

    Complain about this comment

  • 363. At 12:19pm on 01 Dec 2009, rossglory wrote:

    #146 biggs

    why, when manysummits posts links to scientific discoveries do you post a link to a blog and claim he lives in a fantasy land? btw that's a rhetorical question so i'm not looking for a (sensible) answer.

    Complain about this comment

  • 364. At 12:31pm on 01 Dec 2009, ScudLewis wrote:

    Sorry to make light of Dr. Hansen's views - but it did spark off my radar on examples of Godwin's Law:

    Godwin's Law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies) is a humorous observation made by Mike Godwin in 1990 which has become an Internet adage. It states: "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

    Considering this is post 360+ (thought it amusing) - apologies.

    Complain about this comment

  • 365. At 12:34pm on 01 Dec 2009, GeeDeeSea wrote:

    @minuend #355
    @PAWB46 #356

    Yes it is on BBC. It was reported again, last Friday.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8383713.stm

    Complain about this comment

  • 366. At 1:05pm on 01 Dec 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    it beggars belief that the BBC can still be reporting climate scare stories, with the breathless innocence of a teenage boy discovering his first love

    Complain about this comment

  • 367. At 1:24pm on 01 Dec 2009, PAWB46 wrote:

    If you want more inane discussion (3 talking heads) of climate change and have a strong stomach, listen again to yesterday's Frontiers.

    Complain about this comment

  • 368. At 1:29pm on 01 Dec 2009, PAWB46 wrote:

    ScudLewis:

    Thanks. It's hardly ground-breaking news, just more circling the wagons.

    Complain about this comment

  • 369. At 1:32pm on 01 Dec 2009, Sparklet wrote:

    Re #365
    The point is GD that it is not on the main news bulletins but tucked away elsewhere. To some extent I feel a little sorry for the reporters as they do seem to come under a great deal of pressure from the Green mafia brigade.
    Look at what the author of that report, Harrabin, had to undergo earlier on another report he had written - (page down past the advert)
    http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002906.html
    and see how they crowed
    http://portal.campaigncc.org/node/2089
    And we all know the undue pressure Paul Hudson came under when he asked what happenened to Global Warming.

    However all this needs to be exposed so that we can get back to the factual reporting that won the BBC its world wide reputation (now totally trashed).

    Complain about this comment

  • 370. At 1:33pm on 01 Dec 2009, Kamboshigh wrote:

    #358 Manysummits you have been keeping an eye on this so worrying situation, then you need worry no longer. The story major sea level rise likely was not written by Richard Black. It was produced by a PR company called "Science Media Centre" written by team whos main aim is to distort truth, the team is lead by Tim sheldon. Here they are not only very selective in the quotes but are delibrately misleading as the vast majority points are either not in the paper or are selectively cherry-picked.

    Sea-level rise will be 1.4m by 2100 (paper states 1.5m)This refers to the expectation that the sea temperature will rise by 5C around the west Ant. ice sheets "Current models (as described early in this chapter) suggest that there will not be a full collapse this century" (page 341)

    It is a fantastic paper which actual puts things to prospective well worth the read.

    Complain about this comment

  • 371. At 1:44pm on 01 Dec 2009, RobWansbeck wrote:

    According to the BBC lunchtime news the Antarctic cooling is due to the fabled 'hole' in the ozone layer and warming will return with a vengeance when the 'hole' heals.

    The lack of healing of the hole despite the ban on substances claimed to have ozone depleting properties hasn't caused anyone to question the science but merely to claim “it's worse than we thought” and that now benefits won't be seen for a convenient 50 years.

    Complain about this comment

  • 372. At 1:59pm on 01 Dec 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    if the hole in the ozone layer is curing global warming, should we ban the ban on CFC's?

    >;-)

    Complain about this comment

  • 373. At 2:06pm on 01 Dec 2009, Grant Carlson wrote:

    If I have a glass full of ice, and that ice melts, I certainly won't have a glass full of water.

    Likewise, if the arctic ice melts, is the resulting amount of water going to be greater than the displacement of these icebergs? It seems that were these iceburgs to melt, according to what we can see in a glass of ice, there would actually be less water in the worlds oceans.

    Complain about this comment

  • 374. At 2:09pm on 01 Dec 2009, LabMunkey wrote:

    @371

    yeah funny huh. They just latch onto anything as proof. It's pathetic, frustrating and annoying all in one.

    Complain about this comment

  • 375. At 2:12pm on 01 Dec 2009, Kamboshigh wrote:

    # 371 Not in paper I downloaded direct from SCAR, perhaps the BBC deliberately altered their version or are taking it out of context as this is how news readers speak in emails. Maybe they hacked some FTP server and got the wrong version?

    This paper makes a total laughing stock of the utter nonsense on the Copenhagen debate site

    Complain about this comment

  • 376. At 2:31pm on 01 Dec 2009, RobWansbeck wrote:

    @ 372 MangoChutneyUKOK wrote:

    “if the hole in the ozone layer is curing global warming, should we ban the ban on CFC's?

    >;-) “

    It's a win-win situation:

    Either CFCs don't affect ozone levels and should never have been banned in the first place or they do affect ozone levels but their use has saved us from catastrophic sea level rise and should be encouraged. ;)

    Complain about this comment

  • 377. At 3:06pm on 01 Dec 2009, ScudLewis wrote:

    And there's more:
    'Show Your Working': What 'ClimateGate' means
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8388485.stm

    Now no-one can moan about BBC not using the 'ClimateGate' title

    Complain about this comment

  • 378. At 3:14pm on 01 Dec 2009, lburt wrote:

    @Infinity RE:2C by 2100
    Why don't you plot out the data for yourself on temperature rise. You'll find that the line its about 2.2C by 2100 if you assume the 80s and 90s warming continued (and it hasn't). Also remember that all the natural cooling they try to use to explain the current lack of warming...carries with it the realization that the 80s and 90s warming was partly due to those same cycles. How exactly are we going to get to 2C when we've never before seen anything like that sort of warming?

    @Xtragrumpymike2 RE:Hansen's advocacy
    I'm much more concerned with the constant manipulation of the data. Why does he keep having to readjust the temperatures and why do the adjustments always show increased linearity. His advocacy on top of these constant adjustments to temperature is extremely suspicious. If he AND the CRU were doing the same sort of manipulation (which I fear is very likely) then its likely that we have in fact been cooling as the satellite observations indicate...and it's just been covered up by a bunch of corrupt scientists looking to increase their celebrity.

    @manusummits
    \\\ What the heck is with this silly hand waving? (bold subject)///
    Oh, and on sea level rise. None of this is anything but speculation. History seems to indicate that in any temperature range possible (since the rate is about .5C/century) we will not see any significant sea level rise. The central parts of the ice sheets are gaining far more ice than the tiny losses from individual glaciers (NOT the ice sheet) at the edges. Glacial contributions are trivial since they've been moving the whole time, pouring their ice into the sea or rivers.

    Complain about this comment

  • 379. At 3:16pm on 01 Dec 2009, Kamboshigh wrote:

    Rob: No they band CFC's 30 years ago and replaced them with HFC. Typical green move HFC produce 14 times the CO2 emmissions.

    Wait on, CO2 rising at massive rates couldn't be from HFC usage could it banned on dodgy science by left wing eco-nutters

    Complain about this comment

  • 380. At 3:25pm on 01 Dec 2009, ghostofsichuan wrote:

    Manysummits:

    "Once a man learns to 'see' he finds himself alone in the world with nothing but folly." (Don Juan Matua)

    A theme of the Teaching of the Buddha.

    Almost 7 billion people in the world all having constructed how the world should be in their mind. That cannot be.

    The politicians and bankers encourage cooperation for financial reasons but foster conflict between nations and peoples to maintain their hegemony.

    There is not much value in a life lived to make other people wealthy. There is not much value in being wealthy by making other people poor.

    It is like the term, "Clean Coal", people avoid honesty. Cleaner, but still dirty coal, or cheap but dirty coal. Anything that benefits one but harms another must be rationalize, it is about the human condition of illusion.

    When the governments bailed out the banks and investment firms nothing else needed to be said about the power structure in this world and that a person in China or England or Canada or US would have their individual funds given to those who have betrayed them,by their governments who state their purpose is to protect the citizens from such actions. There are no bankers on trial, there are no government officials on trial. Justice is a myth.

    History is cycles and we are either headed for a dark times or revolutionary times, but things certainly will change. The current system does not work and they are unable to provide solutions other than maintaining power and the further consolidation of wealth, things that expedite change. Human beings are slow learners.

    Complain about this comment

  • 381. At 3:28pm on 01 Dec 2009, Sparklet wrote:

    Re #216 and 227
    Thanks - probably because I refer a lot to Wattsupwiththat (the very deserving winner of the 2008 best Science blog) - it tends to discuss the actual science which contrasts somewhat with the really nasty ad hom attacks you get on the pro AGW websites. Their continual attacks on the messenger rather than the message tends to show how weak the underlining science is supporting AGW - as many of you have already pointed out.

    Complain about this comment

  • 382. At 3:32pm on 01 Dec 2009, GeeDeeSea wrote:

    I don't get why people are arguing whether warming is caused by man or not. It doesn't matter does it? The measures are the same. And oil is still a finite resource.

    Complain about this comment

  • 383. At 3:33pm on 01 Dec 2009, Kamboshigh wrote:

    It's worse than we thought

    Prof.Pielke Sr. blogg points out an actual typo in IPCC 2007 page 493

    IPCC version is act current projected temp rises all glaciers will vanish by 2035. This should read 100,000Km of some current 500,000Km will melt by 2350.

    http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/12/01/global-warming-and-glacier-melt-down-debate-a-tempest-in-a-teapot/

    Wonder who the author was on WGII no couldn't be!

    Complain about this comment

  • 384. At 3:53pm on 01 Dec 2009, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @LabMunkey #349 #350

    Paul Hudson has mentioned this early receipt of the leaked emails twice. The first time his wording was ambiguous. The second time he was more clear that he received them legitimately, i.e. not as part of an early leak. I quote from that second mention (highlights mine):

    As you may know, some of the e-mails that were released last week directly involved me and one of my previous blogs, 'Whatever happened to global warming ?'
    These took the form of complaints about its content, and I was copied in to them at the time. Complaints and criticisms of output are an every day part of life, and as such were nothing out of the ordinary. However I felt that seeing there was an ongoing debate as to the authenticity of the hacked e-mails, I was duty bound to point out that as I had read the original e-mails, then at least these were authentic, although of course I cannot vouch for the authenticity of the others.


    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2009/11/climategate-cru-hacked-into-an.shtml
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2009/11/climategate-what-next.shtml

    Complain about this comment

  • 385. At 3:55pm on 01 Dec 2009, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @Sigurdur #330
    (@infinity)

    Sigurdur, I don't work for CRU. And you are picking holes in my wording. I said nothing about destroying raw data. My post was explaining the derivation of HADCRUT3 from raw data.

    I am upset over CRU's loss of raw data. I am sure that you agree with me this needs to be looked at properly, particularly in the light of claims that much of that raw data is available elsewhere. Also note, this admission came out before the leak/hack.

    I hope your definition of honour includes listening to the defences of the accused before you condemn them.

    Complain about this comment

  • 386. At 3:58pm on 01 Dec 2009, Kamboshigh wrote:

    Scudlewis; I'm a bit sceptical about Mike Hulme in he might not be as he appears.

    1) He is from UEA

    2) He is a director of the Tyndall centre, which is another nice cosy group what provide peer-review material to order.

    He is flying in the face of the policy of Tyndall espcially when you read the last comment from director Kevin Anderson on 4C is possible

    Complain about this comment

  • 387. At 3:58pm on 01 Dec 2009, PAWB46 wrote:

    ScudLewis:

    The BBC article skirts around the problem. It should say that the IPCC cannot be relied upon and all its findings should be taken as suspect.

    A better article is at http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/17183

    Complain about this comment

  • 388. At 3:59pm on 01 Dec 2009, JunkkMale wrote:

    When it comes to talking vs. doing, before it vanishes may I commend this programme in almost its entirety:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00p67m8/Panorama_Can_Tesco_Save_the_World/

    (Though I think the end interview with Miliband. E might get Tom Heap sent to the naughty step).

    You have to get past the Tesco commercial first, but there are some very good bits, too.

    I rather liked the '50 episodes of Yes Minister' soundbite... and this is about the very boxtickocracy that in theory is securing our kids' futures quite soon as the world and its dog descends upon Copenhagen.

    On trusts the result will have been worth it.

    Complain about this comment

  • 389. At 4:17pm on 01 Dec 2009, ScudLewis wrote:

    @Kamboshigh Thanks for the fact of the day for me on HFCs

    Allan Thornton, President of Environmental Investigation Agency, an environmental watchdog, says that HFCs are up to 12,500 times as potent as carbon dioxide in global warming.

    Major trends in HFC emissions 1970-2005
    http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/part_HFC.php

    You want a hockey stick - check out Global hydrofluorocarbons emissions by world region (1970-2005) in Tg CO2-equivalents.

    All very interesting.

    Complain about this comment

  • 390. At 4:22pm on 01 Dec 2009, RobWansbeck wrote:

    @379 Kamboshigh wrote:

    “Rob: No they band CFC's 30 years ago and replaced them with HFC. Typical green move HFC produce 14 times the CO2 emmissions.”

    Thanks for the info but I was aware of that. Strange that they had enough understanding of the chemistry to insist on a ban but then when the data didn't fit their theory they 'found' that they were out by an order of magnitude on persistence time. So much for understanding the chemistry.

    Complain about this comment

  • 391. At 4:24pm on 01 Dec 2009, Kamboshigh wrote:

    Jane
    @283
    @ 285

    Time zones, I'm sorry I'm signing off half way through things. No I'm not a scientist though I did do 2 years of a degree in geology before having to drop out. I think from our previous discussions that I went into, shall we say up holding the law, and is my past and now present occupation and no I'm not a lawyer.

    However, the way you debate and put your points I presumed you were a scientist. So much for all the taxpayers money spent on me!

    The line is "follow the money"

    Now before I got distracted by the lead item on BBC (see above) I was trying to find the name of the editor who was removed from his post. I went to the site
    http://www.eastangliaemails.com/index.php

    On searching editors got so many hits it took me 2 hours to go through them.

    All the lies are there and no spin will take it away they are criminals

    Complain about this comment

  • 392. At 4:24pm on 01 Dec 2009, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @GeeDeeSea #382

    "The measures are the same."

    Er, no. The measures are different. Current measures of reducing greenhouse gas emissions is a response to the IPCC giving a 90%+ probability that the warming is due to greenhouse gas emissions.

    (Although you are correct about oil.)

    Complain about this comment

  • 393. At 4:40pm on 01 Dec 2009, Sparklet wrote:

    Re #387Pawb
    Yes I was pretty disgusted when I read the email exchange with what he thought of as entertainment. He does not come over at all well.
    http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=374&filename=1066337021.txt

    And interesting that he points out

    "You quote them from the NYT in 1998, referring to a study Mann and co-authors
    published in that year, as saying

    "Our conclusion was that the warming of the past few decades appears to be closely
    tied to emission of greenhouse gases by humans and not any of the natural factors."

    and you ask "Does that seem to be careful in the nature of a claim?" My answer is:
    Yes, absolutely, their formulation is careful and appropriate. Please note that they
    did NOT say "Global warming is closely tied to emission of greenhouse gases by humans
    and not any of the natural factors." They said that THEIR CONCLUSION (from a
    particular, specified study, published in NATURE) was that the warming of THE PAST FEW
    DECADES (that is, a particular, specified part of the historical record) APPEARS (from
    the evidence adduced in the specified study) to be closely tied... This is a carefully
    specified, multiply bounded statement, which accurately reflects what they looked at and
    what they found. And it is appropriately contingent --"APPEARS to be closely tied" --
    allowing for the possibility that further analysis or new data could later lead to a
    different perspective on what appears to be true.
    With respect, it does not require a PhD in science to notice the appropriate boundedness
    and contingency in the Mann et al. formulation. It only requires an open mind, a
    careful reading, and a degree of understanding of the character of scientific claims and
    the wording appropriate to convey them that is accessible to any thoughtful citizen."

    Obviously he is highly skilled in the weasel words of the politician.

    Complain about this comment

  • 394. At 4:43pm on 01 Dec 2009, Kamboshigh wrote:

    Scudlewis and Jane I went other the search sit of emails and I thought about searching for the editor they got sacked. 3rd hit had the name Mike Hulme, so I searched him and got 55 hits.

    If Professor Hulme is to beleived I think he better account for his role in all this before he opens his mouth again.

    Time is catching me up and this must be going across somebody pretty senior it is taking ages to get mod clearance

    Complain about this comment

  • 395. At 5:05pm on 01 Dec 2009, Kamboshigh wrote:

    Got to go keep posting guy's and girl's. But if you know something about items such as HFC replacing CFC then post it. Don't keep it to yourselves. The BBC has picked the wrong topic to shut up on. When my locals know about Climategate and BBC says nothing they are asking why?

    AGW is a scam go and get them, public opinion is proofing it, MSM is running out of time to put the majority view forward.

    Hang on in 15 minutes the lunatics from Sur-Real Climate will come on line. But they do need to discuss how they can make up science first.

    Good Night

    Complain about this comment

  • 396. At 5:17pm on 01 Dec 2009, PAWB46 wrote:

    An overseas view of the BBC and climategate. The BBC has no credibility left:

    "The BBC refused to make the email scandal public, because it is just a government puppet. It is overrun by PC environmentalist editors, producers and writers. It actually believes what that great showman and rusty anthropologist, David Attenborough, says in his glossy programmes, but they get rid of loftier scientists who are real, working experts, such as David Bellamy, because they express doubts about global warming. No scientific process for the BBC – it gets in the way of a jolly good fictional series! And the BBC continues to up the pressure by putting out even more pro-climate argument programmes. This is called blowing out a smoke-screen. Or, lying your head off. Or, being utterly deceitful using public money. Or, being scientific scammers."

    Complain about this comment

  • 397. At 5:25pm on 01 Dec 2009, PAWB46 wrote:

    Kamboshigh #394:

    If anyone thinks Mike Hulme is to be trusted, here are his own words:

    "Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking, although science will gain some insights into the question if it recognises the socially contingent dimensions of a post-normal science. But to proffer such insights, scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence. If scientists want to remain listened to, to bear influence on policy, they must recognise the social limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity."

    Can you believe that? Don't use normal science, trade truth for influence. I think that sums up CRU, Mann etc and Climategate.

    Any comments Richard?

    Complain about this comment

  • 398. At 5:38pm on 01 Dec 2009, davblo2 wrote:

    PAWB46 #396: "An overseas view of the BBC and climategate..."

    I think you are misusing quotation marks rather heavily these days.

    If you quote someone then please give a reference to the source.

    If you write something yourself then leave out the quotes.

    I thought you'd be familiar with that convention, being a scientist.

    /davblo2

    Complain about this comment

  • 399. At 5:46pm on 01 Dec 2009, davblo2 wrote:

    PAWB46 #397: "If anyone thinks..."

    There, you've done it again.

    Please state the source of your quotes.

    Complain about this comment

  • 400. At 6:17pm on 01 Dec 2009, PAWB46 wrote:

    davblo #399:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2007/mar/14/scienceofclimatechange.climatechange

    Complain about this comment

  • 401. At 6:57pm on 01 Dec 2009, Grant Carlson wrote:

    As in most cases of public controversey, a handy remonder is to just 'follow the money'.

    This is must reading for fence-sitting warm mongers and only the true religionists, whose minds have long ago been shut down, will remain believers with all this evidence piling up.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574566124250205490.html?mod=djemEditorialPage

    Complain about this comment

  • 402. At 7:37pm on 01 Dec 2009, lewquo wrote:

    "Professor Phil Jones has today announced that he will stand aside as Director of the Climatic Research Unit until the completion of an independent Review resulting from allegations following the hacking and publication of emails from the Unit."

    http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2009/nov/homepagenews/CRUupdate

    Complain about this comment

  • 403. At 7:41pm on 01 Dec 2009, PAWB46 wrote:

    Richard: The BBC is always the first with the news. Is there any truth in the report that Phil Jones is temporarily stepping down as head of CRU?

    http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_BRITAIN_CLIMATE_HACKED_E_MAILS?SITE=TNJAC&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

    The only thing I have found at the BBC is that "Jones is new Welsh Labour Leader" http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/wales_politics/8389178.stm

    Complain about this comment

  • 404. At 7:55pm on 01 Dec 2009, lburt wrote:

    BTW, someone made the observation that many of the new links are from wattsupwiththat.com

    I'll tell you what I've noticed...the endless quoting of realclimate.org (supposedly "real science from real scientists") has stopped pretty much everywhere.

    Complain about this comment

  • 405. At 8:01pm on 01 Dec 2009, LabMunkey wrote:

    More coverage from the BBC on the emails and how they don't matter. MOre quotes from the IPCC backing up the CRU, an organisation with an incredible amount to loose should the CRU allegations be proved. MOre distracting arguments about what is real, and what isn't real science.

    Post normal science??? Never heard such rubbish.

    It seems the AGW camp are moving to a 'conclusion' phase before the inquiries have even started, in an attempt to head off the trouble at the pass- as it were.

    Editorials on what science must learn from the cru allegations. How will it affect working scientist? how will the IPCC grow to accomodate better safegurads. NOTHING about the seriosusness of the issue; FAKED DATA.

    I cannot say this clearly enough, the CRU debcale concrens 3 main things- Faked data, FOIA avoidance and 'Peer Review process' bastardisation.

    3 exceptionally serious charges.

    Yet the BBC says nothing. I'm being asked questions by overseas (collaberating) companies on the issue as i happen to work in the same county as the CRU.

    I have lost utter faith in the BBC. I shall never again go to them for anything of a scientific nature.

    Complain about this comment

  • 406. At 8:08pm on 01 Dec 2009, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @PAWB46 #397 #400
    @davblo2 #399

    Please be careful interpreting Hulme. He does wax philosophical and his language is ambiguous (especially out of context). I hope the following quote and the article from which it was taken gives you an idea of the man and his language:

    "I use "myths" not to imply falsehoods but in the anthropological sense - stories we tell that embody deeper assumptions about the world around us."

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327241.000-climate-change-no-eden-no-apocalypse.html?full=true

    Complain about this comment

  • 407. At 8:09pm on 01 Dec 2009, LabMunkey wrote:

    few days old- but apt

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100018211/climategate-the-bbc-is-still-pretending-not-to-notice/

    Complain about this comment

  • 408. At 8:11pm on 01 Dec 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    anybody who still thinks ClimateGate is a storm in a teacup, read this:

    http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-fraud-is-everywhere-suny-albany-and-queens-university-belfast-join-climategate-pjm-exclusive/

    the article is written by a climate scientist who's work was pushed out by The Team

    In 2007, I published a peer-reviewed paper alleging that some important research relied upon by the IPCC (for the treatment of urbanization effects) was fraudulent. The emails show that Tom Wigley — one of the most oft-cited climatologists and an extreme warming advocate — thought my paper was valid. They also show that Phil Jones, the head of the Climatic Research Unit, tried to convince the journal editor not to publish my paper.

    Perhaps this is the confirmation the BBC are looking for, before they "break" this story?

    Complain about this comment

  • 409. At 8:14pm on 01 Dec 2009, RobWansbeck wrote:

    Realclimate had a peak but has taken a nose-dive:

    http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/realclimate.org

    Complain about this comment

  • 410. At 8:17pm on 01 Dec 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    @PAWB46 #403

    Apparently, Jones is stepping down temporarily pending an investigation, and not before time, but the investigation is bound to find him innocent of any wrong doings, isn't it?

    Complain about this comment

  • 411. At 8:30pm on 01 Dec 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    it also seems Monckton isn't going to let those involved get away with iy, he is bringing charges against those involved:

    http://pathstoknowledge.wordpress.com/2009/12/01/too-late-for-resignations-in-climategate-as-requests-for-charages-are-being-filed/

    Lord Monckton of Brenchley joins The Corbett Report once again to discuss the report that he has filed jointly with Professor Fred Singer against the scientists connected to the ongoing climategate scandal. We discuss the basis of the report, what is likely to happen from this point, a timeframe for the possible criminal investigation stemming from this report and how people can stay up to date with this issue.

    Complain about this comment

  • 412. At 8:41pm on 01 Dec 2009, ghostofsichuan wrote:

    Copenhagen is about politics not science. The developing countries, a term used to describe those countries where the ruling governments and their relatives own most of the production or control the licenses that provide for monopolies, only want the cheapest energy possible to increase profits. The environmental pollution in these countries cause death and disability on a daily basis but the governments simply do not care about such matters. The business of cheap labor impacts all labor and in the developed world what is being recognized is that secure employment is no longer available. The bankers and investors care only about profit and not about nations. Multi-national means they will betray anyone. The global economy is an instrument to pit people againist people to determine who will work for the lowest wages. What the developing countries are finding out is that as long as there is a poorer nation with a government with consolidated power they too can be abandoned by business for higher profits. The bailout of the banks have put in motion further financial difficulties worldwide, because that money will not be productive or create new jobs. The Period of the Warring States, the Dark Ages, the Great Depression, call it what you will but difficult times are ahead as power is never given up willingly.

    Complain about this comment

  • 413. At 8:48pm on 01 Dec 2009, PAWB46 wrote:

    Man-made global warming is real. David Shukman (I know all about science cos I used to be a BBC world affairs correspondent) says so and he has talked to Lord Stern who understands the physics of CO2 so it must be right and we ordinary physicists and scientists have to learn the scientific truth from failed economists. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8389547.stm

    Funny how the ordinary citizens aren't fooled by all this political nonsense and preaching by the BBC. I wonder why?

    Complain about this comment

  • 414. At 8:54pm on 01 Dec 2009, Jack Hughes wrote:

    Prof. Jones is standing down - confirmed by UEA

    Complain about this comment

  • 415. At 8:54pm on 01 Dec 2009, bowmanthebard wrote:

    JaneBasingstoke #406:

    "Please be careful interpreting Hulme. He does wax philosophical"

    Hulme clearly has no knowledge of or training in philosophy of science, however.

    Complain about this comment

  • 416. At 8:55pm on 01 Dec 2009, PAWB46 wrote:

    Jane: It's difficult for an old-fashioned scientist like me to take anything serious from somebody who talks about "post-normal science". Indeed I am seriously alarmed that such things can even be contemplated. Science is not something to change like fashion or pc-ness. Richard P Feynman would be turning in his grave. Wish that he were still around.

    Complain about this comment

  • 417. At 8:56pm on 01 Dec 2009, Jack Hughes wrote:

    ClimateGate is now featured on this YouTube video

    Complain about this comment

  • 418. At 9:00pm on 01 Dec 2009, davblo2 wrote:

    JaneBasingstoke #406: "Please be careful interpreting Hulme. He does wax philosophical and his language is ambiguous (especially out of context)."

    Vey true. PAWB46 has misunderstood him...

    @PAWB46 #397 #400: "Can you believe that? Don't use normal science, trade truth for influence. I think that sums up CRU, Mann etc and Climategate."

    ... after presenting a piece from "The appliance of science" by Mike Hulme.

    You, who claim to understand "truth" better than some of us. Go back and re-read what you quoted. It helps if you add the preceding paragraph...

    "Two years ago, Tony Blair announced the large, government-backed international climate change conference in Exeter by asking for the conference scientists to "identify what level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is self-evidently too much".

    This is the wrong question to ask of science. Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking, although science will gain some insights into the question if it recognises the socially contingent dimensions of a post-normal science. But to proffer such insights, scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence. If scientists want to remain listened to, to bear influence on policy, they must recognise the social limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity."

    Shall I explain it to you?

    Tony Blair asked, of scientists, "what level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is self-evidently too much?"

    Mike Hulme says that is not a question for science to answer; because basically science unearths "truths" but is not normally able to pontificate on the possible social outcomes, good or bad.

    To deal with such insights (how much GHG is too much?) he suggests scientists and politicians trade. Not trade truth for non-truth, but trade with each other... the scientists proffer the "truths" and the politicians proffer their influence. A working deal.

    He goes on, that if scientists want to influence policy they must accept their limitations in the social context and concentrate instead on showing the value of their scientific work.

    Not too difficult was it?

    I expect you to withdraw your accusations.

    /davblo2

    Complain about this comment

  • 419. At 9:09pm on 01 Dec 2009, PAWB46 wrote:

    Viscount Monckton doesn't pull any punches. Is anyone at BBC on his list I wonder?

    Complain about this comment

  • 420. At 9:15pm on 01 Dec 2009, PAWB46 wrote:

    davblo: AAArrrggghhhh

    Complain about this comment

  • 421. At 9:16pm on 01 Dec 2009, Jack Hughes wrote:

    Science Museum loses the poll

    "In the run-up to the Copenhagen conference we invited Science Museum visitors and web users to respond to the following statement with ‘count me in’ or ‘count me out’:

    "I've seen the evidence. And I want the government to prove they're serious about climate change by negotiating a strong, effective, fair deal at Copenhagen."

    In the PROVE IT! gallery, 3408 people chose to count in and 626 chose to count out. On the website, 2650 users counted in and 7612 counted out."

    Complain about this comment

  • 422. At 9:28pm on 01 Dec 2009, davblo2 wrote:

    PAWB46 #420: "AAArrrggghhhh"

    I take it that's you way of apologising to Mike Hulme.

    Strange, but; if it's the best you can do; ok.

    /davblo2

    Complain about this comment

  • 423. At 9:28pm on 01 Dec 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    @Jack_Hughes_NZ #421

    The powers that be will probably do an Ireland and make them vote again until we give the right answer

    ;)

    Complain about this comment

  • 424. At 9:41pm on 01 Dec 2009, bowmanthebard wrote:

    davblo2 #218:

    "Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking, although science will gain some insights into the question if it recognises the socially contingent dimensions of a post-normal science."

    Huh? -- I didn't know Sir Humphrey Appleby was in our little group!

    You use the term 'normal science' (and 'post-normal science') here, as if adverting to Thomas Kuhn, who coined it. If you mean to use the term in Kuhn's sense, be aware that he did not think "normal science" involved "truth-seeking", but (what he called) "problem-solving" instead.

    One reason why the everyday conduct of university science departments are of interest to the general tax-paying public is that the activity of "problem solving" can quite easily turn into the business of "solving the problem of where the heck do I get next year's funding from", or "solving the problem of my intellectual enemies getting their stuff published".

    Evidently, that is the sort of problem-solving "normal science" conducted at the University of East Anglia.

    Taxpayers have a similar interest in the everyday conduct of the BBC, by the way, because "normal journalism" also involves "problem-solving". I look with amazed wonder -- and delight, if I'm honest -- at the way current BBC silence means "digging an ever-deeper hole" for themselves to protect people, some of whom are likely to be found guilty of fraud, a criminal offence.

    Keep digging, chaps -- your lack of journalistic integrity and general intellectual cowardice may eventually change the BBC forever! Pity about your reputations as "journalists" though.





    Complain about this comment

  • 425. At 9:45pm on 01 Dec 2009, RobWansbeck wrote:

    “climategate jones steps-down” 29,100 Google hits.

    Apparently there has been some sort of problem at the CRU but I haven't seen any mention on any BBC news bulletins.

    I wonder what the problem could be?

    Complain about this comment

  • 426. At 10:11pm on 01 Dec 2009, Jack Hughes wrote:

    Here are the 8 symptoms of group-think (peer-reviewed Janis, 1977) - do they sound, err, familiar ?

    1. Illusions of invulnerability creating excessive optimism and encouraging risk taking. Check.

    2. Rationalizing warnings that might challenge the group’s assumptions. Check.

    3. Unquestioned belief in the morality of the group, causing members to ignore the consequences of their actions. Check.

    4. Stereotyping those who are opposed to the group as weak, evil, biased, spiteful, disfigured, impotent, or stupid. Check.

    5. Direct pressure to conform placed on any member who questions the group, couched in terms of “disloyalty”. Check.

    6. Self censorship of ideas that deviate from the apparent group consensus. Check.

    7. Illusions of unanimity among group members, silence is viewed as agreement. Check.

    8. Mind guards — self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting information. Check.

    Complain about this comment

  • 427. At 10:28pm on 01 Dec 2009, RobWansbeck wrote:

    BBC news web page latest news:

    “Police say Tiger Woods guilty of careless driving, but will not face criminal charges”

    Will Jones be so lucky?

    BBC TV 10 o'clock news makes no mention of Jones or CRU just more mention of Antarctic melting.

    Google hits for “climategate jones steps-down” now 29,300.

    Complain about this comment

  • 428. At 10:37pm on 01 Dec 2009, GeeDeeSea wrote:

    @JaneBasingstoke #392

    Thanks for response. If climate change is happening, does it matter whether it is caused by man, or natural, or a combination? And as carbon fuels are finite and air pollution undesirable, the action and changes required in human behaviour seem to be the same to me. (Reduce use of carbon energy. Implement alternatives. Prepare for rising temps and sea levels. Reduce waste. Discourage population growth.)

    If global warming is either false, or not caused by man, what is in the IPCC Toolkit which might be unnecessary?

    Complain about this comment

  • 429. At 10:39pm on 01 Dec 2009, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @bowmanthebard #415 #424
    @PAWB46 #416
    (@davblo2)

    Agreed he could express himself better, but that really was the point of my post. And Sir Humphrey he is not, rather the opposite.

    If you have problems with Hulme's prose, perhaps you might want to submit samples to this publication:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regular_mini-sections_in_Private_Eye#Pseuds_Corner

    Complain about this comment

  • 430. At 10:56pm on 01 Dec 2009, davblo2 wrote:

    bowmanthebard #424: "davblo2 #218: [actually #418], You use the term 'normal science'..."

    No you got it wrong.

    I'm repeating a quotation of Mike Hulme which PAWB46 gave, but I included the preceding paragraph because it sets the context. (Which of course PAWB46 saw fit to omit).

    The quotation runs from "Two years ago, Tony Blair announced the large..." and continues over the next paragraph to "...reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity"

    So I didn't say what you thought I had said. Mike Hulme said it. I see the (quote in a quote) question from Tony Blair caused nested quotes which probably misled you.

    Maybe you can read my #418 again in a new light.

    /davblo2

    Complain about this comment

  • 431. At 11:01pm on 01 Dec 2009, thinkforyourself wrote:

    The 2007 Assessment Report of the UN’s climate change panel (the IPCC) — made up of the world’s foremost climate scientists — provided unequivocal evidence for a warming climate, and a high degree of certainty that human activities are largely responsible for global warming since the middle of the 20th century. However, the IPCC process is based only on information already published and even since the last Assessment Report the scientific evidence for dangerous, long-term and potentially irreversible climate change has strengthened significantly.

    Complain about this comment

  • 432. At 11:06pm on 01 Dec 2009, thinkforyourself wrote:

    1,870,000 google hits for alien abductions

    Complain about this comment

  • 433. At 11:07pm on 01 Dec 2009, andrew9999 wrote:


    @pawb46
    @poitsplace
    (@janebasingstoke, )

    Sorry but I keep reading your posts that complain about other peoples lack of physics understanding, I'm not claiming to be a giant of atmospheric physics but I don't think its true that warming from co2 breaks the second law of thermodynamics, unless your understanding of it is based on the simplified slab model which is used to help people understand.

    The reason why increases in co2 concentration in the upper troposphere (where water vapour is optically thin and not that important as a greenhouse gas) makes such a difference is because that is where it radiates IR to space i.e. cooling.
    Concentration of co2 has to be low enough to be optically thin to IR for it to radiate to space otherwise higher 'layers' will reabsorb it and some of the energy back radiated etc. As you increase the concentration of co2 in the atmosphere the height where co2 is optically thin enough for this to happen is raised, as (in the troposphere) the temperature falls with height, co2 will now radiate to space at a lower temp. If it radiates at a lower temp it will radiate less energy to space. If less energy is radiated to space you know what happens.
    Is this about heat flowing from cold to hot,no.
    Where does this break the second law? It doesn't.

    Lord Monkton has used this line, is it because he doesn't understand it or for other reasons?

    Complain about this comment

  • 434. At 11:25pm on 01 Dec 2009, thinkforyourself wrote:

    Any Hope of Cutting Global Carbon Emissions?
    Absolutely. It is possible – if we give politicians a cold hard slap in the face. The fraudulence of
    the Copenhagen approach – “goals” for emission reductions, “offsets” that render even iron-clad
    goals almost meaningless, an ineffectual “cap-and-trade” mechanism – must be exposed. We
    must rebel against such politics-as-usual.
    Science reveals that climate is close to tipping points. It is a dead certainty that continued
    high emissions will create a chaotic dynamic situation for young people, with deteriorating
    climate conditions out of their control.
    Science also reveals what is needed to stabilize atmospheric composition and climate.
    Geophysical data on the carbon amounts in oil, gas and coal show that the problem is solvable, if
    we phase out global coal emissions within 20 years and prohibit emissions from unconventional
    fossil fuels such as tar sands and oil shale.

    Complain about this comment

  • 435. At 11:28pm on 01 Dec 2009, thinkforyourself wrote:

    Groundhog Day.
    For information on man made (anthropogenic) global warming, this is a really good link for people interested in finding out more about the science. Read, especially the Q&A (1 to 21) a bit further down:-
    http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/10/02/q-and-a-responses-to-climate-skeptics-arguments/
    and then this:-
    http://bravenewclimate.com/spot-the-recycled-denial-series/
    The author is Professor Barry Brook who holds the Foundation Sir Hubert Wilkins Chair of Climate Change and is Director of Climate Science at The Environment Institute, University of Adelaide.

    Complain about this comment

  • 436. At 11:29pm on 01 Dec 2009, rossglory wrote:

    #433 andrew9999

    probably for other reasons.......but monckton has made some pretty elemntary mistakes. he is definitely not a climate scientist despite what some of his followers may say.

    Complain about this comment

  • 437. At 11:38pm on 01 Dec 2009, andrew9999 wrote:

    @rossglory

    thats my feeling

    Complain about this comment

  • 438. At 11:41pm on 01 Dec 2009, bowmanthebard wrote:

    davblo2 wrote:

    "I didn't say what you thought I had said. Mike Hulme said it."

    My apologies. I'm sure you agree that the term 'post-normal' is ludicrous, I mistakenly got the impression that you were using it yourself, as if you understood what it meant.

    Complain about this comment

  • 439. At 00:00am on 02 Dec 2009, pph wrote:

    I have read link pointed to by Kamboshigh (post: 383) and am now so totally dismayed with the way this IPCC report has been accepted that it scares the bejeezus out of me.

    from link at post:383

    There were a flurry of reports, a few weeks ago, in the
    media and in particular on the BBC (UK) world-wide news
    service about the Himalayan glaciers melting rapidly in the
    face of global warming.



    Now I can almost understand that the BBC would want to build up coverage, -of things climate-, as we approach the Copenhagen conference, but if they subsequently find that they have been using information that is found to be flawed, should they then not correct that error?

    My apologies to those scientists that contribute to this thread but, this is a report that is shaping WORLD policies....and it doesn't get dates correct in the final literature? Really well reviewed then, tell me that this is untrue please!

    from link at post:383. Towards the end of the blog.

    It is premature at this stage to link global warming to the
    deteriorating state of Himalayan glaciers at this time. The
    Indian Environment Minister MR Jairam Ramesh has correctly
    observed "let us not write an epitaph on Himalaya glaciers
    at this time."




    Maybe I should just start watching CBeebies and East Enders on BBC…Oh, no!
    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100018294/how-the-bbc-funds-climate-change-revolutionaries/

    from above link:
    Various BBC teams have enjoyed training sessions on communicating sustainable development. Participants have ranged from producers for EastEnders to researchers on the CBeebies channel. We also developed the creative PR strategy for the launch of the BBC's online ethical fashion magazine


    Can someone advise me where to get some real news from please?
    ...I have even tried the "RT" link from earlier in this thread.
    Am I being starved of news?

    Complain about this comment

  • 440. At 00:27am on 02 Dec 2009, manysummits wrote:

    To ghostofsichuan #380:

    "Once a man learns to 'see' he finds himself alone in the world with nothing but folly." (Don Juan Matua)

    "A theme of the Teaching of the Buddha." (ghostofsichuan)
    -------------

    That's good to know - thank you.

    It would seem that one of the ways of the world is to have few who can 'see'. The churches are filled with devotees, the great books and the great teachings are almost universally acknowledged to be true, and my studies and experience of man and his world indicate that these religious views on life are also espoused in some form by the true hunter/gatherers of both the past and present world, i.e., animists, pagans etc..., all words which betray the very teachings I am sure of the Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed, Lao Tse etc..., and point the finger at the many who are only superficially religious.

    We are still a fearful group of primates, by and large, who say and believe one thing, and do another.

    Everything you have said and continue to say about governments and power, big business and human nature, bears the mark of truth in my eyes.

    Yet people, in the majority, are decent, by and large.

    Always we are taken advantage of, and finally, when more than enough has been withstood, we rebel.

    I was thinking, if one of our world leaders, from China, from Russia, from England, from the United States, just stood up and spoke to us all plainly about the current state of affairs the human race is facing, doubts and all, how incredibly refreshing that would be!

    This leader need not have solutions in his or her pocket, just the truth, doubts and all, as it is known at this time.

    The human race would watch this, and we would feel that we had been elevated to that state - responsible man/woman.

    What higher status would one want?

    The solutions would then be in our hands, for better or for worse.

    Is such a speech possible, do you think?

    - Manysummits -

    Complain about this comment

  • 441. At 00:28am on 02 Dec 2009, lewquo wrote:

    Why does the BBC refer a post (#402) to the Moderator that only has a quote from the UEA re. the status of Phil Jones and a link to the UAE press release re. the status of Phil Jones?

    I thought we were supposed accept everything from the UAE as Gospel.

    Complain about this comment

  • 442. At 00:31am on 02 Dec 2009, Sparklet wrote:

    Re #435
    Then I'll just have to revisit my response at 216 soveryodd


    -
    really you can't be serious - this is your proof!!!

    For example - the statements
    1. The IPCC is a political body and its reports are scientifically unreliable
    False.

    This has proven to be TRUE with the revelations by in his blog by Roger Pielke SR who resigned in protest (link already given). Similarly Chris Landsea who resigned because of politicisation link below
    http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/LandseaResignationLetterFromIPCC.htm
    and the testimony of Zorita (link already given)

    2. Science is not about consensus – Galileo was ridiculed by the authorities and the scientific establishment
    True – but misleading [??????]

    There are many many very emminent Scientists who disagree with the AGW theories - Read "The Deniers"


    5. Climate change has been happening throughout geological and human history. What is happening now is not outside the bounds of natural climatic variability.
    Mostly true – but irrelevant.

    IRRELEVANT !!!!! How convenient!

    8. It was warmer during medieval times
    Probably false, but irrelevant anyway.

    Accompanied by Mann's infamous and utterly discredited hockey stick graph!!!
    Oviously hasn't been amended yet for Mann's 'rediscovered' MWP
    Nor can they have seen this
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/29/the-medieval-warm-period-a-global-phenonmena-unprecedented-warming-or-unprecedented-data-manipulation/#more-13397

    9. Climate models are unreliable
    False.

    Despite failing to predict the cooling since 1998 and wasn't it mentioned somewhere in those e-mails that they thought this was a 'travesty' - but oh how true is the statement that "For any chaotic or complex system it is not possible to construct a simulation that will precisely predict the future time path of the system, except under very strict conditions such as complete, accurate knowledge of all initial parameters and a short prediction horizon. "
    I'm afraid it is this complete, accurate knowledge of all parameters that is so lacking in current climate science.

    11. Global warming ended around 1998 anyway – it’s been cooling since then.
    False. [!!!!!!]

    Obviously haven't checked out the satellite data (link given earlier) and "Scientists don’t cherry pick data like that because it is meaningless" Better tell Briffa that with his Yamal tree series
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/30/yamal-treering-proxy-temperature-reconstructions-dont-match-local-thermometer-records/

    17. Climate change is due to the effects of cosmic rays.
    False

    Hmmm - they really do need to catch up with svensmark
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/10/svensmark-global-warming-stopped-and-a-cooling-is-beginning-enjoy-global-warming-while-it-lasts/

    and so it goes on......................

    In fact the gist of this whole report seems to be that "The overwhelming, broad consensus of the world’s climate scientists is that we cannot explain observed climate changes without taking into account human influence"

    Sorry but this does absolutely NOTHING to convince me and the more that Climategate goes on the more we discover that there is far from being an 'overwhelming broad consensus'.



    Complain about this comment

  • 443. At 00:41am on 02 Dec 2009, RobWansbeck wrote:

    13,800,000 Google hits for “Climategate”, a word that has been out for little more than a week.

    32,400 Google hits for “Climategate Jones steps-down”, an event less than one day old.

    The BBC news page has just put up an item tucked away in a side bar under other top stories.

    Amusingly the title has changed this very minute demoting Jones from 'scientist' to 'climate data row man'.

    Perhaps under the present circumstances a change from 'climate scientist' to climate data row man' could be considered a promotion.

    Complain about this comment

  • 444. At 01:04am on 02 Dec 2009, who said what wrote:

    @PAWB 333

    Thanks, I don't understand any of the science involved and from whats written on this blogs it seems that is also true of the researchers.

    I wouldn't say I fit in to either side of the debate because of my lack of understanding. Where I would fit into, and this is also true of friends I've discussed this with, is that until I see reasoned debate and not political spin and sensational reporting I'll wait and see.

    No matter the arguments for and against man made warming, we should all be doing what we can to reduce our impact on the environment, however, shooting for bigger taxes more expensive energy is not a sensible way forward.

    Complain about this comment

  • 445. At 01:36am on 02 Dec 2009, pph wrote:

    #442: Sparklet

    Good information.

    Sadly, my Government representatives feel they now have their mandate, -dare I say through BAD science? But BAD science has given them the mandate they sought-, and will use that 'evidence' towards their own political aims...Maybe they don't want/need science anymore!

    After all, my then Environment Secretary, David Miliband, announced in a commons reply ~2006/7, [paraphrased],that the debate was over!

    Now here we are a couple of years later thinking that we could re-start that debate again…won’t happen, hopefully that does happen in the actual science, but I feel the science/political relationship is not required anymore.

    [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]

    Complain about this comment

  • 446. At 01:56am on 02 Dec 2009, pph wrote:

    [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
    Shame: try a google search for:

    youtube another suitcase in another hall

    Complain about this comment

  • 447. At 02:27am on 02 Dec 2009, xtragrumpymike2 wrote:

    A little knowledge is a dangerous thing

    Meaning

    A small amount of knowledge can cause people to think they are more expert than they really are.

    Origin

    Alexander Pope - A little knowledge is a dangerous thing First used by Alexander Pope (1688 - 1744) in An Essay on Criticism, 1709:

    "A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again."

    372. At 1:59pm on 01 Dec 2009, MangoChutneyUKOK wrote:

    "if the hole in the ozone layer is curing global warming, should we ban the ban on CFC's?"

    Mango....don't believe everything that RobWansbeck wrote: on 371 especially when he gets it from the BBC!

    The depletion of Ozone due to chlorine from CFC's is well established (unlike AGW)and there is no scientific evidence that has been presented to dispute this. However, as a person who in part of my earlier career was heavily involved in Fire suppression, I would dearly love to see the ban on one particular CFC lifted. BTM (Bromo triFluoro Methane) is probably the best fire extinguishing agent ever invented and if used to it's ultimate capabilities could put "Fire" Brigades out of business. So in that particular context I would support your "ban' on "ban".

    However, my opening comment was not directed at you but the likes of Rob (and there are several like him). As I have stated before, it's amazing what ludicrous statements one can make when protected by nom-de-plumes!

    I make a policy on not commenting on something I know nothing about but I found this statement quite interesting!

    "Does ozone have an impact on the ocean's role as a “carbon sink”? Yes, according to researchers from three laboratories attached to INSU-CNRS , UPMC, CEA, IRD, MNHN and UVSQ. Using original simulations, they have demonstrated that the hole in the ozone layer reduces atmospheric carbon uptake in the Southern Ocean and contributes to the increase in ocean acidity. These results, which are published online in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, should have a considerable impact on future models of the IPCC , which, for the moment, do not take ozone variations into account".

    No doubt you will want to question the wording ...."increasing the acidity" but in chemical parlance "reducing the alkalinity" and "increasing the acidity" have essentially the same meaning.



    Complain about this comment

  • 448. At 03:42am on 02 Dec 2009, Sigurdur wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 449. At 05:27am on 02 Dec 2009, lburt wrote:

    @andrew9999

    Concentration of co2 has to be low enough to be optically thin to IR for it to radiate to space otherwise higher 'layers' will reabsorb it and some of the energy back radiated etc. As you increase the concentration of co2 in the atmosphere the height where co2 is optically thin enough for this to happen is raised, as (in the troposphere) the temperature falls with height, co2 will now radiate to space at a lower temp.

    However if you'll look at the outgoing spectrum of the earth
    http://acd.ucar.edu/textbook/ch15/fig3.jpg

    You'll see that the notch for CO2 corresponds to a temperature of about 220k. Would you care to guess what the temperature is at the tropopause? I'll save you the trouble...it's right around 220k. The layer can't move up, the stratosphere actually starts warming again. Warm up the air below and water vapor takes the bulk of the energy (exponential increases in evaporation) and being only 60% the mass of air, drags the energy up with it...and deposits the energy higher in the atmosphere. Since the water cycle turnover and lapse rate difference between moist/dry air are so different (and powerful), guess what greenhouse gas loses the fight and gets sent disproportionately higher amounts of energy than the ground :D

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:795px-Emagram.gif

    And again, currently 30% of the earth's entire energy budget is channeled through the water cycle...enough to evaporate 1300 cubic kilometers per day. Until it gets cold enough to remove most of the water vapor...water vapor will dominate the tropospheric gradient.

    Complain about this comment

  • 450. At 06:27am on 02 Dec 2009, PAWB46 wrote:

    RobWansbeck ##443

    Yes the BBC managed to give the news of Phil Jones stepping aside without mentioning Climategate. http://pathstoknowledge.wordpress.com/2009/12/01/too-late-for-resignations-in-climategate-as-requests-for-charages-are-being-filed/

    No mention of FOIA violation and all the other msideeds (crimes - see Viscount Monckton), just one email taken out of context. No reporter named, so not an important enough story for Richard Black or Roger Harrabin or David Shukman to cover.

    The BBC cover-up continues. Shame on the BBC.

    Complain about this comment

  • 451. At 07:07am on 02 Dec 2009, PAWB46 wrote:

    Andrew9999:

    Look at the global energy budgets of people like Kiehl & Trenberth ("it's an outrage we cannot understand the cooling" or words to that effect). Energy from the sun absorbed by the earth's surface = 161W^m-2, energy from greenhouse gases absorbed by the earth's surface (so-called back radiation or downwelling radiation) = 333W^m-2???

    poitsplace is correct (the notch) as the simple expalantion below shows.

    The tropopause is a cold region sandwiched between warmer regions above and below. For this situation to be stable (and it is stable), the tropopause must have a way of losing energy to a colder sink – otherwise it would warm up due to energy input from above and below. The only colder region available is space itself and the only energy transfer mechanism available is radiative loss.

    Thermal emissions from the tropopause will all be in the far infrared and can only occur at the characteristic absorption/emission lines of the greenhouse gases in the tropopause. There is however a problem with this. 10% of Earth’s atmosphere is above the tropopause in the stratosphere and the greenhouse gases here would normally absorb the emissions from the tropopause. Further, since the air in the stratosphere is warmer, the downwards radiation to the tropopause would exceed the upwards radiation from it, leading to a net energy gain in the tropopause. However, the tropopause must have a mechanism for losing energy and remain colder than the troposphere below and the stratosphere above.

    There is therefore an abrupt change in the greenhouse gas composition at the tropopause such that the tropopause can radiate at wavelengths which the stratosphere is not capable of absorbing. The tropopause represents a temperature inversion which greatly inhibits convection and cosequently there is a high concentration of water vapour in the troposphere and a low concentration in the stratosphere. In fact that is confirmed by the Met Office, see:

    [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]

    “The atmosphere is well mixed below 100 km, and apart from its highly variable water vapour and ozone contents, its composition is as shown below.”

    “As well as a noticeable change in temperature, the move from the troposphere into the stratosphere is also marked by an abrupt change in the concentrations of the variable trace constituents. Water vapour decreases sharply, whilst ozone concentrations increase. These strong contrasts in concentrations are a reflection of little mixing between the moist, ozone-poor troposphere and the dry, ozone-rich stratosphere.”

    This explains how the tropopause can remain colder than the air above and below. It also explains why temperature rises in the stratosphere. Ozone is a strong absorber of ultraviolet energy from the sun and such absorption warms the stratosphere. The energy gained from the sun is re-emitted as far infrared energy at the absorption/emission lines of the greenhouse gases present, mainly CO2 and methane. The energy absorption by ozone is greatest at around 50 km altitude which is why the temperature peaks at this point and the temperature profile down to the tropopause is more or less an upside down version of what happens in the troposphere.

    Now the tropopause radiates at all wavelengths corresponding to the greenhouse gas absorption/emission lines but those greenhouse gases present in the stratosphere also radiate back down onto the tropopause and since they are warmer, the downward radiation exceeds the upwards radiation. Thus the net energy loss from the tropopause can only occur at the wavelengths corresponding to the water vapour absorption/emission lines.

    The implication of all this is that thermal energy from the Earth's surface can only escape to space in two ways. Firstly by surface emission escaping directly to space at wavelengths which the greenhouse gases do not absorb (atmospheric window). Secondly, by emission from the tropopause at the wavelengths corresponding to the water vapour absorption/emission lines.

    So Andrew your statement "The reason why increases in co2 concentration in the upper troposphere (where water vapour is optically thin and not that important as a greenhouse gas) makes such a difference is because that is where it radiates IR to space i.e. cooling. Concentration of co2 has to be low enough to be optically thin to IR for it to radiate to space otherwise higher 'layers' will reabsorb it and some of the energy back radiated etc. As you increase the concentration of co2 in the atmosphere the height where co2 is optically thin enough for this to happen is raised, as (in the troposphere) the temperature falls with height, co2 will now radiate to space at a lower temp. If it radiates at a lower temp it will radiate less energy to space. If less energy is radiated to space you know what happens." is completely wrong.

    Water vapour is the important radiator to space, not CO2.

    Complain about this comment

  • 452. At 07:12am on 02 Dec 2009, PAWB46 wrote:

    I just heard on the news that the Met Office is about to set off for Copenhagen to let them know that the feedbacks are "worse than we thought". It wasn't stated whether the feedbacks were worse in the positive sense, meaning that man-made climate change is a non-problem. That would be "worse than we thought" for the Met Office because their funding could be slashed and the order for the new super-computer could be cancelled.

    I hope the Met office have left someone behind to mind the shop. Otherwise I might have to get the seaweed out again, or ask my old neighbouring farmer.

    Complain about this comment

  • 453. At 07:37am on 02 Dec 2009, PAWB46 wrote:

    I tell you what. Phil Jones has aged at least 30 years this last couple of weeks. See the BBC picture today at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/norfolk/8389727.stm and compare it with the CRU picture at http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/pjones/

    Complain about this comment

  • 454. At 07:47am on 02 Dec 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    @soveryodd #431

    The IPCC 2007 AR4 tells us the IPCC is 90% certain that AGW is real, so even the IPCC is a little sceptical of AGW.

    AR4, however, tells us AGW will have a unique signature (chapter 9, page 675 from memory), which, despite over 2 decades of searching, has never been found. So much for "unequivocal evidence".

    435

    you still haven't answered my response to this when i stated the list wasn't up to date and didn't even try to tackle other evidence to suggest climate sensitivity is low. There is little point in linking to a Q&A that is nonsense or if all you are doing is cutting and pasting

    @xtragrumpymike2 #47

    it was meant as a joke

    Complain about this comment

  • 455. At 07:50am on 02 Dec 2009, lburt wrote:

    @Andrew9999 RE:water vapor (adding to PAWB46)

    Oh and notice that water emits at about its freezing point (273k).
    http://acd.ucar.edu/textbook/ch15/fig3.jpg

    It will always be emitting at this temperature because that's when most of it condenses out. It also has the interesting trick of carrying 30% of earth's total energy budget with it (in the water cycle) as latent heat...entirely outside of any radiative transfer until the water condenses. Heh, and as it condenses we're right back to the same old emission temperatures.

    Complain about this comment

  • 456. At 08:09am on 02 Dec 2009, Kamboshigh wrote:

    Well see guys the power of the internet, BBC is now all over climategate at last. Radio 4 and 5 reporting the basics but manipulated data seems to be mentioned every 15 minutes

    Just a small point for the alarmist crew IT IS MANIPULATED, AGW DOES NOT EXIST. I wonder if Norfolk police are investigating something else rather than an computer hacking?

    Comments please Mr.Black?

    Complain about this comment

  • 457. At 08:17am on 02 Dec 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    Is the BBC Fit for Purpose?

    The BBC is still printing breathlessly, like a fat man after running the first 100 yards of a marathon, on stories "proving" AGW, and yet print virtually nothing on ClimateGate, Jones stepping down from CRU and Monckton taking the Team to court over AGW.

    But wait! They did report on X Factor!

    Seriously, Auntie, you really need to get back to the service we all new and loved, before the people decide it's time we stopped paying for you

    Complain about this comment

  • 458. At 08:18am on 02 Dec 2009, PAWB46 wrote:

    I suspect the BBC will soon be reporting what Viscount Monckton has to say about it at http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/climategate.html

    Complain about this comment

  • 459. At 08:29am on 02 Dec 2009, infiniti wrote:

    Re 451:

    Your explaination is completely wrong and at odds with scientific calculations. The atmosphere does not radiate simply from the tropopause, the bulk of radiation emitted from the atmosphere into space originates from below the tropopause.

    To see why this is true consider the fact that the tropopause does not contain sufficient greenhouse gases to absorb all of the IR emitted from below.

    Adding more co2 to the atmosphere results in the average emission having to occur from a higher location, a colder location, therefore reducing outgoing radiation - and the Earth has to warm to balance that.

    Complain about this comment

  • 460. At 08:30am on 02 Dec 2009, infiniti wrote:

    Re 454:

    The tropospheric hotspot is not a unique signature of AGW. A tropospheric hotpot is expected to occur from any cause of warming, not just AGW.

    Complain about this comment

  • 461. At 08:30am on 02 Dec 2009, PAWB46 wrote:

    poitsplace #455

    You are correct about the 30% (just in case anyone says you haven't given a reference). The Earth's energy budget is roughly as follows (units W^m-2)

    Incoming solar: 341
    Reflected solar: 102
    (Net incoming: 239)
    Absorbed by surface: 161
    Absorbed by atmosphere: 78
    Latent heat: 80
    Convection: 17
    Radiated from surface: 64

    80 is ~30% of 239

    The atmosphere radiates the 239 for an energy balance, of which 40 is from the surface through the atmospheric window and the rest from the atmosphere (so-called greenhouse gases, water vapour, methane).

    Numbers taken from Kiehl and Trenberth.

    Complain about this comment

  • 462. At 08:33am on 02 Dec 2009, infiniti wrote:

    re 449 poitsplace:

    Look at the diagram more closely, you'll see the sides of the co2 notch do not reach 220K. That's where the additional warming happens, when more co2 is added to the atmosphere the notch widens, emissions that were from 260K will fall to 220K, etc. The result is less emission into space, and so the planet warms in order to push more out.

    Complain about this comment

  • 463. At 08:34am on 02 Dec 2009, Roland D wrote:

    Even if the BBC does start reporting on what the Climategate files are said to show, will anyone in the sceptic camp now believe they are reporting fairly?

    Complain about this comment

  • 464. At 08:38am on 02 Dec 2009, infiniti wrote:

    How can we trust psuedoskeptics who try to pretend the greenhouse effect doesn't exist, or psuedoskeptics who claim a simple paragraph can overturn actual calculations showing co2 doubling causes warming?

    Even the skeptical scientists like Lindzen and Spencer disagree with their assertions about the greenhouse effect.

    Psuedoskeptics rely on distorting anything they can get away with. They'll even try denying co2 rise is human caused - just you wait.

    They feign knowledge on the matter which they just don't have.

    The same style pseudoskeptics are all over the telegraph blogs too - feigning expertize on this subject before making the key error of exposing themselves though making the false claim that the leaked code was from a climate model...

    Complain about this comment

  • 465. At 08:45am on 02 Dec 2009, infiniti wrote:

    re 463:
    "Even if the BBC does start reporting on what the Climategate files are said to show, will anyone in the sceptic camp now believe they are reporting fairly?"

    No because the bulk, if not all (I haven't see all), allegations from the emails are false. They are either based on a big dose of assumption (ie only work if you *assume* they are talking about data manipulation), or they are hillarious misunderstandings of the science.

    For example a lot of the psuedoskeptics simply read a phrase like "I tried to milk all I could from the data" in an email and assume that means fraud, even though it's more likely to be exasperation that the data is too noisy to show a signal.

    I notice Trenbeth's email has been misrepresented on this thread in the past few posts too.

    Complain about this comment

  • 466. At 08:51am on 02 Dec 2009, GeeDeeSea wrote:

    @MangoChutneyUKOK #457

    Its been reported several times on the news. And on FM. Online. On digital.

    Complain about this comment

  • 467. At 08:53am on 02 Dec 2009, lburt wrote:

    @infinity #462 (the sides of the CO2 notch)

    Again you fall for the trick. You play up one side of the equations and completely ignore the rest. All the other layers of the atmosphere emit MORE. The limiting factor is and will continue to be...the coldest layer. Since the tropopause (the coldest layer) is where the absorption takes place the tropopause will take the brunt of the warming because everything else radiates more. If the tropopause warms (which seems the ONLY logical result) its emissions increase. It MIGHT warm things up some but not very much...certainly not by the amount suggested by the COMPLETELY disembodied math. (which for some unfathomable reason assumes heat moves from colder areas to warmer ones)

    Complain about this comment

  • 468. At 08:59am on 02 Dec 2009, PAWB46 wrote:

    infinity

    "Your explaination is completely wrong and at odds with scientific calculations."

    No it isn't. It is your explanation that is wrong.

    Complain about this comment

  • 469. At 09:00am on 02 Dec 2009, LabMunkey wrote:

    @464.

    sigh.


    Ok time to try a different tact.

    there is a lot of debate on the effect of C02 in the atmosphere. If possible, could any of the pro-AGW 'camp' (i apologise, i am struggling to find terms for either side that aren't being used in a deroggetary fashion) post any proof that co2 causes temperature rises- IN the earths atmosphere.

    I am not interested in lab tests, i am not interested in projections, models, calculations, i want proof (a paper describing the link with emperical data to back it up would be nice), as apart from all the blustering on both sides about it's effect (co2), i am yet to see any paper that does anything of the sort.

    There is lot of data to show the climate is changing, lots of data showing co2 rises, none that i can see linking the two. Thank you.

    Complain about this comment

  • 470. At 09:04am on 02 Dec 2009, LabMunkey wrote:

    @465.

    Infinity you are, deliberatley or not, trying to distract from the issue.

    I, we (sceptics) could care less about the threatening behaviour of the emails, the word 'trick' or other aspects. The only thing in the emails that is of major concern is the CLEAR EVIDENCE of peer review abuse.

    It is the DATA manipulation, programming notes and clear evidence of improper presentation that is of worry. Coupld this with the fact NZ and AUS are showing the same improper data manipulation (i.e. fraud) then we have a serisous and emerging problem.

    Address those points, don't try to obfuscate the issue.

    Complain about this comment

  • 471. At 09:21am on 02 Dec 2009, ScudLewis wrote:

    @LabMunkey I agree. Why is CO2 the big bad wolf?

    Complain about this comment

  • 472. At 09:41am on 02 Dec 2009, Jack Frost wrote:

    Easy ways to line your pockets in the name of humanity.

    Seven arrests in suspected £38m carbon credit fraud - UK Telegraph

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/markets/6057263/Seven-arrests-in-suspected-38m-carbon-credit-fraud.html

    _________________________________________________


    Denmark rife with CO2 fraud - The Copenhagn Post

    "Police and authorities in several European countries are investigating scams worth billions of kroner, which all originate in the Danish quota register. The CO2 quotas are traded in other EU countries."

    http://www.cphpost.dk/news/national/88-national/47643-denmark-rife-with-co2-fraud.html




    All aboard, the gravy train. (Coal fired of course)


    Merry Winterville

    Complain about this comment

  • 473. At 09:48am on 02 Dec 2009, PAWB46 wrote:

    infinity:

    Please explain yourself in scientific language (see your #459). And you can go through my post at #451 & 461 line-by-line and tell me where I am going wrong.

    Given that the absorbance of the CO2 in the atmosphere is >> 2000 and the tropopause contains plenty of water vapour, can you explain why, in your words "the tropopause does not contain sufficient greenhouse gases to absorb all of the IR emitted from below"?

    Complain about this comment

  • 474. At 10:10am on 02 Dec 2009, Sparklet wrote:

    Re #445. At 01:36am on 02 Dec 2009, pph
    Yes - one of the most concerning issues in this whole event is the refusal of our politicians to acknowledge the CRU scandal . Perhaps because they voted for the Climate Bill last year (almost to a man - only a handful voted against) at huge cost to the British taxpayer. Now finding that the AGW 'science' is debunked is a huge embarrassment to them. Interesting to see Climategate has scarce had a menion on the main politics boards (other than in the comments sections!!) but like the BBC the sheer weight of public opinion will force them to comment sooner or later.
    Have a look at this blog from David Cameron about the importance of Copenhagen and read the comments. I'm not sure how long he'll be able to keep up his Climategate 'denial'
    http://blog.conservatives.com/index.php/2009/11/27/the-copenhagen-summit-is-of-historic-importance/

    Conservative Home have at last been forced to acknowledge it but I still can't find it at all on Labour Home. However now we have this
    http://conservativehome.blogs.com/thetorydiary/2009/12/david-davis-joins-tory-backlash-on-the-environment.html

    The tide is turning.

    Complain about this comment

  • 475. At 10:22am on 02 Dec 2009, xtragrumpymike2 wrote:

    454. At 07:47am on 02 Dec 2009, MangoChutneyUKOK wrote:

    "@xtragrumpymike2 #47

    it was meant as a joke"

    Not quite sure what #47 has to do with you or me!

    While we are on the subject, really surprised at your faith in "Lord" Monckton. Lawyers clap their hands with glee when he starts proceedings. Didn't do all that well when he took on the government for allowing Al Gores movie in schools (or to be more precise, the truck driver he manipulated into taking the case didn't do too well!)

    When you refer to "jokes" Monckton doesn't even rate it with Lenny Henry.

    Complain about this comment

  • 476. At 10:34am on 02 Dec 2009, Roland D wrote:

    465. At 08:45am on 02 Dec 2009, infinity wrote:
    No because the bulk, if not all (I haven't see all), allegations from the emails are false.


    Perhaps they are. I haven't the scientific know-how to judge. But they are sufficiently serious that they should have been commented on by the BBC (and I include here not just the e-mails but apparent evidence of data manipulation). Instead we are forced to try to find out for ourselves on the internet. And I have to ask myself why such an important issue is being dodged.

    Complain about this comment

  • 477. At 10:42am on 02 Dec 2009, xtragrumpymike2 wrote:

    RE Mango and last comment.

    Just checked again and you were referring to #447

    Actually...I took it (your comment) in the manner you suggested...I certainly wasn't taking you seriously. As I stated ...the main target of my#447 was those who I consider claim expertise which cannot be verified and occasionally wander into topics that they obviously haven't a clue on.

    When you look at your "joke" you will see that the joke is actually on Rob whose comments on ozone depletion are as accurate as some of Monckton"s expose's on AGW.

    Wasn't it the Canadian newspaper The Province that criticized Monckton's assertions as the product of a "whacked-out, far-right ideology, combined with an ego the size of the Antarctic ice sheet."

    Complain about this comment

  • 478. At 10:44am on 02 Dec 2009, Colonicus42 wrote:

    Ahh the pointless back and forth with nobody willing to give.

    #468 illistrates the point well.

    Climate change advocate - Your wrong.
    Sceptic - No your wrong.

    And round and round we go.

    One quick point for PAWB46, did you forget about density? The atmospheres density obviously decreases with altitude.

    Anyway I won't join that argument, I've just been thinking about something slightly left field that always gets forgotten.

    Theres one particular argument I would like to put to the sceptics, that I don't think anyone has tried here yet.

    If you believe CO2 isn't a problem, climate change isn't happening or if it's not our fault.
    Why not try to reduce the amount of polution we put into the atmosphere?
    Why not reduce our use of fossil fuels?
    Why not focus on renewable enrgy instead of relying on forign gas, oil and coal?
    Why not reduce traffic exhaust fumes in cities?
    Whats wrong with trying to use less energy when it saves you money?
    Why not recycle?
    Why not use wind energy when we have some of the most consistant wind in the world?
    Why not use tidal power?
    Why not incinerate our waste instead of dumping it in landfill?

    Just one simple question, "Why not?"

    If your answer is because it's inconvienent then you've lost the argument.
    It's not convienient to catch criminals.
    It's not convienient to put rubbish in the bin.
    It's not convienient to stop your car when someone steps into the road.

    Just think about it and keep your mind open to change.

    I really do hope the sceptics are right, but looking at the facts, figures and research it doesn't look like they are.

    Complain about this comment

  • 479. At 10:49am on 02 Dec 2009, PAWB46 wrote:

    Time for a new post Richard. This one's getting a bit dated and you haven't replied to anyone like you used to. How many days left to Copenhagen now? It's difficult to keep track. I suppose when we see all those planes taking off we'll know there's only one day left.

    Complain about this comment

  • 480. At 10:52am on 02 Dec 2009, Colonicus42 wrote:

    #476

    Totally agree. The alligation are very serious but could have been dealt with in an interview and some serious reporting to point out the overall context of the e-mails. The way it's been dealt with has left it open to conspiricy theorists trying to find things to grab hold of.

    I think it was fair to leave the reporting untill the e-mails were confirmed as genuine, but once they were there should have been at least some reporting in the mainstream media.

    When doing research for my degree I used to talk about fudging graphs and using trick to give me the data I wanted. What I was talking about though was removing noise, false readings and translating the data into a form where the trends were easier to see and illustrate.

    People forget that e-mail between friends and colleeges don't use correct scientific language or even proper English.

    Complain about this comment

  • 481. At 10:54am on 02 Dec 2009, Sparklet wrote:

    Re #477 xtragrumpy
    Can you tell us exactly which of Lord Monckton's exposes on AGW that you disagree with and give references?

    Complain about this comment

  • 482. At 10:55am on 02 Dec 2009, LabMunkey wrote:

    @ 478 "I really do hope the sceptics are right, but looking at the facts, figures and research it doesn't look like they are"

    really? you must be looking at different data to the rest of us then...

    re: why not. Absolutely. Why not, i'm all for reducing pollution, protecting wildife, habitats etc etc. But, trying to 'fix' a problem that isn't there is directing funds from other, more pressing issues. So, why not deal with those instead?

    Complain about this comment

  • 483. At 11:16am on 02 Dec 2009, LabMunkey wrote:

    @ 480
    "People forget that e-mail between friends and colleeges don't use correct scientific language or even proper English."

    IT IS NOT ABOUT THE LANGUAGE USES, or the word 'TRICK'.

    It is about the peer review bastardisation, the dodgy data and manipulated code.

    Get your facts right.

    Complain about this comment

  • 484. At 11:19am on 02 Dec 2009, ScudLewis wrote:

    @Colonicus42 I agree with many of your points - but saying "If you believe CO2 isn't a problem, climate change isn't happening or if it's not our fault. Why not try to reduce the amount of polution [sic] we put into the atmosphere?" You are mis-representing opinions here.

    Some question why CO2 is the 'big bad wolf' / the big focus (not whether it is a GHG or not) - and not whether climate change is happening or whether it is 'our' fault. Having 1 view does not mean a short-hand that automatically means you hold a set list of associative beliefs.

    David Shukman makes this mistaken point too: "Some people either don't believe there's warming, or that there is but that we don't have a hand in it."

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8389547.stm

    From reading this blog comments, it appears that this debate is not so clear cut. There is a nuance, but forcing people to take 'sides' by being political etc.. damages the debate.

    Hence the fall-out from ClimateGate - not just about the science but also the trust-worthiness of scientists, scare stories (propaganda?) and the politicization of the science.

    Let's hope Copenhagen COP15 is going ahead with the correct set of solutions for a correct interpretation of the problems.

    Complain about this comment

  • 485. At 11:33am on 02 Dec 2009, Colonicus42 wrote:

    #482

    No I'm just looking at the data with and astrophysics masters degree and an IQ of 160+, a knowledge of the scientific process and the realities of conducting research and an open mind.

    The thing is dealing with CO2 emissions does deal with polution. I think alot of the climate change related money that is being spent is being wasted on projects that are not going to achieve anything. More should be put into research, if not all of it, technology got us to this point and it will be the solution. Once we are all driving around in hydrogen powered cars, and have our homes powered by a combination of nuclear, renewable, energy from waste and possibly fusion (The research going on now is starting to look promising, theres a reactor in cambridge that has proven the principle works, it's just engineering stopping it now) then we can pretty much gaurentee that our greenhouse gas emmisions will have reduced significantly. The scheme to put solar plants on the west coast of africa to power southern europe looks like a promising step in the right direction.

    Complain about this comment

  • 486. At 11:38am on 02 Dec 2009, Sparklet wrote:

    And in case anyone missed it -

    Front page on the Daily Express today. I actually bought a copy (very unusual for me) - it was the last one, all the other copies had sold, plenty left of every other paper though!!!

    http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/143573

    Complain about this comment

  • 487. At 11:42am on 02 Dec 2009, Colonicus42 wrote:

    #484

    I wasn't trying to misrepresent the opinions here, I was trying to point out that most people on both sides agree on mans impact on the planet.

    Hopefully I made a few people stop and think for a second and realise that most of us agree. Ok we may differ on GW or AGW, but most agree that polution is a problem and we should try to limit our effects on the planet, climate change or otherwise.

    Theres too much division, we all agree that polution, fosil fuel use and recycling waste are issues for varying reasons.

    Why can't we just focus on that instead of ranting and raving about the finer points of the science or the manner in which the reasearch is being conducted.

    Complain about this comment

  • 488. At 11:45am on 02 Dec 2009, andrew9999 wrote:

    @poitsplace
    @pawb46
    (@infinity etc)

    Pawb thats a very interesting theory about emissions in the tropopause, would you like to look at poitsplace graph #449 (thanks for that!),
    this is what you said

    "The implication of all this is that thermal energy from the Earth's surface can only escape to space in two ways. Firstly by surface emission escaping directly to space at wavelengths which the greenhouse gases do not absorb (atmospheric window). Secondly, by emission from the tropopause at the wavelengths corresponding to the water vapour absorption/emission lines."

    Now looking at the graph can you tell me what temperature water vapour is radiating at, approx 270K you cant possibly disagree with that, that isn't the temperature of the tropopause because thats approx 220K.

    Could I suggest that you have no idea what you are talking about.

    Complain about this comment

  • 489. At 11:50am on 02 Dec 2009, manysummits wrote:

    To rossglory #362:

    "i recall the discussion on the 'bifurcation' paper from a while ago.
    (rossglory)
    -------------

    Thanks for the update on the 'Copenhagen Diagnosis'.

    I have that paper before me now:

    "Early-warning signals for critical transitions", Marten Scheffer et al.,

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7260/abs/nature08227.html
    ---------

    I see Australia is having difficulty with their climate bill.

    Big Coal - Big Oil - Why don't they just swith gears and go green?

    Management - has to be??

    - Manysummits -

    Complain about this comment

  • 490. At 11:58am on 02 Dec 2009, ScudLewis wrote:

    @Sparklet Thanks for the link - would never read Express normally.

    Shame Prof. Pilmer makes such polarizing comments - again he only focuses on CO2 then makes the pronouncement that ALL Climate Change is natural.

    Makes as much sense as 'The Science is Settled!' - now we have 'There is no such thing as Man-Made Global Warming / Climate Change!' - unfortunately both sides can pick huge holes in each other's proclamations.

    Complain about this comment

  • 491. At 12:03pm on 02 Dec 2009, LabMunkey wrote:

    @482

    "No I'm just looking at the data with and astrophysics masters degree and an IQ of 160+, a knowledge of the scientific process and the realities of conducting research and an open mind"

    nice modest post.

    How does your astrophysics degree and intelect square with the fact NONE of the IPCC/Gores predictions have ever come true?

    My humble Honors degree and ten years experience gives me a different view. Predictions have been made then proven wrong. Links have been made and not substanciated. MOdels have been made and proven wrong.

    If you see data that supports AGW/MMCC please link it.

    Complain about this comment

  • 492. At 12:03pm on 02 Dec 2009, Colonicus42 wrote:

    #489

    Good point about companies switching to green technology.

    Why don't they do it? I really don't understand it, they have vast amounts of research money to be spent and the technology in coal, gas and oil is old and works. Why not transfer thier efforts to solar power from the deserts of the world, wind/wave power in the oceans, a hopefull punt or too towards fusion power, look into cheeper ways to create hydrogen gas (potentially from water) and research into carbon capture or essision reducing technology for the existing power plants? They could end up making millions at a time when their industry is dying out.

    Complain about this comment

  • 493. At 12:04pm on 02 Dec 2009, Sparklet wrote:

    Add on to #486
    Interesting to see how the last 6 paragraphs have been added to the internet version of the Daily Express article quoting the Met Office and Lord Stern. Yet again I suspect interference from the Green mafia brigade.
    http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/143573
    They have a history of that sort of thing - see earlier posting re the pressure place on Roger Harrabin to change one of his articles!!! see link (page down past the advert)
    http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002906.html

    Complain about this comment

  • 494. At 12:05pm on 02 Dec 2009, steelpulse wrote:

    Wonderful - wonderful Copenhagen.........
    “When I was a member of Friends Of The Earth……….” Lol
    Statement suggests said person is no longer a Friend of The Earth perhaps. No – that is too hasty but I have just read a newspaper piece on the alleged sceptics in a certain political Party here in Great Britain – to a so called “green” agenda proposals for the same Party presumably and that "When I was...." quote is taken out of context of course.
    But taken with that Email leak furore - I am guaranteed to be chortling all day. Those identified – alleged climate change sceptics - are the cast list to die for – literally perhaps - for me at least.
    I didn’t comment on a piece in my newspaper yesterday on the ownership of something because like shooting fish in mythical barrel it would have been unworthy of me. But these particular climate change sceptics? Where is my spear gun? Now if I could find a piece of ice still - to stand on....... lol
    No offence anyone.

    Complain about this comment

  • 495. At 12:05pm on 02 Dec 2009, LabMunkey wrote:

    just recieved this:

    Dear Mr Labmunkey (my real name removed obv),

    Thank you for your email with regard to the many stories regarding the leaking or hacking of emails relating to climate change. I fully agree that any suspicion of fiddling of the evidence simply causes more public concern and questioning regarding the issue of climate change and, in my view, all the evidence should be available for the public and should be transparent. I am not competent to comment on the fine detail of your allegations because I am not in a position to validate them or otherwise but certainly they do need to be validated and I am more than happy to raise the matters with the Government.

    Yours sincerely,



    James Paice MP


    I'll follow up immediatley^^

    Complain about this comment

  • 496. At 12:06pm on 02 Dec 2009, PAWB46 wrote:

    Clonicus42 #478:

    "One quick point for PAWB46, did you forget about density? The atmospheres density obviously decreases with altitude." Answer - of course not. That's what drives convection (and the lapse rate given by the ideal gas law).

    "Theres one particular argument I would like to put to the sceptics, that I don't think anyone has tried here yet."

    "If you believe CO2 isn't a problem, climate change isn't happening or if it's not our fault.
    Why not try to reduce the amount of polution we put into the atmosphere?" Answer. That's what technology has done. For example removing Nox and Sox from power staion flues. Co2 is not a pollutant so that's OK.
    "Why not reduce our use of fossil fuels?" Answer. We will when they start to run out and become too expensive. At the moment I have no choice but to use them; and the benefit to society of abundant energy cannot be over-emphasised.
    "Why not focus on renewable enrgy instead of relying on forign gas, oil and coal?" Answer. It will never provide enough energy on demand. See Prof MacKay's book 'Sustainable Energy: without the hot air'.
    "Why not reduce traffic exhaust fumes in cities?" Answer. Technology has been working on that one for a long time.
    "Whats wrong with trying to use less energy when it saves you money?" Answer. Good idea, I do.
    "Why not recycle?" Answer. I do, when it's worthwhile - i.e when the energy consumed in recycling is not too high.
    "Why not use wind energy when we have some of the most consistant wind in the world?" Answer. Wind energy is unreliable, intermittent, very expensive, damaging to the countryside etc etc.
    "Why not use tidal power?" Answer. It will be very expensive and intermittent and is environmentally very unfriendly.
    "Why not incinerate our waste instead of dumping it in landfill?" Answer. You will find there is a lot of objection to the idea because of potential pollution from the exhaust. A good idea in theory.

    In future, why don't you go and do a bit of research and find out for yourself? The questions have nothing to do with being sceptical of man-made climate change.

    Complain about this comment

  • 497. At 12:24pm on 02 Dec 2009, lburt wrote:

    @Colonicus42 #478


    Why not try to reduce the amount of pollution we put into the atmosphere?
    Most of us are all for this, however this problem has already been dealt with in the industrial world. In fact, most of us also believe that the vilification of CO2 draws attention away from REAL environmental issues.

    Why not reduce our use of fossil fuels? Why not focus on renewable enrgy instead of relying on forign gas, oil and coal?
    Because it is prohibitively expensive. There's this foolish notion that the sunlight and wind are more "free" than coal, oil and natural gas...but do YOU know anyone that paid to "build" these resources? No, they're entirely free (although limited) just like the sunlight. The only true expense is the expense in extracting and processing. This cost is lower than the costs for CURRENT renewable technologies. Waiting a decade or so will likely fix this problem...starting early is like an early adopter of every technology. Did YOU buy one of the first HDTVs when they were thousands of dollars? Since renewables are almost purely up-front costs (the equivalent of paying for ALL the power they'll ever produce RIGHT NOW) it would be utter insanity to buy into immature technologies.

    Why not reduce traffic exhaust fumes in cities?
    Ummmm, this has already been done in the developed nations...that's what catalytic converters are for.

    Whats wrong with trying to use less energy when it saves you money?
    For me, nothing...but it depends on what you're talking about and who you're talking about it too. There's actually a lot less efficiency to be had than most people seem to think...and many will not give up certain things. Often this question has little to do with energy consumption at all. Honestly, if you could pick up chicks by driving a fuel efficient car, that's what guys would drive.

    Why not recycle?
    Because in many cases it doesn't save as much energy as people think. Oh and look at those menial labor (sorting) jobs it creates...buy that's a real winner. In many cases (and you ask about this later) a good form of "recycling" would be to just burn the trash for energy. This won't necessarily work for everyone but here in the US the paper is a trivial concern. Its not like we don't have more trees than when Europeans first came here. We've had millions of acres (currently 24million) of tree farms since the 1940s. Aluminum is the obvious thing to recycle because of high energy of production.

    Why not use wind energy when we have some of the most consistant wind in the world?
    Because it's still not very consistent and at the spacing necessary (if you're talking about the UK) it would require covering 1/2 of the UK with turbines. 27000 turbines at 200 tons of steel each and 1000 cubic meters of concrete each. And then...you need an almost equal amount of backup power capacity with a day of capacity....which then sits idle much of the time. Do you have any idea how much it costs for enough power to backup a terawatt per day of just electricity production???


    Why not use tidal power?
    Its a fantastic idea if you don't mind brackish water extending many miles inland in the aquifer (since it results in a net increase in sea level where the water flows in and out) and the damage to wetlands...try pushing THAT past environmental groups. Again, I don't mind at all but it's going to radically change quite a lot of habitat and it SEEMS like that's something you'd want to avoid. BTW going back to turbines, 27000, 4mw turbines spitting out wooshing noises at 50db at half a mile isn't going to be all that environmentally friendly either.

    Why not incinerate our waste instead of dumping it in landfill?
    Landfill isn't REALLY as big an issue as most people think. You could dump all the trash currently going to landfill in the US into a single dump occupying a 35 mile wide square... for 1000 years. BTW, after the landfill is full they're generally turned into very nice sites for recreational fields and housing developments.

    The REAL problem here is that this silly vilification of CO2 will require the complete overhaul of infrastructure that's already paid for. The cost goes into the hundreds of trillions when you also include the backup systems and additional capacity necessary to meet transportation needs. The costs will be passed on to businesses/consumers and will be utterly devastating to the economy. I've yet to meet a person for these outlandish energy policies that seemed to have the faintest idea of how deeply these systems penetrate into our societies. The cost of EVERYTHING will go up significantly.

    ...or we could just wait a decade and it will probably be competitive.

    Complain about this comment

  • 498. At 12:37pm on 02 Dec 2009, davblo2 wrote:

    andrew9999 #488: "water vapour is radiating at, approx 270K you cant possibly disagree with that, that isn't the temperature of the tropopause because thats approx 220K."

    @poitsplace
    @pawb46
    (@infinity etc)

    If you notice, PAWB46 said "Secondly, by emission from the tropopause at the wavelengths corresponding to the water vapour absorption/emission lines."

    I guess he means the discrete, characteristic absorption/emission wavelengths. This is different from the background continuous emissions as in "black body".

    The ground will be emitting IR at ~280 deg K, as black body continuum radiation, but the water vapour will be absorbing/re-emitting the IR at it's discrete characteristic wavelengths around 20um.

    Is that reasonable?

    /davblo2


    Complain about this comment

  • 499. At 12:46pm on 02 Dec 2009, lburt wrote:

    @andrew9999 RE:pawb46 having no idea what he's talking about

    Well he got one part wrong but for the most part he's right. Another thing is that there's a sort of one-way interaction with CO2's spectrum and water vapor. CO2's spectrum overlaps almost entirely with water vapor's spectrum. However...water vapor isn't limited to re-emitting CO2's spectrum back in those same frequencies so sometimes it comes back down and gets thrown out of the atmosphere through water vapor's window. Some of this must be happening but I doubt we'd be able to know for certain how much. Since the free path of light in CO2's spectrum is MUCH lower at those lower altitudes, it's entirely likely that a substantial amount of CO2's spectrum is sidelined into water vapor's frequencies due to the sheer volume of interactions.

    The main point is as always...that the CO2 absorption math is almost useless in areas "climate scientists" try to use it.

    Complain about this comment

  • 500. At 12:49pm on 02 Dec 2009, infiniti wrote:

    re 467: poitsplace

    "Since the tropopause (the coldest layer) is where the absorption takes place the tropopause will take the brunt of the warming because everything else radiates more."

    Absorption occurs throughout the atmosphere, not simply at the tropopause. Additionally the emission into space from the atmosphere comes from a range of heights in the atmosphere, as you can see from the emission spectrum.

    If more co2 is added then this range of heights that emissions into space occur from increases. But higher up is colder so the emission cannot be as strong. This describes the reduction in outgoing radiation caused by increasing co2. The climate responds to this by warming of that range of heights until it can emit sufficent radiation into space again.

    Complain about this comment

View these comments in RSS

BBC iD

Sign in

BBC navigation

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.